Najinsky

Joined on Feb 21, 2006

Comments

Total: 598, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Re: "AF Target Spot Metering (E-M1 II only)" - should say E-M5 II

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 15:17 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

Did anyone click through far enough to see the sample images? Probably the worst digital images I've ever seen. Nothing in focus, flare everywhere, compulsory distortion. This makes no sense at all for photography, totally pointless, but as interactive bling for those with MHLFD (must have latest fashion disorder) I wouldn't bet against it being a roaring success!

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 18:44 UTC as 3rd comment
On article This camera shoots at 5 trillion frames per second (3 comments in total)

Wow. So misleading I'm practically speechless. But of course in reality my speech just slowed down so much it no long had sufficient force to apply pressure to the eardrum so it just looked like I mouthed bullpoopoo without actually making a sound.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 18:23 UTC as 1st comment
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: It's way past time to stop pushing Adobe Camera Raw processing as any kind of reference standard.

The only standard it represents is that of lowest common denominator.

To achieve that it ignores tons of metadata that the camera supplied software understands and that can be used to produce a much better rendering using the manufacturer supplied raw processor.

I understand it respresents a tricky challenge, but hat doesn't mean it's a challenge that should be shirked.

I'd rather not. I'd rather the industry sorted this mess out. Adobe is not the solution, it's only making the best of a bad situation.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 13:36 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

JeanPierre Thibaudeau: I bought close to a hundred cameras in the last ten years and one of the most accurate colors I've ever seen coming from any camera was from the venerable Sony R1 from 2005. Seeing Sony's colours from more recent models prevent me to buy another Sony digicam, especially at the high price they go for nowadays. Sony lost their magical recipe for colours along the way.

Sony R1 was actually a CMOS sensor, rare for a bridge camera at the time (as was APS-C). In theory CCD or CMOS will have little effect on colour, they just represent different electronic architectures for acquiring the exposure readings.

What will affect colour is the ambient lighting, CFA and Lens coatings. Canon are the only one I've seen publish white papers that describe their colour philosophy and technical approach.

They start with target customer, look at the most common lighting scenarios they expect that customer to be shooting in and the most common subjects they will be shooting, and then design a CFA, IR filter and OLP filter to optimise for those scenarios.

What it boils down to, is Canon sensors are great at capturing skin tones in a wide variety of mixed lighting scenarios, but at the expense of some complex red and blue channel processing.

There is now concern that this is changing due to constant DR criticisms, so soon we may get crap colour from all cameras.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 13:11 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: It's way past time to stop pushing Adobe Camera Raw processing as any kind of reference standard.

The only standard it represents is that of lowest common denominator.

To achieve that it ignores tons of metadata that the camera supplied software understands and that can be used to produce a much better rendering using the manufacturer supplied raw processor.

I understand it respresents a tricky challenge, but hat doesn't mean it's a challenge that should be shirked.

Yes, I guess they figure that as it's going to be tested using ACR anyway, they are forgiven for supplying bad software.

But then again, if review sites insisted on using the supplied software to process raws, and marked the camera down for having very bad software, before long the software quality might improve. But when you get a free pass, the incentive to improve it isn't there.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 12:28 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)

It's way past time to stop pushing Adobe Camera Raw processing as any kind of reference standard.

The only standard it represents is that of lowest common denominator.

To achieve that it ignores tons of metadata that the camera supplied software understands and that can be used to produce a much better rendering using the manufacturer supplied raw processor.

I understand it respresents a tricky challenge, but hat doesn't mean it's a challenge that should be shirked.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 11:20 UTC as 82nd comment | 5 replies
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: Confusion central. Checking out the raw files from the X-Trans 3 cameras just doesn't support what you have been writing about these cameras.

Here's the queen of spades in the comparison scene, XT2, XT20, X100F and GR2.

http://bit.ly/2nPzf2m

The X-T2 looks great. The X-T20 is softer and the X100F is softer still.

The X100F output shows about the same resolution as the 16MP Ricoh GR 2, just uprezzed to 24MP. Clearly the old lens cant match the new sensor, it should have been upgraded for this price point. For sure, the Xtrans 3 output is nicer than Xtrans 2, and that helps a bit, but gold award, at this price, Meh!

Now the XT20 should deliver very similar results to the X-T2 and in the review you say it does, but the raw shown above is clearly softer (eg the ruby). Is it a testing error or something more serious, like the camera being prone to shutter vibration on some shots?

Note, switching from raw to the JPEG does make the XT20 match the XT2. But why is the raw so soft.

Yes. Obviously accuracy in testing and presenting the results is now low on the agenda. Impossible for a raw+jpeg of the very same capture to show such differences. And lack of official response to these questions shows what a low priority it now is. Yet when someone criticises the composition of the sample photos for the the latest sexy camera the DPR photographer has no trouble finding the time to respond.

Sad as it seems, the site is so busy trying to reinvent itself for the future, it doesn't realise how much it is distancing itself from the past that made it relevant.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Just how bad is this Journalism. Did anyone reading this story get even the slightest clue about actually what the infringements are supposed to be. Specifically, what IP rights are being disputed?

On the surface Nikon's claims sound strong. As reported, ASML are acknowledging attempts to negotiate a license fee with Nikon, that seems to indicate that ASML acknowledge the need for license rights exist. But with so few relevant facts, trying to interpret the situation seems a crap shoot at best.

Time to search for better informed sites I guess.

Not at the moment. I've invested over 10 years in this site as my primary feed for Camera related information. Over the last 18 months or so I'm much less happy with what I'm seeing them produce. It's only very recently I decided I need a better source and I'm still searching for where that might be. PetaPixel looks promising but it's a different kind of site. In some ways better, in other ways less comprehensive, but mostly just different.

I asked DPR to delete my account last week. So far they ignored that request, just like they ignored requests to clarify why they are reporting/reviewing different camera brands to different standards. As far as I'm and concerned it devalues the site, so I'll use my last days to highlight that.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Just how bad is this Journalism. Did anyone reading this story get even the slightest clue about actually what the infringements are supposed to be. Specifically, what IP rights are being disputed?

On the surface Nikon's claims sound strong. As reported, ASML are acknowledging attempts to negotiate a license fee with Nikon, that seems to indicate that ASML acknowledge the need for license rights exist. But with so few relevant facts, trying to interpret the situation seems a crap shoot at best.

Time to search for better informed sites I guess.

Meaning what? Because DPR is free it's ok for it to be low quality? I doubt that would benefit anyone.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 21:39 UTC

Just how bad is this Journalism. Did anyone reading this story get even the slightest clue about actually what the infringements are supposed to be. Specifically, what IP rights are being disputed?

On the surface Nikon's claims sound strong. As reported, ASML are acknowledging attempts to negotiate a license fee with Nikon, that seems to indicate that ASML acknowledge the need for license rights exist. But with so few relevant facts, trying to interpret the situation seems a crap shoot at best.

Time to search for better informed sites I guess.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 21:27 UTC as 35th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

osv: "shortages caused by the earthquake have resulted in 'temporary moderate growth' for interchange lens digital cameras."

translation: canon profited off of the earthquake misery that other companies suffered through, but it wasn't enough to save 'em from a disasterous fy2016:

canon fy2016 vs fy2015:
net sales: -10.5%
gross profit: -13.5%
op. profit: -35.6%
net income: -31.6%

"Canon profited off the earthquake misery"

Seriously?

Are you descended from the middle age witch hunters who declared any virgin that refused to have sex with the witchfinder general must automatically be a witch?

Hands downs to dumbest post I ever read on this ever increasingly has-been of a website (and I've read some real dumb ones). You need serious therapy.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Donnie G: That's odd, weren't the cameras with the longest and cleverest spec sheets suppose to destroy Canon? Guess it'll take more than having 4k video and a built-in cigarette lighter to get that job done. LOL

Happy 30th birthday EOS! 😎

Those spec sheets are called hype. Once upon a time there was a website established to cut through the hype. Once upon a time. My, grandma, what big eyes you have....

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 19:34 UTC

And here we see how Canon are just so much smarter than the rest.

While DPR have repeatedly got on their case for not jumping into the latest money draining not quite ready for prime time fads, Canon simply continue make extremely well targeted products that people actually continue to buy and continue to enjoy using.

And all the while, quietly in the background, Canon continued to innovate in key areas, but in such a low key way not even the pundits see it happening (that seems to be a common risk factor when pundits are enthusiasts too).

Even the headline that Canon were granted more patents in 2016 than Apple, Google and Microsoft managed to stay below the radar for many.

Or maybe DPR are simply playing the double bluff game, taking the opportunity to be the criticiser now, so as they can be seen as they influencer later. Maybe. But Occam's razor suggests they are more likely just GAS addicts, like the rest of us.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 17:05 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: £4500 - USB 2

<shakes head>

£4500 - USB 2

<shakes head harder>

£4500 - USB 2

Nope. It won't compute. My head just doesn't want to let it in.

Even slower AND a power drain, nice.

Wifi speeds are measured in Mbps, USB 3 in Gbps.

USB 3 / Type C offers bidirectional power and data and can carry other signals such as audio and video, potential replacing the need for a multitude of ports such as HDMI, Mic and Headphones.

Perhaps your not aware of what a versatile and consumer friendly little port this is:

https://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to/usb-type-c-thunderbolt-3-one-cable-to-connect-them-all/

But still, if you guys are happy, I'm happy for you.

And besides, Sony probably had to hold something back for next years Mk II version.....

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 03:48 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: £4500 - USB 2

<shakes head>

£4500 - USB 2

<shakes head harder>

£4500 - USB 2

Nope. It won't compute. My head just doesn't want to let it in.

"Does anyone ever use the USB for anything but charging"

Certainly less useful when it's slow, but if it was the faster USB 3.....

Common uses:

- Simultaneously charging while transferring images
- Firmware upgrades
- Tethered shooting
- Remote support

Potential use:

- Backup to Hard Drive / Thumb drive
- Emergency charging of phone.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 14:02 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)

£4500 - USB 2

<shakes head>

£4500 - USB 2

<shakes head harder>

£4500 - USB 2

Nope. It won't compute. My head just doesn't want to let it in.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 08:37 UTC as 92nd comment | 7 replies
On article Canon EOS 77D Review (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: "it does offer a compelling balance at this price point."
A great review that could have been written by Phil Askey himself, god rest his soul.

Well it did make me wonder too. I checked and his last tweet was April 8 and there has been no news reports so I assume (hope) he's just fine and that if his soul is resting in peace it's simply because he has discovered the secrets to inner harmony.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 13:41 UTC
On article Canon EOS 77D Review (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: So, DPR, please help me understand.

They put their very best APS-C sensor in a mid level enthusiast camera for $900.

It's an excellent sensor, with base ISO DR the same as full frame sensors from a few years ago, such as the Nikon D4.

But because it's not the very best APS-C sensor available, that's now a "Con".

And to squeeze it into this category, you introduce the role of peers; citing D7200 and A6300.

D7200, a camera introduced for $300 more.

A6300, also introduced at slightly higher price ($1000) but a now a mirrorless camera?

Why not Sony's most recent APS-C DSLR, the A68. Which has almost identical sensor performance to the Canon (Canon fractions better but negligible)?

Say we accept a mirrorless 'peer', so what about the Fujifilm X-T2 for $1600 or the cheaper X-T20. These have near identical sensor performance to the Canon (fractions). Yet for those, sensor DR is not a "Con".

I get that you like to rib Canon a bit, but is the DR of this camera really a "Con"?

You also haven't mentioned the Fujifilm inconsistency. That the sensors measure the same base ISO performance, and are visibly comparable in your exposure latitude test:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=fujifilm_xt2&attr144_1=canon_eos80d&attr144_2=fujifilm_xt2&attr144_3=canon_eos80d&attr146_0=200_0&attr146_1=100_0&attr146_2=200_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&attr177_2=off&attr177_3=off&normalization=full&widget=412&x=0.39849413706189113&y=0.7719468565438498

Was it simply an oversight, or this this approach something new, or is there still something I'm not getting about the relative performance of these two sensors?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 09:15 UTC
On article Canon EOS 77D Review (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: So, DPR, please help me understand.

They put their very best APS-C sensor in a mid level enthusiast camera for $900.

It's an excellent sensor, with base ISO DR the same as full frame sensors from a few years ago, such as the Nikon D4.

But because it's not the very best APS-C sensor available, that's now a "Con".

And to squeeze it into this category, you introduce the role of peers; citing D7200 and A6300.

D7200, a camera introduced for $300 more.

A6300, also introduced at slightly higher price ($1000) but a now a mirrorless camera?

Why not Sony's most recent APS-C DSLR, the A68. Which has almost identical sensor performance to the Canon (Canon fractions better but negligible)?

Say we accept a mirrorless 'peer', so what about the Fujifilm X-T2 for $1600 or the cheaper X-T20. These have near identical sensor performance to the Canon (fractions). Yet for those, sensor DR is not a "Con".

I get that you like to rib Canon a bit, but is the DR of this camera really a "Con"?

Fair points.

I'm just thinking back to when I purchased many of my cameras using DPR as a guide, and before I got deeply into the technical nitty gritty.

The Cons were the warning signs, I had to assess their potential impact; slow or low accuracy AF, long shot to shot delays, features locked while buffer clears, poor auto WB in mixed lighting, etc, etc.

I don't really see the difference between excellent and outstanding as a Con, and I'm not sure if the Me of yesteryear would have known how to go about assessing for myself if this "Con" would be something to be concerned about or not. Without some kind of 'acceptability benchmark' to relate it to, it may well have put me off the camera unnecessarily.

It seems inconsistent in that I don't see the same approach used in other metrics. If AF performance is excellent, it's usually a Pro. Within the excellents, one will be best, class leading. But I don't recall seeing only excellent AF, not class leading, listed as a "Con" anywhere.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 08:50 UTC
Total: 598, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »