Edgar Matias

Lives in Canada Toronto, Canada
Works as a Keyboard Designer
Has a website at http://edgarmatias.com
Joined on Mar 5, 2012

Comments

Total: 179, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI: What you need to know (446 comments in total)

Guaranteed that lens will be soft.

The MUCH bigger RX10(ii) lens has the same 24-200mm range and it's soft compared to (for example) the LX10 lens that's only 24-72, or (presumably) the original RX100.

WIll be interesting to see how this RX100vi compares to the RX10ii image quality.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2018 at 22:10 UTC as 120th comment | 5 replies
On article Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom (758 comments in total)

Guaranteed that lens will be soft.

The MUCH bigger RX10 lens has that 24-200mm range and it's soft compared to (for example) the LX10 lens that's only 24-72.

There's no free lunch.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2018 at 22:04 UTC as 73rd comment

Great to see this lens review -- especially given that it's m4/3.

Keep 'em coming...

Link | Posted on May 1, 2018 at 21:56 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Barney, you're a better editor/writer than a wildlife photographer. If I paid you to showcase a lens I made, I'd want my money back. The elk photos were not good. I'm guessing the focus point was not on the head in #1 as the middle of the body has some sharpness, however the head bordered on being blurred. The other elk shots were also not good. I understand some of the photos were taken during it snowing, but to post images such as these to showcase a new lens (which is probably a good lens) was poor judgement imo. Lastly, I've been to Yellowstone a few times and never even thought to take a photo of a sign not matter the intent when this place is a wildlife & geo-feature extravaganza. Id be happy to test your lenses next time.

Haaa, well played...

Link | Posted on May 1, 2018 at 21:48 UTC
On article DPReview TV Episode 1: Sony a7 III review (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

Phil Askey: Good job

Hear, hear.

Took me forever to get out of the habit of typing photo.askey.net.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2018 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Headline: "smartphone filmmakers"... filmmakers eh?... hmmmmmm...

Please, don't insult filmmakers. Please. These words are never meant to be put together.

A filmmaker is moved by passion, by perfectionism, by an eternal chase for the best he/she can do. A filmmaker has standards, and will pursue it at all costs.

Smartphone use is at the opposite end.

You don't make movies with smartphones, you make very forgettable mundane captures of passing by life. That's not filmmaking.

Things that require ultimate quality and craftsmanship (like filmmaking) are outside the realm of smartphones.

Lars Rehm, thanks for the insult.
And yeah, smartphone lovers, your move.

I’m saying that the widely held view among (still shooters) here, is that you want to have the best equipment, ideally FF, and shoot raw. The goal is to get the best possible shot.

People with that mindset are now telling a film maker that if he were any good, a smartphone should be sufficient to shoot his movie. You don’t see the hypocrisy there?

I’m a big believer in smartphones for shooting photos and video, but with the amount of effort / planning / money required to shoot a movie, what logic is there in using a smartphone to film it? It’s proposterous.

It’s like after climbing Mount Everest, casually whipping out your iPhone to take a few shots, and then climbing back down. Everybody here would be shaking their heads, saying “why didn’t you take a real camera?!?”

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2018 at 08:09 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Headline: "smartphone filmmakers"... filmmakers eh?... hmmmmmm...

Please, don't insult filmmakers. Please. These words are never meant to be put together.

A filmmaker is moved by passion, by perfectionism, by an eternal chase for the best he/she can do. A filmmaker has standards, and will pursue it at all costs.

Smartphone use is at the opposite end.

You don't make movies with smartphones, you make very forgettable mundane captures of passing by life. That's not filmmaking.

Things that require ultimate quality and craftsmanship (like filmmaking) are outside the realm of smartphones.

Lars Rehm, thanks for the insult.
And yeah, smartphone lovers, your move.

Question for all the armchair film makers here lecturing marcio_napoli...

How many of you shoot stills in raw format?

JPEG is just as good, so why bother shooting raw?

I think you know what I mean.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2018 at 07:01 UTC

Could we get mm-equivalent focal lengths please?

2x zoom is pretty meaningless if you don't know what the 1x equivalent focal length is -- certainly a lot more relevant than reporting the 1.4 µm pixel size.

This is a photo site -- please remember your audience.

Thanks. :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2018 at 23:58 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On article Have your say: Best compact camera of 2017 (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

AKH: How did the Sony RX IV end up in the high-end compact category? - it is heavier than the Nikon D850 body and the most high-end part of the camera is its crazy high price.

How about this... "Best fixed-lens / zoom camera"

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 21:25 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: bad news is dpreview doesn't update own reviews when something corrected by manufacturers. For example, they many times gave low scores to Nikon camras just for this bad application, but now? whats now? is they will update their review of Nikon, they must give them 2 scores more...

I don't understand the concern about this. Makes me wonder if you are a PR person or Nikon employee.

Anybody buying a camera of that caliber will research it thoroughly.

Given how opinionated everyone is here, I doubt they will just blindly follow an old-ish review. Reviews are a source of critical information, not a school test that you try to haggle with the teacher for a higher score.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2017 at 04:27 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: bad news is dpreview doesn't update own reviews when something corrected by manufacturers. For example, they many times gave low scores to Nikon camras just for this bad application, but now? whats now? is they will update their review of Nikon, they must give them 2 scores more...

If Nikon had shipped a good app right from the beginning, there'd be no issue.

They only have themselves to blame for the earlier bad reviews.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 12:09 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: This looks great but I think pursuing a bigger body is a mistake. If a lot of this tech was packed in a GX80/GX85 sized model that would have been amazing.

Going bigger size is what killed original 4/3rds in the first place. I hope Panasonic trickles down these advancements to the GX80/GX85 line into a GX90 asap.

The better sensors will work their way into the smaller models. It's just a matter of time.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 01:13 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: This looks great but I think pursuing a bigger body is a mistake. If a lot of this tech was packed in a GX80/GX85 sized model that would have been amazing.

Going bigger size is what killed original 4/3rds in the first place. I hope Panasonic trickles down these advancements to the GX80/GX85 line into a GX90 asap.

You are aware that smaller/lighter m43 cameras are available too, right?

No one's forcing you to buy this one.

Also, the heavier zooms will feel lighter / handle better when paired with a bigger body.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 16:27 UTC

DPR readers are easily triggered by anything smartphone related.

Are you interested in photography or are you interested in cameras?

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 03:49 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sonnycsc: DPR forumers as per usual ranting and complaining as the 'experts' that they are. So what that these lenses are big and pricey? Which system doesn't have them? MFT also has smaller alternatives like the 17/f1.8, 25/f1.8 and 45/f1.8 which are solid lenses. This PRO line of glass is for those who will actually use them for their work, not moan about how they compare to bricks on online forums. Go outside and use what you already have! It's all fine that you're voicing your opinions, as long as they stay as your subjective opinions and not pretending to be the voice of the community.

@Raist3d, you also can pay $2,000 for a D500 with bigger sensor. You can cherry pick in either direction.

You can compare a Porsche to a VW. It depends on what your priorities are.

As a m4/3 user, my priority is the smallest size/weight with heavier/costlier options if I need them. I would not buy this lens, but I'm glad it exists. If I need it, I could buy it or rent it.

I really like what Fuji has done. If m4/3 didn't exist, I would be in the Fuji camp for sure, but all their lenses are heavier than the closest m4/3 equivalent -- in some cases, significantly so. I'd rather save the weight most of the time.

Also, I have nothing against FF. I just wish somebody would make a complete set of small & light f2.8 primes for one of the systems. Maybe Nikon will do it.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 03:43 UTC
In reply to:

sonnycsc: DPR forumers as per usual ranting and complaining as the 'experts' that they are. So what that these lenses are big and pricey? Which system doesn't have them? MFT also has smaller alternatives like the 17/f1.8, 25/f1.8 and 45/f1.8 which are solid lenses. This PRO line of glass is for those who will actually use them for their work, not moan about how they compare to bricks on online forums. Go outside and use what you already have! It's all fine that you're voicing your opinions, as long as they stay as your subjective opinions and not pretending to be the voice of the community.

You can pay more for a bigger sensor, or you can pay more for a faster lens.

There's no free lunch.

Also, I don't think it's fair to call it f2.4-equivalent. That's just measuring DOF. If you factor in that FF sensors generally lag behind their smaller counterparts on a per-unit-area basis, it's probably closer to f2 or f1.8.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 17:01 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon IXUS 50 / SD400 Digital ELPH (69 comments in total)

The SD20 was a much better camera than this one. It had a 39mm-e PRIME lens that was tack sharp.

And the camera itself was absolutely tiny. Perfect for travel. I still have mine...

https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_sd20

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 15:29 UTC as 42nd comment
In reply to:

Mark K: Another piece of useless accessory that you have to take lens off from the camera.

There is no shortage of backpacks that are just as @Suntan and @Mark K describe. I don't think the world needs another one of those.

This backpack is for people who just want a small compartment for their camera, with most of the space available to carry other stuff. It's perfect for travellers who need to carry more than just camera(s) and lenses.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 19:14 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: Well that's for canon bokeh! And how do you pronounce Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, etc. bokeh?

@ Gimli - that's pretty funny :-) (eventhough it's not true)

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

Mike99999: Sub-$999 A7 with FE 28/2 - 50/1.8 - 85/1.8.

Should be enough to obliterate crop-mirrorless competitors I would say.

Maybe if you drop one on your foot. :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 10:52 UTC
Total: 179, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »