Neil-H

Lives in America baby !!!
Works as a Professional critic.
Joined on Mar 12, 2015

Comments

Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Neil-H: Here's the thing. Not only is the quality of the video off putting, but the video would actually seem to get people to remember "DSLR" rather than think "mirrorless". That isn't exactly what I would call good advertising.

If I were new to photography, I would think this was a commercial to be silly and promote a DSLR while making fun of the "hugeness" that the haters always imply, but it still reads as an advert FOR DSLRs, not against. I didn't hear the words MIRRORLESS once in there did I?

To me this gets people thinking about DSLRs, not the other way around.

Ahh but I am in "consumermatics" (im a customer afterall). So I ask myself what does this commercial make me think of, what do I remember from this commercial. Know the answer? DSLR. That's the concept I remember.

Yes they are making fun of it ina silly way, but that's what sticks in my mind, bc that's all they focused on. They repeatedly mention DSLR or DSLarm, that was the focus of the video. Aside from a brief cameo of "EM5II", this reads like a commercial for a DSLR.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 02:58 UTC

Here's the thing. Not only is the quality of the video off putting, but the video would actually seem to get people to remember "DSLR" rather than think "mirrorless". That isn't exactly what I would call good advertising.

If I were new to photography, I would think this was a commercial to be silly and promote a DSLR while making fun of the "hugeness" that the haters always imply, but it still reads as an advert FOR DSLRs, not against. I didn't hear the words MIRRORLESS once in there did I?

To me this gets people thinking about DSLRs, not the other way around.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 02:07 UTC as 97th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....

Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring.
But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.

Are all lenses focus by wire nowadays? I had no idea that every AF capable lens was FBW, thanks for the heads up......

Link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 20:10 UTC
In reply to:

Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....

Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring.
But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.

Again I get the point about thinking, it's the same concept as to why many people prefer primes over zooms, it allows them to think in a more creative way. But one can simply choose to turn off AF and still be in that same creative space right?

Unless we are suggesting once people have the feature, they are powerless in their choice to use it? Just seems like the real reason im hearing, which is "thought" can be had just the same by flipping a switch.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 08:14 UTC
In reply to:

Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....

Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring.
But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.

@Tungsten I was simply pointing out that often times, people seem to associate less with being more, but those same lesser attributes were from the past. There was a time when we didn't have AF at all, it wasn't invented, and now that it is it's great yet people like to "go back in time" so to speak and go without the newer tech.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 03:36 UTC
In reply to:

Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....

Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring.
But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.

@MBPM actually it's $700 isn't it? I thought they said it can only be used with the adapter too since it's not a native E mount. Just saying that's a lot for a lens that's not optically exceptional bc if it's full manual, what else is there? Plus it's heavy, which kind of defeats the purpose of small light FF bodies no?

I just find it amazing that some people will stand up for some things so firmly then completely turn their backs when it suits them. ML users are often this way with size and weight.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 04:04 UTC
In reply to:

Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....

Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring.
But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.

Im not talking about any system in particular, im just talking about lenses in general. Many systems have full manual glass you can buy, even modern ones with decent optics. The only real difference I guess is that E mount has far less of the AF options and perhaps that's why they are so quick to accept these manual ones, better than nothing.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 01:03 UTC
In reply to:

Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....

Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring.
But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.

@BBViet yes focus by wire is a very different feel, but many lenses are not that way. One can still buy good lenses with real focus gears and aperture rings, and just choose when to use auto or manual controls. That's my only point.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....

Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring.
But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.

Yes I get the preference thing, but your car analogy forgets one thing, not all cars let you have manual or auto at the flick of a switch. I can easily set everything to manual on the most modern ILC and have the same experience.

What im saying is why pay more for something that ONLY has the manual stuff? I prefer auto transmission, I hate using auto cars. And with cameras I sometimes use manual, such as with macro, but other times I want auto stuff. Why limit ourselves when we don't have to? Why not just turn off the bells and whistles when I want manual, and turn them on when I don't?

Link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 23:29 UTC

I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....

Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring.
But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 23:01 UTC as 34th comment | 22 replies
In reply to:

SteB: This is just a general interest question, and no attempt to put the camera down. To me cameras are just tools, each having pros and cons.

My question is does Pentax use Electronic First Curtain (EFC) shutter yet, in this or any other Pentax camera?

Yes it would have to if you think about it. They claim that the camera can't have any movement for it to work properly, so even mirror slap or shutter vibration is "some" movement. Especially with those parts flapping back and forth 4 times really fast, that would surely render it busted.
So yes, I would say with certainty it's done with E shutter. This does however throw into question, fluorescent light, it would likely produce banding.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2015 at 11:18 UTC
In reply to:

Sean65: Skin tone needs improvement.

Taken care of in PP....

Link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 16:01 UTC

Oh plz plz plz, if there is a god, make this work. I would have a blast photographing people in public using these....

Link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 16:00 UTC as 165th comment | 1 reply
On article Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon 35mm f/2 (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lapkonium: Do photographers who use copied gear have a moral right to prevent copying of their work? I'd say no.

If it's possible to make the exact Canon lens and sell it for $100, then canon have either been lazy in their production costs, or seriously ripping us off for decades with their $600 price. Could be the Chinese low labor cost too but not to make up for 1/5 the price. Ill buy what is best for me though.
EDIT: Correction, they are competing with the non IS version, not as bad a comparison then but still half the price.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 04:06 UTC
On article Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon 35mm f/2 (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I wonder if they use the same quality glass elements with equivalent coating. I also wonder about their QC.

Yep I own 4 of the Yonguo 560III flashes with the 603 triggers, awesome units for the price, I think they are still around $70 each. If their lenses are anything like the flashes , this is an interesting alternative.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 04:03 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II (520 comments in total)

Hmm, so im assuming the pixel shift uses an E shutter only? If it has to fire the mirror and shutter 4 times, it isn't likely to be super fast, and, could be defeating the purpose if shutter speeds hit the danger zone, ie 1/100 ect. Anybody know for sure? This would of course mean it's only available in LV though, which means it's at the mercy, to an extent, of the LV AF ability.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 16:55 UTC as 58th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

@AdamT, assuming DXO is correct in their scores, even DR can vary. Yes it seems a big variation but look at cameras like the D7k and K5, at ISO 100 they are both just under 14 stops. Other cameras that had that sensor were far lesser, including Pentax's own K30, K50, ect.

I think it's easy for us all to get caught up in the "sensor is EVERYTHING" mindset but I think the rest of the hardware and processing plays a big part too.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Both of the 43 sensors are new. The first 16mp sensor from Sony was the IMX109.

https://chipworks.secure.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=SON-IMX109
.

Olympus is currently using a version of the Panasonic sensor in their latest bodies.

http://chipworks.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=OLY-E-M1_Pri-Camera
.

My guess is that the 20mp will be initially reserved for the E-M2, while the other Olympus bodies will get the new 16mp.

Fuji better do something though, the trend is for more MP and even MFT is getting beyond 16 now. 1" has had more for some time as well, and all other apsc has moved on. Fuji is the lone brand stuck at 16 for some reason, I wonder if there is a reason they haven't jumped up yet.

Do they have to redesign their x filter if it's fitted to a new MP count? If this is true maybe this is why?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

@Adam, I think it has just as much to do with sensor pipeline as it does with the actual sensor. Sony had it's tried and true 16mp sensor in umpteen cameras back in the day, from the K5IIs to the D7k to the A57, and all of them had not only different IQ scores, but different noise profiles too.

The noise and such literally looked different depending on the cameras. The explanation floating around as to why Nikon can wring so much out of Sony's own sensors is due to their circuitry from the sensor to the card, as well as their processing of that data.

I have no reason to believe the same isn't true of Oly using Panny sensors, there will be differences, good or bad, considering it's a different brand camera.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 18:18 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

Yea im not sure why so many people keep repeating this, there are a lot of good sensor makers and none of them stand out as the 800lb gorilla. It's almost like once people get an idea they just can't let it go, and Sony has a name that people are used to.

They may be pushing the readout speeds here, which is good, but that's not the main parameter of performance people want for stills by any means, and it doesn't mean IQ is improved at all. If Toshiba or Aptina have one with less noise or more DR, ill take that any day.

Moral of the story, just bc you keep repeating the same name doesn't make it true.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 15:01 UTC
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »