Class A

Class A

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) Wellywood, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Joined on Jun 4, 2009

Comments

Total: 233, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Class A: Some of the bugs they fixed (at least one of them a very serious one involving actual loss of images) were over five years old.

Not sure whether I should admire them for being able to keep track of bugs for that long or shake my head in disbelief how long it took them to address these issues. Some of the bugs (fix broken keyboard mappings) would have taken minutes to fix but they let users struggle with them for years and years.

Some of the 5+ years bugs still live on and for those they tried to address the commentary uses vocabulary like "should", etc.

I enjoyed Lightroom for several years but the quality control never picked up to a level that was acceptable and Adobe's subscription model (hiding the stand alone LR version as best as they can) pushed me away to a different RAW converter that I'm enjoying much more now.

Hi Royal Majesty,

I'm using Capture One Pro.

I had initially dismissed it as being mainly a tethering solution and at that time it was indeed not strong on cataloging. Nowadays, however, it is a full-blown RAW developer with great features.

You won't find a map module or a book module, but in terms of the core functionality, I prefer it over LR (ACR). The colour editor, for instance, is much better, giving you much finer control and more opportunities (e.g., turning a colour selection into a mask to petform further non-colour related changes on the areas identified by your colour specification).

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 08:34 UTC

This is amazing!

Lots of DSLRs and ThinkPads. Good to know I'm using space age technology! :)

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 11:40 UTC as 2nd comment

Some of the bugs they fixed (at least one of them a very serious one involving actual loss of images) were over five years old.

Not sure whether I should admire them for being able to keep track of bugs for that long or shake my head in disbelief how long it took them to address these issues. Some of the bugs (fix broken keyboard mappings) would have taken minutes to fix but they let users struggle with them for years and years.

Some of the 5+ years bugs still live on and for those they tried to address the commentary uses vocabulary like "should", etc.

I enjoyed Lightroom for several years but the quality control never picked up to a level that was acceptable and Adobe's subscription model (hiding the stand alone LR version as best as they can) pushed me away to a different RAW converter that I'm enjoying much more now.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 11:22 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies

9/10

The photos look pretty bad, though. The one I got wrong would not have looked like that even if I had taken it on my phone (I could go into more detail, but I don't want to spoil the "fun" for others). One wonders what they used.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 14:18 UTC as 50th comment
On article Report: Ricoh announcing cost cuts in face of crisis (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: It would behove DPRreview well to provide a more differentiated and balanced picture. Otherwise, mostly negative news could contribute to the decline of a classic camera brand (Pentax), not because Ricoh wouldn't be able to manage, but because customers have been driven away from Ricoh due to scary news.

The implied prophecy of Ricoh being in major trouble (they are not, they just made less profit then before) may actually materialise, just because it has been made and purported by popular websites.

I agree with you that an emphatic response from Ricoh would have been great. They responded to the first instance of these scaremongering reports, but there is only so much you can do as the "accused".

How much credibility do you have when objecting to allegations of going down? It always comes across as denial, doesn't it? Ideally, Ricoh Imaging would report on their great plans for the future, but there is a reason why future developments are usually kept under covers.

Since it is much easier to let a cat (whether it is real or not) out of the bag rather than to get it back in again, sites like DPReview should think twice before just parroting some "news" without adding a balanced view.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 04:08 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: Could we please see images from the A9 when shooting objects that cause distortions due to the rolling shutter effect?

In a recent report on "A9 banding issues" you explained the A9's unique scanning of the sensor, so it would be interesting to see the effect of this approach on quickly moving subjects.

And what are those "sharp borders" going to do with objects that move quickly?

If 12-row packets are read out essentially in parallel, one should expect non-smooth distortions to moving objects.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2017 at 12:18 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: Could we please see images from the A9 when shooting objects that cause distortions due to the rolling shutter effect?

In a recent report on "A9 banding issues" you explained the A9's unique scanning of the sensor, so it would be interesting to see the effect of this approach on quickly moving subjects.

OK, however, you seemed to have missed the point about 12-row chunks being read out in parallel.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 18:08 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: Could we please see images from the A9 when shooting objects that cause distortions due to the rolling shutter effect?

In a recent report on "A9 banding issues" you explained the A9's unique scanning of the sensor, so it would be interesting to see the effect of this approach on quickly moving subjects.

@Dr. Blackjack
Have you read the "A9 banding" article (based on FroKnowsPhoto's observations)?

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 15:38 UTC

Could we please see images from the A9 when shooting objects that cause distortions due to the rolling shutter effect?

In a recent report on "A9 banding issues" you explained the A9's unique scanning of the sensor, so it would be interesting to see the effect of this approach on quickly moving subjects.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 03:40 UTC as 32nd comment | 9 replies
On article Sony a9 banding issue: fact or fiction? (733 comments in total)

I wonder how helicopter blades look like on an A9 capture. Seems like the "rolling shutter" effect is present in the A9 in a highly non-linear manner, and that may not only lead to banding with flickering light sources, but also to edgy renderings of moving lines that otherwise would be smoothly smeared.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 04:11 UTC as 122nd comment | 1 reply
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

pixtorial: Sorry, but just more evidence that the technical reviews from sites like DPR should be weighed heavily with skepticism. There are so many variables in the shots from the test scenes, and it would take substantial scientific rigor to create true apples-to-apples comparisons, much more than has been applied. The closest we have to more objective testing are Roger's posts over at LensRentals and a few trusted forum members who have the optical engineering know-how to provide meaningful data.

As many here have suggested, the only true way to evaluate a camera and lens combination is to get out and shoot, process, evaluate, and share.

And I disagree with the conclusion of the author at the end of the article. In the real world, we do evaluate our digital photos at high magnification, because it ultimately does impact the ability to confidently throw away pixels in cropping, latitude in post-processing, and the acuity of the image across multiple publishing channels.

P.S.: I believe your bicycle test should be only one of many. It does precisely what your criticise about the ColorFoto test (which I'm assuming you are not very familiar with, or can you read German?).

Your bicycle tests combines many variables, such as
a) how often the target completely leaves the AF areas.
b) how the AF system responds to such temporary blindness.
c) the speed of the target and its regularity.
d) the light levels.
e) to what extent the AF system depends on light.
f) the lens, etc.

While it may produce somewhat indicative results (given an unreasonably high number of iterations and different bike drivers, etc) for some aspects of AF performance , it is entirely useless for other aspects.

I hope, in the future, you'll include a larger variety of tests, in particular repeatable tests that complement the experience of real life applications (from shooters that had time to completely familiarise themselves with a camera and its configuration options).

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 04:55 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

pixtorial: Sorry, but just more evidence that the technical reviews from sites like DPR should be weighed heavily with skepticism. There are so many variables in the shots from the test scenes, and it would take substantial scientific rigor to create true apples-to-apples comparisons, much more than has been applied. The closest we have to more objective testing are Roger's posts over at LensRentals and a few trusted forum members who have the optical engineering know-how to provide meaningful data.

As many here have suggested, the only true way to evaluate a camera and lens combination is to get out and shoot, process, evaluate, and share.

And I disagree with the conclusion of the author at the end of the article. In the real world, we do evaluate our digital photos at high magnification, because it ultimately does impact the ability to confidently throw away pixels in cropping, latitude in post-processing, and the acuity of the image across multiple publishing channels.

On the subject of Pentax AF being "adequate for some/many": That is precisely right. It is more than enough for some/many.

You elsewhere (commenting on AF microadjustments) that many of your readers are not that technical. I agree with that view and hence I wonder how you could ever call the K-1's AF "poor" (without further qualification).

Statements like "slow" and "inaccurate" have to be provided in a context. For a large class of readers it is entirely unhelpful to call the K-1 AF "slow". It just evokes the wrong impression. That statement is only warranted in comparison to some of the competition for certain purposes.

It is entirely correct that the K-1's AF is not adequate for certain applications but that's what your K-1 review should have said straight away.

Remember that you received a lot of comments which led to changes and while I highly commend you for responding to them(!), you are also making us Pentaxians develop a reputation as complainers. Thanks for reading.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 04:41 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

pixtorial: Sorry, but just more evidence that the technical reviews from sites like DPR should be weighed heavily with skepticism. There are so many variables in the shots from the test scenes, and it would take substantial scientific rigor to create true apples-to-apples comparisons, much more than has been applied. The closest we have to more objective testing are Roger's posts over at LensRentals and a few trusted forum members who have the optical engineering know-how to provide meaningful data.

As many here have suggested, the only true way to evaluate a camera and lens combination is to get out and shoot, process, evaluate, and share.

And I disagree with the conclusion of the author at the end of the article. In the real world, we do evaluate our digital photos at high magnification, because it ultimately does impact the ability to confidently throw away pixels in cropping, latitude in post-processing, and the acuity of the image across multiple publishing channels.

Hi Rishi, it is very good that you are planning to start measuring AF speeds.

I take issue with your other comments, though.

1) Have you have tested the Pentax K-5's AF speed/accuracy against the competitors in the ColorFoto 09/2011 test?

2) You provide a questionable reason for not having repeatable tests. Even if they do not entirely match other field experiences, they are still useful input. What if my style of shooting (say product photography) happens to exactly match the test conditions? Just look at audio tests. Do frequency response measurements give a full picture about a loudspeaker? Of course not, but they are still eminently useful.

3) Relying on non-repeatable tests is unscientific. I am sure you have heard of confirmation bias. It is real and you cannot shake it off by running "tests" 10 times.

4) Using different tests for different cameras is the worst thing you can do for your credibility, AFAIC.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 04:32 UTC
In reply to:

JochenIs: In this price range a used D800E beats them all and is cheaper than most.

A D800E wouldn't beat the K-1 in every aspect. Far from it.

For some, it would be the better camera. For others, it wouldn't.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: I wonder how much the 'limited lens availability' argument also applies to the Sony A7/9 series when considering native lenses only.

As recently reported, adapters can cause serious limitations for long focal lenghts. I have also seen problems (focus hunting) with a metabones adapter and a much shorter lens (-> Michael Zelbel had to change to a native lens to finish a demonstration). There are also limitations regarding functionally when using adapters, etc.

There are over 60 native K-mount FF lenses available for the K-1. These can all be bought new and don't require an adapter. They include exotic lenses like fisheyes, ultra-wides, and lens babies. Even tilt/shift lenses exist.

How many native Sony E-mount FE lenses exist?
Are these not 'expensive'? Last time I looked, the prices stopped me from considering the Sony system.

I'm not trying to say the Pentax line up is superior to the Sony line up either.

I'm just questioning the idea of a limited Pentax lens selection.

I'm not sure how well you know Pentax lenses. Some of them are extremely sharp (even for 36MP) and there are only a few duds.

Also, sharpness is often overrated. I'd take a lens with a pleasant rendering that is sharp enough over a super sharp lens with so-so rendering any time.

We shouldn't buy lenses to enter Imatest competitions, but to create beautiful images. For the latter purpose, you don't need bleeding edge test bench performance. Who really needs excessively big prints that stand up to scrutiny even when inspected up closely? Getting satisfaction from pixel peeping does not qualify as an actual need, AFAIC.

I agree that recommendations should be qualified and that equipment needs to fit to the people using it. For some, AF quietness is paramount, others need weather-sealing, etc.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2017 at 09:39 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: I wonder how much the 'limited lens availability' argument also applies to the Sony A7/9 series when considering native lenses only.

As recently reported, adapters can cause serious limitations for long focal lenghts. I have also seen problems (focus hunting) with a metabones adapter and a much shorter lens (-> Michael Zelbel had to change to a native lens to finish a demonstration). There are also limitations regarding functionally when using adapters, etc.

There are over 60 native K-mount FF lenses available for the K-1. These can all be bought new and don't require an adapter. They include exotic lenses like fisheyes, ultra-wides, and lens babies. Even tilt/shift lenses exist.

How many native Sony E-mount FE lenses exist?
Are these not 'expensive'? Last time I looked, the prices stopped me from considering the Sony system.

"Quite rich" is a fuzzy term. :)

The longest FF E-mount lens appears to be a zoom that tops out at 400mm. The longest genuine Pentax lens is a 560mm prime.

The only native fisheye lens for E-mount appears to be a manual focus lens, whereas for the K-1, there is the Sigma 15mm with AF.

I'm not convinced that w.r.t native lenses the K-1 faces a "limited selection" and the A7 series does not.

With respect to "modern designs": The lens count I presented earlier only includes lenses that are still being sold. They are all at least decent. Even a film era lens can still outresolve a 36MP sensor, and photographers do not buy equipment based on benchmark results only. They also value rendering, flare-resistance, etc.

Yes, there are currently not that many ultra-quite focusing lenses in the Pentax line-up (more to come), but some photographers value that there is no built-in motor that can break and they don't mind the slight noise.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2017 at 00:54 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: I wonder how much the 'limited lens availability' argument also applies to the Sony A7/9 series when considering native lenses only.

As recently reported, adapters can cause serious limitations for long focal lenghts. I have also seen problems (focus hunting) with a metabones adapter and a much shorter lens (-> Michael Zelbel had to change to a native lens to finish a demonstration). There are also limitations regarding functionally when using adapters, etc.

There are over 60 native K-mount FF lenses available for the K-1. These can all be bought new and don't require an adapter. They include exotic lenses like fisheyes, ultra-wides, and lens babies. Even tilt/shift lenses exist.

How many native Sony E-mount FE lenses exist?
Are these not 'expensive'? Last time I looked, the prices stopped me from considering the Sony system.

P.S.: Great to see DPReview acknowledging the K-1 with a shared top placing!

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2017 at 16:35 UTC

I wonder how much the 'limited lens availability' argument also applies to the Sony A7/9 series when considering native lenses only.

As recently reported, adapters can cause serious limitations for long focal lenghts. I have also seen problems (focus hunting) with a metabones adapter and a much shorter lens (-> Michael Zelbel had to change to a native lens to finish a demonstration). There are also limitations regarding functionally when using adapters, etc.

There are over 60 native K-mount FF lenses available for the K-1. These can all be bought new and don't require an adapter. They include exotic lenses like fisheyes, ultra-wides, and lens babies. Even tilt/shift lenses exist.

How many native Sony E-mount FE lenses exist?
Are these not 'expensive'? Last time I looked, the prices stopped me from considering the Sony system.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2017 at 16:27 UTC as 21st comment | 8 replies
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

pixtorial: Sorry, but just more evidence that the technical reviews from sites like DPR should be weighed heavily with skepticism. There are so many variables in the shots from the test scenes, and it would take substantial scientific rigor to create true apples-to-apples comparisons, much more than has been applied. The closest we have to more objective testing are Roger's posts over at LensRentals and a few trusted forum members who have the optical engineering know-how to provide meaningful data.

As many here have suggested, the only true way to evaluate a camera and lens combination is to get out and shoot, process, evaluate, and share.

And I disagree with the conclusion of the author at the end of the article. In the real world, we do evaluate our digital photos at high magnification, because it ultimately does impact the ability to confidently throw away pixels in cropping, latitude in post-processing, and the acuity of the image across multiple publishing channels.

The fact remains that DPReview's procedures have room for improvement regarding accuracy and repeatability.

Not only can one not be sure how much rigour went into the shooting of the test scene for other cameras, DPReview does not have a standard AF test that every camera is subjected to either.

Depending on the camera, different methods of ascertaining AF performance are used which is not helpful at all. I don't know of any method that DPReview have used that is repeatable in the sense of being able to consistently produce the same quantitative result for a given camera.

It would be a big step forward, if DPReview used repeatable methods like ColorFoto. We might all be in for surprises when it comes to properly measuring AF accuracy, speed, low-light performance, and AF tracking.

The much maligned Pentax AF, for instance, proved to be top of the PDAF class, for instance, w.r.t. to AF accuracy and speed (single shot, -> ColorFoto 09/2011).

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 10:01 UTC
On article Report: Ricoh announcing cost cuts in face of crisis (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: It would behove DPRreview well to provide a more differentiated and balanced picture. Otherwise, mostly negative news could contribute to the decline of a classic camera brand (Pentax), not because Ricoh wouldn't be able to manage, but because customers have been driven away from Ricoh due to scary news.

The implied prophecy of Ricoh being in major trouble (they are not, they just made less profit then before) may actually materialise, just because it has been made and purported by popular websites.

EDIT: "then before" -> "than before"

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 00:33 UTC
Total: 233, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »