Najinsky

Joined on Feb 21, 2006

Comments

Total: 934, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

onlooker: DPR, how about an article "This is where G9 falls short of GH5 in the video department"? So far there are bits and pieces in your various articles, but a good summary would be nice.

Onlooker, I agree. I'm struggling to see where this fits. Having said that, it is a little less chubby than the GH5, and it adds the pixel shift mode which makes it a little more directly competitive with the EM1.2.

But are those enough to create a distinct niche from the GH5 while also competing with the EM1.2? I'm not convinced, not even close to convinced.

When you add in that both Panasonic and Olympus are adding features that are only compatible with their own lenses, a picture that starts to emerge that maybe the shrinking market is causing them to fight harder for their share of the m43 camp, subtlety forcing users to consider which sub-camp they want to be in.

I can see a scenario where I would eventually go for a G9, given the limited choices, but I would do so begrudgingly at having to carry more and pay $500 over what I actually want, need and would use.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 04:59 UTC
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: Rip Samsung. Canikon will soon join you in the abyss because they refused to do what you did.

That sounds like an excellent performance from the Nikon and a write up of the comparison would make a good blog article, or post for the Canon FF forum here if you don't blog.

Relating the experience to a wider audience might also bring some tips or insights into what's going on with the Canon that may help improve the results.

25% sounds disappointing, and certainly less than I used to get when shooting my 5D.2 with the trombone.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 03:52 UTC

.
G1: 360g
G3: 336g
G5: 396g
G6: 390g
G7: 410g
G8: 505g
G9: 658g

The trend is not my friend.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 16:55 UTC as 90th comment | 15 replies
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: Rip Samsung. Canikon will soon join you in the abyss because they refused to do what you did.

HaR, It was a general point, nothing specific to any particular Sony or a Panasonic, just a long running trend that as more and more features get added they don't always play nice together, and some are of questionable value until they go through several iterations.

The eShutter is perhaps the most obvious example. For years the FPS has been ramping up by virtue of using it. But when do you need 16 or 20 FPS? When shooting fast action sports with fast moving subjects, and eShutter is often useless for that use case due to rolling shutter.

Next implementation comes along and marketing claim better resistance to the effect, but reviews shows those claims to be somewhat optimistic.

It took many iterations to get where we are now and it's still not fully addressed in most cameras.

It's not a complaint, just an observation that many new features come with caveats.

Take the new G9 from Panasonic. Dual IS.2 is a feature, but it only works with a handful of Panasonic lenses is the caveat.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: Rip Samsung. Canikon will soon join you in the abyss because they refused to do what you did.

Entoman, I honestly have never felt short-changed by Canon.

I totally agree they are light on extra features, but those features it does have are usually well implemented in a solid and reliable body.

Through the decision making process, I only buy cameras that do enough of what I want it for. Therefore it mostly follows that I don't miss the features it doesn't have, but do appreciate the features it does have that are well implemented.

Some cameras offer boat loads of features (Panasonic and Sony especially), yet in use, the features can fight with each other or be mutually exclusive.

Examples:

14bit Raw and E shutter? Some cameras offer both, but not at the same time!

10fps? Yes, but only if you can live with shutter shock (soft images)!

No problem, switch to E shutter, but action shots are the most prone to rolling shutter artefacts. Etc, etc.

There are countless examples in the forums where features end up being little more than text on a spec sheet.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

kkuu14: simply don't get why so much critics around pro M43 camera. As a A7rii & GH4 user for years, they are both impressive tools and irreplaceable to me.

I think most of the criticisms are not for the cameras that exists, it's frustration for the ones that don't.

The circa $1000 body with their latest sensor tech and something more than CDAF for more reliable focusing in more scenarios.

People look at Sony, Fujifilm and now even Canon offering these features in their low and mid range enthusiast models and get frustrated to see the m43 system they bought into in terms of lens investment, not doing the same.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: 60FPS AFS at full resolution?

DANG. That's could put "spray and pray" at a whole new level. I shudder thinking of the sheer size of the digital mounds of cr@p I could make with the G9.

Questions for the spec warriors: Whats the advantage of the 6KPHOTO mode that lets you take 18mp stills out of the 6K photo stream? Is it that you get both a movie and photos? But how does that work? Does it tag the stream and generate a photo when you hit the shutter button? So unlike the latest canons that can't take a picture while taking a video (stop video take picture restart video so clunky) I can "have my cake and eat it too", I can just take a video and when I see something good take a picture without stopping the video stream ?

Now that could be the perfect kids/pets camera.......

6/4K 'Photo' mode is a special mode geared more to the needs of stills shooting rather than video.

For example, video is in widescreen format, whereas the photo mode can be 4:3 format.

For non-jerky motion, video shutter speeds are usually 1/2*FPS, so for 30fps video, you would use 1/60s. This may be too slow for a still as it may have motion blur (which is what helps the video motion look smooth). So Photo mode allows you to choose shutter speeds more suitable for stills.

Essentially its video whose settings you can optimise for stills extraction, and use the video hardware encoding to achieve high frame rates without filling up the memory/card too quickly.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 12:52 UTC

"Contrast AF with DFD Technology works only with Panasonic Micro Four Thirds lenses."

@DPR, when you review this camera please can you pay special attention to this area. As an owner of a number of non-Panasonic m43 lenses I'd really like to know where AF with these lenses stands. Almost as good as with DFD, or closer to a sluggish compact.

The growing fragmentation in the m43 'camp' is becoming a little concerning.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 11:17 UTC as 179th comment | 4 replies
On article Canon EOS M100 review (788 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: My dear Sony fanpersons, trolls, shills, or however it is you like to be addressed.

It seems you are unaware that an ILC camera requires 2 elements to become a photo-taking machine. One is the body, the other is a lens.

You repeatedly post on these threads for other cameras saying, just buy a Sony Axxxx with pancake lens.

Did it ever occur to you that many have considered this option and rejected it?

Perhaps you are not well acquainted with actual lens performance, so let me help you out. Please see the graphic on this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60346738

If you are not a graphics kind of person then let me express it in words.

Put a pancake lens on a Sony and you get image recording performance almost on par with an RX100.

Put a pancake on an EOS-M and you get image recording performance approaching that of a midrange DSLR with an 'L' Lens.

When Sony learn how to make compact lenses that perform like good lenses, I may reconsider. But for now, its rejected.

I shoot with a Sony A7 and know that they make some great FE lenses, I shoot with them.

Considering it's full frame, it's relatively compact. In fact, the most compact FF ILC option available. As I traveller, compact is my top priority providing the optical performance is also there. That's my particular balancing act.

I have zero interest in shooting a small lightweight APS-C camera with larger heavier lenses.

My interest in this Canon M100 is only in regard to using it with small compact lenses, to provide a very compact shooting solution with best possible quality.

So for me, it doesn't matter how many excellent but larger heavier lenses Sony have, I'm only interested in how many small, compact yet still excellent lenses they have. And that number is Zero.

If the number wasn't zero I might still be shooting Sony APS-C, because I'm an apologist for no brand, I'm a photographer, I chose gear based on what it brings me, not the logo.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 06:29 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (788 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter Bendheim: What is it with the Sony people that they have to wait in the corner like angry hyenas waiting to pounce on any non Sony product, be it Fuji, Canon or whatever?
Get a life, go take some images and stop feeling the need to prove that yours is bigger, better or whatever.

For me, I don't like the compromises that get made because of manufacturers assumptions about entry level users, they aren't what I'm looking for in a high quality small camera.

But I understand why they do it, and accept that without also catering for those buyers, the camera might not be viable.

So we are ultimately limited in our choices to what the manufacturers actually choose to build. I'd almost certainly be shooting a Nikon DL now if they had actually gotten around to making them.

We need to be completely honest with ourselves about what we can and can't work with.

The problem with SOME of the Sony crew is that they clearly feel that they did a thorough and objective analysis of all the options and they got the 'right' answer. They get upset or threatened that others dont accept their answer.

There is no universal 'right' answer, only right for 'you'.

Sony make some excellent lenses. I shoot them on my A7. But their compact primes just don't cut it, for me.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 05:57 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (788 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter Bendheim: What is it with the Sony people that they have to wait in the corner like angry hyenas waiting to pounce on any non Sony product, be it Fuji, Canon or whatever?
Get a life, go take some images and stop feeling the need to prove that yours is bigger, better or whatever.

Drive, better is mostly subjective. Some things, like optical performance can be measured, but only some characteristics of the optic, and other aspects of the rendering still comes down to visual appeal and remain subjective.

Ergonomics are tied to how well the firmware works. With a control dial to choose the aperture and then the firmware reliably chooses the shutter speed and iso settings, then one control would be quick and convenient. But if the firmware makes bad choices, then fast direct access to control those settings is more convenient. Menu diving is disruptive to the creative flow, especially badly designed menus.

Manufactures assume entry level users are afraid of controls, so lead them in gently, also giving an upgrade path to a more advanced body later.

People are now comfortable with touch screens so it makes a lot of sense to use these for a simplified control interface. It comes down to how well everything works together. Something rarely evident from specs alone.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 05:22 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (788 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter Bendheim: What is it with the Sony people that they have to wait in the corner like angry hyenas waiting to pounce on any non Sony product, be it Fuji, Canon or whatever?
Get a life, go take some images and stop feeling the need to prove that yours is bigger, better or whatever.

Unfortunately Sony made high feature bodies but didn't deliver on the optics.

If you want a bright, compact Prime lens, Sony are not in the game.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60346738

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 19:01 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (788 comments in total)
In reply to:

PankajDubey: See the comparison chart and buy A6000 :D

Or see this comparison and don't.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60346738

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (788 comments in total)

My dear Sony fanpersons, trolls, shills, or however it is you like to be addressed.

It seems you are unaware that an ILC camera requires 2 elements to become a photo-taking machine. One is the body, the other is a lens.

You repeatedly post on these threads for other cameras saying, just buy a Sony Axxxx with pancake lens.

Did it ever occur to you that many have considered this option and rejected it?

Perhaps you are not well acquainted with actual lens performance, so let me help you out. Please see the graphic on this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60346738

If you are not a graphics kind of person then let me express it in words.

Put a pancake lens on a Sony and you get image recording performance almost on par with an RX100.

Put a pancake on an EOS-M and you get image recording performance approaching that of a midrange DSLR with an 'L' Lens.

When Sony learn how to make compact lenses that perform like good lenses, I may reconsider. But for now, its rejected.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 18:43 UTC as 31st comment | 16 replies
On article Canon EOS M100 review (788 comments in total)
In reply to:

zzzxtreme: Is the sensor much "better" than the original M?

Yes, that's a lot of IQ for a bargain price. Especially considering there are also a few high quality (optical performance) lenses at good prices too.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 08:55 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (788 comments in total)
In reply to:

zzzxtreme: Is the sensor much "better" than the original M?

Image quality in the original M is actually very good. The main criticisms of the M were poor AF performance and limited selection of native lenses.

This new sensor is 'much' better in that it has an extra 1.33 stops of Dynamic Range at base ISO, uses Dual Pixel AF to enable better AF performance, and offers a few extra pixels on top.

So it's probably fair to call it much better, but for most shots you'd be hard pushed to see a difference to the original M.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 06:24 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Too late. There are already more photos of Positano than the world really needs.

When I went there it was because I'd seen how picturesque it was and wanted to experience it. I hoped to capture something of commercial value but it didn't happen. My good shots were all same same as had been captured a million times before and had almost no commercial value.

Bottom line is there are even nicer places to photograph without the surcharge and people will go there instead, returning Positano to its former status of struggling Mediterranean fishing port.

@Barty L,

Positano is just a dot on the Amalfi coast.

The Amalfi coast is amazing, when mount Vesuvius erupted and buried Pompeii, it also spewed massively fertile volcanic ash over the whole Amalfi region.

The organic growth that followed makes the entire Amalfi coast a photographers dream.

Until recently, Positano was a poor fishing village. Their new found wealth and confidence comes from tourism and specifically cruise ships that dock at Sorrento.

Positano is simply a day tour run by the cruise companies. As soon as this new scenario is understood by the tour admins, along with the potential to upset ILC carrying customers, Positano will be dropped. The tourism that has sustained them for the last 25 years will vanish and they will need to learn to fish again.

Summary: Icarus

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Too late. There are already more photos of Positano than the world really needs.

When I went there it was because I'd seen how picturesque it was and wanted to experience it. I hoped to capture something of commercial value but it didn't happen. My good shots were all same same as had been captured a million times before and had almost no commercial value.

Bottom line is there are even nicer places to photograph without the surcharge and people will go there instead, returning Positano to its former status of struggling Mediterranean fishing port.

Never mind. Already knew here isn't the place to share opinion any more. Just force of habit. Forget I posted, and enjoy Positano, it's lovely.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 21:45 UTC

Too late. There are already more photos of Positano than the world really needs.

When I went there it was because I'd seen how picturesque it was and wanted to experience it. I hoped to capture something of commercial value but it didn't happen. My good shots were all same same as had been captured a million times before and had almost no commercial value.

Bottom line is there are even nicer places to photograph without the surcharge and people will go there instead, returning Positano to its former status of struggling Mediterranean fishing port.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 21:19 UTC as 87th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Najinsky: Great comments guys, but here's a thought, how about making 300 tonne aircraft that can't be brought down by 20oz bits of plastic, or birds for that matter.

It doesn't matter what the smart people say. The planes are going to have to have some capabilities to defend themselves.

A drone can be built from a 3D printer and custom circuits and no regulations will stop it flying.

As one of the posters above mentioned, it's mostly about insurance. Insurance runs the world.

No insurance, no Columbus
No insurance, no Cook
No insurance, no Raleigh
No insurance, no Power stations
No insurance, no Planes, train, cars, trucks, ships, buses, taxis, etc.
No insurance, no businesses

Some, previously unthinkable, events written into policies, if they happen, will nullify huge quantities of insurance policies, forcing correspondingly huge portions of infrastructure to stop. Getting them moving again would require declarations of martial law.

At some point, maybe it will take a disaster or two, but at some point, insurance will insist planes have some basic defensive capabilities. Alternatively they may become state owned.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 21:29 UTC
Total: 934, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »