Tazz93

Tazz93

Lives in United States Pasadena, United States
Joined on Feb 1, 2007

Comments

Total: 134, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

steelhead3: Why isn't the Pentax mentioned in this article...death by omission?

Thanks Otto and CQui,
That would make a difference, but I wouldn't expect it to be enough to omit the Pentax from the image processing speed improvements... unless the others currently have a terrible AF speed.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: What's the practical use for this much resolution? Photo-surveillance?

It all may come back to bite the camera makers in the butt. Once users see how enlargeable their files are, with no visible loss of detail, they may realize that they need only one or two well-chosen prime lenses, plus "digital zoom," for most non-specialist subjects.

Henning W, that statement is a real slippery slope there, "Perspective will ABSOLUTELY be replicated by digital zoom". Aside from pixel density in the final image there are still issues with the overall statement. That could easily lead to people misunderstanding your actual intended message.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 18:39 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: What's the practical use for this much resolution? Photo-surveillance?

It all may come back to bite the camera makers in the butt. Once users see how enlargeable their files are, with no visible loss of detail, they may realize that they need only one or two well-chosen prime lenses, plus "digital zoom," for most non-specialist subjects.

"What's the practical use for this much resolution?" .. Says the guy with the 36 megapixel Pentax. :) That was meant as tongue in cheek, but there seems to be some correlation with tonality and high resolution. I don't want to say they go hand in hand, but sensors seem to be able to do better as resolution goes up. Obviously, that could be more in line with newer tech but it's just something I've noticed.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 17:38 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: Why isn't the Pentax mentioned in this article...death by omission?

I'm not sure I understand why "...For the next Pentax model, that might not make a huge difference". A mirror doesn't affect throughput and resolution. If a mirrored camera gets an additional 50 megapixels and twice the speed... IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

If i'm missing something please chime in.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 17:23 UTC
In reply to:

Tazz93: That sucks for Pentax... they would have been #1 by a long way, for 3+ years. And let's be honest, even with all the negative talk about their methods, that site sells cameras and phones for manufacturers.

Queue the conspiracy theories... that are possibly warranted.

Richmond, the others were not tested then withdrawn. The high score is generally set with a body that is tested almost immediately after release, but some for reason this one didn't fit the same criteria. I can accept there were some "logistical" issues, but when things look this bad, there's usually a reason behind it.

Also, I wouldn't hold my breathe that the 100 MP sensor besting the Hassy. While it may be the sensor most people would want, DXO's testing is biased to highlight DR and ISO, both should suffer a little due to the sensor's dense pixel layout. Not saying it will not be the top, just saying it's very possible it will not be.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 17:59 UTC

That sucks for Pentax... they would have been #1 by a long way, for 3+ years. And let's be honest, even with all the negative talk about their methods, that site sells cameras and phones for manufacturers.

Queue the conspiracy theories... that are possibly warranted.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 16:53 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Was the battery generic?

That's my guess... cheap battery with no or poor low voltage protection.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

JohnNEX: Nikon 200mm f/4: $1,800
Nikon 200mm f/2: $5,700
Canon 200mm f/2: $5,700

$3,000 for a 200mm f/2.8 does not seem terribly inconsistent with these.

The much cheaper Canon 200mm f/2.8 ($750) was released over 20 years ago and is therefore not a reasonable comparison for price.

Comparing it to a set of $6000 specialist lenses isn't "a reasonable comparison" either. But honestly, if Canon were to release a new 200 F2.8 do you really think it would be $3000? Or $2000 for that matter. This range of lens shouldn't be much higher than $1500 for a solid prime lens.

Either way, it's all the user's have to work with so there aren't many choices other than leaving the system or working with slower glass.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 21:11 UTC
On article Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM sample gallery updated (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Magnar W: Don't forget AF speed and AF precision, which also is extremely important for a lens that is often used for action photography. This makes the well-built GM 70-200 mm stand out from other lenses in this range.

Sillen, when I look at the Digital Picture's crops, and Lens Rentals MTFs, I believe the Sony isn't as good as I first thought. They've been making some great glass lately, like Sigma, but I think this one is pretty much average. Definitely slotting behind the class leader, Nikon's, but IMO also behind Canon and Tamron. Again its not bad, just isn't great.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 22:20 UTC
In reply to:

Tazz93: He uses their "IP" for a personal joke, they use his images for profit and it's supposed to be the same? Hopefully, justice isn't blind this time.

No, justice should make commonsense and not just be practiced to the letter of a flawed written law. Just my 2 cents, so take it for what you will.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 01:54 UTC

He uses their "IP" for a personal joke, they use his images for profit and it's supposed to be the same? Hopefully, justice isn't blind this time.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 16:18 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon 85mm F1.4L IS USM sample gallery (319 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: Bokeh CA looks minimal and sharpness is good. Easy to recommend.
But hey, this is Canon so I should say "Canon sells us old tech!" :)

I disagree on the CA... looks very noticeable on non noticeable scenarios. For example, take a look at the shot of the videographer, on his lens you can see CA, and that shot looks like it was taken in open shade. Anything shot at 1.4 shows CA.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 18:52 UTC
On article Canon 85mm F1.4L IS USM sample gallery (319 comments in total)

Wow... that is a ton of CA in shots that don't necessarily accentuate CA. While sharpness looks really good at 1.4, the CA is also very apparent. Can't justify a pre-order on that one.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 16:14 UTC as 78th comment
In reply to:

rubank: As a legit owner of LR 6, I tried to update. No go.
It turns out that since I installed a trial version of PS CC (I have CS 6 since earlier) Creative Cloud app takes command of the computer: after uninstalling PS CC the Cloud app won´t uninstall, claiming I still have CC apps installed! Seems LR 6 have turned into LR CC without my asking for it.
So, uninstalling LR CC within the Cloud app takes away LR6, and then CC-app still refuses to unisnstall!
Had to manually delete all keyes in the win 7 register and search and delete all entries in the file system.

Now I can´t find the LR6 install on Adobe´s site!

Adobe CC is pure evil!

From memory, I took an update that was really LR CC. After it was done I noticed different features like the dehaze option they held out from LR6. When I noticed that, I realized CC had been installed so I removed LR CC and LR6 stayed on the PC.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 18:48 UTC
In reply to:

M Jesper: Still using LR5 and CS6 on the latest version of Windows. I don't think LR6 will just 'break entirely' any time soon.

I'm still using CS3 with LR6, not perfect, but very usable with minimal crashes... well minimal crashes in CS3. LR6 is a flawed, and crashes way more than I'd like. Flawed bit of of functional software.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

rubank: As a legit owner of LR 6, I tried to update. No go.
It turns out that since I installed a trial version of PS CC (I have CS 6 since earlier) Creative Cloud app takes command of the computer: after uninstalling PS CC the Cloud app won´t uninstall, claiming I still have CC apps installed! Seems LR 6 have turned into LR CC without my asking for it.
So, uninstalling LR CC within the Cloud app takes away LR6, and then CC-app still refuses to unisnstall!
Had to manually delete all keyes in the win 7 register and search and delete all entries in the file system.

Now I can´t find the LR6 install on Adobe´s site!

Adobe CC is pure evil!

That happened to me after my first update, I scoured their Support site and found a fix and it hasn't happened again since that even through subsequent updates. I'm not sure if I tried the CC trial, but that might have been the catalyst.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoUniverse: So what did Google actually benefit the photography community all the time they owned Nik?

Smart enough to not be the douche to ask this very obvious question.

"So what did Google actually benefit the photography community all the time they owned Nik?"

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 23:09 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoUniverse: So what did Google actually benefit the photography community all the time they owned Nik?

Haters gonna hate!

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoUniverse: So what did Google actually benefit the photography community all the time they owned Nik?

They gave it away for free.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 16:07 UTC

So... this is the A99 Mark II mirrorless version. JK, all jokes aside this does look interesting and will definitely force the others in the industry to be on their toes. If the AF is good, it will be "Disruptive", but game changing... IDK.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 15:43 UTC as 125th comment | 1 reply
Total: 134, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »