Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Senior Researcher - Canon Australia
Joined on Jul 17, 2004
About me:

Canon 1D X, 5D III, 17-40 f/4L, 45 f/2.8 TS-E, Sigma 50 f/1.4 Sigma 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2L, Canon 100 f/2.8L IS macro, 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II, 300 f/2.8L IS, 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS, 500 f/4L IS mk II, 1.4x TC III, 2x TC III, 600 EX, Sigma 24 f/1.8 EX, Canon 24-7 f/2.8 mk II, Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro EX HSM DG


Total: 1289, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Kaso: Consumer market is tough. A consumer looks for bargains and buys only one item in the space of 15 months or so. There are people who upgrade their camera bodies twice, yet still reuse their initial SD cards!

Well most people record their precious memories with their crummy phones, as long as it looks ok of social media quality is not important. How many people even have a phone that has an SD slot, not the iCrap for sure.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 02:21 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: "And despite costing $1000 less, the Sony 12-24mm at least matches the excellent measurements from Canon's 11-24mm F4."

It seems like the the advantage of mirrorless over DSLR when it comes to wide angle lens designing is really showing here.

The statement doesn't make sense. The SIgma is no match for the Canon, and has much worse distortion as verified by a number of reviews inclkuding this own site, and Roger says the Sony matches the SIgma. I have no doubt the Sony is better than the Sigma and is so much smaller and lighter too it's worth the extra coin. But let's see a proper head-to-head against the Canon.

The first lens that finally shows FF mirrorless has some advantages.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 02:16 UTC
In reply to:

Moon0326: Who's gonna use 14mm f/1.8? For astro, you can just buy 20mm or 24mm then stitch. Those two focal length with the same F or faster (1.4) absorbs much much more light (at least 3x). I expected 14mm f/1.8 to be cheaper. At this price range, I don't really see a reason to buy one.

Moon0326 is correct, the actual improvement in going from say 14 f/1.8 to say 24 f/1.4 is

[(24/1.4)/(14/1.8)]^2 = 4.85

Thus the 24mm gathers nearly 5x as much light for same exposure. If you go to 35 f/1.4 the improvement is 10.3x.

Far better to use a longer faster FL and a tracker than an UWA if you can.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 06:42 UTC

Not if the competition rightly includes Tamron. New 24-70 f/2.8 VC G2 to be announced at $1199 isn't that the current models price.

Having seen the MTF curves for the Sigma, I think they meant it to be a Contemporary lens not and Art lens

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2017 at 23:18 UTC as 2nd comment

If IQ is good, this would make a terrific back-up Safari lens. While I'd have my big prime on one camera, having a such a great zoom range would help enormously for those cases when say an animal is closing fast and even the 100-400 is just too long. Of course will the AF be adequate along with the IQ. If they are halfway decent for the cost I could see plenty of potential with this lens as a back-up at worst.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2017 at 00:29 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

dash2k8: Probably not entirely on subject, but here's a thought regarding zooms:

Too often newbies will allow the zoom of a lens to become his/her crutch: they don't remember that you should move to get the shot and just let the zoom save them from walking a few steps forward or backward. The problem with this over-dependence of zooms is that you have to take into account the scale of objects at different zoom lengths. Wide produces a stronger sense of 3D, while telephoto helps project density. A shot at 18mm looks far different than 100mm, let alone 200mm or the 400mm offered here. Instead of using the various zoom ranges for effect, it often becomes a trap of laziness for newbies. It's something to keep in mind for the inexperienced.

Well to me good glass is good glass, it doesn't matter if it's a zoom or a prime. If you have used lenses like the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II IS, 24-70 f/2.8L II or 100-400L II IS, you know zooms can be prime quality and for travel and hikes the most effective solution that doesn't compromise quality.

I'm intrigued by what a 2017 superzoom quality could be like. The last super zoom I used was way back in film days, when they were garbage. I'd love to see shots of how the Tammy performs on a D500 or D7200, 7DII.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2017 at 00:26 UTC

Simply can't be true, Sony reps were boldly claiming Canon lenses work faster on Sony A9 than Canon camera.

Just keep waiting for those Sony 300/400 f/2.8 FE lenses to be announced, won't be too long, now


Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2017 at 00:15 UTC as 88th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

NilsBV: Come on, since when can't we just write heck? The whole idea is that it's a euphamism for hell. We're not 5 years old.

This takes the cake as the most pathetic censorship I've ever seen in my life. The most violent country on earth and they censor the word heck, you've plumbed new lows dpreview

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 11:10 UTC
In reply to:

jim seekers: Ok just seen still's and video comparison's between the one plus 5 and Samsung Galaxy S8 and the S8 is miles better at capturing detail, The Camera on the Samsung Galaxy S7 and S8 will be better than the One Plus 5.
Tiny Little Sensor and 20 Million Pixels, Far Too Many, I was not impressed at fine detail being very smudged while the Galaxy S8 resolved it easily and the S7 will do the same.
go on to YouTube and type in OnePlus 5 Vs Samsung Galaxy S8 Camera Comparison.

The Sony camera sensors are rubbish, and no need for 16MP or 20MP. Galaxy S6/S7/S8 are all excellent, just wish Samsung would turn down sharpening on the jpgs.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 01:27 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: 90th anniversary had titanium fittings.

Given the pricing the 100th anniversary must use Unobtanium

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 11:27 UTC
In reply to:

dialstatic: Limited edition anniversary tripods. Hmm. I guess there's a market for anything.

Donald Trump knows that all too well.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 11:26 UTC
On article Report: Ricoh announcing cost cuts in face of crisis (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthew saville: On a more serious note, I somehow doubt that Pentax' market is big enough for Ricoh to be able to afford to do anything more than just barely afford to keep the doors open. Compared to their other business, I bet that it's roughly equivalent to a doctor or lawyer who drives for Uber in his spare time.

Of course, I'd absolutely love to be wrong there. I think the K-1 was a huge step forward for Pentax, and hopefully they have another full-frame camera on the horizon, maybe even a mirrorless one. If they could come up with one, even if they do the same silly thing of sticking with their existing mount / flange distance, that'd be huge for them.

At best, if the price is right, some other camera company could buy the Pentax IP. Not exactly sure what the portfolio would contain that would be of real benefit to others, but I'm sure they have something worthwhile. Maybe pixel shift. Certainly not AF that's for sure.

Maybe re-invent themselves and go mirrorless, this time properly not like that abomination they offered up earlier.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 00:01 UTC
On article Report: Ricoh announcing cost cuts in face of crisis (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

SETI: Maybe Chinese companies will buy Pentax...

Maybe Microsoft can rescue them, like they did with Nokia.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 23:48 UTC
On article Report: Ricoh announcing cost cuts in face of crisis (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Snapper2013: Is it Ricoh or Reeeecoh?

In countries where they speak English it's Ricoh, in the US of A it's Reeeecoh.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 23:46 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2732 comments in total)
In reply to:

A Owens: Looks like a nice camera but honestly, apart from the silent shutter, why would you buy this over a 1dx or D5? Especially if you shoot full bit-depth raw and big lenses.

Some of these comments over the size of the D5 and 1DX II are so dumb. There's a good reason these cameras are large. Sure they don't have to be as large IMO, but they need to be a lot bigger than the regular DSLR for many reasons. Ergonomics, larger buttons especially for when you are wearing gloves in the cold. Big deep grip that doesn't interfere with any lens no matter how large unlike the A9, huge battery that that last for days, extreme rugged build, no issues with heat, they can fit a heatsink, balances heavy glass much better.

There was no reason other than IMO laziness for SOny to make the A9 the same size as the A7. They could have made the camera 5mm wider, and 10mm taller, a 5mm deeper, and fitted heatsink, had larger buttons, bigger grip, etc and it would still only be say 100g heavier and half the weight and 40% smaller than the D5 and 1DX. Typical of Sony's half-measures.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2732 comments in total)
In reply to:

Avatar480234: Same score as with the D5 and the 1DXii.

DPR playing it safe so as not to ruffle the feathers of the "establishment".

Most sports photographers would give the Sony a zero until they have lenses like a 300/400 f/2.8. If they can't use it with the lens they make a living off it's useless to them. Thinking they'll use a slow 400 f/5.6 zoom is laughable by Sony.

Aside from that looks very nice and is the first mirrorless to really show what the future is. If they can crack the need for mechanical shutter for flash, make it larger, bigger battery, bigger buttons, heatsink, improve the DR, the mk II should be a awesome.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 02:50 UTC

Lousy pixel pitch, you can see them with the naked eye. I'll stick with a 32" 4k monitor, 100% adobergb thanks.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 21:07 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D7500 vs Canon EOS 80D (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

aliasfox: Coming from an Olympus fan (though not fanboy), I'm personally curious how the OM-D E-M1 mark 2 would compare to these two (three) models. It's priced against the D500, but it's hard for anybody to make the argument that it's a 100% competitor on both image quality and AF grounds - might be nice to see how it competes against the one-step-down models.

I wonder how the AF compares against the less advanced units in the D7500, 80D, and 7DII. And the image quality could probably trade even blows with the 80D, come out ahead of the 7DII, while not quite matching the D7500. And it should be able to win in terms of real world speed/performance.

Very few people would switch between any of these systems, but I did find it an interesting read, so thanks!

80D has better low ISO DR than 7DII, is actually worse at high ISO, D500 is noticeably better than E-M1 II at high ISO which itself has similar low ISO DR to 80D.

If you shoot high ISO D500/D7500 are best bet. Overall 7DII is oldest and worst sensor, 80D and E-M1 II sensors are fairly evenly matched through the ISO range, but as a Canon user I don't particularly like what I see from the 80D.

Canon needs a 7DIII ASAP and needs to do a lot better than the 80D sensor especially at higher ISO.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 04:13 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Canon EOS 80D (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

I own 128 cameras: This paragraph seems confusing:

"The 4K video mode on the D7500 comes with an additional 1.5x focal length crop over the existing 1.5x crop from using an APS-C sensor, meaning a full 2.25x crop relative to the focal length printed on your lens. This means even at the 18mm wide-angle setting of the D7500's kit lens, you'll be getting a 40.5mm-equivalent field of view when you shoot 4K video. On the other hand, the D7500 has no crop factor when shooting Full HD, just like the EOS 80D, so you could argue that having 4K at all is a nice bonus"

I think the last few sentences need to be reviewed as you are talking about the wrong camera. Or, on the other hand, I could be mis-reading.

Indeed, Nikon won't read the full sensor and then do oversampling to produce 4K, so if you have 20MP and only need 8.3MP you have to take a crop instead. The UHD format is 16:9 so starting from full sensor res of 5568 x 3712, if we reduce that to 16:9 format we have 5568 x 3312. Turns out if you then apply a 1.45x crop (rounded they say 1.5x) we indeed find

5568/1.45 = 3840
3312/1.45 = 2160

Exact UHD resolution!

Of course the output would be far better if they instead read the full 5568 x 3312 region and applied 1.45x oversampling to produce UHD. Then you only have the original crop factor to deal with, not a double crop factor of 1.5*1.45 = 2.175. Looks like you'll need an UWA DX lens with say 10mm FL to get 22MM effective FL in UHD.

If you use FHD they read full sensor, but do pixel binning and output is not great. Again if they did say 3x oversampling the IQ would be a lot better.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 00:39 UTC
On article Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ernest M Aquilio: Just an observation, but if we were not told that these images came from a MF digital camera would we think that they were? I don't think the advantages can really be seen on screen at the default sizes. Perhaps in print?

Only Fuji see the difference. Fuji claims there was no need for FF sensor as their APS-C sensor is as good anyway. So they skipped to not quite MF sensor. And I agree it really doesn't bring anything new to the table, but the profit margins on MF gear are gross so Fuji I assume thinks it will be a cash cow. But seriously the numbers they'd sell for a system that would cost at least $20K to have a decent kit, compared to the best DSLR FF that would cost half, are marginal.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 10:00 UTC
Total: 1289, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »