Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 12, 2008


Total: 94, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

That's… uh… some great security:

Seriously, it took me five times as long to figure out how to share that image in a comment as it did to capture it.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 19:48 UTC as 26th comment
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

rawmagic: Missing about video ?

@John, to be fair, if one of these cameras was able to offer competent video functionality without huge additional expense and without sacrificing photographic capabilities, just about all the same reasons that someone would want to use a sensor this size for photography apply. The problem is, as is well demonstrated even by most full frame cameras offering video functionality, that's simply not currently possible. High resolution photography and high quality videography (including especially full sensor readout and absence of rolling shutter) lead to very different sensor designs, and when you're talking about a tool as specialized as any of the cameras on comparison here, it simply isn't worth the tradeoffs to try to combine them — for now, at least.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

sense601: 'We’ve learned that some customers require exceptional lens performance' - ABSOLUTELY! But not in order to take photographs. Engineers are working overtime so people can 'win' in the forums.

What do you even mean by "not even moot"?

Sure, there are many aspects of a photograph that trump resolution. But if you're putting in the time an effort to create something beautiful, why *not* have the resolution there in case you need or want it down the line? Resolution only adds flexibility to what you can do, and certainly isn't going to take away from an image that would still have been great without it.

And *if* you want to trade resolution for portability (or price), no one is taking away all the smaller, simpler, but less resolving lens designs that have been produced over the years.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 18:49 UTC

Can someone correct the headline, or is OPPO actually calling this "5x optical" zoom? That's certainly not what's described here.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 18:35 UTC as 20th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Matsu: We had a sony pocket camera once with a folded periscope style optics. I was wondering when this idea would make a splash in cameraphones?

3x, not 5x. Until we see otherwise, the "5x optical" zoom is just marketing.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: Zipper seems ideally designed to spill all your contents in the event of failure. It also appears to make the bag difficult to load/unload unless set down on a flat surface. Fail.

It's pretty clear from the picture that the zipper is designed so you can open just the top portion of the bag, with a stop so you don't accidentally pull the zipper down the front and spill your entire bag.

What's less clear is how easy it is to access the entire contents of the bag without opening the zipper further. It looks kind of difficult to use the photography insert without opening the zipper all the way.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 23:23 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: Your next purchase-this Fuji or a Rolex 🤔

This is getting decidedly off-topic, but why do you care whether anyone else recognizes the brand of your watch? Isn't it the quality, design, and functionality that really matters, just as is the case with camera equipment?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 21:06 UTC

This is a neat idea, but what really differentiates the various bags I use is form factor and how they wear. My everyday bag, photo hike bag, large (camera-friendly) travel bag, and ski bags look very different from the outside, with good reason. It's not clear that this offers much over a well-designed bag with a reconfigurable interior (like, for instance, Peak Design's offerings or really any well-designed photo bag).

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 20:47 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ABM Barry: ...KICKSTARTER High risk, No real benefit to you?
If they can't put $15k on their table which is a minuscule amount in the manufacturing world, ... What makes you think they have the business acumen to conduct a successful venture?
The longest line of people in the world is those trying to get their money back from non-start, failed or scammer Kickstarters.

The first Kickstartups certainly had full intention to put their product to market.
However, now it's seen as a "We can play and try anything, some other poor sod will take all the risk!"
When I invest, I want a share position that reflects Risk, .. not a little discount on something I have never seen that may not even eventuate!

If they can't even put in $15K, .. what makes you think they can survive their first hurdle? ..... Startup 2..?

I think you're reading way too much into their campaign goal. $15K reads to me as a number designed to gauge interest (if the campaign really raises less than $15k, they clearly need to go back to the drawing board) rather than money they actually need to get production going. Clearly they've already done more than $15K worth of prototyping and design work.

That said, I have seen campaigns even from established companies implode after funding, so buyer beware. The standard Kickstarter campaign really doesn't give you enough information to make an informed investment, and don't expect Kickstarter to go out of their way to get your money back if a project fails.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 20:42 UTC
On article Fujifilm updates X-mount lens roadmap (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

racin06: NEWSFLASH TO SONY: This is how a lens lineup should look. The key is to actually have lenses in the lineup ;) .

Honestly, I'd say Sony got the message a few years ago at least and has a pretty compelling lineup at the moment, at least for full frame. What they really need to do is show they're still committed to APS-C and revisit a couple of their earlier designs that just aren't up to the standards of their newer offerings. That and keep the new full frame lenses coming.

A lot of the supposed redundancy in Sony's lineup can be attributed to producing compact, smaller aperture and large, heavy, large aperture lenses with (often) better image quality at similar focal lengths, and I certainly wouldn't ask Sony to stop doing that. I'd love to see a better version of their notoriously soft 24-70 F4.0 to complement the much larger 24-70 F2.8.

I was skeptical too, but for me the G-master trio launched last year was the tipping point. Yes, they're expensive (though so are new releases from Canon and Nikon), but having used the 85 F1.4 GM, I can say it leaves very little to be desired.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 22:09 UTC
On article Sigma Announces 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM lens (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

alcaher: Interesting move by sigma. I think its going to sell quite well.
For those long hikes and walks on the mountains and woods i used the nikkor 70-300 but this new lens might get alot of attention because of that extra 100mm reach.

100-400 is pretty close to 70-300 with a 1.3x teleconverter, so I wouldn't really call it 100mm of extra reach. That's not to say the lens isn't an improvement if you don't make much use of the wide end of the 70-300.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 18:02 UTC
In reply to:

digilt: " The minimum focus distance of the 24-70 is 37cm/1.5in and it uses 82mm filters."

37cm is closer to 14.6in. , not 1.5in.

Looks like someone the decimal.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 17:57 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

Parampreet Dhatt: Can't a similar effect be achieved by applying Gaussian blur to the OOF areas in Photoshop?

And even then, if your mask is perfect, you'll still be missing information in OOF areas.

If you start with a relatively sharp background (which you'd need to produce blur similar to this lens), you have no information about what's behind your in-focus subject. You have to either manually make corrections or any object ending at the boundary between in and out of focus areas will be blurred as if it continues indefinitely behind your subject. As with anything the effect is subtle, but can be glaringly obvious if you know what to look for.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 19:59 UTC
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

AxelR: BS. It only appears to work because it was trained with the right set of images, so it picked the best match from the destroyed one. Any picture on the left could end up being literally millions of different persons, or no person at all. There is no way to reconstruct a human face starting from scratch from a 8x8 sample of the whole face, this is a joke.

@falconeyes, You misunderstand. (Maybe start by trying to figure out where next time, rather than assuming the authors are idiots.)

The algorithm is trained on one set of images and then fed images that were not part of that set to reconstruct. The technique is not simply a matter of choosing the correct image out of a known set, and is absolutely an achievement and worthy of publication.

*However*, as was pointed out in other comments, the reconstruction is not real in the sense that it will be an accurate representation of the original image. It will be believable, within the constraints of the training images, and it will be an image that would indeed result in — roughly — the given 8x8 input. But the details are ultimately imagined. You can't accurately reconstruct information that wasn't in the original input to start with, no matter how sophisticated an algorithm you use.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 00:37 UTC
In reply to:

chriskeats: am I the only one who thinks these look cartoonish, like screen shots from a video game?

I agree, but the more I look at the work, the more I'm convinced that's intentional. You may like it or not, but I think what you're seeing in these photographs is exactly what they were going for.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

hetedik: Impressive pictures. Would be nice to see them on huge prints.
Please spare us for political messages here.
Let's keep this site for photography.

So you find the work interesting and technically impressive, but would prefer not to have seen it due to the political message. Have you considered that you might be precisely the target audience?

A lot of photography is political on some level. Would you prefer that DPReview either halted its coverage of actual work done with the equipment discussed and reviewed here or restricted it to an endless flow of landscapes and — I don't know — kitten pictures? Maybe even that's even too much. After all, even a simple landscape can be political if it depicts a scene currently or soon to be changed by the effects of global warming.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 16:38 UTC

There seems to be a bit of a stretch of terminology here. If you're using a photo of your face to authenticate to any device other than your own smartphone, are you really taking the picture yourself? If you're just showing your face to some camera, is it really a selfie any more?

For a real world example, the PS4 can use facial recognition to automatically identify users, but it does so by looking for faces in a continuous video feed from the camera. Would you really say it's taking a selfie when it picks out a face it's been trained to recognize? That's precisely how any practical application of facial recognition for authentication will have to work, especially if you want to have any hope of defeating attempts to impersonate someone using a picture of their face.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 19:34 UTC as 27th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

RolliPoli: Why????? :o

Why not????? 0_o

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 16:45 UTC


Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 22:43 UTC as 73rd comment
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: Impressive!! $1799 sounds reasonable too.

@Scottelly Yes, because all 27" IPS displays are exactly the same. /s (Or, what Ken said.)

For the record, the display you linked isn't even the same resolution as this one. But if you like editing photos on a 27" 1920x1080 display with "72% Color Gamut" (whatever that means), by all means, go ahead. I'm certainly not going to stop you.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 00:02 UTC
Total: 94, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »