Lives in United States Tucson, AZ, United States
Works as a Physics PhD Candidate
Joined on Jul 17, 2006


Total: 156, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

Angrymagpie: I like it but can't see myself ever using 18 frames per second.
The only problem I have with MFT is high ISO noise. MFT is my preferred system, but whenever I know I'd be shooting indoor or at night, it'd have to stay behind.
It'd be very exciting if there's big sensor improvement; I'd be thrilled if we are getting something comparable to the APSC sensor in the a6000.

re: high ISO noise: remember that you in general get faster apertures than the DX crowd. You have f/1.2 or f/1.4 available for a lot of focal lengths, and the very high sharpness of a lot of the glass means you don't need to do as much sharpening (which exacerbates noise).

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 12:10 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)

Olympus has always made fantastic stuff, dating back to my old E-510. They were held back by bad sensors for a while (made by someone else), but now that they've got access to good sensors, anytime a small sensor size is sufficient Olympus m4/3 stuff seems great.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 12:07 UTC as 40th comment
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gatoraied: I won't argue that testing & comparisons are useful to some, however knowing theres no real life difference among a sample, the tests are pretty much an "Olympic Finish" where the difference between 1st and last is a fraction of a second which makes those tests meaningless. Personally I find the camera's functionality more important in its ease of use, controls & lenses. Splitting hairs a hundred times over is good fodder for pixel peepers and to some extent all the testing and reviews are good for is to create a new genre of photography. That not being the art of taking a photo but rather the study of specifications. As an old timer and somewhat retired commercial photographer I see people addicted to these specifications but sadly virtually none actually utilize the gear they own. I can understand why the infatuation with specs though. With specs you read, compare, analyze, argue and brag which anyone can do. Photography on the other hand requires effort & creativity.

When it comes to doing "real photography", this stuff matters only on the margins, but those margins do exist, and sometimes it's important to know what happens there.

For much of the stuff I do, it doesn't matter. But last year I was perched on a fallen log shooting a hummingbird with a D7100 and 300/4 + teleconverter. Those images had to be shot at ISO 2000+ and then cropped, but I was able to produce usable, good-looking 11x14's of them.

If that lens had been less sharp, they'd not have held up to cropping, and if the D7100 sensor hadn't been as good (or the lens had been dimmer), I'd not have been able to cope with the low light.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 14:36 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: a 25w incandescent bulb is hardly "low light" (likely to degrade over time, too; never mind no longer sold in the near future)

are there not more reliable dimmer lights, say led/oled, that more closely matches a real low light, like a classic wax candle? full moon, half moon?

how about real low light, like ultra-low energy 0.001watt night lights?!

The amount of light isn't that important until you get into shutter speeds that are long enough to probe dark current (like 1 second); the most notable thing about the incandescent light is the color, which exacerbates blue channel noise when white balanced back to neutral.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 14:29 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

mikmach: Problem with this test (as is with most of them out there) is shooting with very good lenses. 85mm and around is primary portrait length and producers are taking special care about their quality.

More useful for users of lower or middle range cameras would be adding shoot with standard kit attached around time of release. I know this is highly unlikely due to time constraints but use of best lenses lead to unrealistic expectations of users.

This was/is the case with Olympus cameras where amazing 50mm Zuiko Digital masked inefficiencies of 4/3 sensor when comparing to APS ones. But realistically, how many of Olympus buyers would buy high quality lens like that?

It's a myth that ILC users (en masse) are buying multiple lenses. In 2011 Canon posted they produced 50 million EOS bodies and 70 million EF lenses. In 2014 data was 70m vs 100m):


I shot 4/3 for years but never got a chance to use the 50 f/2; I used the 35/3.5 with teleconverters for macro work (which was quite a good lens, really)

Nikon ought to offer their cameras with the 35/1.8 as a kit lens; it's very, very good.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 14:28 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: Well, might be a fine lens, but consider this:

Olympus 300m f/4 for m43: 227mm and 1.27 kg
Nikkor 300mm f/4 for 135: 147mm and 0.755 kg

Nikkor is also cheaper.

As someone who actually shoots these sorts of lenses, the Olympus 300 and the Nikkor 300 are going to be used for much the same sort of work. The pixel density is similar between 24MP DX (what I shoot) and 16MP Four Thirds, and the Nikon can always be teleconverted into a 630mm equivalent (while retaining sharpness).

These lenses are going to be used for, essentially, the same stuff. They're both good at it.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 06:24 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: Well, might be a fine lens, but consider this:

Olympus 300m f/4 for m43: 227mm and 1.27 kg
Nikkor 300mm f/4 for 135: 147mm and 0.755 kg

Nikkor is also cheaper.

@Sabatia: Was this the old 400 DO, or the new one?

I've used the Nikon 300/4 Fresnel under very demanding conditions: on the D7100 (pixel dense sensor), wide open, and with a 1.4x teleconverter. It was excellent -- one of the best lenses I've used.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2016 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

Lehik: Nice lens. There seems to be quite a lot of easily noticeable moiré in the heron picture. Was it so that the OM-D E-M1 does not have an AA-filter?

That's clearly moire, caused by the fine structure of the feathers.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2016 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: Well, might be a fine lens, but consider this:

Olympus 300m f/4 for m43: 227mm and 1.27 kg
Nikkor 300mm f/4 for 135: 147mm and 0.755 kg

Nikkor is also cheaper.

The argument makes no sense -- we're spoiled for choice. Both 300 f/4's are great lenses; I've shot the Nikon one, and I have no doubt the Olympus one is fantastic, since most Olympus lenses are fantastic.

Both systems should be able to do well.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2016 at 05:23 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 Review (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

Faisalee: Hi DPreview,

I have been a long time follower of this wonderful site, since the time of Nikon D1 days! the reviews have always been great source of info BUT!

The following has NEVER happened before, at least I have never seen it here before!

Pros: Reasonably small, light body for a DSLR at this level
Cons: Camera is bulky when compared to mirrorless rival

Why is a DSLR being compared to a Mirrorless? "Single Lens Reflex" is not Mirrorless guys, please!

First its reasonably small, light bidy for a "DSLR" at this "level" and then you guys go out of the way and totally change the "level" and compare it against a mirrorless?

One of these have to go, either the Pros or the Cons :)

"Why is a DSLR being compared to a Mirrorless? "Single Lens Reflex" is not Mirrorless guys, please!"

Because they do the same sort of thing. The review is fine: "It's small compared to other DSLR's, but large compared to mirrorless cameras which do much the same thing."

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 16:49 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 Review (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

cwm10k: I'm torn, do you go with the Nikon D610 or the Nikon D7200?

Depends. Do you want to shoot DX or FX? I'm a wildlife person so I'd rather have DX. If you do indoor photography you probably want FX.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 16:48 UTC
In reply to:

Dylthedog: I was a childhood fan of Olympus - I desperately wanted an OM-2 back in the day. I couldn't afford one then so lived happily with my OM-10 and and manual adapter.

The since those days I've been saddened to see the company's decline, despite a history of innovation and some truly superb optics (which I don't think ever got the credit they deserve). Just goes to show what a few wrong turns can do to what used to be a household name.

I'm glad to see they are on the up, albeit in a modest way.

Some of the original Four Thirds designs were fantastic -- the ability to get equal sharpness at wider apertures did a great deal to close the gap between the 4/3 and FX sensors.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

photo perzon: IQ like the dogs. Fast AF but the look of over dark over sharp.

The 12MP sensors had problems, but all of the E-M5 and newer sensors have been excellent. They're behind the best DX sensors at the same ISO, but you can shoot at ISO 1600 with no problems. But there are so many great fast primes that you can compensate to a large degree.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 00:51 UTC
In reply to:

A Girard: Who thought quality products could actually attract a following.

If Olympus' 300/4 had come out when I was in the market for a new camera I'd be shooting m4/3 rather than DX. Other than the bad 12MP sensors they got stuck with for a while, all of Olympus' products have been excellent.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: first series of mft-lenses are all bad, beside 5.6/9-18 mm - all much worse then the lenses from Panasonic
and now the PRO-lenses are good concepts but it's more illusion than reality... and very expensive too.

Olympus mFT is only a shadow from Olympus FT...

so they get more profits.

Don't get me wrong - Olympus has done a lot for digital photography - even more then most other photo-compagnies... they still deliver fantastic colors (even in JPEG), a real good IBIS (but only in E-M5II) and dust proof

but new mFT cameras and lenses are made for 1-3 years and just for beginners and amateurs as bad as Sony does with NEX

A heavy price for profit... and we have to pay for the criminal faults of management!

The Olympus primes are excellent; 12/2, 25/1.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8...

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

darngooddesign: Since the new Monochrom is the the only Leica that causes this problem it is logical to assume there is something nona-standard in it's DNG files.

So, the real question is whether Apple had access to one of the cameras, or even Monochrom-produced DNGs, before the current version of Photos shipped.

But yeah, Apple bad...rabble rabble rabble.

If a computer program damages data when fed unexpected input, it's a bad program. Period. Apple's software should either:

1) Work properly with the Leica files;
2) Throw an error message saying that the format isn't supported;

or maybe

3) Misinterpret the data in the raw files and display a corrupted image, but not mess with the whole catalog.

It very certainly should not explode and wreck other data.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2015 at 13:44 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 real-world samples gallery posted (145 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: They could have possibly reused d7100 samples and call it a day.

The Toshiba sensor in the D7100 is fantastic, though; it seems like we're spoiled for good sensors these days.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 14:24 UTC

Looks like a Canon version of the Nikon 80-400G. That Nikon is an excellent lens so if Canon's lens wonks are as good as Nikon's, it should be a good thing.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 20:34 UTC as 4th comment

I wonder how the AF compares to the system in the D7100, the closest thing Nikon makes? AF speed and accuracy, more than anything else, is the killer feature for the sort of action work that this thing is designed for.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 18:53 UTC as 22nd comment | 17 replies
On article Sigma announces two 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM zooms (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

DVT80111: There is no fun carrying heavy and long lens. Why haven't anyone designed a long tele-lens just for APSC to reduce its size and weight. Most birdly people use APSC camera anyway. Why do we have to pay and carry extra weight just for the lights (2/3 of them) we don't capture?

It doesn't work that way: normal and wideangle lenses can be made substantially smaller for APS-C, but telephoto lenses for APS-C and FX are basically the same.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 15:40 UTC
Total: 156, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »