mpgxsvcd

Lives in United States USA, NC, United States
Works as a Jack of all Trades
Joined on May 17, 2004

Comments

Total: 2020, showing: 221 – 240
« First‹ Previous1011121314Next ›Last »
On photo SAM_020_ISO640 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

Really noisy for ISO 640.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:41 UTC as 4th comment
On a photo in the Canon EOS 5DS R Real-World Sample Gallery sample gallery (5 comments in total)

Really noisy for ISO 640.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:41 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

JeanPierre Thibaudeau: What is this? A full frame camera with all sample images shot between 100-800 ISO?? Nothing above 800! When DPR reviews a 4/3 sensor camera, the ISO is pushed beyond ISO 6400 on their samples.

Does Canon need help to hide their high ISO performance?

We want to see samples at ISO 12000 and beyond for the new 5D full frame cameras.

It doesn't go beyond ISO 12,800 and even that ISO is already in its expanded range.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:38 UTC

I was disappointed that they haven't figured out how to fix the RAW compression issue. That will be a tough thing for them to overcome when the other manufactures have that advantage over them.

That being said their camera has so many more advantages that some people might be able to work around the RAW compression difference.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:29 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On photo P1750346 in mpgxsvcd's photo gallery (2 comments in total)
In reply to:

ANAYV: This is the best the GH4 can do, for a moon shot ?
I think todays superzoom can easily outperform this...showing more detail..perhaps do to better optics, and less need to crop. Plus no need for tripod, with their superior O.I.S. Surely I don't miss my GH2 with 45 to 200mm lens.

No that is not the best the GH4 can do. The optics are the limiting factor there. That was with a fast focal ratio Newtonian telescope. You need a fully corrected SCT scope to do the moon and the GH4 justice.

However, it isn’t a bad picture considering the scope only costs $450 and can also take amazing deep space photos as well.

The large sensor fixed lens zoom camera probably would do just fine for moon shots. However, you will find that atmospheric conditions will be the limiting factor no matter what camera and lens you use for single exposure images like this.

You are much better off taking video and then stacking the frames to eliminate the changes in the atmospheric conditions. There the GH4 really excels as you can see from some of my other and better moon pictures.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:18 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction (227 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: It isn’t a bad camera. However, it is just simply a little late. There were too many great options in this category last year. Everyone bought a camera back then.

I am sure they will sell plenty of these cameras. However, it definitely would have sold better if it was announced last June instead of this June and I don’t see any reason they couldn’t have made this camera before now.

There is simply too much competition now. Which is a good thing for consumers but not so great for manufacturers that are selling less and less cameras every year.

They won’t be as pleased about the sales of this camera as Sony was about their RX100 cameras or even Panasonic was about their LX100. I can tell you that much.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:11 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction (227 comments in total)

You can always think of this camera as a $1250 camera with a removable EVF. Then it is simply overpriced but it actually has a feature advantage in that you can remove the EVF when you don’t need/want it.

A removable EVF is a good thing and not a bad thing especially in a camera this small. It allows you to have a flash and an EVF simultaneously. There simply isn’t a place on this camera to put a built-in EVF without removing the Flash or the hot shoe.

If you think about it that way you will see that Canon designed it exactly right. They just didn’t hit the price point they really needed to hit.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:09 UTC as 33rd comment | 3 replies
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction (227 comments in total)

It isn’t a bad camera. However, it is just simply a little late. There were too many great options in this category last year. Everyone bought a camera back then.

I am sure they will sell plenty of these cameras. However, it definitely would have sold better if it was announced last June instead of this June and I don’t see any reason they couldn’t have made this camera before now.

There is simply too much competition now. Which is a good thing for consumers but not so great for manufacturers that are selling less and less cameras every year.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:02 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
On article 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?

Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.

I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.

My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?

This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.

If you can’t see it with your naked eye then you certainly won’t be able to follow it with one of these cameras. Much less take a picture of it with the subpar image stabilization these cameras offer.

Just try to follow a bird that is a mile or so away. You won’t even get it in the frame.

You are much better off with a 25x camera with good RAW capabilities and then cropping in post.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 20:05 UTC
On article 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup (186 comments in total)

The Panasonic FZ1000($720) is $123 more than the Nikon P900($597) on Amazon right now. You would have to be stupid to buy the Nikon over the FZ1000.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 19:59 UTC as 71st comment | 3 replies
On article 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: the lens comparison isn't working for me here...

I would LOVE to see the results of the test that MOSC mentioned. I bet the super zooms wouldn't stand a chance.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 19:53 UTC
On article 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?

Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.

I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.

My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?

This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.

You would be so much better off with a bigger aperture medium sized sensor camera than with these small sensor super zooms. I really think that the 24mm-400mm focal length range is just about ideal. F2.8-F4.0 would work just fine with that as well.

If you really do a lot of birding then 28mm-800mm would work but no more than that. You can’t get around the fact that a bigger aperture is ALWAYS necessary to do proper telephoto. You can’t cheat physics.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 19:51 UTC
On article 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup (186 comments in total)

Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?

Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.

I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.

My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?

This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 19:44 UTC as 73rd comment | 7 replies
On article Sony adds XAVC S and high bitrate video to a6000 (186 comments in total)

But did they add GPS to it?

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 17:59 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EOS Rebel T6s Review (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

AJDVD: Why I get the feeling that the tests in DP review are less thorough than before. Just take an old test from an earlier Rebel and compare for example the conclusion sector.
And why every camera wins an award anyway. No point when everything is exellent. I think DP should rethink the point-award part.

Did someone just accuse Rishi of “Not being thorough in his testing”? If Rishi was anymore through in his testing he would probably discover the “Meaning of life”.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 15:03 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel T6s Review (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Honestly,

I would have to argue that the T6i has better high ISO performance than the Nikon D5500 right through to ISO 12,800. I understand its dynamic range is less. However, if you aren’t planning on editing these files, which is the case for the majority of rebel users, then good high ISO performance would be more important than high dynamic range.

@Rishi

I see what you are saying now. Yes in that position I see less noise in the Nikon. However, go down to the “Honey Ridge Farm” bottle and compare them. The Canon appears to do better when there are very dark shadows in the frame.

To me the noise is more apparent when it is over a black background. That is the area where I am more concerned with noise so I usually look there first. It is not as apparent where there is a Grey background.

I have often thought that Canon does something to clip some noise in their dark regions.

And yes we are splitting hairs here. All of these cameras are very similar.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 14:57 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel T6s Review (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Honestly,

I would have to argue that the T6i has better high ISO performance than the Nikon D5500 right through to ISO 12,800. I understand its dynamic range is less. However, if you aren’t planning on editing these files, which is the case for the majority of rebel users, then good high ISO performance would be more important than high dynamic range.

Look at the 1:1 pictures Dpreview provides side by side. I don’t see any evidence to support their conclusion that the Canon camera has worse high ISO performance than the Nikon.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 19:56 UTC

This sums up pretty much everything that needs to be said about this camera.

http://www.eoshd.com/2015/06/first-sony-a7r-ii-user-experiences-global-shutter-and-native-iso-800/

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 16:43 UTC as 30th comment
On photo Leah_1 in the -Canon vs Nikon : Wedding Photography- (in Full Colours) - challenge (11 comments in total)

Great Picture

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 16:41 UTC as 8th comment
On article Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II (1118 comments in total)

I am just going to leave this right here. I think this pretty much covers everything that needs to be said.

http://www.eoshd.com/2015/06/first-sony-a7r-ii-user-experiences-global-shutter-and-native-iso-800/

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 16:40 UTC as 72nd comment
Total: 2020, showing: 221 – 240
« First‹ Previous1011121314Next ›Last »