cxsparc

cxsparc

Lives in Germany Germany
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Jun 14, 2005

Comments

Total: 130, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

Richard, I am not saying that you at Dpreview assess noise wrongly. I am saying that readers making a quick check looking at the JPG comparisons might. Similar thing happens all the time when people compare at full size view a camera with 24 Mpx and one with 16 Mpx. Thankfully nowadays there is the optional Print View Option scaling both cameras the same.
But you at dpreview do not draw attention to this ISO thing, and I for one thing this should at least warrant a one-liner in a review.

In the past I have seen some Fuji users sometimes doing just that: they post High ISO JPG shots and claim low noise, comparing them to same ISO high shots of other cameras.

Things were even more extreme in the past: I loaned a X-Pro1 from a shop and ran it against my 5N. I was impressed by the 1855/2.8-4 lens but also noticed at home that for same settings, double (!) exposure time.
Why didn't they simply relabel their starting "ISO200" as ISO100 throughout instead?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 05:20 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

Sorry Richard, but no. The obvious thing a photographer will notice that when comparing shots on DPREVIEW, that the Fuji shot will have less noise than that of a comparable camera - at same ISO. I am very sure that < 5% actually check the info button that tells the true story of same ISO, same aperture, significantly different shutter speed. And half a stop IS a lot.

Yet in reality, the Fuji will uses a higher ISO for the same brightly exposed scene and therefore will have more noise than that comparable camera.

Nobody really cares what Fuji adds in raw processing or not, since different sensors, different characteristics. The thing important when assessing a camera performance is what is does when looking at the parameters visible to the user.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 19:43 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)

And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 11:53 UTC as 10th comment | 10 replies
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Diablorini: Thank you for sharing these images, nice to see the camera being used, first and foremost as it provides a sneak peak of what it can do, and secondly because this means it can't be that long before it arrives at my local dealer.

From what I can see the camera's focus system works well, and the jpeg engine handles ISO noise better than my A77ii and the A6000 does.

I look forward to more on this camera, and above all I look forward to taking delivery on my own A6300.

Your statement was:" the jpeg engine handles ISO noise better than my A77ii and the A6000 does."
To which I commented that the available HIGH ISO images hardly allow to make such assessments, because they are shot in well lit environments and fast shutter speeds.
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but I simply do not believe that such comparisons can be made at present.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 18:45 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Diablorini: Thank you for sharing these images, nice to see the camera being used, first and foremost as it provides a sneak peak of what it can do, and secondly because this means it can't be that long before it arrives at my local dealer.

From what I can see the camera's focus system works well, and the jpeg engine handles ISO noise better than my A77ii and the A6000 does.

I look forward to more on this camera, and above all I look forward to taking delivery on my own A6300.

As pointed out before, the presented high ISO pictures are not at low light and therefore don't give a real world picture of noise performance. All HIGH ISO shots I have seen here have quite fast shutter speed, e.g. 1/400 sec at 24 mm ISO 3200. Such a shot does not show real noise.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 15:27 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mateus1: Nothing that impressed me - colours, details, tonality, all the same as A6000, these images look even a bit softer than from A6000. Probably stronger NR.

Frankly, the A6000 did almost everything better than previous Nex cameras, included very fast AF etc at a price level of the previous cameras or even below.
The A6300 does have some extra features that may or may not interest some, yet charges more than double for a camera similar to the A6000 in most aspects.
That is quite a different kind of offer.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 15:25 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jostian: Nice pix (though the edges look a bit hazy even at the low iso's, maybe not the greatest jpeg engine), also, would like to have seen a few taken with the 16 50 kit (know it aint the best lens) but since its the lens most will use with the camera (at least to start out) it would be nice to see some results from it. Also to see if maybe Sony have improved the 16 50 at all...

Actually, the expensive 1670 is not known for good edge performance. If stopped down a bit, the 1650 yields better over the frame IQ. But since Sony is promoting the A6300 as high end APSC camera and charging more than double compared to the A6000, shooting with the 1650 might dilute that high class image.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 15:22 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)

None of the High ISO samples I have seen are actually representative in any way of low light. E.G. a shot at ISO 3200 but with 1/400 sec does not show a lot of noise. A shot at ISO3200 with 1/15 sec does.

So until DPREVIEW shows their standard procedure studio pictures, no assessment of low light noise performance is possible.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 15:16 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

cxsparc: I welcome this FW update by Fuji to enhance the cameras in spite of them being quite old. On the other hand, enthusiasm might be a little excessive when considering that the camera now gets features and functions that competing cameras like the Sony A6000 had from the start, like Eye AF.

Furthermore, considering that the A6000 today still sells cheaper than the XE2, one could argue that Fuji merely closed the gap somewhat.

Well, frankly, why do we have to get back to long product cycles? Of course it makes sense to use equipment as long as it works from an ecological perspective. But tech does not really slow down. My Lumia 625 has a mere 512 MB of RAM and I still installed Win 10 beta on it. But my new 640 runs quicker and you simply can't upgrade RAM of the processor in those things.
With cameras it may be somewhat different. But if the XE2 for example really is now as fast in AF as the XT1, then this means that the SW department at Fuji initially did a lousy job. Already 2 years ago, Sony was able to offer a A6000 with superfast AF and Eye AF for a low price.
One can add SW features, but not HW. More PDAF points, faster processors and better cooling to support new Video codes, IBIS, connectors remain a thing for the next camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 15:29 UTC

I welcome this FW update by Fuji to enhance the cameras in spite of them being quite old. On the other hand, enthusiasm might be a little excessive when considering that the camera now gets features and functions that competing cameras like the Sony A6000 had from the start, like Eye AF.

Furthermore, considering that the A6000 today still sells cheaper than the XE2, one could argue that Fuji merely closed the gap somewhat.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 14:19 UTC as 25th comment | 6 replies
On photo Chappel in the Post Processing Salvation - #1 challenge (16 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: Or simply use the HDR highlight and shadow recovery sliders of Capture One. That takes only one RAW file and 10 seconds.

No criticism intended :-)
You can do WB selectively also in Capture One on ONE Raw file. Paint a mask e.g. of the sky and select a different WB for it. Same for NR, sharpening. My point was only that similar results can today be achieved when using even a single RAW file.
I have made this observation with my A6000, but assume that most other current cameras have similar DR. I used to have a different experience when still using PS CS5 where highlight/shadow recovery is by a magnitude less capable, and using multiple files was a still a must to cope with high DR scenes like those of the OP.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 13:20 UTC
On photo Chappel in the Post Processing Salvation - #1 challenge (16 comments in total)

Or simply use the HDR highlight and shadow recovery sliders of Capture One. That takes only one RAW file and 10 seconds.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 06:50 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

chriscotec: I don't think C1 is quite there yet, in terms of versatility, but I can't wait for any of the "alternative" image editing applications to come of age and knock adobe (lower case intentional ; ) off its ivory tower. I hope it never gets back up when that happens. It would be one less controlling annoyance in a photographer's life.

If you drag and drop a file via explorer from your current directory onto C1 window, it automatically moves to that directory and reads all files there. Simply chose then the one you like. C1 also remembers that directory and opens it next time, so you can continue to work there.
I also have setup the input folder of C1 to the directory where my Sony SW moves the pictures from the camera to. So C1 is then automatically where it should be.

I just checked, and with Capture One running in the background, I can right-click in the windows explorer on a JPG or ARW file and say open with C1 and it does just that, wherever that file is located.
It also works if Capture One is not running. Version 8.3 used.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

chriscotec: I don't think C1 is quite there yet, in terms of versatility, but I can't wait for any of the "alternative" image editing applications to come of age and knock adobe (lower case intentional ; ) off its ivory tower. I hope it never gets back up when that happens. It would be one less controlling annoyance in a photographer's life.

Depends on what you are waiting for. As a Sony user, I switched from Adobe to Capture One 8 Pro for Sony for ridiculous 25 Euros. Motivation was however not the price, but the far better shadow & highlight recovery sliders, default sharpening and contrast rendering.
Also that C1 still allows me to operate file-based without mandatorily requiring importing as LR does. For me, using C1 is much faster and yields better results in less time - after having adjusted to the different GUI.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 13:51 UTC
On photo Woodland Path in the A fresh take challenge (23 comments in total)

While the first is overly falt, the second is an orgy on saturation. Couldn't imagine putting up a poster of that.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2015 at 07:35 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

photomedium: This little guy's gonna need back surgery by the age of 10. That camera amounts to child abuse.

Errr... Amazon says 2 pounds? That would be quite a bit for a 4 year old neck

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2015 at 10:06 UTC
On article Capture One Pro 8 software review (317 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: Missing from above is the info that for Sony users, you can get the Sony version either free (Express) or for a minor amount (50 Euros for the Pro?).
I personally think the "HDR" sliders are great and allow much better results than with LR, also with less effort. And the out of the box rendering is crisper whereas with LR/PS I always had to wrestle with USM and still wasn't happy.

Pity. But then, it is always difficult to add to an existing system without causing issues with older equipment like cameras.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 10:56 UTC
On article Capture One Pro 8 software review (317 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: Missing from above is the info that for Sony users, you can get the Sony version either free (Express) or for a minor amount (50 Euros for the Pro?).
I personally think the "HDR" sliders are great and allow much better results than with LR, also with less effort. And the out of the box rendering is crisper whereas with LR/PS I always had to wrestle with USM and still wasn't happy.

Don't quite understand your problem with the lens correction. With the E-Mount lenses, Lens profile is included in the RAW file. Is this not the case for A-mount?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 07:39 UTC
On article Capture One Pro 8 software review (317 comments in total)

Tethered shooting: I tried with the A6000, it works but no live view :-(

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 13:37 UTC as 43rd comment
On article Capture One Pro 8 software review (317 comments in total)
In reply to:

mmarian: I've been using C1 since version 2.4!! Pretty much since I bought Canon 1DsMkII in 2004. The software has undergone some nice evolutionary changes and recently a major overhaul of the user inteface which I welcomed and embraced. I have always admired its ability to sqeeze maximum detail out of RAW files while maintaining control over noise and delivering pleasing colors not to talk about great file organization structure. What more do I need? Not much. But that is just me. I do not get it why people get so wound up and defensive of their preferred software. Use what you are familiar and comfortable with and if you think that something is missing give another software a go. C1 should be in that case definitely on your list. Expect quite steep learning curve but once you master the basics it is very intuitive and well thought through software. That is my 2 cents worth.

I found that watching some of the multitude of free youtube channel training videos on C1 helped me get at ease with the new GUI a lot.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 13:36 UTC
Total: 130, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »