VadymA

Lives in Canada Calgary, Canada
Joined on Jul 31, 2009

Comments

Total: 309, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

SimenO1: I'm impressed by the improvements in camera technology and image quality the last 90 years. Today a similar (or better IQ) image can be made in a fraction of the time, at a fraction of the cost, with a camera that weighs a fraction of that 8x10 camera, and a billion people have good enough equipment to do so. 90 years ago it took quite some effort and few had the equipment needed.

I don't know for sure, but I think exposing over 4-6 hours in natural light might add some unique qualities to the image that are not replicable in a split-second shot with a modern camera. Might be an interesting experiment to do.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 13:41 UTC

"...I know what you're thinking. "But zoom! Pixel-level resolution! Low light image quality!" I'm here to tell you that smartphones are already well on their way to solving those problems, if they haven't already..."

Really? I don't think they are even close to solving those problems.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 18:23 UTC as 171st comment | 1 reply
On challenge Petal Portraits (1 comment in total)

Why only 25 entries? Almost everyone here likes taking pictures of flowers...

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 22:45 UTC as 1st comment

Our company bought a few and I tested one for a few days. Totally agree with Consumer Report - freezing, non-responsive touchpad, weird touchscreen operation in some instances. It was a pain using it for work, even as a temporary device.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 23:20 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Lichtbild: Epic fail. Mushy details galore. My D600 upsampled images would probably deliver comparable quality. That's an R&D proof of concept, not a commercial product.

I agree, this is a great and very useful technological experiment, worth several years of engineering efforts to prove whether the concept can work or not. I am glad there were funds available to finance this experiment. But clearly more time is needed to be spent in the lab before making it a commercial product. Hope someone will continue financing this experiment. Although time is critical, there were news about upcoming technology that places a lens over each pixel, that could be quite a game changer, especially in this cellphone-type of cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Yulu Sung: The grass under the shipwreck photo looks odd at 100%, some regions appear in clear focus while others are blurred, computational error?

Padre, so what is the point of adding 50MP to the file if they don't contain any details. A simple upsizing from 24MP would produce similar results. What am I missing?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Oh common, the samples are just horrible. At 100% they look like P&S quality from 2003, only 5 times larger. I would be embarrassed to charge $1,600 for a camera with IQ like this. The down-sampling would not help if the details are not there. Plus, what's the point of this camera if you need to down-sample in order to get something as good as any other camera does? Pretty much what I was saying - you cannot replicate a good glass and a good sensor by sticking 16 cellphones with tiny sensors and tiny lenses together, especially if it is done by the guys with no experience neither in photo science nor complex software engineering.

@ planetMich, I don't think so. I've seen some 100mp panoramas where the more you zoom, the more details you can see, which is quite amazing. This is just the same 12mp small sensor image overlaid 4 times with horrible artifacts as a result. I believe they mentioned earlier that only four cameras can fire at once. Those cameras are not of magical quality, they are just cell phone sensors. Garbage in, garbage out; all I can see.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Oh common, the samples are just horrible. At 100% they look like P&S quality from 2003, only 5 times larger. I would be embarrassed to charge $1,600 for a camera with IQ like this. The down-sampling would not help if the details are not there. Plus, what's the point of this camera if you need to down-sample in order to get something as good as any other camera does? Pretty much what I was saying - you cannot replicate a good glass and a good sensor by sticking 16 cellphones with tiny sensors and tiny lenses together, especially if it is done by the guys with no experience neither in photo science nor complex software engineering.

Seriously, just open any file, via link, and look at full resolution. Maybe I am not doing it right, then please correct me. But when I do it my way, I see a lot of mush in details, like grass, the face is very-very blurry. What else I can say? They look Ok in small size, but enlarged they are just horrible.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 19:38 UTC

Oh common, the samples are just horrible. At 100% they look like P&S quality from 2003, only 5 times larger. I would be embarrassed to charge $1,600 for a camera with IQ like this. The down-sampling would not help if the details are not there. Plus, what's the point of this camera if you need to down-sample in order to get something as good as any other camera does? Pretty much what I was saying - you cannot replicate a good glass and a good sensor by sticking 16 cellphones with tiny sensors and tiny lenses together, especially if it is done by the guys with no experience neither in photo science nor complex software engineering.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 18:50 UTC as 38th comment | 8 replies
On article Nikon announces development of D850 (538 comments in total)

I guess this means they decided to skip the development of D820, D830, and D840 all together. Looks like after restructuring they have only one R&D team left to support all Nikon products, so by the time they get to the camera divison D850 release will be right on schedule.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 06:29 UTC as 127th comment | 4 replies
On article Nikon announces development of D850 (538 comments in total)

Feels like this is going to be Nikon's last birthday, period.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 05:26 UTC as 135th comment
On article Ten expert tips for successful macro photography (130 comments in total)

Tried to photograph some red ants the other day, boy they are fast moving. Couldn't catch anything in focus. I used 1 inch sensor compact and still the DOF was just too shallow. Will try my P&S for comparison next time but don't keep my hopes high. Should I try using bait food to slow them down?

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 21:55 UTC as 6th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Here's a tip:

Photos of eclipses are so passé...

But a TIMELAPSE of your cityscape, farm, streetscape, iconic building DURING THE ECLIPSE will be much more rewarding and "unique".

Show the silly crowd gazing upwards like zombies watching an Apollo launch while the darkness creeps in...

Photos of the solar event will be a dime a dozen... all eyes looking at NASA.

But your timelapse will surely be more memorable.

Switch your camera from the pointing to the Sun to pointing at HUMAN INTEREST subjects.

.

Good advice. But wouldn't time lapse be even more difficult to achieve? Especially if I want the sun to be a part of my scene, this means that I would be pointing my camera to the sun for a potentially long enough time to damage my shutter blades or sensor from the sun rays conversion by the lens?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 19:52 UTC
On photo Carla... in the Beautiful caucasian female faces challenge (31 comments in total)

I think her face, and the neck, are both distracting element in photo. The face is in shade and the neck is unnaturally, almost painfully, twisted. And someone please remove the thumbnail picture from the home page, I all can see is her boobs, really, not work or home appropriate.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 18:17 UTC as 5th comment | 4 replies

Probably a bit late to ask here, but was there anything that the photographer could have done to protect his rights to this photo before he uploaded it from his camera to social media? I understand that once it is in public domain, there are all sorts of caveats, but I cannot believe there is nothing I can do to claim the ownership on the pictures that come out from my camera. So is this just a case of poor due diligence on the side of the photographer?

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 18:47 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

HenryDJP: It's funny to see so many trolling comments from Canon and Sony owners. Things happen with ANY manufacturer. Is this inconvenient? Sure. But don't tell me Sony and Canon have been 100% flawless with every model they've produced. I have a D810 which has been nothing short of perfection, but I'm not going to come here and throw a party because I bought the "right" model with no shutter issues, just to annoy D750 owners.
Someone here said Nikon needs to go out of business? Idiotic post.

I am a wholehearted Nikon shooter and wish Nikon nothing but success. But these recalls are very expensive for the company, much more expensive than using a better quality shutters in the first place, the same that they use in D8xx, for example. Money spent on recalls will make a hole in Nikon's much needed R&D. Not to mention damage to Nikon's reputation. This may have a compounding effect which might as well drive Nikon out of business. Lets just hope Nikon learns from these mistakes and go back to making every product with highest standards like they did with D300/D700 series.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

Average User: I am remembering the windows programs of the 1990's and the number of daily or weekly crashes as Microsoft learned, detail by detail how to make their products better. By now crashes are relatively infrequent. And Microsoft is still around. Like me, those who have purchased the D750, have taken thousands of pictures with it...and usually better pictures than we were taking before we purchased it. Mine has not shown any of the defects listed, but I am cheerfully sending it in, just as I did my D600. Product cycles are extremely short even when the tech is quite new and innovative, so it means issues like this are going to be a part of the ownership experience. The phrase "Yet again" is used to decry the further expansion of the notice of possible defect. I will say, "Nikon has yet again stepped forward to take responsibility as it has appeared an issue may be broader than first thought."

Following your analogy with Windows, the D750 should be a much more reliable camera than the D700, which is obviously not the case. This is a classic example when a company known for its high quality and reliability decides to cut corners and use low grade components hoping that the customers "cheerfully" swallow this sad fact and keep buying their products. This is a very risky path, not to mention very expensive one. A cheap person pays twice, or a cheap company in this case. I don't mind Nikon producing low quality products along with high qiality ones, but they should honestly market and price them as low quality, not to mislead their customers.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 20:26 UTC

It seems to me like a cost reduction attempt by Nikon with its both D600 and D750 models which were released approximately at the same time and both appear to have shutter problems. Very likely Nikon went with a cheaper and lesser quality shutter option since both cameras were of a lesser rigidity comparing to the iconic D700, which probably had the same quality shutter as the D3. I am speculating based on a well known opinion that Nikon made a mistake by making D700 almost identical in performance and features to D3. But if this opinion is valid, it makes sense that Nikon decided not to repeat this mistake and used lesser quality components for its DXXX models. Personally I don't think it was a smart decision, and the recall plague shows it.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 16:49 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply

Well, at first it was just as an innoncent joke because we didn't think anyone would pay to a bunch of guys with no experience in camera or lens design, chipset engineering, and complex software development, but boy we were wrong!!! So we had to spend four years actually creating this crazy camera, but if you think about it, who the the real crazy here?

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 03:51 UTC as 58th comment | 2 replies

Every time I see someone is flying a drone nearby, it make me a bit uneasy, and it is also very distracting when I am driving. So I often ask myself, what would happen if everyone starts flying drones? Do we always have to watch out for them, make sure they don't fall on our heads? I don't know what regulations are there for using drones, but I feel it wouldn't be unreasonable in the near future if we start treating them like... dogs, for example, allowing flying only in restricted, "off leash", areas. Is it too crazy? Or is there something like this in place already? Just curious.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 22:40 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
Total: 309, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »