Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jun 6, 2006


Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9
In reply to:

TwoMetreBill: Barometric altimeter, give me a break. My wife and I were eating lunch one day in the Rocky Mountains. We have a very good barometric altimeter. In less than an hour, sitting still in a parked car, the altitude changed by a thousand feet. This thing has GPS with accuracy to at least 40' out of water. Out of water, barometric altimeters are little more than random number generators.

This comment is idiotic.
First, this camera has something more useful than just a barometric altimeter. It has a much more rugged device that tells you either your barometric altitude or depth underwater.
Second, barometric altimeters are useful enough that they are in every airplane! If you don't know how to calibrate for the day's air pressure that's on you.
Third, if you prefer to use the GPS altimeter rather than the barometric one -- go ahead. The data is both recorded and displayed.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 18:46 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2504 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wally626: Equivalence in general works, but tends to break down on the margins. Yes a 50mm f/1.4 lens in a m4/3 camera at ISO 100 can get close to the same image as a 100mm f/2.8 on a FF camera at ISO 400, even more similar if both are 16 MP sensors. So same number of pixels, same DoF, roughly same noise level at both pixel and total image levels, same perspective, same shutter speed. However, this assumes a perfect lens, the m4/3 lens has to have a better resolution than the FF lens, or both have to be better than their sensors. It also falls apart if you stick a f/1.4 lens on the FF, what m4/3 is equivalent? Or your have a Nikon 800 with 36 MP, etc.

This is a good point. MFT depends on very high resolution lenses to achieve its quality. When you consider than a 16mpx MFT sensor has the same pixel density as a 64mpx FF sensor would have, you can see the issue. Fortunately, the best MFT lenses have incredible levels of resolution, above any but the most exotic FF lenses, which makes the system work.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 18:27 UTC

What a fantastic test.
This is precisely the information someone choosing between the A7r and the A7s would want.
I applaud not just your careful methodology getting these revealing images, but also the work and analysis that went into your conclusions.
Thanks DPreview!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 19:22 UTC as 103rd comment | 5 replies
On article Sony Alpha 7R Review (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I'm not sure what DPR is reporting but based on -at least- the test scene, the moire A7 and especially A7R produce is very much present and catastrophic. The RAW images are so ruined by moire that you must be either blind or biased to ignore it.

Total nonsense. Have shot thousands of pictures with my A7R and only rarely seen moire.

I see it commonly with some of my other non-AA camera like the Ricoh GR, but for whatever reason not with the A7R.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 02:33 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R Review (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retzius: The camera and lens look very "Contax" to me.

I like it...

This could be the Contax RXIII.

And this camera LOVES contax lenses. Put the 28 f2.8, 35 f2.8, 50 f1.7, 85 f2.8, or 135 f2.8 on it and you've got a small, perfectly balanced, extremely good looking package that works better than can be imagined.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 00:32 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R Review (810 comments in total)

Thank you DPReview for a very careful thoughtful review. I've been shooting this camera daily for months and still learned quite a bit from the review.

I also think your recommendations -- both praising the camera for methodical raw shooters -- and warning deep pocketed snap shooters away -- are right on the money.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 00:21 UTC as 186th comment
On article Fujifilm X-T1 real-world samples gallery (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Unfortunately, I don't see too many in this sampling that are all that impressive. They appear a bit soft.

Be soft pictures are. Yoda impressed not be.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2014 at 19:30 UTC

I think some of the negative comments below have to be paid by competitor camera companies. I downloaded all these images original size and have been looking at them in Lightroom.

While it's true that Sony's jpg noise-reduction is quite heavy-handed at higher ISOs, the low-ISO samples here look really terrific with stunning detail.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 23:38 UTC as 67th comment | 1 reply

The first comment about how getting a bunch of great features for less $$$ is "major BS" is the single dumbest thing I've seen in almost a decade on DPReview.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2012 at 04:52 UTC as 17th comment
Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9