whyamihere

whyamihere

Lives in United States Philadelphia, United States
Works as a Higher Education IT
Joined on Apr 8, 2012

Comments

Total: 268, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic DC-LX100 II First Impressions Review (591 comments in total)

Based on some of the more popular comments I've read thus far, maybe I'm the only person who has a practical use in mind for this camera:

I do location shoots, and I tend to drag along a D500 with a set of lenses, flashes, etc. The max x-sync is 1/250th, so to get day-lit or flash-isolated subjects, I have to use ND filters to get shallow DoF or just live with the fact that everything will be in-focus at f/8 or f/11.

This is a $1,000 portable camera with a useful zoom/aperture range, a leaf shutter & hot shoe. I can dump at least 1-1.5kg of equipment, empty out most of my bag, x-sync with the entire shutter range, and get similar image quality (yeah, 17mp isn't 20mp, and Four Thirds isn't APS-C or full-frame, but wide open at f/2.8 vs f/8 or f/11 & excluding a ND filter makes up for a lot)...

People are too busy trying to pigeonhole this camera to think of it's potential instead. Enjoy comparing specs while I go out & get photos that earn money, I guess.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2018 at 17:33 UTC as 98th comment | 2 replies
On article What you need to know about Panasonic's LX100 Mark II (180 comments in total)

Hey DPR,

Unrelated to the camera itself, but related to these "What you need to know..." posts, would you mind adding an option to read the article as a single page? On just about every device I own, the paginated version is simply awkward to navigate. In most cases, I still have to do some scrolling to read the text below the image, which results in a 'click left/right, scroll down, scroll back up again to go to the next/previous page' mess. The "full screen" gallery navigation is only slightly less awkward, but comes with its own problems -- again, often related to the device I'm using.

Thanks!

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2018 at 16:06 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

entoman: I think 4K Photo Mode will be a short-lived phenomenon.

A shot extracted from this only yields an 8MP image, which is pretty small by today's standards. It's perfectly usable for modest-sized uncropped prints, but there are plenty of cameras that can shoot at very fast burst speeds while retaining the full megapixel count.

The Sony a9 can already shoot 24MP stills at sustainable burst speeds of 20fps, and the Olympus OMD EM1Mkii can shoot 20MP stills at sustained 60fps bursts in single-AF mode, or 18fps in C-AF mode.

If someone can convince me that Panasonic's 4K Photo Mode is anything other than an ephemeral gimmick, please go ahead and try.

Entoman, regarding your original reply to mine:

This seems to be very much in the variety of civilly arguing "to each their own" between our respective points. However, I will point out that 'softness is a desired feature in fashion' falls into the same category of logic. I apprenticed with people who absolutely had to have all the resolution they could get. I also worked with an industry veteran who ditched their medium format & Canon 5DS cameras for a Sony RX100 V. I've seen 17x22" prints from a 10MP DSLR look sharp as a tack at nose-close distances. I've made 11x17" prints from severe crops of a Fujifilm X-T1.

If you gotta have high res, I'm not going to dissuade you. I just would curtail arguing in the opposite direction, that a 4K resolution JPEG is not good enough for large prints. It is. Very much so.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2018 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

whyamihere: Hey Chris & Jordan, nice video! I'd love to see this 4k/6k photo feature targeted at wildlife photographers more & for it to hopefully show up on other camera systems in general. I can only imagine what it would be like to use with Canon's DPAF or Sony's well-developed autofocus system.

If I could make a suggestion for a future video: Can you look into lens adapters for the medium format mirrorless cameras? Preferably anything on the market that allows for autofocus with full-frame lenses, or ones that might enable older leaf shutter lenses? I ask because I think your TCSTV episode on smart adapters for Sony was fair & very helpful, plus there seems to be no shortage of claims that full-frame lenses cover the 44x33mm sensor of the GFX 50S and X1D. Plus, some of us have old leaf-shutter lenses from film medium format cameras that might work on a newer digital mirrorless system.

Thanks for your efforts & your consideration!

Good call on waiting until after Photokina. Makes perfect sense. Again, thanks for considering my suggestion!

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2018 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: I think 4K Photo Mode will be a short-lived phenomenon.

A shot extracted from this only yields an 8MP image, which is pretty small by today's standards. It's perfectly usable for modest-sized uncropped prints, but there are plenty of cameras that can shoot at very fast burst speeds while retaining the full megapixel count.

The Sony a9 can already shoot 24MP stills at sustainable burst speeds of 20fps, and the Olympus OMD EM1Mkii can shoot 20MP stills at sustained 60fps bursts in single-AF mode, or 18fps in C-AF mode.

If someone can convince me that Panasonic's 4K Photo Mode is anything other than an ephemeral gimmick, please go ahead and try.

As someone who published a 11x14" printed fashion portfolio with 6-8MP images scanned from film to JPEG, some of them as double-page spreads, I think you're severely underestimating the versatility of lower MP images. Sure, it's nice to have more resolution, more color data, and more flexibility in post. But it's not necessary.

Plus, in wildlife photography, that pre-burst mode is nothing short of amazing, especially when trying to photograph small warblers who are not predisposed to staying still long enough for you to press the shutter button. I wish my D500 had that feature. (And if you must ask why I don't just use Micro 4/3 for wildlife, I'd respond by saying that it was cheaper to buy a $1,300 lens for a system I already own than to buy a $1,500-2,000 camera & $1,800+ for one lens just to do one thing. Asking why I don't just switch entirely... I'm just not a fan of Micro 4/3. Yes, I have used it for long periods of time.)

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2018 at 15:46 UTC

Hey Chris & Jordan, nice video! I'd love to see this 4k/6k photo feature targeted at wildlife photographers more & for it to hopefully show up on other camera systems in general. I can only imagine what it would be like to use with Canon's DPAF or Sony's well-developed autofocus system.

If I could make a suggestion for a future video: Can you look into lens adapters for the medium format mirrorless cameras? Preferably anything on the market that allows for autofocus with full-frame lenses, or ones that might enable older leaf shutter lenses? I ask because I think your TCSTV episode on smart adapters for Sony was fair & very helpful, plus there seems to be no shortage of claims that full-frame lenses cover the 44x33mm sensor of the GFX 50S and X1D. Plus, some of us have old leaf-shutter lenses from film medium format cameras that might work on a newer digital mirrorless system.

Thanks for your efforts & your consideration!

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2018 at 15:26 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm X-T100 review (335 comments in total)

DPReview:

For those of us who a.) are not terribly fond of the comments section, and/or b.) have seen the film "Office Space," and/or c.) have a piqued sense of self-awareness...

The review score and award followed by a link at the top of the page titled "jump to conclusion" feels a little too on-the-nose. Maybe even self-lamenting. Not sure which is correct.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2018 at 21:03 UTC as 86th comment
In reply to:

Ergo607: Did we really need confirmation?

The problem with the 1 series was not the quality as such, but Nikon not giving mirrorless the attention it deserved, just because they didn't want to canabalize on their DSLR line-up. Meanwhile Fuji and especially Sony have shown the way to do proper mirrorless and now Nikon has some catch up to do...

As Fuji is wont to point out, they didn't have another camera system they were afraid of overlapping. They just made good cameras while simultaneously acknowledging it's not their primary income. Sony is the same, where the SLT cameras are probably not their main source of revenue; they could afford to muck about until they finally produce a winner.

With that said, I think Canon and Nikon are finally realizing a lost sale is a lost sale, regardless of which product line someone purchases from versus another. Brand loyalty isn't what it used to be, and only those with a huge collection of lenses or work for an agency with pro support really care about the next big DSLR. If they want new customers or crossover appeal, they need a worthwhile product in a category that has room to grow. Mirrorless is probably still years away from saturation and reaching its fullest potential, and Canon and Nikon are waking up to that.

Now, if Pentax would wake up and make a mirrorless 645 camera...

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2018 at 18:11 UTC

As a photographer who also holds a degree in political sciences, I think it's worth highlighting the following phrase from Krages' quote: "As a case at the District Court level, the decision does not serve as precedent in other cases." Read: Don't panic.

With that said, it should also be acknowledged that "copyright" and "fair use" are eternally squishy concepts, politically speaking, both in the US and internationally. How far do you have to alter an original work to call it your own unique work? Who sets those standards, and how can you assure they're uniformly applied? Where can you exhibit design and art work without subjecting yourself to "fair use"? How do you properly delineate the difference between free speech and an imposition on personal economic gain and property rights?

I highly expect that people will argue in favor of the copyright holder, but I'm prone to accepting that it's relatively arbitrary, hence why these cases make it as far as they do in the first place.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2018 at 20:21 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Astrotripper: How hard would it be to mod one of them old TLR cameras to use Instax film?

A serious question.

You're in luck. Someone solved that problem about 5 years ago:

https://petapixel.com/2013/03/04/hacking-a-rolleiflex-tlr-to-shoot-fujifilm-instax-instant-photos/

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 21:12 UTC

There are so many better ways to do this:

Imagine a Rollei instant camera that uses the Instax Square format. It has a f/3.5 taking lens that can be stopped down to f/5.6, f/8, and f/16. It has a light meter, but you don't have to use it. If you don't use the meter, you don't need a battery. "But how does the camera eject the film?" you ask. A clever mechanism that resembles the film advance crank of a traditional Rolleiflex is on the side, which pushes the film out of the top.

*That* is worth US$400.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 21:09 UTC as 100th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

hypnotictortoise: Re the contention that converting to mono is cheating: regardless of medium, you are ultimately converting from colour to B&W. Converting in post is simply shifting where in the process the conversion takes place, and permits greater flexibility in that conversion process.

Is it cheating if I pre-visualise for B&W output, but convert in post?

I would also observe that colour photography only gives the illusion of reality, and similarly to the contention in the article, you could equally say something like 'if you are not acheiving your desired result in camera then you are cheating'.

Disclaimer: I mainly produce colour.

I have to agree here, at the very least, on a technical and philosophical level. All digital sensors are, essentially, converting color into greyscale tones, as none have the inherent ability to record color values. Arguably, one could consider putting a Bayer, Foveon, or X-Trans filter in front of it as "cheating" -- you're telling a sensor that it "sees" color that it really cannot. Putting in predetermined instructions into a camera's processing pipeline to interpret colors is "cheating" even further.

"Cheating" is just a way of avoiding the fact that photography and art, in general, is all about interpretation and abstraction. You like what you like, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean doing something different is bad or wrong. It's just different.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2018 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

PhozoKozmos: far too many digital camera shooters, whether they had extensive film camera experience or not, have been too easily taken in with unrealistic look of high contrast look of film era look

worse when looking to unnatural exaggerated over-blackened shadows in bright sunny daylight shooting using slide film (positive transparencies)

so for digital, too many are mimicking the unrealistic look of color film (kodachrome, ektachrome, fujichromes)

whilst colorful higher vibrance/vividness saturation has universal appeal for certain types of scenes in digital, the unreal fakeness of non-existent black sunshadows have made too many digital shooters embrace improper exposure choices (resorting to unnecessary excessive gain where none is needed) as well as improper post-processing of a colored scene; this results in very confused b&w digital shooting, where exposures are all non-optimal for any post-processing

mfrs play a big part in NOT addressing more realistic in-camera visual RAW feedback

As a photographer and artist who has, in a relatively short period of time, shot with many formats, both film and digital, I must ask...

What exactly are you complaining about here? The idea that people are trying to mimic styles and genres that came before them? That digital is trying to appear as film? That images are not realistic enough for you? That, somehow, manufacturers are complicit in this conspiracy against realism? That raw files are somehow photos?

Funny. Last I checked, photography was an art form that has no chance of appearing realistic, so long as people view photos in two-dimensions -- whether on a screen or as a print -- so long as "color" is interpreted by a color filter or a chemical treated plastic, so long as raw files are nothing but containers of processed code joined to a pre-programmed integrated circuit's interpretation of what "color" was present, and so long as people will prefer whatever they prefer because, well... art.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2018 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

whyamihere: Wondering out loud: Does anyone know what the target market is for the photo filter effects? As someone who lives in North America but follows photographers of various demographics and skill levels, I don't see these sorts of filters being used all that much. I mean, I'll see the occasional "selective color" or black & white conversion, but I've not seen anyone use things like "pinhole" or "tilt-shift" in a long while.

I ask not to criticize, and I'm not anti-filter (and, please, don't respond with a "this camera is for dummies who don't know any better, so why are you asking" statement -- that would be unnecessarily degrading and glib), but I ask because I wonder why Olympus keeps ladling on filters, when that ROM space and processing power could possibly go to something else.

dr.noise: I disagree. Even outside of the core photography market, using filters for IG has fallen out of style. I suspect the "filters are for the Instagram crowd" is a misconception that only photo enthusiasts hold to be true.

Jonathan F/2: Interesting, and it makes sense, based on what I know of Asian photography culture.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2018 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

arbux: Hurray!

Another recycled product in olympus lineup:
- old sensor
- old stabilisation (3 axis only)
- poor AF-C
- same evf

but a new price

@arbux : "Ok, 'new' sensor with the same old quality."

I disagree. I once owned a GX1, and that 16MP sensor, while good for the time it was released, pales significantly in comparison to the modern 16MP Four Thirds sensors. Sony have released several iterations of this sensor over the years, and Olympus & Panasonic have likely updated their processing engines to match.

I don't understand your pessimism. Just say, "This camera is not for me," and move on.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 19:58 UTC

Wondering out loud: Does anyone know what the target market is for the photo filter effects? As someone who lives in North America but follows photographers of various demographics and skill levels, I don't see these sorts of filters being used all that much. I mean, I'll see the occasional "selective color" or black & white conversion, but I've not seen anyone use things like "pinhole" or "tilt-shift" in a long while.

I ask not to criticize, and I'm not anti-filter (and, please, don't respond with a "this camera is for dummies who don't know any better, so why are you asking" statement -- that would be unnecessarily degrading and glib), but I ask because I wonder why Olympus keeps ladling on filters, when that ROM space and processing power could possibly go to something else.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 19:46 UTC as 33rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Sezano: Can anyone tell me with some degree of authority, what’s the correct pronunciation of bokeh?

Honestly, it doesn't matter how you say it. Even native Japanese speakers pronounce it differently, as I'm lead to understand, because of regional dialects.

Of course, native English speakers can't even pronounce "Nikon" the way a Japanese speaker would, so I don't quite get why everyone gets all flustered over mispronouncing "bokeh."

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 17:49 UTC

Albert's story is yet another reminder for me regarding all photography, including portraits of human subjects:

No matter your level of technical skill with a camera or lights, how pleasing your final image will almost always come down to your ability to engage and understand your subject.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 21:30 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

whyamihere: This story is anecdotal, but I think it's an allegory for what happened within Samsung Electronics, in regards to their camera division:

I have a colleague who visits International CES every year. After CES 2015, I asked him if he found anyone to speak with about Samsung's NX series of cameras, because he and I were both interested in their development strategy.

"I did manage to find the camera division on the [show] floor, nestled in the middle of the booth. They had engineers there, they knew how the cameras worked, and they were excited to show their stuff.

"The sad thing is, every time I asked them a question, they'd get five words in before someone in the background turned up a TV too loud, drowning out the conversation. And you could tell this was the life they'd resigned themselves to, because at least one of them would audibly sigh and slump a bit each time that happened. You couldn't help but feel bad for them."

@HowaboutRAW : Sure, I guess. I don't know what your experience was like, I wasn't there, so I have no basis to confirm or deny.

My point was that Samsung Electronics, which is just one of many arms of Samsung Inc., saw their camera division as just more consumer electronics, which, in turn, did nothing to ease tensions with prospective camera buyers -- at least in the USA, anyway -- that they were anything more than that.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 22:01 UTC

This story is anecdotal, but I think it's an allegory for what happened within Samsung Electronics, in regards to their camera division:

I have a colleague who visits International CES every year. After CES 2015, I asked him if he found anyone to speak with about Samsung's NX series of cameras, because he and I were both interested in their development strategy.

"I did manage to find the camera division on the [show] floor, nestled in the middle of the booth. They had engineers there, they knew how the cameras worked, and they were excited to show their stuff.

"The sad thing is, every time I asked them a question, they'd get five words in before someone in the background turned up a TV too loud, drowning out the conversation. And you could tell this was the life they'd resigned themselves to, because at least one of them would audibly sigh and slump a bit each time that happened. You couldn't help but feel bad for them."

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 21:41 UTC as 63rd comment | 7 replies
Total: 268, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »