bartjeej

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 3, 2010

Comments

Total: 38, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

So... does DPR have a license to use that tea image without credit?

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 18:03 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On article iOS 11 will cut photo, video size in half (82 comments in total)

Would HEIF also allow even lower compression (or atleast, less lossy compression) than current low-compressed jpegs, or more than 8 bits, at sensible file sizes?

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 11:36 UTC as 8th comment | 3 replies
On article Will the robot revolution make photographers extinct? (12 comments in total)

Interesting article, although I think machine learning will have a bigger impact on professional photography than the article argues. Much of it is based on pattern recognition - photojournalism, sports, weddings, portraits, products, etc. The bigger hurdle with a number of those styles is not the creativity part, it's the interaction between subject and photographer part. If you pair up a sufficiently capable automated camera with a close friend of the subject, the camera can tell the friend how to direct the subject, after which the camera takes the perfect picture.

Of course, there is photography based on unique vision, on seeing things that others have never seen before, and are therefore more difficult to program (although in the longer run, that hurdle will be taken too)... but really, which percentage of the photography market does that apply to? 1, maybe 2 percent?

Finally, DPReview... any chance of a mobile lay-out that won' t smother us in links to external articles, leaving DPR's own content hard to find and easy to miss?

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 11:08 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Wilight: I wish the lens were (equiv. to) a 21-60mm f/2.0-2.8 or that it has a 1" sensor w/ a fixed 32mm f/1.4.
Otherwise, I like the specs of this camera, including the drop of resolution.. and maybe I'll buy it.

1" sensor with 32mm equivalent f/1.4 lens... you should really, really have a look at the SeaLife DC2000 (without the housing)...not quite f/1.4, but the rest is spot on.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

bartjeej: Does the TG5's USB charging use a standard plug (micro usb or usb-c), or still a proprietary Olympus plug?

Hallelujah! Since it's 2017 instead of 2007, i refuse to buy any electronic device that can't be charged using a universal charger (yes, Apple, I'm looking at you too).

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 15:07 UTC

Does the TG5's USB charging use a standard plug (micro usb or usb-c), or still a proprietary Olympus plug?

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 12:04 UTC as 59th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

busdriverstu: Does it say anything about dual-card slots? --- Shooting weddings/events - that has become a big 'must-have' for me.

If you use raws, you could shoot raw+jpeg and have the jpegs at the lowest Contrast/Saturation/Sharpness settings possible, then use the Sync to Smartphone playmemories app to automatically sync those jpegs to your phone or other wireless device. Unfortunately that still doesn't work for raw files, but you'd have a relatively flexible jpeg as backup.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 20:50 UTC
On article LG G4 puts focus on the camera (78 comments in total)

What's the focal lenth equivalent of the lens(es)? For some reason that spec is often left out at product announcements, even though it's arguably the most important spec of any fixed lens (phone) camera...

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 00:44 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers (227 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Weird, surprisingly sensible price. It is significantly cheaper than Canon and Nikon full-frame wides (although those have a benefit of extra shallow DOF, which is probably not a big deal for most users), and only $150 more expensive than the new Sigma. So that looks like a pretty good deal, assuming it performs well.

It even looks better considering that APS-C DSLR users' only option is manual Samyang 16/2. And I don't think any other mirrorless system has a 24mm equivalent that is so fast.

So, good for Fuji users, their system is shaping up nicely.

Godiwa: if you're discounting for sensor size, the 10.5/0.95 m4/3 is indeed slightly quicker in terms of exposure than the 16/1.4 APSC (sensor tech differences might change the picture one way or the other, but based purely on lens speed and sensor size, total light gathered with the 10.5/0.95 is slightly higher). In terms of DOF control, due to the wider angle, the 16/1.4 offers slightly shallower DOF.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 23:59 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers (227 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Weird, surprisingly sensible price. It is significantly cheaper than Canon and Nikon full-frame wides (although those have a benefit of extra shallow DOF, which is probably not a big deal for most users), and only $150 more expensive than the new Sigma. So that looks like a pretty good deal, assuming it performs well.

It even looks better considering that APS-C DSLR users' only option is manual Samyang 16/2. And I don't think any other mirrorless system has a 24mm equivalent that is so fast.

So, good for Fuji users, their system is shaping up nicely.

revio: the point of my original comment was that many wide angle shooters would do well to consider other uses of their lenses, including having shallow DOF. Your comment had been covered already, JaP's hadn't.

As for shallow DOF: the f/1.4 on this particular lens means that a subject at 4m (roughly 13 feet) distance gives a DOF of 4.05m (roughly 2.9m behind and 1.2m in front). At that distance, there's really not all that much distortion anymore, and you still get lots of bokeh. Wonderful! :-) And personally I don't mind "perspective distortion" all that much until it becomes really extreme (I don't really consider it distortion so much as just the natural effect of perspective, just like the human eye experiences it).

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:00 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers (227 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Weird, surprisingly sensible price. It is significantly cheaper than Canon and Nikon full-frame wides (although those have a benefit of extra shallow DOF, which is probably not a big deal for most users), and only $150 more expensive than the new Sigma. So that looks like a pretty good deal, assuming it performs well.

It even looks better considering that APS-C DSLR users' only option is manual Samyang 16/2. And I don't think any other mirrorless system has a 24mm equivalent that is so fast.

So, good for Fuji users, their system is shaping up nicely.

y'all need to consider some more diverse compositions. Shallow DOF wide angle shots are wonderful! And if you use a wide angle lens to get in close and get dramatic shots (which is one of 2 things wide angles excel at; the other, arguably much less interesting application is to just cram a whole lot of scenery in the frame), you'll automatically gain back much of the bokeh you lost by going wide.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 08:06 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 Review (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

bartjeej: Apart from the "no pun intended" when there's not even any pun to be found (and the general American obsession with stating whether any pun was intended or not), another solid, informative review :)

I don't really see how that relates to my comment, but fair enough :-) I think both English and American English have their pros and cons. The stating of whether or not any pun was intended... that's just awful, in my opinion ;-) if something was meant to be funny, be confident enough in your own wit to let people discover it on their own, and if it wasn't meant to be funny, just be happy that it could be considered funny nonetheless!

Sorry, that's just one of my pet peeves. For a more photography-related pet peeve, who's up for a discussion about what bokeh is, or which focal length gives a natural perspective? ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 16:14 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 Review (416 comments in total)

Apart from the "no pun intended" when there's not even any pun to be found (and the general American obsession with stating whether any pun was intended or not), another solid, informative review :)

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 01:37 UTC as 88th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

I actually agree with you on that; lenses should be marketed something like '56 f/1.2 (85 f/1.8 equivalent)', instead of '56 f/1.2 (85mm equivalent)', or even worse, '56 f/1.2 (85mm f/1.2!!!)'. The latter style is particularly common on fixed lens cameras and is very misleading indeed. If equivalencies are mentioned, they should give both the focal length and the aperture equivalence, not just pick and choose what makes the camera / lens looks most impressive.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

I would love to see 2 images from you, with both systems shot from the exact same place, and the subject at the exact same distance.

If possible, it'd be nice to have a tape measure running alongside the subject into the distance, so that we can compare DOF as well; in that case, have the Fuji at either f/1.2 or f/1.4, and the Nikon at F/2.

As for the DPR image: that's due to the subject not being in the exact same place in the photos; she's a bit higher in the APSC pics than in the FF pics (compare the position of her head to the dots), which makes it look as if she's further away since you're seeing more of her body. Both FF and APSC have 20x30 background dots in view (meaning the background is the same size) and in both images, the width of her head incl hair is 11 dots (meaning the subject is the same size). Can't believe I actually spent my time counting that, but there ya go. The images prove my point, not yours. Still, I'd love to see your images "proving" your point ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 06:31 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

In addition to that, in the case we're discussing here, the apertures are NOT equivalent; the aperture on the APSC is LARGER than the one on the full frame, giving even shallower DOF.

Also note how in both the first and the second image of the DPR article, both the subject and the background are the same size in each of the sensor sizes. WHUAT?!? that's impossible right? oh wait, we're not living in joed700 world, but in the real one. Equivalent focal lengths give the exact same field of view and the exact same subject size and background; that's what makes them equivalent. Equivalent apertures on equivalent focal lengths give not only the exact same subject size and background, but also the exact same DOF. Faster than equivalent apertures on equivalent focal lengths give same subject & background size with shallower DOF. Seriously, just read the DPR article (all of it! not just the parts that suit you!) until you freaking get it, even if that means re-reading it 391 times.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 12:48 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

dude... dafuq... you really stun me with your inability to see it. First of all, if the field of view is the same, and the distance is the same, then both subject and background and foreground and everything in the friggen frame is the same size. if you're trying to say it's impossible to have the same composition with different sized sensors, I'd like a hit of whatever it is you're smoking.

The mdavid.com article, in the cons part at least, is true but ONLY if you mount the same lens on different sensor sizes. Here we're talking about different lenses on different sensor sizes.

The dpreview article: first image is with the same f-stop, which proves nothing. try the SECOND image, with equivalent f-stops. to quote DPR: 'As you can see, the real-world examples bear-out the expectations to a pretty good degree - when set to 'equivalent' apertures, the background blur is very similar.( ) the background dots have all been spread to a similar degree, suggesting the same depth-of-field( )'

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

Maybe this article by the good people of DPR will make it clearer than I can:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=features&utm_medium=sidebar-block-Homepage&ref=features

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

Joed700: DUDE! you really don't get it do you? The APSC crop factor is 1.52, giving a 56mm lens on APSC the same angle of view as 85.12mm on FF. So when you say 'The sample pictures I took with both lenses ( ) shows that the FF 85mm wins because the 56mm has way too much background', you're talking complete and utter rubbish. The field of view, and therefore the amount of background, is THE SAME!

'the DOF calculator shows that the differences between the 56mm and the FF 85mm is only 0.01 ft at f1.2 vs f2 respectively.'
That's entirely possible, depending on the subject distance. Still, it comes out in favour of the APSC sensor.

If you put a faster lens (w/ the same angle of view) on the APSC camera, you can both regain the shallow DOF, and by lowering ISO, also make up for the lower light gathering ability of the smaller sensor. APSC and FF differ by ~1.07 stops; if the difference in f-number is more, the APSC will outperform the FF, assuming equal angle of view & sensor efficiency.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
Total: 38, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »