dgc4rter

dgc4rter

Lives in United Kingdom Staffordshire, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired
Joined on Jul 30, 2008

Comments

Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

dgc4rter: I've tried a few setups in my time to find the elusive ideal for travel. The ultimate balance between image quality, portability and focal range versatility. Every solution involved multiple lenses, the changing of which bugged me more and more as time went by.

Enter the RX10 III - IQ on a par even with some APS-C cameras, an incredible 24-600mm range and superb video features to boot... all in one package for travel and walkabout. At last a solution is found! Am I a happy bunny? You bet I am!

Sorry, but I see it the other way round. A lot of MFT guys turning this review into an RX10 III bashfest. Prime example already here with SETI saying that a MFT + 14-150mm will do the same job in response to my original post about how good a travel solution the Sony is. Why bother responding with something like that if it isn't attempting to troll.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 20:23 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

dgc4rter: I've tried a few setups in my time to find the elusive ideal for travel. The ultimate balance between image quality, portability and focal range versatility. Every solution involved multiple lenses, the changing of which bugged me more and more as time went by.

Enter the RX10 III - IQ on a par even with some APS-C cameras, an incredible 24-600mm range and superb video features to boot... all in one package for travel and walkabout. At last a solution is found! Am I a happy bunny? You bet I am!

Who is "bashing" MFT here? Some guy says that a MFT + 14-150mm will do the same job as the RX10 III with 24-600mm and I ask how that can be? Jeez!

And isn't tbcass just making a statement of fact when he says that 150mm isn't even close to 600mm? It isn't!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 20:10 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Minolta Guy: I would get an A6000 with the 70-300mm lens instead, or the A68 and a 70-300,

But then you're missing out on the 24-70mm and 300-600mm focal ranges. Fine if you don't want that but what if you do?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 16:21 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

dgc4rter: I've tried a few setups in my time to find the elusive ideal for travel. The ultimate balance between image quality, portability and focal range versatility. Every solution involved multiple lenses, the changing of which bugged me more and more as time went by.

Enter the RX10 III - IQ on a par even with some APS-C cameras, an incredible 24-600mm range and superb video features to boot... all in one package for travel and walkabout. At last a solution is found! Am I a happy bunny? You bet I am!

Eh? How does 14-150mm equate to 24-600mm?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 14:57 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

TyphoonTW: It clearly DESTROYS all the bridge cameras in the 600/700$ price range.

So, just one question! How much would any other DSLR or Mirrorless solution cost that would give you high quality 4K video and and a focal range of 24mm to 600mm. Can't seem to think of any 600mm lens costing less than $1500 for a start. That's my point!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 11:28 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sam Santana: What's with the emphasis on how nice the lens is when it's only an extra 200mm on the FZ1000's and according to this website the FZ1000 optics are superior to this. In fact, for stills the FZ1000 is the better camera... faster focus, better optics, better handling and better low light performance... and under half price.

Lol! Funny how this camera has brought about such staunch criticism and defensive rhetoric from, yes you guessed it, Panny FZ1000 owners. The "My dad can beat up your dad" syndrome strikes again!

Oh, and you've just completely contradicted yourself re the optics in your last two replies.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 09:49 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)

I've tried a few setups in my time to find the elusive ideal for travel. The ultimate balance between image quality, portability and focal range versatility. Every solution involved multiple lenses, the changing of which bugged me more and more as time went by.

Enter the RX10 III - IQ on a par even with some APS-C cameras, an incredible 24-600mm range and superb video features to boot... all in one package for travel and walkabout. At last a solution is found! Am I a happy bunny? You bet I am!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 09:33 UTC as 60th comment | 8 replies
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (485 comments in total)

The Sony RX10 III is absolute rubbish compared to the Panny FZ1000 because it's twice the price. The Nikon D5 plus 600mm f4 lens gives far better IQ at 600mm....

My Dad can beat your Dad up!

A lot of the comments on here are, frankly, laughable.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 07:48 UTC as 88th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ray-ray: I'm not an elitist, therefore I'm not looking down my nose at this software with snobbery as my motive. The fact is, Anthropics, with its Portrait Pro, Smart Photo Editor & LandscapePro software has carved out a niche that appeals to a certain class of photographer or graphic artist. It may not be my cup of tea, but nevertheless, you have to be somewhat impressed with their technology. Their facial recognition algorithms in Portrait Pro are impressive. I suspect LandscapePro is just evolving and maybe worth watching (early versions of Portrait Pro were not nearly as evolved as the current version). I'm not an Anthropics employee or even a fanboy - just an evolving photographer with 40+ years experience and 30+ years of computer graphics software.

I'm with you on this. As you say, too many snobby elitists and instant haters willing to dig their knives in here. I can see the software's potential once it evolves into something more refined. I hope it does.

BTW, similar 40 years as a keen photographer, 25 years working in the IT industry. Graphic Artist before that.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2016 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

gehairing: Landscapes represent 99.99% of my pictures. I like to make real photographies. Find nice places in the mountains. Coming back several times to have the right light. And then : the right day, at the right hour, with the right atmospheric conditions make the right picture. That is a real pleasure :o)

Why would an amateur (not selling pictures) make fake landscape pictures (changing skies, changing grass color, enhance this or this...) ? What is the artistic or personal goal for this ?

Of course i understand that professionals who must bring a photo back from a trip could need such tools. But i'm not sure the result is good enough for sale a landscape picture heavily enhanced by such tools. Usually these pro's can enhance enough in LR and PS (or equivalent tools). And if they can't the picture is usually worth nothing ;o)

In my humble opinion we're going the bad direction ... :o(

(Sorry, english is not my native language)

For me, your reasons for "real" landscape photography are what it's all about. However, I do see the potential for plugins like this, especially for wedding photographers as a prime example who would not have the luxury of being able to reshoot when the atmospheric conditions are more favourable.

I do think it needs more refinement though. I'm playing around with the trial at the moment and have managed to get some half-decent results.

By the way, your command of the English language will almost certainly be infinitely better than mine of your native tongue.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2016 at 16:52 UTC

It becomes plainly obvious that most people spending 10 minutes with this software applying any of the presets willy nilly to any old image are, almost certainly, going to be hugely unimpressed. It is very easy to end up with incredibly naff results. I’ve spent a little more time with the trial and got to know the controls a little deeper. If you apply a little more time, effort and photographic common sense, it is possible to achieve some decent and acceptable results.

This is version 1.0 and as such, lacks a fair bit of refinement and capability. If Anthropics pursue a development programme similar to what they have with their sister product, Portrait Pro, which is now on version 15, this could end up being a useful plugin.

As it stands, this product may be OK for the casual hobbyist photographer but it’s not going to convince those a little more serious about post processing and retouching. It may need to get to version 5.0 + before that happens.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2016 at 13:47 UTC as 41st comment
In reply to:

cesaregal: Interesting the tool that helps to select areas of sky through the branches of a tree.

I've actually just had a brief go with that in the trial version and it did a far better and quicker job than any of the masking software I've tried. The 5 mins I've just spent with this software has left me quite impressed.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2016 at 08:27 UTC

My oh my! A lot of sarcastic comments here. Their Portrait Pro software is actually rather good and can certainly cut the cost of having a make-up artist do all the work.

I agree, the samples don't look particularly good and I will reserve judgement until I've had a play with the trial. However, if I can manage to replace the ubiquitous "white sky" with something more interesting and give a photo more pleasing light without it looking too obvious, I might just go for it.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2016 at 08:03 UTC as 50th comment

In all this discussion about the photos, the RX10's video capabilities seem to be being overlooked. It is as much a video camera as a stills camera and, as far as I can make out, will deliver best in class 4K video along with super slow-motion features that, currently, no other Bridge camera can offer.

I'm not a Sony fan-boy but I do like to think that credit is given where credit is due and, at the moment, there is no credit being given to the camera's rather impressive video functionality.

And please! If you're going to criticise the sensor performance, do it against other 1" sensor cameras and not against M4/3, APS-C or Full-Frame. We all know that they will deliver better image quality and ISO performance. Don't we?

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 14:45 UTC as 92nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

villagranvicent: At least on my computer the shots at 100% view looks pretty crappy. Too much noise, lack of detail and blown highlights. But what the heck, is a SONY right?

I really don't think Bridge cameras were designed for pixel peeping analysts. They are for people who want an all-in-one solution that's better than a compact yet smaller and lighter than your average DSLR (and certainly smaller, lighter and cheaper than a DSLR with a 600mm lens) with the benefit of not having to change lenses. We're talking a 1" sensor. Anyone with half a photographic brain will know that this will not deliver as good image quality as any larger format sensor - why expect it to???? Most photos will end up viewed on a laptop, PC monitor, iPad or iPhone. If they look good enough at that size, surely that's all that matters. Geez!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 14:29 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1132 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: It is unique and stands out from among the rest.

Why?

Because it doesn't serve the purpose of "professionals" or "tech-heads".

You will buy this because you love photography.

.

Well... I'm currently loving photography with my new Sony RX100 IV which cost £2,100 less than the Q and achieved a score of 85% from DPR. I wouldn't say no to one. I think the image quality from Leicas is wonderful but, in terms of value for money, there are better choices. If money isn't an object, of course, then I'm sure it's a fine camera to own.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 11:00 UTC

Can't help but admire this guy in the utmost. Travelling the world, taking incredible photos but he's definitely got what it takes and seems to strike up quite an affinity with his subjects in order to get "the shot".

He's ideal National Geographic material. They ought to sponsor him as one of their "Adventurers in Residence".

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 UTC as 78th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon 1 V3: a quick summary (596 comments in total)

Hmmm! Which CSC shall I consider buying? Olympus E-M1, Fuji X-T1, Nikon 1 V3. Put it another way, which of those three will I not consider buying... sorry Nikon.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 07:58 UTC as 211th comment
On article 2014 Sony World Photography Awards finalists revealed (66 comments in total)

While some of the photos are good, a number of them are now just becoming too cliché such as No. 10 - how many times have I now seen a shot similar to that? As for no. 3, how on earth did that get into the final selection?

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2014 at 13:02 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

marike6: Other than price there doesn't seem much to complain about considering that most large aperture lenses are not bitingly sharp straight from max aperture.

But the 58 f/1.4 has some crucial differences and advantages over similar lenses:

* Color/contrast easily surpasses other 50s as expected from a high grade Nano Coated Nikkor.
* Resolution as good or better than to other 50s
* Bokeh is significantly creamier, more refined
* Metal barrel, high build quality as expected for the price

58 f/1.4 Lens Review (vs 58 f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor, EF 50 f/1.2, Sigma 50 f/1.4)

http://tinyurl.com/ll897q8

58 f/1.4 full-sized samples

http://photographylife.com/nikon-58mm-f1-4g-high-resolution-image-samples

I can enhance colour and contrast quite easily within Lightroom and Photoshop. Do I really need to spend another £1700 to get it?

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2013 at 15:03 UTC
Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »