Timur Born

Timur Born

Lives in Germany Germany
Joined on Dec 9, 2011

Comments

Total: 194, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: We've "reached out" to Olympus for comment.

Ugh! How about some plain English? We have asked Olympus for comment. Or: We have asked Olympus to comment.

I don't care about original meanings, because in a global digital world there can be new meanings. When you "ask" someone for a comment it somewhat implies that you were in actual contact with that someone and that your request was processed. But that is not necessarily what is happening here.

Instead some American review web-site likely just sent an e-mail to some Japanese camera manufacturer, *hoping* to get any answer. No one knows if said e-mail has been processed/recognized at all, and even then it's unknown if any answers will be given. This sound quite like "reaching out" to me, as in "Hey, we need some more information on this, could you lend us a hand?"

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 10:13 UTC
In reply to:

EwanMC: People get a grip, this is breakthrough in super capacitor tech is from the University of Central Florida in the US of A, not some Borat University of Kazakhstan ... this might be why DPreview takes it seriously ... seriously people. 🤦

It's not like they didn't know how to bomb 100k people into a burning death before dropping atomic bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

But the psychological effect of achieving the same goal with only *one* bomb instead of hundreds and thousands likely was more profound.

Watch: The fog of War.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 07:37 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1301 comments in total)

Does it really track faces and eyes while "Track"ing mode is enabled, not just in standard AF-C/S modes? Or does it just draw a big box like older models did once tracking was enabled?

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 15:42 UTC as 285th comment
On article LensRentals tests the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 FL ED (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: I'm suprised Nikon would charge so much especially with Sigma, Tamron, Tokina have been stepping up lately and making high quality lenses ... I always thought that advancements in tech make things less expensive, apparently camera companies haven't been given the memo..

Frankly, the build (as in physical) quality of Tamron lenses has kept me from buying a 70-200/2.8. I did comparisons with both Nikon and Sigma versions and both very superior concerning zooming and focus actions. On top of that the Tamron's cause electronic interference noise with (at least) Nikon sensors, which can be problematic for high ISO shooters such as myself.

With my Tamron 24-70/2.8 I live with the compromises, but had to check 4 lenses to find one where the mechanical weaknesses were in parts that I could live better with compared to what the other units offered. And then I had it serviced to improve the optical culprits.

There is no free lunch or lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 14:05 UTC
On article OWC's Thunderbolt 3 Dock adds 13 ports to your MacBook (150 comments in total)

These are USB 3.0 ports, not 3.1 (3.1 Gen 1 = 3.0), likely using an Asmedia chipset, which is problematic for (real) USB 3 audio interfaces. They should have used 3.1 (Gen 2) ports instead, which not only offer higher bandwidth for a single connection, but also run more trouble free for 3.0 devices (more recent chipsets).

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 09:49 UTC as 24th comment

Having the focus ring closer to the camera is a real benefit for video shooting (where AF is useless on Nikon cameras). This is one of the things I like about my Tamron 24-70.

The zoom ring has to offer really smooth action then, though, else you have to change your grip on the lens instead of just using finger-tips (one area where the Tamron 70-200 often fails).

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 22:11 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Timur Born: Minimum focus distance of only 1.10m, which is always welcome. Albeit I wonder at what end this is measured? My understanding is that usually this comes at the price of focus breathing, so I'm curious how they solved this in practice.

Maximum magnification suggests that it could magnify the same as the Canon on the long end, but do we know at what end the Nikon achieves its maximum magnification? The shorter minimum focus distance might also suggest that you have to step forward to achieve that magnification compared to the Canon.

It's the AF motor that induces noise in form of horizontal stripes (often called banding). Depending on the lens (motor?) the width and gap differs, with the 70-200 there are also two different kind of stripe/gap patterns. I mostly only is visible with ISO 6400+ (when noise is amplified) and has a higher chance to happen with AF-C (more motor movement) than AF-S.

I can reproduce it with my D750, saw it in images of another user's D7200 and demonstrated it to a Tamron tech on their own DF this Photokina (reported it more than a year ago already, though).

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 13:20 UTC
In reply to:

Timur Born: Minimum focus distance of only 1.10m, which is always welcome. Albeit I wonder at what end this is measured? My understanding is that usually this comes at the price of focus breathing, so I'm curious how they solved this in practice.

Maximum magnification suggests that it could magnify the same as the Canon on the long end, but do we know at what end the Nikon achieves its maximum magnification? The shorter minimum focus distance might also suggest that you have to step forward to achieve that magnification compared to the Canon.

Thanks for sharing the proper math. Looks good on paper. For us non-professional shooters the price still is very steep. I would have bought the Tamron already if it had better mechanics and didn't induce noise on Nikon sensors.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

Timur Born: Minimum focus distance of only 1.10m, which is always welcome. Albeit I wonder at what end this is measured? My understanding is that usually this comes at the price of focus breathing, so I'm curious how they solved this in practice.

Maximum magnification suggests that it could magnify the same as the Canon on the long end, but do we know at what end the Nikon achieves its maximum magnification? The shorter minimum focus distance might also suggest that you have to step forward to achieve that magnification compared to the Canon.

With this Nikon the photographer has to step about 9% (0.1 m) closer to achieve the same magnification as with the Canon. If this translates to field of view (I don't know the math for this optical stuff) then it seems like quite a minor difference, albeit still present (something equivalent to around 183 mm maybe, if the Canon is considered "true" 200 mm?). In return you do get 0.1 m closer minimum focus distance, too, which can be very useful indoors!

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 08:55 UTC

Minimum focus distance of only 1.10m, which is always welcome. Albeit I wonder at what end this is measured? My understanding is that usually this comes at the price of focus breathing, so I'm curious how they solved this in practice.

Maximum magnification suggests that it could magnify the same as the Canon on the long end, but do we know at what end the Nikon achieves its maximum magnification? The shorter minimum focus distance might also suggest that you have to step forward to achieve that magnification compared to the Canon.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 08:17 UTC as 80th comment | 10 replies

Too bad they didn't make it to Photokina with this. Also time for Sigma to update their version for better competition.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 07:53 UTC as 82nd comment
On article Nikon 105mm F1.4E ED sample images (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

tissunique: Made in China but damned expensive...it's beyond me that Nikon have forgotten the great value photographers place on 'Made In Japan' - like makers such as Canon, Fuji and many others

As far as I know: "Made in" was invented by the Brisith to mark "Made in Germany" goods as cheap copies of their own early industrialization wares. ;)

So shifting from an mark of "bad" to a mark of "quality" happens all the time.

That being said: Many companies still seem to have a hard time implementing the same kind of quality control in chinese factories compared to their "native" ones. It's not like you can just cut the cost and expect the outcome to be the same every time.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 08:39 UTC

The latch looks like it can be used as a bottle opener as well. Another hidden feature? ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2016 at 07:10 UTC as 43rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: FOCUS PEAKING, FOCUS PEAKING, FOCUS PEAKING!!!

VIDEO FOCUS PEAKING, VIDEO PEAKING, VIDEO FOCUS PEAKING!!!

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

Gnocchi: Cmon a7rmii is not even comparable to a d5 nikon.
Not even close !

- deleted, since I didn't read correctly -

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 07:37 UTC

To get away a bit from the low ISO DR arguments I'd like to mention another fact again: The 12 mp sensor of the Sony A7s II seems to offer visibly superior high ISO noise performance.

So it seems that Nikon chose to offer higher resolution compared to the D4s, while retaining or only slightly improving noise performance. This means that resolution increase was given a higher priority than improving high ISO noise performance.

I am not within the target demography of this camera, but curious nonetheless. Do D4/D5 users value this increase of resolution more than they would value a more substantial improvement high ISO in noise performance?

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 07:33 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mais78: How many of you guys push exposure so extremely in PP? If you need to do that maybe there is something wrong in the way you shoot pictures. Hope you shoot in real life and not just test charts.

This isn't so much about pushing in poor light, you can do that via ISO setting. This is about underexposing for the highlights and then still be able to push the underexposed shadows and mids.

And regardless of whether gain/ISO is used or pushing in PP: that the dynamic range at low ISOs is lower than the D750 comes as a surprise at least. Of course, this one is more a thing of expectations and being used to new generations being better or equal than the one before them.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 06:31 UTC
In reply to:

Iliah Borg: The black level, starting from Hi 2, is completely uncontrolled. Linearity seems to be lost, too.

Up to 200k the D5's black (and everything else) seems to be better controlled on the D5 compared to the 4Ds. At 400k the D5 may be a tad bit better than the 4Ds, but it's very close. Interestingly the JPG engine of the D5 seems to apply stronger desaturation at higher ISO, especially with blue.

Seeing how the Sony A7S II trumps both Nikons at highest ISOs I wonder why Nikon didn't use that 12 mp Sony sensor instead? But then I am not the target of these cameras, so professionals using these bodies might have more need for higher resolution with equal or slightly better noise performance rather than better noise performance with same resolution.

There seem to be horizontal stripes present in the noise profile of the D5 and D4s, not so with the 7S II.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."

Well, sunblocker isn't made out of sun. So maybe "Neutrino coating" is instead meant to stop the little buggers from going right through your precious lens. Hehe. >:]

Of course, same bull then...

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

kociasek: I'm quite disappointed you didn't ask Mr Lubezki about the "physical presence" of lenses in The Revenant. In this film there are scenes where the lenses show VERY visible flares and ghosting, they are splattered with mud and blood, fogged over with breath vapour etc. Did he think the film would be more immersive this way? To me, and some other viewers I talked to, the effect was the opposite, it reminded us that we were just in a cinema. Also, Mr Lubezki himself says he avoided analogue grain to make the film less romantic, more "real". Doesn't seem consistent with those lens tricks.

I did not see the film, but I'd say that these "artifacts" are ok if you allow a certain degree of "disbelief" in the fiction. You do know that you are watching actors, but usually you are so distant from them on screen that you don't connect to them as such.

This "in-your-face" photography and acting is a bit like sitting in the front-row of a theater. You are not allowed to just see the character, you also see the actor behind the character working his *ss off to astound you. Given how exhaustive and extreme the work was it may be fitting to let the viewer share some of that experience. It's a mixture of fiction and behind the scenes in the same image.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 22:54 UTC
Total: 194, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »