Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Jun 25, 2011


Total: 255, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: This photo cured me of pixel peeping.

Actually, pixel peeping will reward you in this case. Pixel peep the file and you see the Moon as well.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 14:43 UTC
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: See tons of geeks bitching:

And you're bitching about the bitching. At least the geeks are on topic.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

balios: This seems incredibly obsolete on so many levels. The last time I used one of these was almost 20 years ago - filling a need that is now replaced by my ever-present phone.

It'd have to be a wedding party full of camera geeks to really appreciate using these things, imho.

Ignoring the 98% of guests not knowing what an advance lever is, the lack of immediate feedback is not going to create the same buzz as it used to.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 17:13 UTC
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (49 comments in total)

This seems incredibly obsolete on so many levels. The last time I used one of these was almost 20 years ago - filling a need that is now replaced by my ever-present phone.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 16:29 UTC as 16th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

ezradja: What powered the led? Camera body or another battery? Rechargeable? Would it drain the camera battery?

I'm certain it's powered by the camera battery, like the EF-M 28mm macro lens. So yes, it will drain the camera battery when used.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 17:43 UTC
On article At the market: Panasonic GH5 sample video (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Is it just me, or do these GH cameras produce a Video image, as in broadcast imagery we see on TV. But not "filmic" images, or cinematic, as we see in most movies. I mean the ancient 5D mark II for god's sake made filmic images out of anything!

1- Is it the high resolving power that give detail that I don't percieve as film, but as a new type of hyper-realistic video? (which btw looks amazing). Is this why the lower resolution Alexa is more used and more filmic that the enormous resolution REDs?

2- Is the sensor size being quarter of the 5D sensor giving a deeper DOF than "I" associate with film? (When shot w/o SB)

3- Is it the subtle IBIS warp like effects we see in some movements and robotic rendition that's rare but present bs optical IS?

4- Is it the colour science of Canon and Arri and so on that induce this effect in me. Or simply the picture processing: digital sharpening, halos, contrast, saturation of the highlights, hue, skin, etc?

Do I freakin need a LOW resolution camera (which should be bad) with no digital enhancements (which should be good to enhance) with no IBIS (should be good to stabilize!) with a huge sensor for ability to get ridiculously thin DOF to be satisfied and percieve it as filmic?!!

I think I'll keep shooting the 5D for artsy films and GH4 for impressive videos, and satisfy both clients...

or get a Metabones SB for the GH4 to get a s35/APS-C size DOF, turn to V-LOG and remove all settings, turn off IBIS and add a freaking gaussian blur plug in onto the 4K image and render to 1080p?! Maybe crop to 1:35:1 for a wide screen film look, maybe grade to get lowish contrast like in older movies? Is this too much work to replace just pressing record on a back-up 5D or a Nikon DSLRs or a blackmagic pocket 1080p?

I just CANNOT like the GH5 video images. Trying ti analyze WHY!!!

Its likely the use of 60 fps rather than the cinema standard 24 fps. Many people had the same criticism of 'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug' which was released in 48 fps.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 14:13 UTC
In reply to:

Jaythomasni: This is because terrorists achieved technique to insert bombs with the same density and physical footprint of the wont be captured in the screening and will look like li Battery

The media is currently referencing FAA testing that concluded that existing fire suppressing systems are insufficient at stopping lithium battery fires. They are neglecting that this research was done on bulk battery shipments and the conclusion was only in reference to bulk shipments.

Prior to 2016 (when bulk shipments on passenger planes were banned), you might have been flying on a plane with thousands of batteries, packed tightly together on a single pallet, with batteries within millimeters of each other.

The FAA test ignited 5000 batteries in a single cargo pod. The heat from one battery failure set off adjacent batteries, which propagated until the cargo pod exploded.

However, single batteries catching fire should be controlled by the halon system, which sprays the cargo compartment with halon for up to 3 hours, preventing the fire from spreading. Halon will not prevent the heat/flame from the battery, but it will prevents other materials (ie. clothing) from combusting.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

IvanM: MMM this might be like trying to convince someone that wants a Ferrari that he will be better off buying a Subaru WRX or the Leica guys are fond of saying, maybe he just doesn't get it....

I don't see your comparison at all. Fuji isn't the Ferrari of camera brands. For people looking to blow $6k for brand-recognition, they can buy a D5 or 1DXii and have all sorts of people gawking at their expensive camera. For added effect, they can attach a $20k telephoto lens. The hipster with the gfx will get trampled as the huddled masses try to get a look at the camera god with his "pro" DSLR camera.

For the actual photographers, they're going to want to know whether $6K on this camera will give them what the *need* to produce photos. The reality is that many photographers will be better served by something like a D810 (for example). That will be because of things like comparative sensor performance, lens selection, AF, etc. Some will conclude the opposite.

This article is aimed at the second group of people. Nobody really cares about the first group.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

Lea5: The "I don't shoot moving subjects" or "I'm a landscape whatever" gave me giggles. Why do you respond anyway? Of course it's not for you, but you feel the need to respond, cause you're so important right?

DPR's choice of title, specifically the phrase "why it should matter to you", makes the reader part of the article's subject.

The kindest interpretation of that phrase is as a challenge to the reader. It is asking the reader to question their assumptions and consider whether subject-tracking could be a useful tool in their arsenal.

Answering that challenge has nothing to do with being more or less important than anyone. It is simple a matter of this being the comment section regarding the article's subject. A response in agreement or disagreement with the title is on topic.

What is off-topic is the multiple comments telling asking people not to comment on subject-tracking if it's not useful to their work. This isn't the subject-tracking fan club.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 18:41 UTC
In reply to:

DiveDeputy: That's because they keep flogging the same s#it over and over again expecting a different result, and we know how that describes the state of the industry.

Although no one seems to be listening, once again I will state my requirements for a compact digital camera, and if they make it I will buy it:

1. Fast long lens (f2.0-3.5 min 400mm equiv.)
2. Excellent low light performance
3. Something better than 1080p 60fps video
4. High quality viewfinder
5. Good battery life

For all their R&D spending they could fire those idiots and make something people want to own.

You're basically asking for the performance of a FF DSLR with 24-400mm F2 telephoto lens, made into a compact. That would cost more than a Ferrari.

I don't think any company is willing to bankrupt themselves by attempting to develop that.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Excellent content. Not sure what I enjoyed more, the story telling, the video work or seeing Barney in a pinny.

Only slight criticism would be I don't feel there was enough feedback on how you both felt the camera performed. General impressions seem that it performed very well and the compact size and easy of use were appreciated.

I think content like this is great. However, you must keep in mind that it was sponsored by Canon, so you can't expect an objective review of the camera in the video.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 14:06 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Hands-on with Sigma's newest lenses (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: No FE mount lenses... : (

According to Fuji, IBIS reduces corner IQ if the mount diameter is too small. They admit that their own mount (XF) isn't compatible with IBIS because the sensor corners will move out of the image circle, reducing corner IQ. A mount designed with IBIS in mind from the start, should have no issue (mount diameter will be made larger to account for shifting sensor).

I suspect that Sigma is referring to the same issue when talking about FF E-mount lenses. However, they don't say its impossible with E-mount, just that it is difficult.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Hands-on with Sigma's newest lenses (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: No FE mount lenses... : (

It seems that its not just a matter of making another version with FE mount; that there are special hurdles with FE mount. As such it is probably more economical for them to just let the FE mount users adapt the Canon/Nikon version.

Kazuto Yamaki, Sigma CEO , on FE mount:

"....the diameter is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses … it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF."

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Betico: Too bad there is only one China, and no other country has the manufacturing expertise needed to build these complex machines.

Many of my cameras say "Made in Japan". They seem to know what they're doing.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 15:10 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm X100 (173 comments in total)

Another nostalgic throwback from the days of yore. I can remember people using the X100 like it was almost yesterday. A simpler time when photography was about photography and a camera didn't need all the doohickeys and thingamajigs of today's cameras. Sure, maybe it took 5 minutes for the camera to find focus. But gosh darn, we just dealt with it. No need to be in a rush like the kids of today.


Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 16:16 UTC as 26th comment
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tapper123: I'm probably buying one. Never owned any X100 but have always been interested. My only gripe is lack of weather seals, but apparently Fuji claims they couldn't add it without a redesign of the lens. Maybe next model?

They could have at least weather sealed what they could. Some weather sealing is better than none because its not just about taking photos in the rain, but keeping dust out. It seems the diopter adjustment allows dust into the viewfinder on x100 cameras, seems like an easy fix?

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 14:45 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

HarryLally: Rather a 'rave' review - could almost have been written by Canon. The Photozone review (using the same camera) is more balanced IMHO. The lens still gets an excellent review, but it's rather less gushing.

Consumers have been conditioned over decades to think that the word "plastic" = cheap, poorly made, & breaks easily. They feel that plastic is only being used to reduce cost and that an equivalent non-plastic product is always superior.

Therefore people use the word "engineered plastic" to refer plastics that are designed to excel in certain applications and give specific engineering benefits (other than cost) in their use.

This would be the same reason DPR feels compelled to include words like "robust"; to disassociate the assumed negatives from the word plastic.

SABIC would not use the term "engineered plastic" because its a general term that conveys no actual technical information to their intended clients (ie. the engineers who will be specifying SABIC products in their design).

However, many companies that buy from SABIC will use the term when selling their end product to consumers.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 22:56 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Canon EOS M5 quick look video (259 comments in total)
In reply to:

G-D: It's a good video from DPR, but we're disappointed anyway because DPR should have produced videos like this 2 years ago. ;-)

And the video would have been more exciting if shot in 4K.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

bokane: No concrete criticism other than: "DPAF isn't the kind of function that's necessarily going to grab the attention of a potential buyer. Like – say – 4K video might. Or a super high frame-rate mode, or slow-motion movie capture"

Most users, I imagine, are are not that concerned about the video specs. Basically a pointless article.

I have to agree. The article is basically summarized as: "spec sheet not exciting to gearheads because no 4K".

The reality is that their sensor PDAF implementation is far more useful to the average photographer than 4K, which is perhaps used by 2% of users (being generous). But to the vocal majority on DPR, who view spec sheets like Pokemon stats in their never ending brand-war, PDAF just doesn't stand out like 4K.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:30 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1633 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looks like a decent enough camera but, yet again, we have a fake SLR style. No mirror means you can put the viewfinder in the corner and have a more compact and more comfortable body but it looks like marketing has dictated this one (the buyer is convinced this is a "real camera like a 1DX")?

With my DSLR, my nose is just to the right of the LCD and I have no real issue. It's not ideal, but as a left-handed & left-eyed person, I'm used to compromise when it comes to ergonomics in a right-handed world.

With left-side viewfinders (eg. my X-Pro 1), my nose mashes against the LCD. In summer its annoying having to constantly wipe the oily sweat off the LCD. I often force myself to shoot with my right eye with such a camera, but it doesn't feel natural and by habit I'll end up using the left eye again. But I do appreciate that it works well with the right eye.

On page 3 of this preview it shows the reviewer shooting with his left eye. That's how I'd see myself using it, with my left thumb on the screen. Not sure how practical that is for the majority right eye shooters (not sure if you can still access the screen with the left thumb).

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 14:50 UTC
Total: 255, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »