Dennis

Lives in United States CT, United States
Works as a Software
Joined on Oct 25, 2002

Comments

Total: 486, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

alextardif: Hands down, the silliest "review" of 2018 to date... void of logic or humor, or really ANYTHING worthwhile whatsoever.

I appreciate when dpr shares something good ... but not fluff pieces like this. Who would have ever guessed that a Zeiss Otus on a FF DSLR is sharper, but bigger, heavier and slower than a compact fixed lens camera ? You could have drawn the same conclusions without ever seeing the two.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 18:19 UTC
On article PowerShot Shootout: Canon's G1 X III vs G7 X II (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: So more than three years later, the Panasonic LX100 still sets the standard for the best combination of large sensor/bright zoom lens. Not to mention all the other great things about that camera.

And we're still waiting for a successor...why?

Probably because the larger sensor in the LX100 doesn't outperform the 1" Sony sensor. Equivalence is a handy guide and gives you an idea of the DOF you can expect, but while SNR depends on total light, it also depends on the sensor. So the f/1.7-2.8 lens on the LX100 only gives a slight advantage in shallower DOF over the RX100 - not a low light noise advantage. And you get 12MP images instead of 20. Then there's all the other stuff ... frame rates, EVF, ergonomics, size, convenience ... either one will appeal to different people for different reasons, but I don't think the LX100 really benefits from the larger sensor (except for the shallower DOF). Of course, I'm saying that based on reviews, having used an RX100, but not an LX100. DXOMark scores the sensors similarly (slight edge to the RX100 V) and DPreview says "In Raw the LX100 will comfortably match its high-end rivals (the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 III and Canon PowerShot G7 X)".

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 15:51 UTC
On article PowerShot Shootout: Canon's G1 X III vs G7 X II (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lederhosen: This kind of holistic comparison ought to be a staple of your reviews. Rather than always harping on the smaller sensor size of m43 cameras, for instance, why not look at real-world equivalencies? How much light can an Olympus EM1 MkII gather with a 1.2 lens—what kind of depth-of-field can it achieve—compared to a Sony A7riii with an equivalent-sized lens? Given the slow shutter speeds now allowed by sensor stabilization, how often does the advantage of full-frame really come into play?

I agree that a series of such comparisons would be useful for people trying to decide between systems ... and it's very handy to compare fixed lens cameras like this. But individual camera model reviews are probably geared toward people who have a sense of what the system can do and want to know how this camera rates within the system. I think it would be overkill to add such comparisons to all ILC reviews.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 15:39 UTC

So the iPhone can take portraits as well as the wrong camera with the wrong lens :)

I maintain that each evolution in phone cameras makes little difference to the ILC market ... it's more about phone manufacturers trying to leapfrog each other.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 17:00 UTC as 122nd comment
In reply to:

Dennis: He has a good point. Most pros use Canon ... but then Canon doesn't support pros, instead grabbing freebies ? I know, Canon "supports" pros in a lot of ways ... just saying that in this small matter, they're contributing to the difficulties pro photographers face today.

Admittedly, I don't know the context of the facebook post (only that Mr. Locardi objected on the basis of it being a free image, rather than a paid pro image). But if the rationale for choosing an image off a free site is that consumers can get images like that w/o pro gear, then they probably shouldn't have chosen one shot with a 1D-IV. Anyway, like I said, hardly a big deal. It all blows over. Sony posted ads on dpreview talking about anti shake fixing problems that anti shake can't possible fix ... marketering is marketing.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:55 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: He has a good point. Most pros use Canon ... but then Canon doesn't support pros, instead grabbing freebies ? I know, Canon "supports" pros in a lot of ways ... just saying that in this small matter, they're contributing to the difficulties pro photographers face today.

"Abandoning pros" ?

Here's what I wrote:
" I know, Canon "supports" pros in a lot of ways ... just saying that in this small matter, they're contributing to the difficulties pro photographers face today."

I didn't think I made it out to be a big deal in any way.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: He has a good point. Most pros use Canon ... but then Canon doesn't support pros, instead grabbing freebies ? I know, Canon "supports" pros in a lot of ways ... just saying that in this small matter, they're contributing to the difficulties pro photographers face today.

How can it be a nonsensical argument ? This story (and others like it) and the feedback from the original photographer are proof that Canon screwed up. I didn't say Canon doesn't support pros at all ... just that they're choosing not to by grabbing free photos for marketing. Which ended up being anti-marketing ! "Hey ... pros ... buy our stuff. Then good luck making a living with it, because nobody needs to pay you to get images."
In their defense, they did at least go and look for a photo that was (according to the exif stats) taken with a Canon camera ... but it's still a slap in the face to pros who are all too aware that the market is drying up and then can't even count on the company that manufactures their gear to pay for images.
Then again, Nikon apparently hates women and Sony hates water, so what are you gonna do ?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 18:51 UTC

He has a good point. Most pros use Canon ... but then Canon doesn't support pros, instead grabbing freebies ? I know, Canon "supports" pros in a lot of ways ... just saying that in this small matter, they're contributing to the difficulties pro photographers face today.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 17:08 UTC as 65th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

visualenvy: Can't wait for Sony to make one for the A9.. like never.

Sony is releasing electronics while Nikon is releasing fine crafted masterpieces. Yes I'm biased :)

Nikon releases electronics, too (Nikon 1, KeyMission) ... but nobody can blame you for forgetting about them :(

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 13:23 UTC

My iPhone 6 is an "older" iPhone ?

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2017 at 00:16 UTC as 56th comment

Does any of this change the value proposition for Leica (or change it much) ?

Can you imagine many photographers who would have bought an M10 if its sensor score matched the D850 but now suddenly aren't going to because it "only" matches the 6DII ?

The same (vast majority of) people who were never going to buy a Leica before are still going to never buy a Leica and the (very few) people who would consider an M10 are going to find it good enough.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 18:40 UTC as 101st comment
In reply to:

TMHKR: "But but the gear matters but but full-frame master race but but 50 Mpx but IBIS but bokeh but - " [faints] :)

Anyway, most of these cameras were considered advanced compacts in their time. I was expecting cheaper, IXUS-class of gear.

If you read the article, she basically agrees (at the very end) that the gear matters. All the "gear doesn't matter" parrots will jump all over this one, but she doesn't buy into the "best camera is the one you have with you" mantra and says, plainly, that it's all about using the right camera to achieve your vision.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: Camera companies have had it easy for too long. Everyone used to upgrade their camera every year when a new one with an extra pixel was released, but we've wised up to that now. well, most of us. The metric enlargements still make some think that 50mp will be useful for what they do but we all know there's a limit and they won't have anything to tempt us with.

I just hope my Fuji is built to last so I don't have to replace it for a decade...

Agree w/WT21 - nothing to do with wising up to anything. My first DSLR was 6MP. I found modest sized prints of detailed landscapes disappointing and I found ISO 1600 lousy for anything but a small print. My 12MP camera was much better and my 16MP DSLR better still. We all figure out when things are good enough and if it's worth spending money for more. The dilemma camera makers face is how to sell lots of cameras when cameras have been good for a long time now. OTOH, the dilemma is probably overblown, because everyone is looking at sales that have declined from an artificial spike - from a time when there was lots of demand for better, cheaper products when the market was young. I've seen reports that suggest that smart phone sales are plateauing in some regions.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 02:08 UTC
In reply to:

Nikoncanonfan: What on earth use is it only on a Sony? It's not a serious system

"Nikoncanonfan" says Sony is not a serious system. Who's surprised ?

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2017 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

eazizisaid: Beautiful camera. If I had the money it'll go straight to Leica's pocket. Beautiful design, beautiful attention to details. You get what you pay for no matter what other people think... because if they had enough money too, they'll spend it on a Leica.

I appreciate Leicas. But despite the fact that they're well engineered and well built and unique, they're not for everyone. I suspect that if you priced this camera in line with high end Sony/Fuji/m43 mirrorless ($around $1700) you still wouldn't get that many buyers.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

chadley_chad: And queue all the camera snobs calling this rubbish and offering their opion as to why. Yawn.

And cue chadley_chad insulting everyone who finds yet another technically good video uninteresting (without offering an opinion as to why).

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 05:01 UTC
In reply to:

Fishchris: Very creative and fun to watch 😉 Totally not surprised by all the negative comments on here. In case you're new here and haven't figured it out yet this site is predominantly for techies, and definitely not for the Arts. The majority of the people who frequent this site would not know art if it came up and slapped them in the face.

That's quite ironic, when my criticism (and that of others, I assume) is that videos like this and the most recent one posted, suffer from an abundance of technical skill and a lack of artistry.
Wouldn't you expect people who are all tech and no art to appreciate the same ?
The Revenant was wonderful. Nebraska, brilliant. This is "look what I can do with a computer".
Anyway, I'm guessing you liked it, so just like fanboys here, you feel it necessary to insult those who don't.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 04:56 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: The issue seems silly at first glance, but sure looks as if Fujifilm deliberately designed their Instax Square borders to look exactly like Polaroid's instant photos. It's not merely a shape within another shape, but the exact same alignment and proportions.
And I can't see any justification for Fujifilm's demand that Polaroid's Registered Trademarks should be canceled.

"Fujifilm is attempting to profit from Polaroid's long-standing and legally trademarked product design."

I think Fujifilm is trying to profit from the popularity of Instagram. I doubt they thought to emulate Polaroid in an effort to make money.
Edit: Looking again, they do seem to be going for the retro appeal with the borders ...

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 18:21 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV review (558 comments in total)
In reply to:

Imager of: As long as you have good light you’re fine. Start getting the iso above 400 and things start turning to mush. Owned for 2 weeks but returned. My Fuji xt2 killed it.

I've shot ISO 6400 with the original RX100 and results are fine for at least a 5x7. Imaging-resource claims ISO 400 is good for a 20x30" print and ISO 1600 for an 11x14. We all know it has a 1" sensor and if you need FF quality, then a 1" sensor isn't going to cut it. But these sensors are pretty amazing.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: I think the same philosophical advice we throw at photographers all the time needs to be applied to videographers: you can get up early, put a drone up in the air in great lighting at an exotic locale, be an expert pilot, be good at post processing, but you need a better idea than fly around in circles and speed up the result to make people dizzy. (It's the old "sharp image of a fuzzy concept" extended to video). It definitely took some skill and the location is beautiful. I would not watch it again or share it with a friend. (Especially not right after a meal).

@chadley_chad

I've yet to see anyone claim to be able to do better. But yes, lots of people complaining about this annoying video. Sometimes, the emperor has no clothes. There's a reason cinematographers aren't hired to write, direct or score movies. We've seen many videos here over the last couple years that contain wonderful footage, but fail to be interesting enough to watch for the entire duration (never mind ever want to watch again). You were wowed. Should I attack you for being easily impressed ?
I truly believe that as people become jaded by watching more and more impressive footage, videographers are going to have to move past the "wow" factor of nice footage and learn how to produce good videos.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 02:04 UTC
Total: 486, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »