Spunjji

Joined on Jan 12, 2012

Comments

Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

caravan: Beautiful work of Art from Leica.

-facepalm-

It's not even their best lens. Or their best-looking. :|

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 UTC
In reply to:

Spunjji: Looking forward to seeing someone attempt to justify this with tropes like "well you don't HAVE to buy it" and "you get what you pay for".

Yawn-worthy lens, hilarious price. Glad to see Leica continuing to provide a glorious satire of the entire photographic industry.

@tschotsch - disappointing, I was just appreciating your more balanced reply elsewhere. I do not need to be a lens design /expert/ to know that a fixed focal length "normal" (e.g. ~40-50mm) prime lens will not require a complex design. They can guild the lily however they want with expensive glass and exotic elements but as a design it's going to be fundamentally simpler (and easier to manufacture) than say, a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 zoom.

In return, can I ask, on what basis of expertise did you make that classic pop-psychology accusation of my obvious and ravening envy? :D

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 11:04 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The typical respons from those that could never afford it, and feel the need to bash it to make themselves feel better. Pretty much describes the internet.

@tschotsch - thanks for that! I genuinely learned something there. Bonus points go to you.

@The Davinator - why so personally offended? Your "low tolerance" appears to be for difference of opinion (which evidently you see as stupidity, YMMV). I am well aware that high quality optics aren't cheap but there is a difference between "not cheap" and "overpriced" and, well, there it is.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 10:53 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The typical respons from those that could never afford it, and feel the need to bash it to make themselves feel better. Pretty much describes the internet.

Bonus points if you have a reason why the silver version costs £300 more :D

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 13:49 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The typical respons from those that could never afford it, and feel the need to bash it to make themselves feel better. Pretty much describes the internet.

Keep on telling yourself that :D We're all just jealous and will never understand the joy of burning potentially useful money on an expensive bauble.

I would actually glean more pleasure, utility and practical value by buying a classic Leica lens second-hand and burning the rest of the cash on a live stream.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 13:48 UTC
In reply to:

Cameracist: Well you don't have to buy it. And if you do, you get what you pay for.

Ripped off? :D

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 13:47 UTC
In reply to:

Spunjji: Looking forward to seeing someone attempt to justify this with tropes like "well you don't HAVE to buy it" and "you get what you pay for".

Yawn-worthy lens, hilarious price. Glad to see Leica continuing to provide a glorious satire of the entire photographic industry.

None of that justifies the price, though - except perhaps scope of production, perhaps, but this is not a complex lens. You can find other equally well-made German lenses for far less money.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 13:46 UTC

Looking forward to seeing someone attempt to justify this with tropes like "well you don't HAVE to buy it" and "you get what you pay for".

Yawn-worthy lens, hilarious price. Glad to see Leica continuing to provide a glorious satire of the entire photographic industry.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 12:42 UTC as 43rd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

noflashplease: Isn't it amazing how a 1/2.3" sensor represented the standard size for largely extinct low-end, consumer point-and-shoot cameras, but suddenly is appropriate for "flagship" smartphones? Of course, the iPhone still has an even smaller 1/3" sensor, which goes to show you the level of current smartphone hype.

I'm not sure what you'd advise using in smartphones instead. Panasonic had a pop with a 1" sensor and all it got them was a bulky, unpopular and very expensive phone. The photos look fantastic but it's hardly a market-winning proposition.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 Pixel Shift: An update (96 comments in total)

Thanks, DPR. The mea-culpa is hugely appreciated.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 13:31 UTC as 27th comment
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

WillWeaverRVA: Pixel shift is just not meant for use with moving objects. It's more of a studio tool that can work for landscapes, architecture, and other static scenes.

I kind of want to see what the results would be with Pentax's provided Silkypix software, just to see if it handles the motion artifacts better. Supposedly it does.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

It works pretty well with motion in this image.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:48 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roadrunnerdeluxe: "Waterfails", nice!
I honestly didn't expect it to be able to handle motion as tested here. I suppose it depends on what you are hoping to shoot whith pixelshift.
For architectural work where there will be mostly moving clouds in my case, I will just over lay with a photo shot without pixel shift.
For nature shots with lots of movement as tested here that would be too tedious though.

So these would be waterwins:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:39 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

thegreat26: Guys get over it. We didn't expect miracles and we knew what pixel shift is for from the beginning. There are no new technologies without compromises. Pentax at least risks to bring new technologies for the consumers( and Olympus apparently)....

Here's what the new technology does with the correct supporting software:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

The sooner Adobe catch up, the better.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:37 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: Good luck finding motion-free landscape scenes. As I see it, the pixel shift technology may be good for interior architecture, products and portraiture of dead people.

Or you can take waterfall photos if you process correctly:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:35 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Seeky: This is a bit like kicking in an open door... Although it seems disappointing, it is totally expected that landscape shots like these suffer when shooting in PSR. No camera hardware or software can correct for random movement of multiple elements in multiple directions in one scene, unless you are plugged into a supercomputer.
I seriously doubt the usefullness of PSR unless you have a specific controlled environment.

Apparently this conventional wisdom is not 100% accurate:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

Probably cherry-picked, but it is possible.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:34 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

howieb101: I really think the green note, at bottom of article by DPReview should be clearer that Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) is the cause of the color cast. It just says that it is using ACR without clarifying its negative impact on the images.

On a side note, I have read many user reviews at BHPhotovideo and actual buyers of the camera seem to like pixel shift resolution. Each to their own, I guess.

I think this article is really a side track. You have to know when to use pixel shift and what its limitations are. If you can work within its limitations you'll get real benefits otherwise its a feature on the camera you can choose to ignore.

Personally I can see it useful for still life, certain types of landscape, macro, product photography and architecture.

Yet this image of a similar environment looks fantastic:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

Ouch.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:34 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

TN Args: As expected. No disappointment here.

Except it's not even accurate:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:08 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Franka T.L.: it does not take a rocket scientist to lnow that what's being asked for basically is not physically viable. Its not the camera or Pentax, its just a n in build limitstion of the sort regsrding thr techniques.

I'mma keep reposting this link wherever someone says this "cannot be done":
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

Hack article.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:07 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg VdB: A test I would like to see is the following: shoot a completely static scene (e.g. architecture, but with plenty of fine detail), once without and once with pixel shift. Then print both images at increasing sizes (or crop to different levels to keep the costs down ;-) ), and hang both sets on the wall from "small" to "big", randomizing the pixel shift vs non-pixel shift position. Note for yourself first in which print you see a clear difference. Then, invite ten office workers to (individually) evaluate from a viewing distance of at least 1 meter the prints from small to big. Record at what point they can distinguish "pixel shift" from "non-pixel shift", and let us know what the equivalent print sizes are.

Of course we want the best possible quality as a starting point, but often I get the impression that due to too much pixel-peeping, we have lost a sense of perspective on real-world advantages regarding the minute differences we see in studio tests or comparisons like this one.

Motion Compensation can actually do this sort of subject when it's being used properly:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154298669699617&set=o.130482700345756&type=3&theater

But the DPR FUD is making people doubt even that. How lame.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:06 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

gravelhopper: Let us sum this up:

- Pixel shift motion correction applied to compensate for fast moving subject linear movement.

- Long exposure times (1/4 sec) applied to fast moving subject.

- Applying software with limited capabilities while ignoring Pentax provided software.

What is the purpose of this test? To see if Pentax pixel shift motion correction can compensate for a completely flawed photographic technique applied to a subject that is explicitly out of scope of the tested technology?

This test / article is a complete break-down. Fortunately, this doesn't happen too often with DPR.

The worst bit is there are links in this article that show Pixel Shift /can/ cope with this sort of subject if you know what you're doing.

If this was a hit piece then they shot themselves in the foot. Methinks it's just plain poor journalism, though, which is no better.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:01 UTC
Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »