Joined on Feb 16, 2012


Total: 378, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Samsung launches Galaxy TabPro S Windows tablet (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: Unfortunately I bought an SP2 128. I hear they still haven't managed to get the bugs out of the product line. The SP2 is a bloody disgrace (& I've had two of them.)
The whole concept is an overpriced gimmick. Anyone contemplating buying one of these hybrids would almost certainly be better served by spending a similar sum on a notebook and a tablet of some kind.

What bugs are you speaking of? I have a SP3 updated to Win 10 and it's been working flawlessly.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 10:35 UTC
In reply to:

Jose Luiz Oliveira: Both Surface Pro 4 and Book still with no port for a SIM Card to allow the use of cellular data network.
That´s the best feature of any tablet!!! No need to use a bulky USB modem...
WAKE UP MS !!!!!!

I have no issues using my phone as a hotspot. I save on another line and can make use of my unlimited data in my handset sim. That saves me an extra $40 -$70 p/mo since my carrier no longer provides unlimited data with new signups. My unlimited data contract was grandfathered from when I was working in the telco. Small benefits =} that's over $700 savings p/yr. Enough to put down for a new computer.

I also have a 20,000 mah portable battery, slim variety w fast charge if my phone runs low.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Ma: I hate the fact that you can get 1TB on the Surface Pro 4, but only 512GB on the Surface Book which is arguably more Pro that would require more storage space. C'mon Microsoft, always giving me a reason to hold off on my purchase. I waited a year to get 16GB RAM on it. Now another reason to wait. See you next year...maybe.

@ Dark Goob,

My surface pro allows me to cut my pack weight and pack clutter and device management. I often carry 2 cameras, 4x lenses, mouse, cards, adapters, batteries, exHDD, and a surface pro 3. I specifically bought into m4/3 because of the weight/size savings. I'm trying to simplify my toolkit.

This allows me to have a medium sized bag that I can carry for pro & personal use. I'm mobile. My work is mobile. My life is mobile and for people like me, the lines are blurred. I'm the epitome of the modern mobile professional and their use case. I'm ready, no matter where I am. My tools need to be as well.

I see no reason to carry a laptop + a tablet when I already have so many other things. I use the pen ONLY for art & note taking. If I need it as a tablet, I use it as a tablet. When I need it on a desk, I use it on a desk. 1 device, many use cases. The solution works.

I'm a Pro and a pragmatist. This is the pragmatic decision. It also happens to look, feel and work great.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 09:11 UTC

For light editing, sure. For on-the-spot editing, sure.

The main problem is one of workflow though. Then there's the problem of the software. This does not run the adobe suite. It runs the basic mobile apps. You can do some pretty basic things, that's about it.

Get a Surface Pro 3 or 4. That is far more suitable with enough horsepower to do most things a creative can need. I do photo editing, processing, digital art, desktop publishing and graphic design on my surface pro 3.

The surface pros also run full blown adobe suite and in desktop mode, have multitouch trackpad so you can use the suite quite comfortably.

In touch mode, I open photoshop, click 1 button to apply my custom action. Or just set it to batch process. Or just use lightroom if that's more to your workflow.

The ipad pro will be a better illustration tool than a photo editor's tool. It's fundamentally no different from an ipad.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 06:22 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies

Shouldn't the title be: SPONSORED CONTENT?

It's only an analysis insomuch as it talks about the camera but it's actually a marketing and sales pitch (or press release).

I have no issues with reading sponsored content but I'd like to know beforehand so I don't start rejecting the content as I read through, expecting it to be an unbiased look when it isn't.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:04 UTC as 104th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: If Sony make the bulk of sensors, why does DP Review bother testing so many different cameras.

When the same Sony sensor is used in Camera A, B, and C, wouldn't it be more efficient to just test Camera A and extrapolate to the others?

Plus that would free up staff time to review the more interesting and off-beat cameras out there (branch out into medium format cameras or finally review the many Pentaxes that are gathering dust in the equipment closet).

The software used to interpret the sensor data will al lead to quite different results.

OEM can have vastly differring views of what looks good, what should be retained and what to throw out as well as colour profiles.

Underlying sensor may be quite capable but it's the oem that decides what to extract from the sensor (or how).

Link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: I don't get it. $1099 body + $899 12-40 2.8 + $1499 40-150 2.8 + 45 1.8 = whooping $4K worth of gear, frequent lens changes and only 5fps.

I could use D750 + 28-300 lens combo to take approximately the same outputs, while much less hassle overall (cheaper and lighter, does not require lens change, faster AF, faster fps, comparable DOF, comparable resolution etc)

that's like saying people are foolish for paying $1000 on a 12-40 pro zoom when they can get a $250 kit zoom... disregarding that the pro zoom is heads and tails better than a plastic janky kit zoom.

but why stop there when you can get a point and shoot with a 10x zoom clearly written on the barrel..

next time you might want yo try comparing like for like.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 23:07 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (885 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: How good is the EVF, really? If only Olympus were to make a MFT camera with an optical viewfinder roughly the size and weight as in the full frame OM1 film camera.

EVFs are never going to come close to that, but is this one similar or better than the VF-4 or more like the EVF in the Fuji XE-2? The former is poor but bearable, I have one, but the latter is dreadful.

This trend to EVFs by all the leading manufacturers is a substantial backwards step, just as lenses with wild native barrel distortion.

Taking pictures with an EVF makes the job much more difficult to get right than with an optical viewfinder. Why do all the serious reviewers of cameras make light of EVFs and their deficiencies as if they are a real contender in a compact with interchangeable lenses versus a decent DSLR?

Visit http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, especially in the albums for South Western USA and Slovenia. Most shots there with a DSLR. Using an EVF for them would not have been a pleasant experience.

i still don't understand why people keep saying it's more difficult to shoot with an evf. it really isn't. viewfinders are JUST framing tools. it could be in black and white and you could still take great pictures with them.

i sometimes read people even say it is easier to shoot in low light with OVF; like, what??? no it isn't. all you see is blackness, much less anything else. at least with an evf, it boosts the viewfinder scene so you can actually see your subjects for framing purposes.

the only place left where ovf outperforms evf is action/sports. in all other cases, they are on par or in some evf simply wins.

modern evf are wysiwyg and again only fall short on pure action.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 03:39 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (885 comments in total)
In reply to:

FuhTeng: Maybe the reason it isn't a gold is because the E-M1 still exists?

that's a very valid point. mark 2 may have new bells and same tech but the em1 is still the superior camera and more versatile. that and when compared to what is available now, silver is very strong showing.

a camera when compared to its rivals getting silver is a pretty big endorsement. gold would mean it is heads and shoulders above, which it isn't.

the OMD's have consistently been all around great cameras, towing that thin balancing line between features, handling, IQ and delight. nothing wrong with silver and in fact i would say today, if the em1 were reviewed, i'd give it a couple more points but still give it a silver (i own 2 Omd's). no longer class leading, but superb all rounders.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 03:24 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (885 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: Compare the exposure values of two studio images (same brightness)
D800e : f5.6/ 1/100s, ISO200
EM5mk2: f5.6, 1/60s, ISO200

So again, olympus inflates JPG ISO values by almost a full stop, which gives a false impression of having "clean" high ISO images. I hate this kind of marketing BS. You *have* to use ISO 1600 on oly body to get the same shutter speed of other cameras with ISO 1000 - then Oly ISO 1600 is, for all practical purposes, ISO 1000 and should be compared to ISO 1000 images from other cameras.

to have made it fair, the d800 should have been at f11. f5.6 on the D800 is f2.8 on m4/3 for dof. consequently you compensate via shutter speeds.

that example has nothing to do with ISO. f5.6 on m4/3 =/= f5.6 on FF.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 06:21 UTC

at the end of the day, you backers should know what you're really doing. you're funding a product that may or may not happen and in many cases you are investing in a company for which you will have zero stock.

you are the ones taking the risk for these projects/companies.

personally i fail to see the allure of participating in such. you take the risks, they reap any rewards. you MIGHT get a product in return. you might not.

it's basically another form of gambling which is how i can even think ppl would participate in the fundings.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 00:37 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

Steve in Scotland: Shoot raw/jpeg. Choose neutral, vivid, monotone whatever in camera the same way you could choose film type. Submit the jpeg as the entry and the raw file as the proof.

neo nights, any person choosing to enter a competition will do so accepting the stipulated terms. that MAY require submission of raw up front or upon finals or as winning foto. it's generally for verification and any commercial terms agreed to upon competition submission. often organisers reserve some or all rights to use entries for promotional materials.

if you enter a competition you do so to get sometging out of it. usually free advertising and wide recognition of your work/skill. generally a successful entry that results in finalist and/or winner has far more value to the fotog than the value of a single foto. you, the artist, still retain full ownership except in some cases.

really there's no amount of money an independent photographer can spend to get the kind of exposure they can get from being a finalist or winner. that's very valuable and can be used for your own self promotion.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

arrr: These dinosaurs need to evolve, many digital effects can be applied in camera at the time of exposure. It's no different than smacking a filter in front of your lens. Cloning out a distracting element shouldn't be an issue either. This is something any talented printer could have done for you in their darkroom. Photoshop aint cheating baby... it's part of the camera.

Photography Purists need to go back to shooting film and processing it a Walmart.

many competitions allow you to do basic editing/toning because you are still manipulating the existent data. what is generally not allowed is when you add of remove data. so really they allow you to tone, dodge/burn your image to taste. just dont clone detail, dont add and dont remove and dont manually manipulate the objects in the scene to something it originally wasnt.

most photographers only really need to tone and dodge/burn any way so that's fair enough. i do not think this limitation negatively affects them at all.

it's like i say, once you start editing beyond basics, you should be entering into a digital arts competition, not a photography competition. as digital art you are allowed max leeway to composit and edit at whim. a photography competition is about what you shot.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 16:56 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: So... Don't buy the MKII cause something better is coming soon...
I see...

@fmian, except that's a fact. he's being truthful about it. you could wait. and wait. and when the next camera releases, you know the next one will be better so what? you wait again. and wait again?

every product you buy will improve, for the most part. you buy thrm now because you need them now. if i need to replace my camera tomorrow, it's not practical or reasonable for me to just do without a camera for another 1-3 years until the next iteration.

most cameras now are so competent they will do what you need. if you're just gear heading and not shooting, sure, keep waiting for better and better cameras. me, i make money now with my cameras and i make picture now and tomorrow to capture my life.

when a better iteration comes and i need to upgrade, i will. if i don't i wont. my upgrade cycle is every 2-3 generations of body.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 08:01 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Now I think I understand why Sony bought such a big part of Olympus a little while ago....

we knew this when it was first announced. i was very excited as i thought sony had great cameras but olympus had really desirable features like IBIs. I'm still hoping Olympus can lend Sony some of their jpeg rendering engineers. Sony jpegs are really meh.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 07:25 UTC
Total: 378, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »