3dit0r

Joined on Feb 4, 2013

Comments

Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (885 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom Caldwell: We don’t need “retro” aperture and EV wheels on top. Waste of space - normal front and back wheels do the job better and are not a retro-fashion marketing statement.

Waste of space?

Not really. If you don’t have those ‘old fashioned’ SS rings and Aperture dials, you then have to ‘waste space’ with an LCD screen to tell you what your settings are, instead of just glancing at the SS ring/Aperture dial.

They’re only different ways of doing things. Fuji has both which is quite nice.

Personally I prefer ‘old school’ having used both extensively. But that suits my style of shooting - if I extensively shot sports, journo, etc., I might well like newer style dials, I suppose. It’s good to have choice!

Link | Posted on May 20, 2021 at 11:07 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (885 comments in total)
In reply to:

MIC37: This is an opinion of the typical phone owner who wants to push one button and get a masterpiece.

Exactly.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2021 at 11:03 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (885 comments in total)
In reply to:

Foskito: HELL NO.

My current Leica M8 and M9P have more than enough buttons and dials. Just like those old Digilux 2 and Epson R-1D. I wish my Fuji XT3 was simpler.

ISO, shutter speed, exposure comp and aperture. That's it.

100% agree.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2021 at 11:03 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (885 comments in total)
In reply to:

3dit0r: Dedicated buttons and dials for functions, rather than having to constantly dive into menus, are partly why I need a dedicated camera rather than my phone. Others are sensor size/quality and lens/focal length choice and better ergonomics.

Modern cameras need so many dials and buttons simply because they contain so many functions. Yes, when I used a Leica M6, I only needed 4 dials (aperture/shutter speed/focus/film speed) but that’s because there was nothing else to choose - no AF removed the need for multiple buttons to select which mode and select focal points, etc., only one metering type removed all those related options and buttons, no display/viewscreen, etc., etc...

If you build a digital camera with a cut down feature set, sure, it’s fine to remove the extra control points, but if the features are there you don’t want to dive into menus to select them. There need to be almost as many buttons as features.

I use my iPhone for casual photography, so I’m completely aware of how they work, thanks.

To each his own, but dedicated buttons and dials + muscle memory are far more efficient than screens and menus which you can’t feel.

I do feel there are simply too many options on any modern camera, though. The happiest I’ve ever been photographically was when I used a Leica M6 years ago-

Aperture ring, shutter speed dial, focus ring. One metering mode. One ISO selector. Now over to the photographer...

Link | Posted on May 20, 2021 at 11:02 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (885 comments in total)

Dedicated buttons and dials for functions, rather than having to constantly dive into menus, are partly why I need a dedicated camera rather than my phone. Others are sensor size/quality and lens/focal length choice and better ergonomics.

Modern cameras need so many dials and buttons simply because they contain so many functions. Yes, when I used a Leica M6, I only needed 4 dials (aperture/shutter speed/focus/film speed) but that’s because there was nothing else to choose - no AF removed the need for multiple buttons to select which mode and select focal points, etc., only one metering type removed all those related options and buttons, no display/viewscreen, etc., etc...

If you build a digital camera with a cut down feature set, sure, it’s fine to remove the extra control points, but if the features are there you don’t want to dive into menus to select them. There need to be almost as many buttons as features.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2021 at 00:20 UTC as 43rd comment | 3 replies

Deleted my FB account years ago after Cambridge Analytica and the first hints that they had been involved in swaying referenda/elections.

Kept Instagram a little longer, as I only used it as a photography site. Then deleted this last year.

Must move away from Gmail and other free mail now and generally extract myself a bit more. I hear Proton Mail is good.

As an Apple ecosystem user, though, how much do they track ans trace their users and for what purposes?

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2021 at 08:16 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Fujifilm GFX 50R Review (1733 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): A bit strange, to compare image quality at ISO 64 on the Nikon with ISO 100 on the Fuji. For practical purposes, image quality has to be compared at the amd ISO.

Agreed. This is evident bias for the simple reason DPR do not carry out the same tests when comparing Full Frame to APS-C or m4/3. If you equalise the DOF and use a different ISO, the advantage of FF over these formats would disappear also.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2021 at 20:07 UTC

Windows only? For goodness sake Fuji, it’s not 1998.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2020 at 10:01 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

manos234: Has anyone tested Vuescan Pro vs Silverfast on a Coolscan 9000?
Is it worth the extra money?

I agree darkroom colour printing would be preferable, and used to prefer the colour, particularly of Cibachromes, but it's just not practicable for most people. I used to send out for colour hand prints, but no labs offer this any more as far as I'm aware.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2020 at 11:31 UTC
In reply to:

3dit0r: Firstly, Belvedere is delightful - what a handsome boy.

Secondly, I am ALL for dogs instead of cats as photographic test subjects.

I can get paid??

Link | Posted on May 14, 2020 at 11:27 UTC

Firstly, Belvedere is delightful - what a handsome boy.

Secondly, I am ALL for dogs instead of cats as photographic test subjects.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2019 at 11:39 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

D R C: As the amount of articles and posts on analogue topics is increasing, might I suggest that it is time for a spin-off site to be started. It could still be referred to as DPR, but it would stand for Developing and Printing Review.

@mandm yes I’ve been using photrio lately exploring medium format options - a wealth of information there and it seems a pretty pleasant, well-informed user group.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2019 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

manos234: Has anyone tested Vuescan Pro vs Silverfast on a Coolscan 9000?
Is it worth the extra money?

Is the issue with negative scanning just the inversion? There are solutions out there for this, and I heard Negative Lab Pro has a new Vuescan Raw file compatibility with a special workflow. If it works as well for those files as camera raw files it could be a very useful tool indeed for many people.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2019 at 08:34 UTC
In reply to:

Chris 222: I use Vuescan on Windows with both Epson and Canon scanners. I also own Silverfast.
I can't tell you how many times I've gone to VS because the others were such a pain to use, or simply couldn't do the job with the parameters I needed.
This is how software should work (reminds me of Qimage a bit.)
Highly recommended !

Vuescan is great, like others here I’d say it’s the best money I’ve ever spent on software by a long way. Many many thanks to Ed for such amazing dedication.

Qimage was great, always gave significantly sharper prints without nasty artefacts. I long ago abandoned home photo printing in favour of a great pro printer near me... who also uses Qimage!

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2019 at 08:30 UTC

So the reviewer ably shows how flawed the Home mode is compared to the Professional mode, in terms of colour balance, etc., then uses the Home mode to compare to the pro lab scans and points out the colours are off, etc?

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2019 at 10:11 UTC as 83rd comment | 1 reply

I thought it had always supported DNG, isn’t it ICC profiling which is new (and would allow use outside LR in, say, C1?

Link | Posted on May 31, 2019 at 07:57 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

(unknown member): Last weekend I took my new OM-D into the Brecon Beacons. The first decent weekend in weeks with good light. The only downside was gale force winds that made even standing difficult, so I wasn't expecting much. I was quite surprised to find that the five axis stabilisation did an amazing job and all bar one pic was sharp. I like the 43 system because when Fell walking I like the weight (or lack of it), the great Olympus colour which I love and the depth of field.

Sometimes I use my 5DSR with my Father-in-law's Canon 200-400 f/4 1.4ex £11,000 pro lens. It is an amazing lens but you would not want to carry it for long. In fact, you physically can't unless you are built like Arnie.

For a fraction of the weight I can get to that reach and near to the quality.

FF is just trending at the moment, not everybody actually needs it. If you can't make good photos with m43 then you can't make good photos with anything. FF is not the touted panacea. I think the Olympus strategy is right.

100% agree. This has been my experience also.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2019 at 10:57 UTC
In reply to:

Jacob the Photographer: About a year ago I had 'topped off' my Professional Photo career of 40+ years with a FF and MFT and APSC (Nikon D810 / Oly OMD EM1 / Fuji Xpro2). Fuji enticed me most: user interface that felt like 'my glorious old days' , the mixed lens quality of Fuji kept me uncertain. The Nikon eco-system had been with me for 30+ years, the choice should be easy. NOT !
My Nikon lenses combined with some Sigma Art lenses and two Nikon bodies made many young colleagues drool.... not me, on the end of the day I could not see a big quality difference between the 3 systems in commercial- print / digital output.
With the Nikon I missed shoots simply due to cumbersome weight / user interface. Then I used a Olympus Pro lens .... SOLD !
The weight- size- build+optical quality- user friendliness of the Olympus OMD + Pro lenses is unrivaled. Combine the Pro lenses with a super reliable body and we got a no-brainer in this E-M1X.

Just accept it:
95% of commercial work will never ever require FF.

I agree. Most people who dismiss M43 haven't tried the E-M1 bodies or the pro lenses. They just do the job and do it very well.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2019 at 10:56 UTC

I love Olympus' approach. In fact, it's the E-M1x which made me have a serious look at m43 again, not because I'd buy the pro-gripped 1x which is too big for me, but because it signals they're serious about their future and that of the format.

I also think Mr Murata is correct on many points in terms of system size and what differentiates cameras from smartphones. I was a full-frame user, now a Fuji user (APS-C) but now gravitating towards M43 simply because of whole system size/weight.

Used intelligently, M43 is capable of 98% of what I need to capture and there are times I don't carry even my Fuji kit because it's a little big and heavy on long hikes. When you factor in the amazing IBIS meaning I often won't need to carry a tripod either, it makes a lot of sense.

I believe that soon, M43 will have the image quality of current full frame cameras. I'm making a long-term bet that the smaller formats will win in the end - sounds like Olympus are too. Good luck to them!

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2019 at 10:53 UTC as 120th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

3dit0r: 100% would like Fuji to refresh the older fast primes now, they are my workhorse lenses and it irritates me that the AF is noisy and slower on the now brilliant newer bodies. WR also, while they're at it.

Not at all in agreement about the X-100 series going FF or 28mm. APS-C and 35mm is a sweet spot for a walkaround/travel camera.

The 23 f/1.4 is a really lovely lens optically, which is why I still own it over the f/2. I find it a little loud for my taste, particularly in C-AF, but aspects like noise are very subjective, I agree!

The 35 f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2 are louder and slower AF than this.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2019 at 14:53 UTC
Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »