veroman

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Photographer, Teacher, Writer
Has a website at www.stevegarey.photography
Joined on Mar 23, 2004

Comments

Total: 140, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I have owned and used 2 copies of the 1D and continue to be amazed at the image quality. I've upsized many, many 1D shots to 16" X 20" (and larger using Topaz Gigapixel) with remarkable results. The large photo sites on the 1D make upsizing relatively simple and painless. The large prints are sharp and gorgeous.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2021 at 23:04 UTC as 41st comment
On article Nikon Z fc Review (2105 comments in total)

There's no review. Where's the review? All I see is specs!

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2021 at 19:20 UTC as 37th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

fujiste: Sorry but putting a flip screen on a retro, photo-targeted camera makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
The best APS-C photo camera will long remain the X-H1 : no build quality or EVF compromise, no flip screen, and manual controls.

I owned the X-H1 and X-E2. No amount of build quality and feature sets can make up for the problems with the X-Trans sensor. Even Fuji has admitted same by announcing that the S10 will be their last X-Trans camera. Yes, the X-H1 is a beautiful camera to hold and use. Maybe there will be an X-H2 with the a "normal" APS-C sensor ... like the one in the X-T100 and X-T200.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2021 at 16:01 UTC

These cameras (and so many others!) are marketing products, not photography products. Will we never learn? You can talk features, appearance, handling, a/f speed, a/f accuracy, high ISO noise, focus points, buffer, etc, etc, etc til you're blue in the face. The bottom line is: image quality hasn't dramatically (or even noticeably) improved for many years now.

Yesterday I took my "ancient" Panasonic G3 and 20mm f/1.7 out for a spin, then let my jaw drop gently when I viewed the images on my big iMac.

Sure, if you're new to photography, then the two cameras reviewed here should be considered if they meet your needs. But ... keep in mind that for all the latest technology that they offer, they're still mirrorless, which means NO OPTICAL VIEWFINDER. I'll stay with my Pentax K cameras, thank you.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2021 at 17:15 UTC as 32nd comment | 1 reply
On article Sigma fp L initial review (619 comments in total)

Boy, that modular-style VF is really awkward-looking if not downright ugly. Looks like it was designed by committee.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2021 at 20:45 UTC as 132nd comment | 1 reply

The very best of the digital cameras (from an IQ standpoint) do an exceedingly good job of emulating the look of film. This is certainly intentional. I suspect that many a photographer that has returned to film, either occasionally or full time, has never shot with a digital camera that extends and even betters the film look. Most digital cameras are an IQ failure ... disappointing to say the least. And many of us have discovered this the hard and very expensive way.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2020 at 18:24 UTC as 53rd comment | 3 replies
On article DPReview TV: Scan film negatives with the Nikon ES-2 (279 comments in total)

I've been using a quality light box for many years. I line up any number of slides on the face of the box, mask each one off with black masking tape to avoid stray light and shoot away. Works great. I'm currently using my Fuji X-H1 and 16-80. I started "scanning" this way with a Canon 5D. Exceptional results with that camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2020 at 19:26 UTC as 64th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X-T200 review (427 comments in total)

I own the same X-T100 that others own and have cited "poor auto focus," "bad video," "flimsy build," etc., etc. A few reviewers have praised the X-T100 camera, and rightfully so. I have no issues whatsoever with the X-T100 with my excellent 16-80 f/4. AF is quick and sure. The body is as solid as they come. The Bayer sensor is excellent, and in some ways I prefer its rendition over the X-Trans in my X-H1. The X-T200 gains me nothing (and I don't do video, so I don't care about any alleged improvements in the video mode). The X-T200 seems to me to be the perfect camera for X-T100 owners who suffer from G.A.S.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2020 at 19:45 UTC as 65th comment | 3 replies
On article Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade? (1551 comments in total)
In reply to:

veroman: I'm of the opinion that Pentax (and other makers) has been "baking in" noise reduction in raw files for quite some time now. I first noticed this in their K-01 and later in their K-30. Canon's 5D Mk II did the same, and other photogs agree, but Canon has yet to acknowledge this. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was the case with a great many cameras and camera makers.

One third? Wow ... that's a large percentage. More than I imagined. One out of every three!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 22:18 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade? (1551 comments in total)
In reply to:

veroman: I'm of the opinion that Pentax (and other makers) has been "baking in" noise reduction in raw files for quite some time now. I first noticed this in their K-01 and later in their K-30. Canon's 5D Mk II did the same, and other photogs agree, but Canon has yet to acknowledge this. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was the case with a great many cameras and camera makers.

One of the cameras I own doesn't seem to supply noise reduction where it's not wanted, and that's my Ricoh GR II. The raw files from that camera appear to be very pure to my eyes.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 20:22 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade? (1551 comments in total)

I'm of the opinion that Pentax (and other makers) has been "baking in" noise reduction in raw files for quite some time now. I first noticed this in their K-01 and later in their K-30. Canon's 5D Mk II did the same, and other photogs agree, but Canon has yet to acknowledge this. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was the case with a great many cameras and camera makers.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 17:55 UTC as 129th comment | 9 replies
On article Canon EOS M50 Review (1249 comments in total)
In reply to:

veroman: Wow ... hard crowd to please! I think it's, first of all, a terrific looking camera. Right size. Right shape, not to mention the articulating screen, built-in EVF, etc. But where the rubber meets the road is the lenses, not the body. We'll have to wait and see how the thing tests out in real-world shooting. But for now, it looks like a really, really nice camera, one that will fit the hands and minds of an awful lot of people. I much prefer how it looks over any of the small Sonys.

ZeBebito: that's an easy thing to say, but our reactions to ugly cameras has rarely, if ever, been positive. Remember Hasselblad's remakes of Sony point-and-shoots? When all was said and done, they practically had to give them away. The Nikon df hasn't done too well, either ... the initial reaction to its looks was pretty dreadful. Personally, I think it's important that a camera looks and feels good in the hand. The majority of photographers would agree. Actually, it IS a beauty contest!

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2018 at 14:59 UTC
On article Canon EOS M50 Review (1249 comments in total)

Wow ... hard crowd to please! I think it's, first of all, a terrific looking camera. Right size. Right shape, not to mention the articulating screen, built-in EVF, etc. But where the rubber meets the road is the lenses, not the body. We'll have to wait and see how the thing tests out in real-world shooting. But for now, it looks like a really, really nice camera, one that will fit the hands and minds of an awful lot of people. I much prefer how it looks over any of the small Sonys.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2018 at 14:09 UTC as 284th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

veroman: dpreview: you're asleep at the wheel! Is anybody proofreading this stuff? The numbers of typos and grammatical errors is astonishing ... not to mention annoying. How do you expect to be taken as serious photography-subject journalists when you post like this? There's no excuse. Good journalism it ain't!

Yes, my comments clearly say that I expect a professional journalistic web site to follow the common standards for spelling and grammar as per every style book ever printed within the last 100 years. That's what you call "childish?" Heaven help us when spelling correctly becomes a "childish" notion!

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 21:48 UTC

dpreview: you're asleep at the wheel! Is anybody proofreading this stuff? The numbers of typos and grammatical errors is astonishing ... not to mention annoying. How do you expect to be taken as serious photography-subject journalists when you post like this? There's no excuse. Good journalism it ain't!

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 17:51 UTC as 45th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

veroman: The kit that I took with me on a recent trip consisted of:

1) A Leica Digilux 2
2) A Canon G7 (the original)
3) An Olympus E-1

They're all at least a dozen years old, and they all still take great pictures.

I've always used the LCD. The cramped OVF never appealed to me. I've also owned the G9, but I found the G7 to be better all around. Other G-Series cameras I've owned are the G10, G12 and G15 ... but I always come back to my G7. I think it's the lens that separates it from the rest of the G-pack.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2017 at 15:47 UTC

The kit that I took with me on a recent trip consisted of:

1) A Leica Digilux 2
2) A Canon G7 (the original)
3) An Olympus E-1

They're all at least a dozen years old, and they all still take great pictures.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 13:53 UTC as 82nd comment | 3 replies

The Sony a 7R III is a "gadget?" What a strange category for such a capable camera, not to mention its incredible cost. Gadget? HARDLY!

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2017 at 20:35 UTC as 128th comment | 2 replies

One really doesn't understand a Leica until one owns and learns to use a Leica ... any Leica. The thoughts of the cost go out the window once one has learned the Leica philosophy and has sufficient technical skill to get the best out of it. A Leica rangefinder certainly isn't for everyone; it's the world's poorest camera for sports. But it's the right camera for many. I might add that I have never lost a dime when I've decided to sell a Leica, and in many instances I've profited. I will definitely profit when I decide to sell my pristine Leica Digilux 2, now going on 16 years old. It's time to set cost aside when discussing Leicas. It really doesn't matter. It is what it is.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 15:50 UTC as 73rd comment | 1 reply
On article iPhone 8 Plus sample gallery (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

veroman: How nice that smart phone makers are steadily improving the embedded cameras. But what they're NOT improving is the audio quality of cell phones, which is simply dreadful. Thin. Shrill. Often garbled. Often incomprehensible. Then there's that crazy-making delay when you try to say something while the other person is talking ... a common, normal (and, yes, often rude) way of having a conversation.

Today's cell phone audio quality really stinks, particularly when you compare it to the original analog cell phones and to land lines. Shouldn't the audio quality of a cell phone connection be nothing short of first rate? Being able to hear the sound of the other person's voice, after all, is what a phone connection is for! If the cameras in the phones were as poor as the sound quality, we surely wouldn't be buying them and/or paying top dollar for them.

Come on Apple and all the rest. Fix this poor audio quality. There's simply no reason or excuse for it.

Atomize: You are somewhat behind the times. For many the cell phone has replaced the traditional land line and is the only talk/phone call connection. My youngest daughter has never even had a land line.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 13:07 UTC
Total: 140, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »