Joined on Apr 3, 2006


Total: 135, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Dan Chung posts 5D Mark III vs. D800 video shootout (194 comments in total)
In reply to:

rocknhead: Excellent report. Only prob i have is in my opinion handicapping the canon by using a nikon lens with an adaptor on the canon. That does not seem to me to be an apples to apples comparison. I would have thought to be fair you would get say a good tamron lens and use a lens made for each camera.
I understand that by using the exact same lens you are getting a better
comparison in the cameras BUT it is my opinion that would not over weigh the handicap put on the canon camera by using an adapter and a nikon lens.

They are both great cameras. If i did not have a lot of money in canon lenses (5d mkii) I would prob buy the nikon if i was starting over today.

I dont quite see how nikon can put that much technology for that money.

skrulm8 is correct.
There is no handicap whatsoever, the adapter does not nothing besides attaching lens to the body. You are wrong.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2012 at 19:01 UTC
In reply to:

Jean_Baptist_Emanuel_ZORG: am i the only person who believes that nikon and canon releasing two top models each at the same time, both insanely priced are just preparing for a global financial collapse? i might be wrong , just curious

Exactly which body is "insanely" priced, Nostradamus?

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2012 at 13:10 UTC
On article Facebook adds higher resolution photo viewing (68 comments in total)

A good thing I guess.

But I'll keep uploading at 900px max.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2012 at 16:14 UTC as 23rd comment | 4 replies
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 low light high ISO sample series (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

gl2k: Does ANYONE still shoot during daytime ?

According to all those tests and high iso talking I assume that the photographic community has turned to a nocturne society.

At least I do about 95% of my photographic work under good to fair light conditions. Am I a dying breed ? Seems so ...

In the film days you needed flash a lot more and a lot sooner. Now you can shoot with available light all the way to ISO 6400 without worries. I can not see how that is a bad thing or something to do with being sheeps.

If a camera can shoot at ISO 102400, this means that ISO 3200 will be cleaner than the previous generation. Again, I can not see how that is a bad thing or something to do with being sheeps.

I'm sure, back in the film days, when Kodak theoritically released a fine grain color ISO 6400 film, no single photographer would have said "no, we only need ISO 800". No, they would have jumped on it. So why would you say it now??

That does not mean you have to buy every new camera when they come out, but at least face and admit the potential of newer and better technology.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2012 at 18:03 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 low light high ISO sample series (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aaron MC: I am tentatively optimistic about this camera. I think that this is undoubtedly the G3 sensor, but it appears that Olympus has squeezed a lot of performance from the pipeline. It's still an old sensor, though, and I fear that it enters the market obsolete and will be made only more so with the release of the GH3.

@ Aaron MC.
If you're demanding a m4/3 sensor to perform the same as NEX's APS-C sensors... you're demanding too much.

That said, they are not that far apart. And m4/3 has it advantages elsewhere.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2012 at 03:06 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 low light high ISO sample series (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

oldalaskan: Almost no color shifting through iso 3200 or even 6400. At iso 12800 though, many areas suddenly show a lack of blue in the blue channel resulting in an ugly, strong, saturated color cast. But at iso 25600 there is, again, almost no color shifting! Lots of noise, true, but only a small drop in color saturation in some of the colors and the blacks are no longer as black as they should be.

I agree. Colors remain intact.

Color accuracy is a lot more important than noise.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2012 at 22:36 UTC
In reply to:

Essai: does it have Flash support ? :)

Maybe, but that does not mean every Flash based website ever made is converted into HTML5 in a ... flash.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 23:21 UTC
On article Just Posted: First Impressions - Using the Nikon D4 (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paddy MBA: I was quite interested in the replies to my previous contributions. Some were very thoughtful. Some, obviously, were not.
I spent my whole business life in marketing. Specifically, I specialized in the development of products that fit into identified market niches. No product can be everything for everyone. Camera companies tend to develop their products forwards; that is, they develop the products from a tech / design standpoint rather than identify the market first and develop the product to meet needs / opportunities (the proper way to do it). The D4 and the D800 are engineering marvels, to be sure, but that's all they are. The Nikon engineers are in love with their technology at the expense of the marketplace. Specifically, what market niche does the D800 fit into? The D4, with its speed and low light capabilities, will be great for indoor sports. But, the D800? Perhaps, the D700 is still a better option.

I don't think Nikon is reluctant to listen to the market. That would be a very silly thing to do for such a major corporation.

The D800 has a one major USP: 39 MP on his sensor.

That is one way to enter the market. You can make or break a deal by aggressive pricing or impressive features. The D800 does both.

You say the D4 & D800 are 'only' engineering marvels. But that is exactly what the market wants: high performance & new technology. So I don't feel you have a strong point, especially if you don't see the potential of the D800 and claim de D700 is still a better option.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 23:08 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark III hands-on preview and video (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

profdeming: What a bitter disappointment this camera is. We waited three years for a sensor that has 22 instead of 21 MP? I can't believe the way people are swooning over this. Unless Canon comes out with a high resolution pretty quickly, they are going to lose a big market share to Nikon.

Really? I find it so extraordinary that people still hold on to older specs 'because it is enough'. For them. Imagine that companies would listen to those instead of the market (=majority of users). We would still have noisy 6MP sensors. "Because 6MP is enough".

Instead of saying that the D800 has too many megapixels, you should state that people who don't need those megapixels, should look elsewhere - but of course they won't. Makes more sense too me, than criticising the D800 directly.

Cellphones have IQ very close to compact digicams, bridge camera's have the IQ that DSLR had 5 years ago. DSLR's are stepping into MF territory.

I can't see the wrong in that. You?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 20:10 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark III hands-on preview and video (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

profdeming: What a bitter disappointment this camera is. We waited three years for a sensor that has 22 instead of 21 MP? I can't believe the way people are swooning over this. Unless Canon comes out with a high resolution pretty quickly, they are going to lose a big market share to Nikon.

@ Michael
You mean sensor instead of sensors? Or is the bump from 12 to 16MP with the D4 also "heavily critiziced" in your imagination?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Those sample photos are good for a compact camera, but not as good a true FF pro cameras, 41 MPix or not.

41 MPix at f:2.4 is just about the diffraction limit with a 8x11mm sensor size, as extrapolated form the table at the end of this article. And that requires a "perfect" lens.

Have you even looked at full res samples at 41 MP? Even at 41MP, they are a lot better and sharper than most smartphones or cheap compacts.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2012 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

pait: The writing in this article is not at the level we have come to enjoy and expect from dpreview. The alliterative use of the pronoun "you" is annoying. Come to think of it, Nokia's idea of pushing the megapixel myth this late in the game is also annoying.

Well in that case, I guess the megapixel mythe is ... confirmed.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 02:55 UTC

Even at full res (38MP), it's very impressive. This is more "wow" than the difference between a D3 and a D4 in my book.

Remember, this is just a phone.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2012 at 21:53 UTC as 186th comment
On article Nikon D4 & D800: What do the Professionals Think? (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

Octane: I don't like the imposed question if Nikon 'got it right or wrong' with these cameras.
These guys have never touched these cameras. But more important: It really doesn't matter what a pro with a specific need thinks when it comes to my own camera decisions.

I have my own needs/requirements when it comes to cameras. I happen to be a pro as well, but that's irrelevant. Everyone has their own needs / budget / goals. No 'right or wrong', there is only a match or not a match of a camera and what you need.

Not that I find their opinion uninteresting, but it has no influence or weight on what I need. A Reuters news reporter is certainly a pro, but he shoots stuff I don't shoot, he works differently and doesn't have to worry about what his gear costs for the most part.

The D800 will sell mostly to non or semi professionals. Their 'needs' are much more driven my what they want rather what they really have to deliver, so they will decide more based on their gut.

The fact remains: with the D3 and D700 it was all very simple. You are a pro, you want/need it all and can afford it? You buy the D3. You are somehow less pro or a pro who wants backup body or on budget? You buy the D700 - a.k.a "90% D3". Everyone was quite happy, generally speaking.

Things got a bit complicated now. Not if you only wanted a high res body or need a really fast machine with money to spend. In that case you are one happy camper. But I mean, the D800 and D4 are two very different beast, unlike de D700 and D3. If the price was the same, the choice would be simple again. But it is not. For a lot of people de D4 is not an option and they don't like the D800 (maybe not yet).

So I can understand the opinion from the crowd falling in between the D4 and the D800. A vacuum.

Time (and proper reviews) will tell.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2012 at 04:19 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (207 comments in total)

Extremely impressive. I very much like the design and ergonomics.

And the OM-D E-M5 itself is not bad either, but the name is really unattractive. Can't believe nobody said "hey guys, shouldn't we use a catchier name, something that looks and sounds less like a chemical formula"?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2012 at 02:17 UTC as 40th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Cy Cheze: It looks as though the NEX system can't provide a fast lens unless it is also rather big. If the E50mm f/1.8 sample is any indication, a 35mm or wider lens with f/1.8 would be very big. Both the 200mm f/6.3 lenses are too slow for sports at the long end, except maybe with the ISO juiced up.

Leica lenses don't have electric AF or IS/VR motors built around the glass. So, bad comparison.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2012 at 05:39 UTC
On article 'No Future in Photojournalism' Interview: Dan Chung (266 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEye: Everybody wants a blurb in the form of moving pictures. No wait, not everyone does. ;-)

Motion picture and still picture are very different from each other. A still picture has to capture something of significance or of interest in the form of a slice of time. Many people prefer moving pictures because those don't tax their brain as much as looking at a photograph and trying to make sense out of it. Looking at a photograph is an active process. Watching moving pictures is exposure to a constant stream, which is for the most part a rather passive process.

I think that's a bit too simplistic. There are many motion pictures that make people think about the images and what they imply as there many photos which are very straight forward.

The basics are the same: lighting, composition and focus. But I do think motion pictures are more forgiving, generally speaking. Time is more on your side. A photo is just a (very) brief moment. It's either good or bad. Missed or nailed. Simply put, a very bad recorded shot of a very important event will still be used or published, but a very bad picture mostly ends in the garbage bin. On the other hand, a motion pictures project tends to give more editing work afterwards.

I could be wrong of course.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 01:39 UTC
On article Nikon D800 and D800E 36MP full-frame DSLRs announced (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxz: Canon's days is over. I own a boatload of canon L lenses but their struggling is too obvious. They are still relying on their aged stepper and fabs that cannot compete with Nikon+Sony alliance. In order to do so they need to shell out two billion, heck they need to sell a few more trucks of old cameras to achieve that. 18MP as the 'all-in-one flagship', i can hear crickets in my house laughing.

@ Revenant.
I wonder what makes the D800 not pro, but semi-pro. Is it the professional body with professional video qualities, professional AF unit and a professional highest resolution sensor in it? Or the targeted professional studio and landscape photographers?

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 19:40 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon D800 hands-on preview (263 comments in total)
In reply to:

jj74e: Honestly, who needs this much resolution at this point. Pros have been doing fine with all the great "low res" cameras that are already out there. At this point, things like memory card usage, faster processing both on camera and post on computers, battery life, etc. are more important than extending even current standards of image quality (except for low light quality, cause the room for improvement is always endless there :P)

I mean, I'm not saying no one can use more resolution, but most people won't. Nor will most people necessarily afford more resolution because of the expensive glass you would need to buy.

Honestly, I really would have rather liked to see Nikon put the money for this new sensor elsewhere in their camera development.

I'm not sure this polarisation is such good thing. Maybe for Nikon, but not for people seeking an D700 upgrade. The D700 was and still is a very popular and succesful body.

Now Nikon decided to change the plan and force people to chose between an expensive fast, high ISO D4 and low ISO D800... only time will tell whether it was a good idea. I always thought the D700 was a genius move and ultimate bang for the buck. Canon didn't really have an answer.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 05:21 UTC
On article Nikon D800 and D800E 36MP full-frame DSLRs announced (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

IcyVeins: I realize this is supposed to replace the D700, but doesn't it also effectively replace the D3X?

It looks more like they replaced the D3x, removed the grip and used the name of the D700 replacement.

The D700 was speed, low noise and 95% a D3 at less than half the price. An instant classic.

With the D800, the main priority clearly is resolution at low ISO. And video. I can understand some D700 owners looking for an upgrade (95% of a D4 for half the price) could be disappointed.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 05:01 UTC
Total: 135, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »