migus

Lives in Switzerland Zurich, Switzerland
Works as a research
Joined on Nov 11, 2009

Comments

Total: 208, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1223 comments in total)

Missing info: "Approx. 507g (including battery and memory card)" (from the Fuji site)

While in line with the other APS-C flagships, at such size/mass I'd rather haul a FF system - airlines' tougher rules, long trails, ski, bike etc. And yet, Fuji's lenses and IQ are quite enticing vs. my Sony options.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 04:05 UTC as 81st comment
In reply to:

Achiron: 1051g "compact" for hiking? Pretty ridiculous. "E-PL7"+"75-300"+"12-50" will cost roughly 1600$ and weigh same as the RX10III (and ultimately take less space) while giving results ten times better.

+1: IMHO even abstracting its $1500 tag, a 2+ lbs. bridge is neither light nor small as of mid'16 for challenging adventures.

a) Want a (very) long reach across vast distances (+haze, pollen et al. - as shown above), or wild life?
I'd pick small sensors for daylight, knowing that haze + noise are a naughty couple particularly at dawn/dusk - and LR's your friend. Granted, i shoot few dozens such shots/yr. and tend to forget about them.
As a bonus, one gets also excellent 1cm macros from the tiny sensor, all in a cheaper and lighter camera.

b) OTOH, want a better IQ per ounce, in any light?
Any modern MILC with its kit zoom would do fine under a pound - arguably excepting the subpar Sony pz16-50.

c) Want the ultimate IQ, w/o the long reach?
Plenty of FF with a light kit or 50mm in the 2-3 lbs.

d) Then it's the 11-oz. RX100, for those 1"=best compromise :-)

yet a 2+ lbs bridge costing more than the median price of the above options seems a weird choice for the educated hiker.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 11:09 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Do you guys cover this as news because these are stupidly expensive?

IMHO such news, i.e. noise, mostly diminish the value of DPR.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 09:07 UTC

First I've wondered

1) Why the apparent multiple redundancies?
A 19mm has a nearly 90-deg. AOV, hence 6 such lenses would suffice for standard pano stitching; see hugin/ptgui/ICE.

2) Why bottom cameras, or, is this UFO mounted on car rooftops, drones...?

Then i read the optical flow [thanks DPR for educating us!] and stumbled after the (incomplete) equation set on:

"This is an equation in two unknowns and cannot be solved as such. This is known as the aperture problem of the optical flow algorithms. To find the optical flow another set of equations is needed, given by some additional constraint. All optical flow methods introduce additional conditions for estimating the actual flow."

I surmise that the 3-4x 'redundant' coverage may provide the additional constraint / set of equations, as used in drones and self-driving cars. I also suspect that the extra generous (over)-coverage is sufficient, but not necessary (3D may actually change this).
Google has now OPEN competition :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 02:51 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2133 comments in total)
In reply to:

vidcam: I bought 3 of these when they came out. My intention was to use them for shooting inside of cars on reality shows. I thought I could rig these up and shoot scenes using this camera as I would use a go pro for dialogue scenes.
Well I was disappointed, it only records for about 20 minutes before it overheats and shuts down. That may seem like a long time, but I have never worked with a "reality" producer that says cut. So 20 minutes just does not work for my needs. The record button for video is poorly designed. The kit lens is difficult to use and not very good. The menu is more difficult to use than any camera I have put my hands on. When your in manual there are still functions that are operating on auto. I am sure I could get better at it, but overall I am very disappointed.
I really wanted to like this camera, but to use it requires a large investment of time to learn the menu and navigate quickly.

"I'm sorry but I don't believe you. Nobody buys three cameras before even trying one of them out."

Business purchases may be more impulse- or budget-based, then testing and reviewing. Hence amortisation and writeoffs.

OTOH, this is rather orthogonal to the overheating issue that is officially known as a fact and ACKed by Sony accordingly.

IMO the overheating issue can be alleviated or even solved by the addition of an external heatsink or Peltier cooler.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2016 at 09:13 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2133 comments in total)
In reply to:

drivecancel: The 16-50 is a great lens if you consider being the worst kit lens as an achievement!

Sell a 1K$ camera with a kit zoom worth 3-4% of the system price? That's the lens used by the VAST majority of those buying this camera, who then may wonder why their pics aren't much better than those of a cheaper phone or P&S...?

And the reason why we often can buy on ebay et al. some hardly used Nex/Alpha cameras, with very few 100s-1000s actuations, for a song. That's how i got my 3 Nex cameras, all with kit zooms: The original owners up-/down-graded searching for better pics and/or smaller packages (hence no bag of prime lenses). A few bought a higher end phone in stead...

One may argue at length here, yet the reality of an underachieving pz1650 kit remains a blemish for Sony's enthusiast cameras.

How about designing a compact, non-PZ, even non-OSS (for the enthusiasts who know about tripods and ISO) 16-50/3.5 kit worth of the 6300? Small in size, decent in optics, big in pictures...

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2016 at 03:47 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2133 comments in total)
In reply to:

vidcam: I bought 3 of these when they came out. My intention was to use them for shooting inside of cars on reality shows. I thought I could rig these up and shoot scenes using this camera as I would use a go pro for dialogue scenes.
Well I was disappointed, it only records for about 20 minutes before it overheats and shuts down. That may seem like a long time, but I have never worked with a "reality" producer that says cut. So 20 minutes just does not work for my needs. The record button for video is poorly designed. The kit lens is difficult to use and not very good. The menu is more difficult to use than any camera I have put my hands on. When your in manual there are still functions that are operating on auto. I am sure I could get better at it, but overall I am very disappointed.
I really wanted to like this camera, but to use it requires a large investment of time to learn the menu and navigate quickly.

Overheating: Has been an issue since the 5n, or when 1080p recording was introduced in NEX. With sundry workarounds, e.g., unfold the LCD, attach cooling fans and sunshades, etc.

As many other high-powered gizmos today, getting rid of the TDP heat in small plastic bodies is not trivial w/o heatpipes, fans or fluid or Peltier coolers. It ain't enough thermal mass and/or enough heat exchange surface --aka heatsink-- exposed to the ambient...!

Perhaps Sony could design the LCD as a passive heatsink (metal), to which we can attach fans (vibrations!) or fluid/Peltier coolers http://www.heatsink-guide.com/peltier.htm

Here it is, free IP for the grabs of a cooling cottage industry :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2016 at 03:08 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2133 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: This camera also gets the coveted Worst Kit Lens Award. :-)

I've done dozens of tests as in http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3966653 with multiple copies of pz1650 and sel1855: The OP is right on with the Worst Kit Lens Award. Great sensors, small cameras, innovation ahead of arguably everybody else. Kudos Sony!

Shame for your APS-C kit zooms, though. I can't find worse even in the lower market segments.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2016 at 15:09 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2133 comments in total)
In reply to:

AdamT: Doesn`t matter how good it is - neither the 16-50 kit lens or the "Zeiss" 16-70 are even good enough for the original 14Mp NEX5 let alone a camera of this calibre , the 18-55 wasn`t either .

Sony need to finally wake up and make a decent standard zoom for their APS-C mirrorless cameras instead of making more and more bodies.. no wonder Metabones and now Sigma are reaping it in with Canon adapters, even the plastic cheapo EFS-18-55-III non IS kills any Standard Sony zoom

It's hard to find kit zooms worse than Sony's. Despite voices willing to defend abysmal pz1650 and SEL1855, these are un-defensible kits.
Even on NEX c3 and 5n they're both worse (tested enough samples) then anything else i've had or tried, wide open at the extremes.
On a 6K or 6300 it's akin to driving a Ferarri with bike tires.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2133 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Sony could help themselves a lot if they were to just create a very good 16-50mm lens for APSC. It doesn't need to be a powerzoom or a pancake, just a very good lens. Perhaps an f/2.8-4.0. Much like the normal 18-55mm kit zoom lens Fuji makes for their X series cameras.

Sony already has a very good 35mm f/1.8 and a 50mm f/1.8 lenses for APSC. The piece that is missing is a good normal zoom lens that doesn't weigh a ton because it was made for the FE full frame cameras.

There is no real point in making outstanding APSC cameras without some pretty good lenses designed for the crop sensor.

I regret my NX 20-50/3.5, small, sharp, no frills... I could live w/o SS/OIS, please no more PZ (a pain , and prone to failure), just make it sharp and small, for a decent price. I tested plenty of PZ1650 from Sony, none is half decent vs. the cheaper Samsung NX.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2016 at 13:23 UTC
On article Quick review: Nextbit Robin camera (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

migus: Might be an interesting phone, except one 'feature', i.e., "Cloud storage" to which any serious user should take exception.

" alternative to those who want to access large numbers of photos from their gallery app without shelling out big bucks for a phone with a lot of built-in storage."

Local storage today is plentiful, fast, light and affordable; e.g. a 32GB uSD card costs practically only a few $, not larger/heavier than pocket lint, barely a gram. Also the 128+ GB cards cost a fraction of most data plans. Thus one could carry her personally private 'cloud' about, fast, cheap and secure.

Wanna show my latest shots to a friend met on the street, with voice comments? Presto, at local speed, no data costs!

Yet the local storage has become the anathema of Cloud Inc., the "big data" companies monetizing their users' data. A uSD card is cheaper, lighter, faster than ever... if only a port would exist to use it!

I'd never buy a device w/o local storage ports built-in.

The "big data" battle is less about monthly tapping our banking accounts (albeit it does matter). Much more about controlling the users' (Google, MS, FB et al) or consumers' (Apple, Amazon et al) IO: Every touch, keystroke, query, click, shot, vocal utterance, iris, heartbeat (yes, even your biometrics are sent to the "cloud")...

Hence the splendored (walled) gardens of Cloud Inc, each watched by its Deeply Neurotic Sauron, silently learning us.

But then, how come that Cloud Inc never bothers to ask me: What products/services do you consider buying, when and at what price points?

Like everybody, my Wish Lists on Amazon, eBay etc. are rarely -if ever- addressed with relevant ads. Perhaps it's more fun to fingerprint our browsers, telemetrize our OSes and let Sauron snoop its 7B+ subjects.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: Thank You nikon!!

DL18-50 = perfect travel cam!!

18-50 is an useful range, iff the wide end has good IQ vs. the RX100. Handling, battery life are also TBD in practice.

I wonder whether isn't too late, yet i'm glad to have options.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:54 UTC
In reply to:

richardalanfox: No RAW?

in this class i'd rather have a decent JPEG engine OOC.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:41 UTC

I'd incline towards the 'cheaper' B500 for its 25% lower Mpix on the same sensor area and the beloved freedom of an AA power source.

Dream: I wished it had only 2 AAs and a 10x smaller zoom in a 3rd of its 540gr. package, though.

Reality check: It's keenly priced for its sensor, yet it takes courage to enter so late this vanishing market. Hence perhaps the reason for a 40x superzoom.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:40 UTC as 16th comment
On article Week in Review: One for the history books (161 comments in total)

This week we saw some of DPR's best journalism, too!

Sorry if this had to paid in (eu)stress and perhaps sleep deprivation, yet it's the results that matter... You've reminded yours fickle-whimsical readership why they love this site!

Kudos DPR for this week's achievements!

mitch-

P.S. Rarely i wrote 3 exclamation marks in so few sentences :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 03:48 UTC as 15th comment
On article Quick review: Nextbit Robin camera (44 comments in total)

Might be an interesting phone, except one 'feature', i.e., "Cloud storage" to which any serious user should take exception.

" alternative to those who want to access large numbers of photos from their gallery app without shelling out big bucks for a phone with a lot of built-in storage."

Local storage today is plentiful, fast, light and affordable; e.g. a 32GB uSD card costs practically only a few $, not larger/heavier than pocket lint, barely a gram. Also the 128+ GB cards cost a fraction of most data plans. Thus one could carry her personally private 'cloud' about, fast, cheap and secure.

Wanna show my latest shots to a friend met on the street, with voice comments? Presto, at local speed, no data costs!

Yet the local storage has become the anathema of Cloud Inc., the "big data" companies monetizing their users' data. A uSD card is cheaper, lighter, faster than ever... if only a port would exist to use it!

I'd never buy a device w/o local storage ports built-in.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 03:35 UTC as 15th comment | 7 replies
On photo A Jungle stream in the A babbling brook challenge (1 comment in total)

Good shot!

I'm surprised by the SS=1/3s... seems a shorter exposure, though i can't really tell the flow speed (shouldn't it be milkish at 300ms?) mitch-

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 18:12 UTC as 1st comment
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2604 comments in total)
In reply to:

MadHamster: 36 Mp, 5 stop shake reduction, no AA filter, Pixel Shift Resolution, robust build, excellent ergonomics, backwards compatibility to all K mount and M42 lenses and 300000 actuations rated shutter?
Ricoh, have mercy on my savings, I don't need another DSLR!

"...really impressed with this engaging, comfortable, well-specified and keenly priced camera." : Sums it up well. An excellent preview of an impressive camera.

Disclosure: While i'm a fan of neither IBIS, nor Pentax (i have no k-glass), i'm glad they've sent a message to canikon, and also to Sony. With the arguable exception of the LCD (overkill), the rest are very useful features i'd like in an A7.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 05:39 UTC
Total: 208, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »