lotzi

Lives in United States Orlando, FL, United States
Works as a academics
Joined on Feb 23, 2006

Comments

Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Hands-on with Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 / TZ200 (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ken Schory: Because I would use this primarily for travel and occasional close-ups, my main concern is that it does not have a tiltable LCD, which I find very handy on my current compact camera. So many compact cameras have only a 3:1 zoom range, and I find that too limiting for travel photography. 250mm is adequate for me, but the extra zoom range would be nice for picking out distant details, although it depends to some extent on how effective the image stabilization is, since I would most often use this camera without a tripod, and 360mm is really pushing it. Another concern is HOW lossy Panasonic's RAW is. This is important to me, because I like getting the most out of my images. If someone would provide insight on that, I would appreciate it, although I realize it might be a challenge to quantify it.

mosc: Oh, yes. I have it and love it. But it is a completely different beast. And because of the DSLR shape, when you put it into a camera bag, it becomes even larger.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 15:53 UTC
On article Hands-on with Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 / TZ200 (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

Death89: I'll wait until I can see some proper tests and then have a look in person, but I can see this creating an excellent travel pair by having one of these paired with a short-bright 1" camera. If only they both used the same battery, then you could have just one spare for a trip out and have up to three to use...

Price wise though, I'd like to see them drop the 100 by a £100 and bring this in at ~£550 not £730...

Exactly. I am currently carrying an ancient Sony HX9V and an RX100V as my travel pair.

There is a reason why compact superzooms were quite popular up to a couple of years ago. They are the type of cameras that are not threatened AT ALL by smartphones.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 15:10 UTC
On article Hands-on with Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 / TZ200 (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: This will sell like hot cakes with its compact size & zoom but have the optics gotten better is the million dollar question? #IWantOne 😉

It clearly looks like all the development effort for this camera went into the lens, so there is a hope for that.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 15:05 UTC
In reply to:

ramyun boy: A slower lens and still no flip-screen. Did people really think the issue with the ZS100 was lack of zoom range?

I think that people were thinking that the problem with the ZS70 was the smallness of the sensor.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2018 at 04:46 UTC

It is puzzling for me that so many people give advice to Panasonic about what type of camera they would prefer, even down to the latest specifications, which they would have instead of this particular one.

Folks, there are about 20 cameras with 1 inch sensors that you can buy. Try to image them arranged in a 3D grid by size, zoom, and lens brightness. Now if two cameras are close to each other in the grid and price, then we can discuss which one is better (eg LX10 vs RX100M2, or FZ1000 vs RX10M1). If the price is different, we can argue whether the extra cost is justified (for a particular person). One can also argue where in the grid your needs are.

But wishing that the camera would sit somewhere else in the grid - what is the point in that? The ZS200 actually extends the grid in the direction of long zoom, pocketable camera direction - there is simply no comparable camera in the 1inch sensor range, and it will easily beat the 1/2.3 ones.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2018 at 21:38 UTC as 40th comment | 3 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 vs Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dave Andrade: Wait a second - 2 things.
Doesnt the G9 also have a procapture? Where it pre-buffers some frames.
Also, sure...the EM1 mark 2 COULD go up to 237mbps. But it's not a constant bit rate. Some Youtubers have reported bit rates of only 100mbps or even less.

I think it is called pre-burst in the Panny.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 18:35 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gimli son of Gloin: I keep asking myself who is this camera really for? Those who are already invested on a GH5 would not change it for a marginal ISO improvement, those on A7sII would never give up at least 2-3 stops of higher ISO and IBIS for something like this.

Photographically it makes matters worse: there is simply no reason whatsoever to buy this for photos. Megapixel count way to small. Some might argue that it is plenty but any way you look you can get a higher Megapixel count camera and downsize to the same as the GH5s and get way cleaner output when needed.

This seems a shot in the foot of Panasonic. Those who do not own a GH5 already won't be wooed by marginal improvements. Those who want quality will take a bigger sensor. Those who want portability like myself, the initial promise of MFT, will get a 1 inch camera and be happy. Quality wise is on par from the top MFT and at least they fit in a bag.

The only way for MFT companies to compete is to increase sensor size. But will they ever?

I think that for people who invested in a GH5 and use it professionally, getting the second body as a GH5S would be a no-brainer.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

Stefano Rugolo: All 3 are surely monsters but do really AF count the most? Maybe it's me, I shoot 99% MF

Then, you are part of the 1%. :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 22:06 UTC
In reply to:

lotzi: But... folks, that Alienware PC, if I understand correctly what model is, has a ***Hard Disk***, not an SSD, which explains the 4K render result.

With this in mind, what on earth are we comparing here?

You don't really need a $5000 PC. You need to make sure that you are rendering to-from an SSD - a Samsung 960EVO for $200 solves all your problems wrt hard-disk, and upgrading the video card to a GTX1080 (+200) or GTX1080Ti (+400) should very likely put you above the iMac pro, even with the customer grade processor.

cheers

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 14:22 UTC

But... folks, that Alienware PC, if I understand correctly what model is, has a ***Hard Disk***, not an SSD, which explains the 4K render result.

With this in mind, what on earth are we comparing here?

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 04:06 UTC as 62nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

kelstertx: I think it was an unusual choice for camera. The latest and greatest of the phone world (Apple world anyway) against a wimpy starter model. If you're going to compare a $1700 phone, shouldn't it be against a $1700 camera? LOL

Not that the outcome would have changed, I just find it weird that the essence of the article is "you don't need to buy a $550 camera anymore, just buy a $1700 phone instead"

It is likely that many people who have an iPhone X also own a camera, even a DSLR. The real, real question, is whether they will upgrade that camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 01:45 UTC
In reply to:

Jostian: Just click on each image in any of the comparisons, and compare the full size photos, the iPhone looks horrid... detail smearing, artefacts etc. a long way to go if Apple want to get something resembling decent IQ from their phones....all the fake DoF counts for nothing if the IQ is so poor!

I don't think there is that much detail smearing on the iPhoneX picture which is not part of the "intent" to achieve the bokeh look.

What about instead of "full size" and "100%" we talk about "size"? These photos do not only look good on a phone screen, they also look quite good on a 27 inch screen or printed to 8x10.

By the way: yes, I am aware that the Canon pic is better. For instance, it brings out better iris structure, the individual eyebrow hairs and the pores on the nose.

cheers Lotzi

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 14:59 UTC
On article iPhone X sample gallery updated (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adam Sharp: Camera phones are amazing and really it is what's killing traditional photography. I can't see camera makers making profits in the upcoming years . People don't care about quality like they used too and these new phones are more than enough for holidays and trips weddings birthday shots .

I think that actually people take more pictures than ever, and they actually care about the picture quality. They might not pixel peep - when you define pixel peeping as looking at pictures at unnatural magnification etc. But frankly, these pictures are better than the pictures we used to take in the film era, with basically _any_ camera and _any_ film.

And I don't understand the difference between "traditional" vs "smartphone" photography. A picture is a picture is a picture.

Now, some traditional companies failed to exploit the new opportunities, because they failed to create development teams which can generate camera modules. So you don't have an Apple or Samsung phone with integrated Nikon camera and lens - you have in-house branded photography modules (although not always developed in-house).

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 18:37 UTC
On article Gallery Update: Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

lotzi: Maybe it is just me but some of the settings used in these pictures do not seem to be the ones that would maximize the image quality.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0107841691/panasonic-g9-sample-gallery/3575116859

Picture of an alligator, likely static, in bright sunlight
35 mm, 1/1000 sec, f/2.8, ISO 200, -1 EV

Why use f/2.8 in bright sunlight? The lens is wide open, showing problems at the corners, which would probably disappear at f/5.6. And you wont get any kind of bokeh effects anyhow, not in this setting and distance. Alligators usually move very slowly, there is no way that you needed 1/1000 here.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0107841691/panasonic-g9-sample-gallery/4422857139

Static picture of a dimly lit room, no movement:
15 mm, 1/100 sec, f/2, ISO 12800

Why 1/100 on a static scene, on a camera that has 6 1/2 steps of image stabilization? Wouldn't this be the point to do: 1/5 sec, f/2.8, ISO 200?

Am I missing something?

Carey: Oh, I see. That also explains a bunch of other pictures with 1/1000 + wide open on apparently static scenes. Maybe adding a single line of explanation of circumstance and photographer intent would greatly increase the usefulness of the sample galleries - I mean text like:
-catching an alligator from a flying air boat
-trying out ISO 25600
-trying out handheld stabilization at 2 sec

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 at 17:29 UTC
On article Gallery Update: Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

lotzi: Maybe it is just me but some of the settings used in these pictures do not seem to be the ones that would maximize the image quality.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0107841691/panasonic-g9-sample-gallery/3575116859

Picture of an alligator, likely static, in bright sunlight
35 mm, 1/1000 sec, f/2.8, ISO 200, -1 EV

Why use f/2.8 in bright sunlight? The lens is wide open, showing problems at the corners, which would probably disappear at f/5.6. And you wont get any kind of bokeh effects anyhow, not in this setting and distance. Alligators usually move very slowly, there is no way that you needed 1/1000 here.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0107841691/panasonic-g9-sample-gallery/4422857139

Static picture of a dimly lit room, no movement:
15 mm, 1/100 sec, f/2, ISO 12800

Why 1/100 on a static scene, on a camera that has 6 1/2 steps of image stabilization? Wouldn't this be the point to do: 1/5 sec, f/2.8, ISO 200?

Am I missing something?

Richard,

1. Well, you have the test scene for that. I think that the samples are more useful in the sense of "if I would buy this camera, what kind of pictures I would be able to take in a situation like this?".
2. ... ok, maybe living in Florida had kind of made me immune to it... there are like, everywhere.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 at 04:14 UTC
On article Gallery Update: Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 (95 comments in total)

Maybe it is just me but some of the settings used in these pictures do not seem to be the ones that would maximize the image quality.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0107841691/panasonic-g9-sample-gallery/3575116859

Picture of an alligator, likely static, in bright sunlight
35 mm, 1/1000 sec, f/2.8, ISO 200, -1 EV

Why use f/2.8 in bright sunlight? The lens is wide open, showing problems at the corners, which would probably disappear at f/5.6. And you wont get any kind of bokeh effects anyhow, not in this setting and distance. Alligators usually move very slowly, there is no way that you needed 1/1000 here.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0107841691/panasonic-g9-sample-gallery/4422857139

Static picture of a dimly lit room, no movement:
15 mm, 1/100 sec, f/2, ISO 12800

Why 1/100 on a static scene, on a camera that has 6 1/2 steps of image stabilization? Wouldn't this be the point to do: 1/5 sec, f/2.8, ISO 200?

Am I missing something?

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2018 at 23:52 UTC as 12th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

lotzi: This is simply going back to the normal market model before the digital cameras led to a dizzying upgrade cycle, which is not at all typical for any kind of technological product.

Technical devices, even for the consumer market, should be designed with a useful life of at least 10 years, with the first user using them for at least 4-5 years. This is true for cars, TVs, refrigerators, ovens, dishwashers, computers, game consoles etc. This still allows quite fast progress - one simply continues selling the current device and makes upgrades in larger hops.

The assumption that any kind of device should be upgraded on a yearly basis is an unusual feature of the 2005-2015 period for digital cameras and cell phones. Good for the companies who managed to convince people of the necessity of yearly "upgrades" -but this clearly could not last.

It also appears bizarre to me that companies who have a 20% of worldwide market share of a technical product have difficulty turning a profit.

Lotzi

Absolutely. But how often? Are you upgrading your TV or car every year? Even people who want and can afford "the best" won't buy a new Tesla every year.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 02:46 UTC

This is simply going back to the normal market model before the digital cameras led to a dizzying upgrade cycle, which is not at all typical for any kind of technological product.

Technical devices, even for the consumer market, should be designed with a useful life of at least 10 years, with the first user using them for at least 4-5 years. This is true for cars, TVs, refrigerators, ovens, dishwashers, computers, game consoles etc. This still allows quite fast progress - one simply continues selling the current device and makes upgrades in larger hops.

The assumption that any kind of device should be upgraded on a yearly basis is an unusual feature of the 2005-2015 period for digital cameras and cell phones. Good for the companies who managed to convince people of the necessity of yearly "upgrades" -but this clearly could not last.

It also appears bizarre to me that companies who have a 20% of worldwide market share of a technical product have difficulty turning a profit.

Lotzi

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 19:06 UTC as 51st comment | 4 replies

Can somebody explain to me what exactly do we need to understand by "first-class engineering" in this context? Are the A7RIII or D850 considered "second-class engineering"?

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 02:53 UTC as 62nd comment | 5 replies
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

mailman88: Fully loaded is right, of BS.
Who in their right mind would spend $13,000 for a computer?

People pay even more for computers when computing power translates into revenue.

But you are right, this is still just a desktop class computer, primarily for photographers and video editors. Yet Apple chose to put a server-class processor, ECC memory (why would you do that in this class of computer?) etc. I assume this is mostly in order to achieve high price and thus margins.

Due to its physical architecture, it will clearly not be able to handle continuous high computing loads, there is simply nowhere to put all that heat. People running deep learning, for instance, regularly put 2-3 graphics cards in a large box, with water cooling, large fans etc.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 15:13 UTC
Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »