proxy

Joined on Jan 11, 2012

Comments

Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Most smartphones come with some kind of camera, which deliver — when assessed fairly — *absolute bottom quality* of today's digital imaging. Even worst of proper compact cameras deliver better quality images than best of smartphones. Which is ok for quick upload to social media, but unacceptable for everything else.
And that is encouraging in fact — many kids today will understand that and grab proper cameras, sooner or later, and learn that there is no substitute for quality.

Photography, just like painting, was always FIRST about documenting, historically speaking, they later ALSO evolved into an art form. Primary function of photography (like painting) was to freeze a moment in time for later or for others to see. For most people it's about documenting, and rightfully so. Some, who have more skill, may produce more artistic images, but that doesn't mean they just stopped to be documents. In that sense cellphone is very close to be a perfect tool to do both. "Artistic" does not equal full RGB, 15 stops dynamic range and low noise... that is a clear and grave misunderstanding.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Most smartphones come with some kind of camera, which deliver — when assessed fairly — *absolute bottom quality* of today's digital imaging. Even worst of proper compact cameras deliver better quality images than best of smartphones. Which is ok for quick upload to social media, but unacceptable for everything else.
And that is encouraging in fact — many kids today will understand that and grab proper cameras, sooner or later, and learn that there is no substitute for quality.

Proof that opportunity beats quality...

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 01:14 UTC
On article These are the four cameras that won Oscars in 2017 (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Arri Alexas has been use in several award winning films like "The Revenant"along with Zeiss Master and Leica lenses... Just a piece of info for those who still think a Lumix GH5/Sony A7rii has a chance against these machines.

If close range footage from Nikon D800 made "The Revenant" as well, so can much more capable GH5. Arri, Red, Sony and others are made this way for reliability and performance, dedicated solely for a specific purpose i.e. film making in a variety of conditions. On this level GH5 or A7R/A7S cannot compete. But for a small or occasional production absolutely. There is a place for small budget production and be thankful for that. YouTube's library size and popularity is a proof of that.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 00:04 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (446 comments in total)
In reply to:

proxy: Sony Nex and what followed were a breakthrough, same goes for Panasonic cameras. Oly and Fuji less because of rather restrictive pricing (with some exceptions). It seems that Canon, Nikon and Sony recently too, spend more time on underdevelopment, hampering innovation, combined with a very sophisticated scheme "how not to undersell anything we do" then on camera development. There is more juggling of features and price equilibristics then ever. The whole game is hugely disgusting. Hardly any camera worth looking at is sold at less then 1000 bucks (exception - Panasonic). Same with lenses. And then they complain about shrinking market. With this policy it's bound to shrink even more. That's a given. Customers are not stupid, they see what's going on and... walk away from "new and exciting products" like that. I foresee a rather bleak future for this industry. 57 channels and nothin' on.

You seem to be too busy with your own thoughts, so much that you have no time to entertain other options. I refer you to reviews of Sony Nex line, from that time, especially 5n onward. Samsung failed to win sales because it had never won trust of consumers. Subsequent abrupt production stop of ALL cameras just confirmed these fears were justified. Too bad. Also, Samsung never won best in class for any camera. I sense you're a sworn DSLR and Canon user and anything that is not it is not going to excite you. Being fair requires more consideration then your quite reluctant fleeting glimpse.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 21:33 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (446 comments in total)

Seems like that: (Canon board of directors meeting)
"...so, out of the list of 100 things we can include, and people want or need, we'll give today these 77, ...8 we don't know yet how... and remaining 15 we'll divide by next 4 quarters... so we have something to play with... and have people waiting in suspense. Meeting's over. Thank you. Back to "work"".

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 13:12 UTC as 9th comment
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (446 comments in total)
In reply to:

Howard: No AFMA, yikes, crippled!

R N
"Canon 77D has great features, and contrary to the whingers, I think it a very nice step forward from the T6s."

Personally I'd prefer a real step forward, not just from T6s. What you wrote is a proof that it is not a step forward, just another iteration... Step forward suggest just that: FORWARD... not sideways. Your last sentence tells me you realized that at the end of you post writing... what is fine with me.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 13:00 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (446 comments in total)
In reply to:

proxy: Sony Nex and what followed were a breakthrough, same goes for Panasonic cameras. Oly and Fuji less because of rather restrictive pricing (with some exceptions). It seems that Canon, Nikon and Sony recently too, spend more time on underdevelopment, hampering innovation, combined with a very sophisticated scheme "how not to undersell anything we do" then on camera development. There is more juggling of features and price equilibristics then ever. The whole game is hugely disgusting. Hardly any camera worth looking at is sold at less then 1000 bucks (exception - Panasonic). Same with lenses. And then they complain about shrinking market. With this policy it's bound to shrink even more. That's a given. Customers are not stupid, they see what's going on and... walk away from "new and exciting products" like that. I foresee a rather bleak future for this industry. 57 channels and nothin' on.

Proof of concept? LOL. Look at how many of these "proofs" were sold and what is on top of "sought after" list of cameras. Sony a6x00, which is essentially further developed Nex, tops all lists with image quality and features unbeatable at these prices... you overslept good 5 years. Others can't keep up incl. Canon and Nikon with several rather missed mirrorless entries. Cancellation of Nikon DL lineup is a testament to that. They fell too far behind Sony and Panasonic. This proof of concept may bury them entirely. Just watch.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (446 comments in total)

Sony Nex and what followed were a breakthrough, same goes for Panasonic cameras. Oly and Fuji less because of rather restrictive pricing (with some exceptions). It seems that Canon, Nikon and Sony recently too, spend more time on underdevelopment, hampering innovation, combined with a very sophisticated scheme "how not to undersell anything we do" then on camera development. There is more juggling of features and price equilibristics then ever. The whole game is hugely disgusting. Hardly any camera worth looking at is sold at less then 1000 bucks (exception - Panasonic). Same with lenses. And then they complain about shrinking market. With this policy it's bound to shrink even more. That's a given. Customers are not stupid, they see what's going on and... walk away from "new and exciting products" like that. I foresee a rather bleak future for this industry. 57 channels and nothin' on.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 02:43 UTC as 14th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

proxy: $2500 (tops) for outdated camera and $6500 for a centrally placed red, high visibility LEICA LOGO. No more then that. Actually, it's great it can shoot pictures . Generally, it would suffice to just carry it around... and occasionally take a picture to show it's not a dummy. Just legends of incredible, out of this world performance and no reliable database of test results of Leica lenses. Are they any good? Probably... but how can you tell? "Take my word for it". Also keep in mind Leica lenses are mechanically and electronically (none) simplest designs, as advanced as they were 40 years ago. I bet Zeiss beats Leica in every department for less or much less then half the price.

continuing... Some are sharper then others (centers vs. corner), some have better color rendition, some have better bokeh... but considering all, with Zeiss you're not missing out on anything. In fact it more then often is the opposite. Zeiss offers more value for your buck, conversely Leica offers less... for ever 1k spent. At NASA both not a big deal... but for an avg. Joe it's different. Choosing between M10 and e.g. Sony a99 II... it's no contest, Sony wins hands down at half the price. Unless the only criterion you want to use is "prestige".

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2017 at 05:19 UTC
In reply to:

proxy: $2500 (tops) for outdated camera and $6500 for a centrally placed red, high visibility LEICA LOGO. No more then that. Actually, it's great it can shoot pictures . Generally, it would suffice to just carry it around... and occasionally take a picture to show it's not a dummy. Just legends of incredible, out of this world performance and no reliable database of test results of Leica lenses. Are they any good? Probably... but how can you tell? "Take my word for it". Also keep in mind Leica lenses are mechanically and electronically (none) simplest designs, as advanced as they were 40 years ago. I bet Zeiss beats Leica in every department for less or much less then half the price.

Missed the SL part... "the 50mm 1.4 for the SL optically shames the SonyZeiss 50mm f/1.4 for the FE mount" did you mean this one: Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH?... if so, this has yet to be proven, no reliable test supporting this claim so far (you better use proper naming convention for less confusion) except for Leica's own datasheets. Lenses have to be compared directly to see strengths and weaknesses and even if proven so, means little to me. As a regular user, also in semi-pro world there's little (if anything) to be gained over others i.e. Canon, Zeiss, Sony lens in its class, especially considering premium cost (about 3x). It's been debated to death, consensus is (with some exceptions, like you I imagine), most people prefer Zeiss rendition and it's "reasonable" cost. I see no justification for 5-10 grand lenses, not a sheikh.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2017 at 05:18 UTC
In reply to:

proxy: $2500 (tops) for outdated camera and $6500 for a centrally placed red, high visibility LEICA LOGO. No more then that. Actually, it's great it can shoot pictures . Generally, it would suffice to just carry it around... and occasionally take a picture to show it's not a dummy. Just legends of incredible, out of this world performance and no reliable database of test results of Leica lenses. Are they any good? Probably... but how can you tell? "Take my word for it". Also keep in mind Leica lenses are mechanically and electronically (none) simplest designs, as advanced as they were 40 years ago. I bet Zeiss beats Leica in every department for less or much less then half the price.

God I'm tired of that... did someone hijack your profile? "the 50mm 1.4 for the SL optically shames the SonyZeiss 50mm f/1.4 for the FE mount." with your avatar... and it wasn't you(?). 50/1.4 is Planar, and 55/1.8 is Sonnar. Better stick with Leica 'cause you mixing things up. http://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/lenses/t/camera-lenses

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2017 at 04:47 UTC
In reply to:

proxy: $2500 (tops) for outdated camera and $6500 for a centrally placed red, high visibility LEICA LOGO. No more then that. Actually, it's great it can shoot pictures . Generally, it would suffice to just carry it around... and occasionally take a picture to show it's not a dummy. Just legends of incredible, out of this world performance and no reliable database of test results of Leica lenses. Are they any good? Probably... but how can you tell? "Take my word for it". Also keep in mind Leica lenses are mechanically and electronically (none) simplest designs, as advanced as they were 40 years ago. I bet Zeiss beats Leica in every department for less or much less then half the price.

First you talk 50/1.4 Planar now you switch to Distagon Otus 55/1.4... Fishing for arguments? You're having concentration problems or totally confused... =either way waste of time. Enjoy whatever you shoot.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 08:17 UTC
In reply to:

proxy: $2500 (tops) for outdated camera and $6500 for a centrally placed red, high visibility LEICA LOGO. No more then that. Actually, it's great it can shoot pictures . Generally, it would suffice to just carry it around... and occasionally take a picture to show it's not a dummy. Just legends of incredible, out of this world performance and no reliable database of test results of Leica lenses. Are they any good? Probably... but how can you tell? "Take my word for it". Also keep in mind Leica lenses are mechanically and electronically (none) simplest designs, as advanced as they were 40 years ago. I bet Zeiss beats Leica in every department for less or much less then half the price.

Proof is in verifiable numbers like MFT or Imatest results. And that is lacking. All Zeiss lenses you named are thoroughly tested, but your only proof is measured by the amount of your love for Leica. May be enough for you. I have no doubt it's a great lens, question is how great (and at what cost (>4x Zeiss))? Do you really believe it is four times better? Anyway, this is a M10 discussion. While Leica is proudly claiming to be launching a man to the moon, others are preparing for a mission to Mars.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Awesome. This adapters instantly turns my $50 bucks Canon nifty fifty into a $750 lens.

This is exactly how companies reach absurdity level...

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 08:38 UTC
In reply to:

proxy: $2500 (tops) for outdated camera and $6500 for a centrally placed red, high visibility LEICA LOGO. No more then that. Actually, it's great it can shoot pictures . Generally, it would suffice to just carry it around... and occasionally take a picture to show it's not a dummy. Just legends of incredible, out of this world performance and no reliable database of test results of Leica lenses. Are they any good? Probably... but how can you tell? "Take my word for it". Also keep in mind Leica lenses are mechanically and electronically (none) simplest designs, as advanced as they were 40 years ago. I bet Zeiss beats Leica in every department for less or much less then half the price.

Never dismissed Leica lenses, just underlined their mystical status that has little support in real and stringent tests, like most lenses undergo nowadays. Leica's contribution is undeniable, both in cameras and lenses but today is 2017, not 1966, the year Leica M 50 f2.0 APO was introduced if I'm not mistaken. Design-wise they did a lot those days... but today their cameras are just meh... nothing to talk about. M10? is so far behind, it's not even funny. Manual lenses like Leica primes are probably much less challenging (design/production) then advanced IS AF lenses. Overall I think Zeiss has the edge and you can indulge as much as you want in their test results, unlike Leica... Show me proof it is the opposite. I respect Leica's heritage but let's not go overboard with praising to the extreme everything they come up with... just because it's Leica. I'd rather see things for what they are. Opinions are one thing, facts are another. You may have an opinion... does not equal a fact.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 03:29 UTC
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: So if I criticise the camera now I am a Leica Hater and stupid of someway?! The camera lacks so many extremely useful modern technologies in cameras, yet is priced higher than most. The normal reader of a website can wonder why.

It's OK to ask why it doesnt have AF, or a Flipping screen for architicture, or video mode for casual extra add on, etc...

If you want to help, answer why, stop beating the little guys (meaning have no information on exactly why Leica is appealing to some) and educate if you want to do something constructive or worthy of others to read in this section.

So let's tell why people buy/use Leica M9/M10. Add yours in one line or so:

1- The camera's craftsmanship and external design/aesthetic and material feel.

2-,Those who are used to shooting with other older Leica cameras and find them superior/got used to the system. (Focusing, VF, colours, body,)

3- As a collection item for fortunate individuals with camera affection or those who like having the most expensive piece of kit among others.

4- People who like the Camera's unique lenses exactly how they are and want no change whatsoever in the images produced by another maker's lens.

5- People who find they get better results when some technology is absent/simple yet a FF sensor/image is present, making them enjoy the "process of shooting" more thus may or may not better images.

6- people why specifically want a camera that DP commenters pull their hairs off about it deserving being german or made in portugal :)

I'll let you give more reasons:-

Non of my reasons are not viable or makes someone superior/inferior to another, it's just how life works, different people. Notice how all of these reasons don't interfere wuth the fact that a Sony A7rII is faster, higher image quality parameters, adds autofocus, adds tiltable LCD, adds video, adds aids and picture profiles, silent shooting, lens adapters, Eye tracking, touchscreen and all kinds of great, great technology that you can or cannot turn off or simply choose not to use.

But this Leica as mentioned earlier has specific reasons why they are bought, I am sure more will add theirs below:

Sure..., mixed them up, but Leica as a tech Co. is still faaaar behind. Would be better if they concentrated on lenses at muuch lower prices. I get that... low output = high prices, yet from my perspective they contribute much less to the industry then Zeiss. Feel zero excitement about Leica. M10? If e.g. Fuji put this on the market now they'd be a laughing stock...

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 02:31 UTC

So Metabones adapters cost as much as Sony a6000... or more !? and they are obviously as complicated and as advanced as a6000. Would vote for $1000 adapters, why so shy...

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 02:20 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: So if I criticise the camera now I am a Leica Hater and stupid of someway?! The camera lacks so many extremely useful modern technologies in cameras, yet is priced higher than most. The normal reader of a website can wonder why.

It's OK to ask why it doesnt have AF, or a Flipping screen for architicture, or video mode for casual extra add on, etc...

If you want to help, answer why, stop beating the little guys (meaning have no information on exactly why Leica is appealing to some) and educate if you want to do something constructive or worthy of others to read in this section.

So let's tell why people buy/use Leica M9/M10. Add yours in one line or so:

1- The camera's craftsmanship and external design/aesthetic and material feel.

2-,Those who are used to shooting with other older Leica cameras and find them superior/got used to the system. (Focusing, VF, colours, body,)

3- As a collection item for fortunate individuals with camera affection or those who like having the most expensive piece of kit among others.

4- People who like the Camera's unique lenses exactly how they are and want no change whatsoever in the images produced by another maker's lens.

5- People who find they get better results when some technology is absent/simple yet a FF sensor/image is present, making them enjoy the "process of shooting" more thus may or may not better images.

6- people why specifically want a camera that DP commenters pull their hairs off about it deserving being german or made in portugal :)

I'll let you give more reasons:-

Non of my reasons are not viable or makes someone superior/inferior to another, it's just how life works, different people. Notice how all of these reasons don't interfere wuth the fact that a Sony A7rII is faster, higher image quality parameters, adds autofocus, adds tiltable LCD, adds video, adds aids and picture profiles, silent shooting, lens adapters, Eye tracking, touchscreen and all kinds of great, great technology that you can or cannot turn off or simply choose not to use.

But this Leica as mentioned earlier has specific reasons why they are bought, I am sure more will add theirs below:

"X series"? You mean Panasonic cameras, Japan made and conceived... that under license agreement are also marketed with a Leica logo... don't confuse Leica cameras with Panasonic cameras with just Leica logo and eventually different body finish... to correspond with this logo.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 07:34 UTC

$2500 (tops) for outdated camera and $6500 for a centrally placed red, high visibility LEICA LOGO. No more then that. Actually, it's great it can shoot pictures . Generally, it would suffice to just carry it around... and occasionally take a picture to show it's not a dummy. Just legends of incredible, out of this world performance and no reliable database of test results of Leica lenses. Are they any good? Probably... but how can you tell? "Take my word for it". Also keep in mind Leica lenses are mechanically and electronically (none) simplest designs, as advanced as they were 40 years ago. I bet Zeiss beats Leica in every department for less or much less then half the price.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 07:24 UTC as 59th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

justmeMN: So, for $1,100 you get a "mediocre lens", "heavy noise reduction in JPEGs", and "yellows have greenish tint which affects skin tones".

No thank you.

Actually, Pana yellows are correct, take Pana test picture, turn down yellow to zero and see if you get grey on a color chart -> you get perfect grey. Pana yellows are tad darker, look better on video and pictures, more natural (just not on a black guys' face in DP test chart) . Sony jacks up reds to warm up the picture, may look better to some, may not to others. Either way is too reddish.
Also, generally Sony RX10 video is almost always blown in sunlight, is almost never correct. Pana looks way better and more natural. Plenty examples on YT. Reviewers are not correct.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 09:26 UTC
Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »