rondom

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 11, 2009

Comments

Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Wild Light: This is going to kill used prices for anyone that can't prove they have the new sensor installed. What a punch in the gut for customers.

Nonissue: anyone who has the sensor replaced should be able to prove it. Leica will have the record and so will the owner. This is not to say that I agree with the deadline. I wonder how many people are now praying for their cameras to develop the problem in the next few months. Any tips to expedite the peeling process? :)

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 11:41 UTC
On article Re-make/Re-model: Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 Samples (202 comments in total)

would make an average quality 56 mm equiv lens on a m43 body.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 10:06 UTC as 15th comment

west facade, third bay from left- second column, fourth raw: "mastering digital photography volume 2" is placed erroneously. (@30 sec mark)

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 11:03 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply

Now, does that mean smartphones will die soon? I hope so...thank you Kodak!

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 18:26 UTC as 51st comment

Excellent news. I will go with the red version as it is way faster than the standard black one. Thank you dpreview for sharing this.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 13:24 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply

That's a giant "sensor" almost double of "full frame" and none of you are happy

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 07:00 UTC as 24th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

rondom: why did they stop at 328000? They could've pushed just another stop. I don't think 6560000 would look much worse than this. Also Dpreview: kind of misleading picture accompanying the title.

@barney: i am sure you understood what I meant: "Hello, ISO 3,280,000" accompanied with ISO 100 shot.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 15:58 UTC

why did they stop at 328000? They could've pushed just another stop. I don't think 6560000 would look much worse than this. Also Dpreview: kind of misleading picture accompanying the title.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 13:34 UTC as 132nd comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

rondom: One comment on the standalone version: it seems to support more than jpegs, unlike what the (open) dialog box suggests. I was able to open tiff files successfully. All you need to do is rename the file extension. Of course, you will still need to use an editing program to convert raw files to tiff.

Well that's what I thought too, but makfoto sounded rather sure. Also if they are so different, how come a JPEG only program is able to handle it?

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2016 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

rondom: One comment on the standalone version: it seems to support more than jpegs, unlike what the (open) dialog box suggests. I was able to open tiff files successfully. All you need to do is rename the file extension. Of course, you will still need to use an editing program to convert raw files to tiff.

@makfoto thanks, TIFF as non destructive JPEG is news to me. For some reason I thought it was a completely different format, but this makes sense.
@adsr can you explain the last sentence? How can you edit an image file in standalone version, if it has no file menu? Are you talking about nik or some other program?

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2016 at 19:38 UTC

One comment on the standalone version: it seems to support more than jpegs, unlike what the (open) dialog box suggests. I was able to open tiff files successfully. All you need to do is rename the file extension. Of course, you will still need to use an editing program to convert raw files to tiff.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2016 at 12:17 UTC as 47th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

mxx: All the moaning. This is a serious camera with which you can cover a war. Keep your piffy mirrorless toys for your pool parties.

People showing up in pool parties with EOS 1Dx (and the likes) is sillier than people showing up in war zones with "piffy mirrorless toys". Also: more likely that you will encounter the former than the latter but if you still insist, check this out:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7844

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 12:07 UTC
In reply to:

rondom: Either an honest mistake, or Leica wants us to believe that this camera is ONLY 39 mm deep...I don't care what their specs sheet says, but it is obviously WRONG
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5601265905/photos/3310459/leica

HAR: It looks like they have done the right thing. See here:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#639,557

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 13:02 UTC
In reply to:

rondom: Either an honest mistake, or Leica wants us to believe that this camera is ONLY 39 mm deep...I don't care what their specs sheet says, but it is obviously WRONG
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5601265905/photos/3310459/leica

(D) Deep/ depth I guess..camera thickness is what we are talking about here, and all protrusions (evf, grip) should be included into the thickness unless they are removable extras.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 05:06 UTC

Either an honest mistake, or Leica wants us to believe that this camera is ONLY 39 mm deep...I don't care what their specs sheet says, but it is obviously WRONG
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5601265905/photos/3310459/leica

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 16:51 UTC as 9th comment | 5 replies
On article A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted (341 comments in total)
In reply to:

rondom: OUCH...the raw files, when not loaded with a proper profile, show major corner vignetting at the edge...when cropped one gets the 28 mm, and the DNG records a slightly wider field of view, but wonder why?
and not only that, you already have two dust spots in your Q.
See this (please do not attack and answer constructively)
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5601265905/photos/3280945/untitled

JACS thanks! ok. i was able to remove the vignetting with 30% barrel correction. slightly dissapointing for a leica lens, if you ask me...but you are correct. it is not cropping the frame, it is just distortion correction.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 16:46 UTC
On article A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted (341 comments in total)
In reply to:

rondom: OUCH...the raw files, when not loaded with a proper profile, show major corner vignetting at the edge...when cropped one gets the 28 mm, and the DNG records a slightly wider field of view, but wonder why?
and not only that, you already have two dust spots in your Q.
See this (please do not attack and answer constructively)
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5601265905/photos/3280945/untitled

is the ACTUAL sensor size larger than 36x24? it better be...
if not, this is LESS than a full frame camera. i am completely puzzled by this and i think this deserves an explanation...thanks
here is another one:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5601265905/photos/3280948/untitled2

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 16:06 UTC
On article A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted (341 comments in total)

OUCH...the raw files, when not loaded with a proper profile, show major corner vignetting at the edge...when cropped one gets the 28 mm, and the DNG records a slightly wider field of view, but wonder why?
and not only that, you already have two dust spots in your Q.
See this (please do not attack and answer constructively)
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5601265905/photos/3280945/untitled

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 15:40 UTC as 74th comment | 6 replies

Looks like Dpreview will have to test every lens for sale.....separately...

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 18:53 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
On SampleImage:0814926361 (4 comments in total)

wow..please, anyone who knows where this is, and what is this?

Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 13:09 UTC as 3rd comment
Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »