pro photo 2011

Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 90, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Marcelobtp: I sincerely don't know why all the praising of the lens, in the studio scene is clear that the lens has a very bad CA, the raw files is far from raw, even then, it couldn't handle the CA reduction as effectively, the eyes of the woman in the left has terribly bad CA, not seen in any of the competitors.

Btw, just take a look at the chinese woman on the right to look how Sony is still terribly bad processing skin tones. It's ridiculous. The overprocessing Sony is doing to hide some problems externalize as other problems.

@Marcelobtp

Use proper reference instead of using "the" lens.

This topic concerns Sony A7R III's Pixel Shift function. Whatever lens is used is a constant. That is why DPR did not indicate in this article which lens was used. Few people knew what you were talking about. Why are you so upset? Just be more clear next time.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: Expensive to buy. Costly and difficult to repair. Why would you want to spend $1000 on it? Any cell phone will lose value over time much quicker than other 3C devices.

Spend the same money on a Leica or Zeiss glass and it can retain its value much better.

I just use a $200 5.5-inch Xiaomi phone and it is more than sufficient. I won't feel as bad if I drop it or it gets broken somehow.

@fmaxwell and entoman

That's great to hear. I made plenty of money trading AAPL because people love Apple products, no matter how much they cost. I may own Apple stock but I no longer use its products.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 16:58 UTC
In reply to:

Marcelobtp: I sincerely don't know why all the praising of the lens, in the studio scene is clear that the lens has a very bad CA, the raw files is far from raw, even then, it couldn't handle the CA reduction as effectively, the eyes of the woman in the left has terribly bad CA, not seen in any of the competitors.

Btw, just take a look at the chinese woman on the right to look how Sony is still terribly bad processing skin tones. It's ridiculous. The overprocessing Sony is doing to hide some problems externalize as other problems.

What are you talking about? It's about the camera's special feature called "pixel shift", not any lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 12:36 UTC
On article Cinematic 4K footage shot with the Apple iPhone X (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: I won't pay $1600 for the iPhone X with 256Gb memory.

I would add $100 and buy the Sony RX10 IV with Zeiss 24-600mm zoom lens and phase detection autofocus. As for cell phone, I would just buy a $50 5-inch BLU Advance A5, or many alternatives on Amazon.

Combining camera and cellular functions in an ultra expensive phone just makes no sense.

@Bgpgraebner, "Yeah, because it’s super practical to walk around with an RX10 inside your jeans pockets."

Walk around with your $50 cell phone. Take serious pictures with the RX10 IV in your hand. iPhone X's camera is no match for the 1-inch sensor and optical zoom lens of the RX10 IV.

@proxy, "I’m sure lots of people would argue that spending $1700 on a fixed lens (albeit with a 1” sensor) is stupid as well, ..."

An APS-C camera won't give you that 24-600mm zoom range.

@GabrielFFontes, "As a former RX10 III owner, I would say it makes no sense to combine ultra high end features on a 1'' sensor camera, making it cost $1700."

Adding phase detection auto-focus and bumping the price up $300 makes perfect sense. It's a game changer, as it can now shoot fast-action that all previous generations could not.

@fmaxwell,

Use your $50 cell phone to take pictures. The iPhone X camera is not 20 times better than the $50 phone. Save the money for a real camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 13:58 UTC
On article Cinematic 4K footage shot with the Apple iPhone X (308 comments in total)

I won't pay $1600 for the iPhone X with 256Gb memory.

I would add $100 and buy the Sony RX10 IV with Zeiss 24-600mm zoom lens and phase detection autofocus. As for cell phone, I would just buy a $50 5-inch BLU Advance A5, or many alternatives on Amazon.

Combining camera and cellular functions in an ultra expensive phone just makes no sense.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 01:19 UTC as 72nd comment | 7 replies

So for $1,699, you can buy the Panasonic G9 body only, or you can buy the Sony RX10 IV with a 24-600mm Zeiss lens and it has phase detection autofocus that shoots up to 24 fps. Okay, so the Sony has a 1-inch sensor, while the Panny G9 has a M43 sensor.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:44 UTC as 127th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: This is film SLR camera nostalgia going overboard.

There are plenty of secondhand film SLR cameras on eBay if you feel like shooting film sometimes. But let me assure you that you won't be doing that too often. Film is just too troublesome. And remember, ISO is not adjustable in a film camera. You'd have to finish that roll before you can change to another film with different sensitivity!

Dark slide? Bet most people will forget that step before disengaging the camera back. And you think a hobby camera will have a foolproof design?

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: This is film SLR camera nostalgia going overboard.

There are plenty of secondhand film SLR cameras on eBay if you feel like shooting film sometimes. But let me assure you that you won't be doing that too often. Film is just too troublesome. And remember, ISO is not adjustable in a film camera. You'd have to finish that roll before you can change to another film with different sensitivity!

@absquatulate

My intimate knowledge of this subject is that interchangeable back is easier said than done. We'll see how this is accomplished without wasting film and without affecting adjacent frames.

More importantly, compared to digital, where ISO typically range from 100 to 51200, what sensitivities are available for film? Probably less than a handful (200, 400, 800, 1600). And 1600 is going to be ugly.

And unlike another kickstarter project (by Yashica), this one uses real film and it also incorporates another ancient "technology" - the mirror, as in a Single Lens Reflex. This dinosaur can't be real. It's a toy or a hobby camera at best.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 20:50 UTC

This is film SLR camera nostalgia going overboard.

There are plenty of secondhand film SLR cameras on eBay if you feel like shooting film sometimes. But let me assure you that you won't be doing that too often. Film is just too troublesome. And remember, ISO is not adjustable in a film camera. You'd have to finish that roll before you can change to another film with different sensitivity!

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 19:42 UTC as 129th comment | 26 replies
On article Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 sample gallery (214 comments in total)

The Thambar lens costs nearly $7000! That's enough to buy a Nikon or Canon flagship camera body and still have some significant change.

For ordinary folks, I think the built-in soft focus effect featured in modern cameras (Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, etc.) are sufficient. For older cameras, just attach a clear filter smeared with petroleum jelly will do.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 19:26 UTC as 51st comment
On article Meet the Canon PowerShot G1 X III (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: In this day and age, Canon puts out a $1300 camera that does not have 4K video, has a short zoom range (less than 3X) and small apertures throughout its zoom range. What is Canon thinking?

@dmartin92

What used to be said may not apply anymore. As an example, the 25X Zeiss zoom lens on the Sony RX10 IV is an excellent lens, despite it having eight times the range of the Canon.

I would pay $400 more to buy the Sony instead of Canon's expensive and feature-lacking PowerShot G1X III.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 10:59 UTC
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: Expensive to buy. Costly and difficult to repair. Why would you want to spend $1000 on it? Any cell phone will lose value over time much quicker than other 3C devices.

Spend the same money on a Leica or Zeiss glass and it can retain its value much better.

I just use a $200 5.5-inch Xiaomi phone and it is more than sufficient. I won't feel as bad if I drop it or it gets broken somehow.

@noheadlights

You need to get some headlights.

A cell phone is a piece of consumable that declines in value quickly.

A Leica or Zeiss lens is a piece of equipment that can last a long time and can still fetch good money on eBay.

Whether $1000 is well spent depends whether it is used to buy an iPhone X or a Leica/Zeiss lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 10:47 UTC

Expensive to buy. Costly and difficult to repair. Why would you want to spend $1000 on it? Any cell phone will lose value over time much quicker than other 3C devices.

Spend the same money on a Leica or Zeiss glass and it can retain its value much better.

I just use a $200 5.5-inch Xiaomi phone and it is more than sufficient. I won't feel as bad if I drop it or it gets broken somehow.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 13:34 UTC as 3rd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

ZeBebito: Very beautiful camera, I assume a pleasure to use.

These LIKEs are presumably from Leica fans.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 20:45 UTC

Save $200 and buy the regular black model if you are in the market for this camera. It is much harder to keep a silver-colored camera in excellent condition, just check out used cameras and their conditions in pictures on eBay.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 00:11 UTC as 48th comment | 3 replies
On article Meet the Canon PowerShot G1 X III (327 comments in total)

In this day and age, Canon puts out a $1300 camera that does not have 4K video, has a short zoom range (less than 3X) and small apertures throughout its zoom range. What is Canon thinking?

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 20:19 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)

The software subscription model is bad for consumers except for those who use the software on a daily basis. Software companies love the subscription model so that money can keep coming in. There are many users who only occasionally use a piece of software, and it is costly to keep paying, just in case you need to use it sometime in the future.

There are alternatives to Photoshop and Lightroom that you buy once, and maybe pay a small upgrade fee in the future, just like the old days. You are not forced to upgrade, unless your operating system later does not support it.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 17:18 UTC as 242nd comment | 1 reply
On article Google shares high-resolution Pixel 2 sample photos (172 comments in total)

Google is pushing the camera industry to do better or die.

Stand-alone cameras must be much better so that people will buy them instead of just using a cell phone. Just look at Google Pixel 2's OIS/EIS capability when shooting video, as covered by DPR a week or two ago. Not too many current cameras can match Pixel 2's performance, at any price!

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 18:57 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Indohydra: I believe that this effect can be done in photoshop fairly easily.

I believe that this effect can also be done in a Google Pixel phone on-the-fly or post.

What must be done optically in the past can now be done digitally and most viewers won't be able to tell the difference.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 18:43 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: This camera will get the coveted DPR "Overpriced Award". :-)

And if only it looks more like a Fuji 100F, I may overlook some of its failings.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 20:27 UTC
Total: 90, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »