Nerval

Lives in France Gemenos, France
Joined on Jan 18, 2012

Comments

Total: 102, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Thanks for the samples, seems like a fun (although probably a bit of hardwork) piece of glass.

On a side note, about the viewer (a subject much discussed it seems), one more user feedback ;) :

- The info panel on the right is annoying and takes much space on landscape shots, overlay was more efficient (or offer an option to hide it maybe?) ;
- 1:1 is good but a print size or 1:2 option would be good ;
- The magnifier is as annoying as the magnifier in bridge, I'd rather have a navigation window for 1:1 viewing ;
- Possibility to view the picture fullscreen, I have a 27" IPS as many people do, I find it handy to asses what a picture would look like at print size (I print rarely bigger than the size of that screen... and when I look at past shot I do it fullscreen, not with a huge black panel on the side). It would be equally interesting on a 13" (because 13", even retina, isn't that large...).

Cheers.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2015 at 20:06 UTC as 51st comment
On article #1 in France: Hands-on with DxO ONE (276 comments in total)

Typo : "Il y a une couille dans le potage", rather than "Il y une couille dans le potage".
You forgot the verb.
On a side note, "couille" is slang for testicle. You could have used, "Il y a un hic" or "Tout n'est pas rose".

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2015 at 09:50 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

Kurt_K: Quality looks very good to my eyes. There might be a few shots where the point of focus is slightly off where it should be, but if you look at the areas that *are* in focus, the detail is excellent.

It's hard to judge from so few images...
The bird on the black rock I suspect for instance is not as sharp as it could be because 1/200 is to slow for 300 mm on a 28 MP sensor...

More coming soon I guess!

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 07:45 UTC
In reply to:

Nerval: I know we should not judge picture quality from a couple of samples... But, anything around ISO1600 at night reminds me of the M43 previous gen chip (12MP), it looks as if the blue channel needs too high an amplification and results in crippled skys.

So question: Is the jpeg engine doing a poor job? Or is it the sensor ? Or a bit of both ? First impression?

The pics taken at low ISO with the 16-50 look sharp, a bit of a nervous bokeh (jpeg overly sharpened?) it seems, but the contrast is pleasant. Sometimes on the background fine lines tend to "double" is it a result of sharpening or slight astigmatism?
Can you post "more traditional portrait" at the long end with focus on the eyes at f/2.8? (so we have an idea at how's the transition from in focus to out of focus) It's always interesting to see it on the skin, after all at 50 it's eq. to 75. Please ;).

Anyway, thanks for producing so much content, it's great to be able to follow up with the tech in just a couple of minutes day!

No actually I downloaded it, (I have an IPS calibrated monitor) and previewed it at 60x40 cm output (using the metric here), and It's quite visible, it's probably ok for 20x30 or 10x15, While low ISO are really good. (The thing is with the BSI I was expecting a bit more noise at low ISO and a cleaner output at high ISO)

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 07:40 UTC

I know we should not judge picture quality from a couple of samples... But, anything around ISO1600 at night reminds me of the M43 previous gen chip (12MP), it looks as if the blue channel needs too high an amplification and results in crippled skys.

So question: Is the jpeg engine doing a poor job? Or is it the sensor ? Or a bit of both ? First impression?

The pics taken at low ISO with the 16-50 look sharp, a bit of a nervous bokeh (jpeg overly sharpened?) it seems, but the contrast is pleasant. Sometimes on the background fine lines tend to "double" is it a result of sharpening or slight astigmatism?
Can you post "more traditional portrait" at the long end with focus on the eyes at f/2.8? (so we have an idea at how's the transition from in focus to out of focus) It's always interesting to see it on the skin, after all at 50 it's eq. to 75. Please ;).

Anyway, thanks for producing so much content, it's great to be able to follow up with the tech in just a couple of minutes day!

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2015 at 22:02 UTC as 27th comment | 3 replies
On article Backstory of Phantom Flex4K video shot at 1,000 FPS (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

purest: I'm sure I can remember seeing this footage like a year ago.....

Well spotted.
I started laughing so hard, I almost fell off my chair.
9 months old, category : news.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2013 at 17:51 UTC
On article Backstory of Phantom Flex4K video shot at 1,000 FPS (91 comments in total)

What psycho sets a house on fire just to test his gear?
What times are we living, I wonder.

(Before anyone lashes at me, yes, it is a joke.)

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2013 at 17:50 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2068 comments in total)
In reply to:

Docmartin: No doubt, the EM-1 is a great camera! However, for those (like me) who want to continue working with the gorgeous FT Pro lenses, the EM-1 will still no replacement for the outdated E-5. I truly believe that FT lenses cannot be used on ANY MFT body without serious IQ loss until a better adapter than the current MMF2/3 is available. The material/build-quality of the MMF3 will for sure cause misalignment, flex and movement. Just have a look at Roger Cicala's findings and their discussion here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3553373

You do realize that Roger Cicala is the geekiest pixel peeper of us all, which is alright (I mean his blog is fantastic, and the content is of great quality), but you did notice that he is expressing concern regarding lens testing measurements which might not be accurate given the variations on the mount. Nowhere does he say that you cannot obtain good IQ, just that it probably cannot deliver optimum IQ.

In Roger Cicala's words:

"What Does It Mean in the Real World?

Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot. Adapters couldn’t all stink or people wouldn’t use them. Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn’t make much difference at all in the real world."

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 16:32 UTC
On article Canon EOS 70D Review (680 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: In a first for me, (been on DPreview for years), am going to knock this review: 1) I had been waiting for the 70D to consider against a GX7 or equiv Nikon or Sony APS-C to use for video and prosumer stills photography. 2) Finally got to play with one in a UK store. Although the new auto focus system and the articulating display are effective, I found the build quality to feel rough and plasticy in contrast to other lesser priced cameras (Pentax included), the ergonomics were awful (had to use two hands in a convoluted fashion to make an adjustment to the ISO) and the video does not shoot at 50/60fps - priceless for freeze framing, as I could do on my Sony NEX 5R. Further & most important: 3), other users and blog reviews conclude that the 70D image quality is nothing special.

What bothers me is that this DPreview fails to mention the mediocre IQ and praises the ergonomics. A direct contrast to my own experience and that of others.

Why?

Actually both Canon and Nikon assemble parts of their cameras in China and depending on the model you get a camera whose parts have more or less traveled through Taiwan, Malaysia, China...
If you really put a Canon 1100D or 700D through its pace, well you probably would not be that much impressed by built quality...
And the ergonomics part, well Canon has more or less always stuck to a certain design, you like it or you don't that's subjective. Regarding IQ, that's true, Canon APSC sensors are lagging a tad behind at the moment... Less DR, lower SNR... That does not mean the quality is Mediocre.
Actually past ISO 800 there's only a third of a stop difference with Sony sensors, and at ISO 3200 the performance is almost similar.
I don't believe DPreview is much biased for Canon. The camera gets praised because Canon did a good job investing in their Video-DSLR feature, and yielded a good product.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 12:46 UTC
On article What just happened?! Looking back on last week (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Antimateria: Nex FF page 9...
D5300 and Fuji mirrorless page one...Yes, the most important of the week...
No coment.

"I'm paranoid... That doesn't mean people aren't really coming after me !"

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2013 at 12:15 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2068 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxola67: So is there anybody to explain to me why this camera considered as pro?
Two moments why it couldn't be pro:
- too small shots-per-a-charged battery value(aka CIPA measuremens)
- articulating screen - how can you provide REALl water/dust resistance with such screen?

Well, they did reinvent their Medium format, which is pretty cool for LS. And their small primes and weather-sealed bodies tend to be pretty interesting in mountaineering. But in event/crowd photography, reportage, you'll see a lot of FF.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 12:34 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2068 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxola67: So is there anybody to explain to me why this camera considered as pro?
Two moments why it couldn't be pro:
- too small shots-per-a-charged battery value(aka CIPA measuremens)
- articulating screen - how can you provide REALl water/dust resistance with such screen?

I do not mean to generalize, just that in a pro perspective, you have priorities and constraints and you have to make an investment accordingly. There are high chances that you'll end up with the above stated companies, especially given the instability, these two companies have continued support for their glass.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 11:31 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2068 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxola67: So is there anybody to explain to me why this camera considered as pro?
Two moments why it couldn't be pro:
- too small shots-per-a-charged battery value(aka CIPA measuremens)
- articulating screen - how can you provide REALl water/dust resistance with such screen?

Weathersealing does not mean waterproof and recent cameras are pretty tough, so not much of a concern.

The notion of pro or not... I am not saying you cannot make a good large print with MFT gear, just that it is not best in industry (There are other advantages though).

Well, to be honest, the only things I would really consider If I were to use it as a professional tool (my way of thinking might be dated. I was taught to use a camera by my father, who happened to begin shooting in the era of fully manual gear... you know when you had to open the aperture ring to focus and stop it down to expose) :
Imager size : Laws of physics... you know.
AF System : Currently CD-AF and as it seems on-sensor PD-AF is not the industry's best.
Sensor properties : DR,SNR, sensitivity to blue (I hate ugly skies and blue channel induced noise under artificial lighting).
Lenses : What subject, from what perspective?
Mechanism sturdiness.

Canikon still set the industry standard in this regard.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 11:24 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2068 comments in total)

Hi, I am a bit late to the battle, but having owned 3 FT cameras in the past (still have one) I'd be interested to know (and not only for this review but future ones as well) how does the camera perform with long exposure shots.

You never post samples of over 1 second exposures.

I tend to shoot on tripod with filters or at night (or both), and there are some strange phenomenons occurring with noise and color rendering when making long exposures with digital cameras at base ISO.

For instance, my old E-30 is near unusable even at ISO 100 under certain artificial lighting conditions. On the other hand The 650D which (although not class leading) has a very good IQ does (much less though) still suffer with base ISO shots.

The 6D, which shows little improvement in IQ under ISO 800, still manages to deliver extremely clean long exposures. And I'm sure sony sensors behave differently (probably better given the astounding DR).

Give us some 10+ sec exposures in the samples, please !

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 09:15 UTC as 230th comment | 1 reply
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2068 comments in total)

Hi, I'm a bit late to the battle, and I know it's probably in your schedule (I mean at DPReview), but it would be nice to include cameras with older sensor designs, to have a means to follow the evolution, the comparison is just not as accurate when looking up cameras on the previous chart and the new one.
I guess that really is a workload, so good luck.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2013 at 09:39 UTC as 233rd comment
On article Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review (1197 comments in total)

Dear DPR Team (Mr Britton, or Mr Butler, if you're around I have a question below...),

Print mode is a great addition.

I do have a question though, and I did not go through the 5 comment pages I admit, so apologies if it has already been answered:
How does it work?
My display has a certain pixel density, hence in photoshop, I have been obliged to scale the print mode function of that vertical and horizontal pixel density.
So is it actual print size when I see it, or is it print size on a 72 or 90 or 144 pixel/inch display equivalent?

Then I second any comment about a piece of fabric or fine repetitive texture, it's good for judging apparent resolution and aliasing.

Cheers

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2013 at 13:43 UTC as 124th comment | 2 replies

I really don't care for this article... But seriously, the guy is journalist at the NY Times, so maybe he's good at what he's doin, maybe he's got talent, but an article with a few basic technicalities about the system, and then assertions without arguments to back it up, just to tell that "it's right to buy it if you really have skills" (a bit of self enjoyment there...), "that it produces pictures with IQ like nothing else" (I'm almost positive, yet I do acknowledge the benefits of Leica's M RFs made some photographs happen, that using SLR, MF, or some fixed combo would not get you any less quality), and then this "best setup", yeah... No, summilux is probably not always the best choice, it is the most expensive, sure.

AND: Ken Rockwell, as an expert? The guy that confuses WB and screen adjustment settings... God sometimes (frequently?) he's completely off...
I would not bother the guy but I get why some people reacted to the way this piece is written, and it's not so unjustified...

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 14:11 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

cd cooker: can someone tell me why some lens companies use x,x instead of x.x to represent the max F number? In this lens, it shows 1,4. Thanks

+1,4
I was just about to say, not just Germans, all of us in Europe (except UK and Ireland) use the metric system, hence we use the comma...

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2013 at 11:59 UTC
In reply to:

Starkiller: A lens without AF is like a car without power steering. It works, but in 2013 nobody will buy it.

Eh... Zeiss produces top quality optical glass, that their photography department, for instance, then assemble in lenses, with almost no distortion, nor chromatic aberration, and most of the time with nothing-short-of-stunning results in sharpness, into well built, easy to operate manual focus lenses... I don't think you can reduce zeiss or leica to just taking a tax on lenses made for Japanese manufacturer... It's a bit much.
And no they did not develop an AF system, for the simple reason that it is expensive, requires to make compromises in size or optical design and that anyway AF can never be as accurate as MF and people who buy these lenses use them for applications in which detail and thus proper technique play a preponderant role...
So sure, not everyone will enjoy it, and I see very few reasons why I personally would shoot Zeiss not being (good enough?) obsessed with detail and technique, and sure it's not the lens for casual snaps, but hey, it definitely has a market.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2013 at 11:49 UTC
In reply to:

BJN: It's too bad that modern DSLRs are lousy for manual focusing, except in live view. The retro manual focusing lens needs a camera retrofitted with a 1970's style focusing screen.

You'd be surprised to see how some people manage outdo autofocus both in terms of precision and speed using manual focus with a viewfinder and a good focus screen. It does take a lot of practice I suppose (I'm really not good with it, but I've met a couple of photographers who obtain astounding results, with minimum fuss).
Truth is for stills, it's really hard to beat you eye, and only last gen EVF start to be decent. I had a Canon AE1, it had a quite decent focus screen, and with the smooth 50/1.4 you'd hardly miss focus.
I find it hard to focus correctly on the fly with EVFs (screens or OVF styled), with a screen under 460K it's almost impossible, and even with 1M dots, the image is clear but depth remain harder to judge than with the naked eye through a good FF VF.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2013 at 11:25 UTC
Total: 102, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »