Najinsky

Joined on Feb 21, 2006

Comments

Total: 469, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Perhaps I'm alone in this, I often am, but my mind can't resist to draw parallels with what is happening here on DPR in their quest/side effect of forcing/encouraging manufacturers to add every latest feature under the sun to their product or suffer the consequences of a low review score. The result, cameras that overheat, and/or have additional heat management systems contributing to the larger and more expensive bodies.

Kudos to Canon for still knowing how/when to buck the trend and make a great stills compact that doesn't try to do too much, and does what it does very well, in the most part.

Kudos to me for taking a phone topic back to cameras ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 15:18 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

@Lan: It's DPR's job to try, and they love their job. It's our job to let them know how well we think they are doing, and we love our job too ;-)

@rrccad: Thanks for the confirmation

@Jeff: Thanks, look forward to seeing more tele shots when you get the chance.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 08:32 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: It is good that Canon joined mirrorless in a more serious way, finally. But there was no fanfare, they've come to the party very late. I hope the thing sells and I hope they don't treat it like the insane uncle, the way Nikon created and treated the 1 series, hiding it away at photo shows, sticking it FAR from the DSLR's on the store shelves, at least the ones I'd seen.

Here in Asia the EOS M line has sold in line with target expectations, and when you walk around the camera stores in the bricks and mortar outlets it's very easy to see why. Canon are so far ahead of the competition in terms of size and quality of their retail presence, it can make it very hard not to buy a Canon, even if you had no intention to.

I'd need more than two hands to count the times I almost bought an M camera, even though I had gone into the store to buy an FE or M43 lens!

I don't know how it will pan out with the higher price of the M5, but last time I was in a large mall (about 4 months I guess) it looked like Nikon had left the camera business and the only one trying to mount a challenge to Canon were Olympus, taking a very similar approach in their retail approach but on a much smaller scale.

Given Olympus went big, pro and expensive with the E-M1.2 my gut feel is Canon will sell a lot of M5s, here in Asia at least.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 07:27 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: I expected better colours than Panasonic but they are even worse, and far behind Fuji, Panasonic, Sony.

IQ dissapointed.

@julienA

Yes and No. Sensors record the response of filtered light. The 'red' channel is the response from the light that passed through a 'red' portion of the CFA.

With a manufacturer like Canon that 'makes' their own sensors, the red filter could be filtering a slightly different wavelength of red than other sensors.

Indeed when I switched from the original 5D to the Mk2, myself and many others noticed a real difference in the rendering in various circumstances. There have been many discussions about it, like this one:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1013683/2&year=2011#9643240

There is also the potential for slight differences from the IR filter, and some crosstalk due to pixel design.

Raw processors need a matrix that describe the colour response for each channel to work out the colours. Some use values from the maker, some make their own, and some let you choose different options.

In this way, there really can be makers colour signature, but it can be optional too.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

Final point. If these M lenses are not automatically software corrected, Canon has done a truly exceptional job on them. The 11-22 is excellent, the 22/2 is excellent, the 28mm is very good and the 15-45 is very good. Yet they are all compact, light and very reasonably priced.

Based on these samples, we can now also see the 18-150 is also very nice, at least up to 62mm anyway :-p

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

... continued.

For M43 cameras, these lens corrections again get automatically corrected by ACR/LR and virtually all major raw software products, although there are now some others that let you see the uncorrected version (if you really want to!)

When DPR test a M43 lens, they usually mention the uncorrected performance as well. However, for sample galleries, they use ACR/Lightroom, so this essentially means that for M43 cameras, and any other cameras/lenses where automatic software correction is supported, such as the LX3 and most subsequent premium compacts, those galleries are possibly benefiting from software corrected images.

It's a tricky situation, and not one of DPR's making, but as M5 is competing more against M43 cameras, it would be interesting to know if these compact M lenses are also designed for software correction, and if it is automatically being applied.

Another case is Sony's 16-50 pancake zoom. This is hugely distorted and requires correction for normal use.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

@lan "Lens samples are traditionally posted without correction to show how the lens performs, rather than how the camera's JPEG engine performs."

It got more complicated than that when Panasonic introduced the raw capable LX3 in 2008. For a simpler design, the lens was designed to be software corrected using data supplied in the raw files.

The first version of ACR to support LX3 did not support these corrections and raw images from the camera looked dreadful with huge distortions. Panasonic lobbied Adobe, arguing the correction data was part of the raw file and must be atomically applied during raw conversion. Eventually adobe cooperated and since then corrections have been applied automatically in the background during raw conversion with no user control, so most users are unaware it is happening.

Later that year, Panasonic introduced the first M43 camera, the G1 and part of the M43 spec was the use of software corrections for lenses, again to keep lens design compact...

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 18:59 UTC

Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 15:58 UTC as 31st comment | 9 replies

Mhmm, with those totems, could make for an excellent retro gaming table. Robotron anyone? Air Hockey?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 19:11 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies

I think this will live or die based on the quality of the touch rejection. A smart configurable surface has the potential to be enjoyable and productive to use, but would be very frustrating if you have to spend half your time correcting for unintentional touches.

I was reminded of this today when installing security camera monitoring software on my friends galaxy edge S6 phone.

I couldn't even pick it up without triggering some pop-up. Coming from Apple devices, it was a very frustrating experience.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 16:56 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

Looks like LHC meets spinal tap Stonehenge.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 11:58 UTC as 17th comment
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: People (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

timo: I wish people would back-off on the post-processing. All of these are intrinsically great shots, but some of them have been ruined on the computer.

Revenant: +1

Criticising photos is inherently a good thing. It causes you to think, analyse, assess and communicate.

However, many do seem to miss the mark on the point of criticism. PP is intrinsic to digital photography, whether you take control of it yourself, or leave it to the engineers who made your camera, every digital photo is post processed, bar none. Some seem to understand this, some don't.

Without access to the raw data, it's actually very hard to know how well a final image has been processed.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2017 at 10:18 UTC

Who knew DPR comments was THE place to get great advice on DIY tools.

Story and comments had me gripped, my gf had to wrench me away from the screen.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 10:48 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: Obviously life is way too short to explore the minutiae of over 1000 comments, so this may be duplication. The thing that struck me most is the comment (conclusions) about being able to get much more camera for your money.

I've spent a lot of money on cameras; prime compacts, zoom compacts, full frame (DSLR/mirrorless), M43, APSC (DSLR/Mirrorless), bridge cameras. I also follow latest developments, so feel I have a pretty good handle on what is available to offer something new to the experience.

For me the criteria would go something like this; decent grip and central finder (dslr style). Compact size and weight, say under 500g. 20MP resolution or greater. Good dynamic range. Dual control dials from the shooting grip. Dual (or more) custom modes from a dial. Efficient focusing system (frame coverage and fast point selection). Interchangeable lenses. Budget $1000. Good customer support.

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, only the Canon M5 fulfills this criteria?

Of course a good eye and skill are very important, but what makes you think the equipment isn't?

Part of that skill is understanding your equipment, its strengths and its limits.

It's pointless pointing to a showcase body of work and saying "see, here's how it's supposed to be done" because by definition the work being shown in the showcase is of when the results worked. Or are you saying you never made a mistake or bad choice or bad exposure in your life?

The problem with this 'a good photographer can do anything with anything nonsense ' is it's nonsense. You really think Ansel Adams could shoot high speed sports onto plate glass just because he was a skilled photographer? Part of the skill was knowing he couldn't.

And while a good photographer can maybe get something good with anything, in reality, the shoot with something, something they chose based on their requirements.

Gear is important, period. I'd guess it's what most of us are here for.

Th

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 05:57 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: Obviously life is way too short to explore the minutiae of over 1000 comments, so this may be duplication. The thing that struck me most is the comment (conclusions) about being able to get much more camera for your money.

I've spent a lot of money on cameras; prime compacts, zoom compacts, full frame (DSLR/mirrorless), M43, APSC (DSLR/Mirrorless), bridge cameras. I also follow latest developments, so feel I have a pretty good handle on what is available to offer something new to the experience.

For me the criteria would go something like this; decent grip and central finder (dslr style). Compact size and weight, say under 500g. 20MP resolution or greater. Good dynamic range. Dual control dials from the shooting grip. Dual (or more) custom modes from a dial. Efficient focusing system (frame coverage and fast point selection). Interchangeable lenses. Budget $1000. Good customer support.

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, only the Canon M5 fulfills this criteria?

Pavel, your photos are very beautiful and for sure well composed, your work is very nice to look at.

However, your comments seem very naive if you can not see the difference between your carefully composed and considered studio/architectural work and my travel shots.

Being a traveller is precisely why I have an interest in compact cameras that deliver great IQ, as many photos are opportunistic and depend on having the camera do what you want at a moments notice.

For example, this little Cambodian girl on the counter top: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4910244932/download/3519637

I was waiting for a motorcycle to take me to a temple at the top of a mountain. My driver came and I climbed aboard, as he started to drive off I passed this shop with a small pretty girl playing with soda cans on a counter top. Raise and click was all I had time for. Sufficient DR and resolution and a lot of PP flexibility is what got the shot, a shot that generates a lot of diverse interest.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 22:07 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1595 comments in total)
In reply to:

AKH: If the M5 shares the sensor in the 80D I fail to see that the M5 falls 1 stop behind the competition.

According to DxoMark the 80D does not fall that much behind. Only around 1/2 stop in dynamic range and 1/3 of a stop in high ISO performance compared to the A6300.

Pavel, the EF-M lens selection for EOS M cameras is really not that different than the EF-S lens selection for APS-C DSLR bodies. The difference, in Canon lenses, can be summarized as follows; 1) there have have been multiple iterations of similar (kit) zooms - this affects quantity but not choice, most people would choose to get the best kit zoom, for M it comes as standard with M and is very good, so no loss there. 2) M has the same number of primes as EF-S, they are simply different focal lengths. This is not a bad thing as M can use EF-S lenses so it increases the options. 3) M doesn't have a fast (2.8) standard zoom. This is genuine gap and an obvious one to fill if they are serious about mirrorless.

But that's it, that's the difference between EF-S and M. And obviously this is mitigated somewhat by the fact M can use not only EF-S lenses, but also the light and compact STM EF lenses like the 50/1.8 and 40/2.8 pancake.

In terms of IQ, 3 of the M lenses are very good indeed.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:46 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: Obviously life is way too short to explore the minutiae of over 1000 comments, so this may be duplication. The thing that struck me most is the comment (conclusions) about being able to get much more camera for your money.

I've spent a lot of money on cameras; prime compacts, zoom compacts, full frame (DSLR/mirrorless), M43, APSC (DSLR/Mirrorless), bridge cameras. I also follow latest developments, so feel I have a pretty good handle on what is available to offer something new to the experience.

For me the criteria would go something like this; decent grip and central finder (dslr style). Compact size and weight, say under 500g. 20MP resolution or greater. Good dynamic range. Dual control dials from the shooting grip. Dual (or more) custom modes from a dial. Efficient focusing system (frame coverage and fast point selection). Interchangeable lenses. Budget $1000. Good customer support.

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, only the Canon M5 fulfills this criteria?

Pavel, why do I need to supply a link? Just click my profile and check my gallerey. It includes both some of my favorite shots, and also shots that demonstrate some of the shortcomings I encounter.

Im not saying you can't make a good shot with a 12 (or even 4) mp camera. I'm simply saying sometimes I find myself needing to crop, sometimes severely.

As the saying goes, better to have and not need, than need and not have.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:14 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: Obviously life is way too short to explore the minutiae of over 1000 comments, so this may be duplication. The thing that struck me most is the comment (conclusions) about being able to get much more camera for your money.

I've spent a lot of money on cameras; prime compacts, zoom compacts, full frame (DSLR/mirrorless), M43, APSC (DSLR/Mirrorless), bridge cameras. I also follow latest developments, so feel I have a pretty good handle on what is available to offer something new to the experience.

For me the criteria would go something like this; decent grip and central finder (dslr style). Compact size and weight, say under 500g. 20MP resolution or greater. Good dynamic range. Dual control dials from the shooting grip. Dual (or more) custom modes from a dial. Efficient focusing system (frame coverage and fast point selection). Interchangeable lenses. Budget $1000. Good customer support.

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, only the Canon M5 fulfills this criteria?

PS: I don't have a horse in this race, I will buy any camera that delivers something useful and enjoyable for me that I don't get with my existing gear. This is why price is also a factor; this year has been dreadful in terms of manufacturers drastically upping their price for adding feature I don't want (for example, 4k video)

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:12 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: Obviously life is way too short to explore the minutiae of over 1000 comments, so this may be duplication. The thing that struck me most is the comment (conclusions) about being able to get much more camera for your money.

I've spent a lot of money on cameras; prime compacts, zoom compacts, full frame (DSLR/mirrorless), M43, APSC (DSLR/Mirrorless), bridge cameras. I also follow latest developments, so feel I have a pretty good handle on what is available to offer something new to the experience.

For me the criteria would go something like this; decent grip and central finder (dslr style). Compact size and weight, say under 500g. 20MP resolution or greater. Good dynamic range. Dual control dials from the shooting grip. Dual (or more) custom modes from a dial. Efficient focusing system (frame coverage and fast point selection). Interchangeable lenses. Budget $1000. Good customer support.

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, only the Canon M5 fulfills this criteria?

Kind of true, except I don't set criteria to be silly, I set it based on criteria I have found useful to me.

For example, if the camera is large and heavy (like my 5D and L glass) it doesn't always get taken out. Compact and lightweight, means it gets used more.

Lens changing can be a bind; be it not enough hands, delaying a group/family or simply not having taken a lens with me, so high MP count with good pixel quality is very useful for cropping (a kind of digital zoom). This is where my 16MP M43 system fall down, both in terms of resolution and pixel level quality (except for the very best lenses I use).

Put a tele lens on a camera for, say, wildlife, and framing the subject can become challenging. A centrally located finder and good grip help in this respect.

Under a jungle canopy, where lighting varies greatly, as does subject, and having dual controls from the shooting grip makes for a much more relaxed and successful experience.

It's not contrived, just keeping it real

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:04 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1595 comments in total)

Obviously life is way too short to explore the minutiae of over 1000 comments, so this may be duplication. The thing that struck me most is the comment (conclusions) about being able to get much more camera for your money.

I've spent a lot of money on cameras; prime compacts, zoom compacts, full frame (DSLR/mirrorless), M43, APSC (DSLR/Mirrorless), bridge cameras. I also follow latest developments, so feel I have a pretty good handle on what is available to offer something new to the experience.

For me the criteria would go something like this; decent grip and central finder (dslr style). Compact size and weight, say under 500g. 20MP resolution or greater. Good dynamic range. Dual control dials from the shooting grip. Dual (or more) custom modes from a dial. Efficient focusing system (frame coverage and fast point selection). Interchangeable lenses. Budget $1000. Good customer support.

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see, only the Canon M5 fulfills this criteria?

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 20:40 UTC as 139th comment | 11 replies
Total: 469, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »