Muster Mark

Lives in United States United States
Works as a I'm the guy who put the sand in your sandwich
Joined on Mar 19, 2006


Total: 54, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Don Wiss: It still has a useless keyboard. All Microsoft's keyboards subrogate the useful function keys. In their place are all the function that control screen and sound, which one rarely, if ever, uses. As one that uses F2, Ctrl-F4, and Alt-F4 literally hundreds of times a day, any keyboard that requires a function key to access them is a non-starter for me.

They have a Fn button that toggles whether or not the function keys are volume/brightness or f1...f12 It's really not that hard.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2021 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

TWChua: IMHO, anything more than 24MP is a waste of storage and processing power. I would rather they focus on improving low light performance.

It's not really a trade off as far as I know. By pixel binning, you can achieve the lower light performance of a lower resolution sensor. I think there is some advantage in larger pixel pitch by having a larger full-well capacity, but someone more technically knowledgeable than me would have to explain the photographic implications.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2021 at 02:12 UTC
On article Sample gallery: Nikon Z fc (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eulan13: Difficult to judge, but in spite of the different sensor size the high iso images aren't much better than those I get from my Fuji X-T3.

Aren’t they both apps-c?

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2021 at 13:39 UTC
On article Olympus M.Zuiko 8-25mm F4.0 Pro field review (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: Ive worked on raw samples from the new lens, it’s razor sharp, fantastic lens! I find it perplexing how so much emphasis, from commenters on dpreview genreally, is put on importance of shallow dof. The true strength of m4/3 is more dof while maintaining wider apertures. With my 12-100, I regularly shoot at f13, f14, and never have to focus stack, a limitation for those obsessed with diffraction mythology, or thinking that a slightly softer background, even in a landscape, is acceptable as long as the exact point of focus is razor sharp. A good example, the 300 f4 has the advantage at the widest aperture, with the dof of an f8 lens on a 600 mm 35 mm lens, and the speed of f4, there’s nothing better for wildlife or distant landscapes, nailing tricky focus points. . I’ve tested f5.6 directly against f13 on my 12-100, no difference worth noting, pixel peeping at 200%. Blurred backgrounds are something that can be negotiated by a photographic artist not depending on luck.

As someone who shoots 4/3 I think some things should be clarified for accuracy here. Smaller format lenses only have an advantage in terms of DoF if you are using apertures that aren't available (in equivalent terms) on the larger format. So in your example, yes, using f13 or f14 on 4/3 sensor would be like f26 or f28 on a FF sensor. So yes, if these apertures are useful for you you need the smaller format as most FF lenses stop at f22.

However, it's disingenuous to say that a 300mmf4 lens on m4/3 has the DoF of f8 but the speed of f4. The noise performance benefit of the larger sensor makes up for the difference in optical brightness (f-stop). This has been debated ad infinitum with equivalence and what not and ultimately it's just true unless you are comparing sensors from very different technology generations.

I think it's more accurate to say the benefit of the m43 system here is that you get the size of a 300mmf4 with 2x TC on FF but the IQ of a 600mmf8.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2021 at 14:58 UTC
On article Olympus M.Zuiko 8-25mm F4.0 Pro field review (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: Wow - Olympus pro lenses are expensive. I think if Olympus is going to win over new customers they need to compete not just on size (because that advantage has kinda disappeared with the latest FF mirrorless) they need to compete on price too. Nikon has a great UWA DX lens for F mount for around $300. Where is the equivalent Olympus lens?

Is there any other lens for any system that gives the same FOV range though?

Edit: typo

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2021 at 16:08 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Apple M1 iMac vs. Intel PC for photo/video (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: I use both platforms on a daily basis. I use a Mac in one room upstairs and a PC downstairs. I must say PC system has evolved in a good way compared to decades ago. It's quite reliable when put it side-by-side with a Mac. I prefer using a iMac 27" during photo editing over my PC laptop connected to a 27" monitor. One thing I do want to point out though is that Consumer Reports magazine surveys revealed that Mac systems are generally more reliable than most PC with the exception of the LG Gram series. Another important issue I've noticed is that with a PC, you do have to subscribe to an anti-virus program, but I had never put any antivirus problem on my Macs since 2012...knocking on wood.

Default windows anti virus is more than good enough and won't bog the system down. It's actually very similar to what MacOS has built in I believe.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2021 at 22:24 UTC
In reply to:

Oceanvista: The current sensor in my EM1 II is creating images as good as my D7500 and D750, at 200 iso (i never have the need to go more than 800) My 12-100 pro is the big differentiator, which is sharper than than my 24-120, 18-140 or the 16-80, and gets much closer without any loss of acuity. DR is never an issue for me, I've learned how to expose properly for highlight recovery in raw, well to the right, which gives fantastic results when processed in Camera RAW. I normally have no reason to use a higher iso than 200-400, I can tell you from experience, you cannot see any reasonable difference in 20X30 prints made with my Epson Stylus pro 7880, 24 inch Printer when printed on smooth fine art stock! I thought it through before making the switch, sometimes had some remorse for the change, but have found Micro four thirds is just such a joy to work with. I really welcome the new sensor if used, and despite all the hype, 20 mp is plenty! Hey, its not for everyone!

@brownie314 it's worth also considering the quality after processing through the AI noise reduction programs. Of course the bigger sensor will always do better but the difference can be remarkably small.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2021 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

pollup: This sensor would do wonders in a new OM-D camera.

I would guess that the next EM1X coming in early 2022 will have this sensor. I think in an ideal world, the OMD EM1 mk4 would have a higher megapixel count and thus provide some separation of the product line (higher res vs. speed etc.) as other manufacturers do. I don't think olympus will do this and it might only make sense from a marketing perspective not an engineering perspective. But I imagine if they could maintain performance of the current 20mp sensor in a 30mp sensor, there would be some interest.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2021 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Holly: Reminds me a bit of those Lytro cameras which were also going to change photography as we know it…/

Except those lytro cameras were actually interesting from a technical perspective and were doing something very different from a regular ccd or cmos sensor. Basically interesting and innovative technology without a real commercial or artistic application.

This "lightograph" is just taking pictures quickly.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2021 at 14:10 UTC

After reading this article and the guys website I am still left with the question... what is a lightograph? I assume if there was something of substance to convey they would have made an attempt to do so instead of waxing poetic about capturing the human experience. They look like gifs where the light changes? ok...

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2021 at 23:16 UTC as 105th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Astro Landscapes: Nikon Z5, Z 14-30mm f/4, Z 24-200mm. Best rugged all-weather lightweight, affordable kit on the market. You won't change my mind...

Is it weather sealed? I didn’t think the 24-200 was.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2021 at 04:06 UTC
In reply to:

MagicCH: The G9 is a great camera for both stills and video, with good stabiliser and is small compared to other systems. Have owned mine which I bought SH for several years and its built like a tank. Also own a Nikon Z5 which have to say is very underrated. Great image quality, fantastic with adapted lenses and have been shooting with a Rokkor 500mm and 250mm cat lens with great success. Video is OK but not up to the G9. Z5 I think is better than the lower end Canon R and Sony A7 (which I also own and use). Menus on the Z5 very comprehensive and its weather sealed and build quality up to the Z6/7What I also prefer is symmetrical cards. The 4.5 frames/sec is not an issue and i shoot a lot of Storks and have not had any issues with speed. With the G9 get a battery grip which helps handling. You will enjoy the G9 especially with the recent firmware updates.

@chris80 They actually are larger. I guess it depends on which lenses you look at specifically but the 12-40 is about 25% smaller/lighter than the nikon Z 24-70 f4. The panasonic 12-35 2.8 which provides the same field of view is 40% smaller/lighter than the nikon. The panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is also stupidly small. As far as I can tell, Nikon don't make a 70-200 f4 so the only lens in that specific focal length would be the f2.8 version which is obviously way larger.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2021 at 01:27 UTC
In reply to:

Muster Mark: It seems like this is why crop sensor systems exist. A 100-400 lens on m4/3 from Oly or Panasonic make more sense. Of course if you own canon cameras already than this lens makes sense.


About lens aberrations: my point was that lenses designed for crop sensors, should, all else being equal, be better optimized for the higher pixel densities than a lens that had the additional constraint of a larger image circle. All lenses designs are compromises. If the goal is to use only a fraction of the image circle, a lens designed to image only in that area will give the best image quality/price than a lens also designed for other uses all else being equal.

Just to clarify, I am in no way suggesting people shouldn't shoot super telephoto on FF systems. Obviously, cropping a larger sensor gives you the same results if you have an ideal sensor and lens, but we live in the real world where such things don't exist. A "pre-cropped" system will give you better results than cropping a larger system just because of the engineering compromises that were made, all else being equal. That's all.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2021 at 19:49 UTC
In reply to:

Muster Mark: It seems like this is why crop sensor systems exist. A 100-400 lens on m4/3 from Oly or Panasonic make more sense. Of course if you own canon cameras already than this lens makes sense.


"1) Real world: Turbulent air will in most cases smooth out the difference between, say 10 and 20 Mp" except that this is nonsense? Yes air turbulence can enter into it but saying it is the limiting factor for all or even most pictures shot with a 600mm equivalent lens is just nonsense. Also, yes, working with super telephoto lenses requires good technique to get crisp images, but we should assume that's not the limiting factor here or clearly it doesn't matter which system someone is using. So again, you get significantly more resolution from a m43 20 mpx sensor than the FF sensor cropped to have the same angle of view. So for a 36 mpx FF sensor, you get 9mpx after cropping vs. 20 mpx. If you downsize to the same resolution your m43 camera is now giving you 1 stop better ISO performance roughly (assuming equivalent quality sensors).

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2021 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

Muster Mark: It seems like this is why crop sensor systems exist. A 100-400 lens on m4/3 from Oly or Panasonic make more sense. Of course if you own canon cameras already than this lens makes sense.

@Magnar, I can't tell if you are serious or making a parody of those that can't understand anything past "bigger sensor = better". For anyone confused, there are a few reasons that cropping a 300mm lens on a FF camera is not the same as shooting with a 300 mm lens on m43:

1: Resolution. Unless you are shooting with an 80 mpx FF camera, you are losing resolution.

2: Aberrations: Lens aberrations other than distortion and vingetting will be effectively amplified when cropping (when measured as a % of image height). Thus you will need relatively better glass on FF to get the same sharpness after cropping even if you had an 80 mpx FF camera.

3: shooting experience. This should be pretty self explanatory.

Basically for all the same reasons that someone would shoot with a 600/11 lens on FF instead of shooting a 300/5.6 and cropping, it makes more sense to shoot a 300/5.6 on m43 than shooting a on a FF and cropping.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2021 at 01:21 UTC

For those reading and considering m43, the omd emII can be had for under 1k and offers the same image quality as the mkIII, if the features are good enough.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2021 at 16:39 UTC as 231st comment

It seems like this is why crop sensor systems exist. A 100-400 lens on m4/3 from Oly or Panasonic make more sense. Of course if you own canon cameras already than this lens makes sense.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2021 at 16:19 UTC as 35th comment | 15 replies
In reply to:

Klipsen: That's what an internal filter does to lenses that have one - if you remove the filter after focusing (or put it back in), you'll need to refocus.
That's why manufacturers stipulate that the filter must be used at all times, because it's "an integral part of the optical system" (though it's not, unless you use the distance scale to focus).

Well, kind of the opposite, but yes. The filter should increase the length a small amount as glass has a positive diffraction coefficient.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2021 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

dccdp: Is this the end of alternative/independent/open source image editing software? Tracking the editing with authorized software seems to be the core of this initiative. And Adobe is a member ;)

I don’t think so. Most people don’t need to prove authenticity with a tool like this, and I don’t think there is a reason other editing software couldn’t become authorized to sign images as well.

I don’t know the details so I could be wrong. However I think technologically it’s similar to how https uses signitures to verify the origin of the code being sent to your browser. It didn’t spell the end of small scale and open source websites.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2021 at 14:18 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Olympus 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS review (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

WT21: ugh - just watched it again (don't know why!)

In minute 1:50, he complains about the narrow aperture ("my main struggle with this lens was really the relatively slow apertures"), and then at 3:10, he complains about how he can't stop down past 6.3 (which is factually wrong). "With this lens I'm pretty much getting a fixed depth of field which I have to be happy with."

In summary - it's a whiny review for a lens without a focus or purpose. Lazy. Sorry to type this. I've liked their work in the past. Maybe they should stick to camera body user experience and video implications.

Ok, that's a fair point. I honestly did not look so closely at the example of the diffraction as it went by pretty quickly and I kinda just assumed they new what they were talking about when the said the image quality degraded past f8. My bad.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2020 at 17:09 UTC
Total: 54, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »