fberns

Joined on Nov 14, 2011

Comments

Total: 72, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

Marty: Yes, it's sad so much systems are gone. But sensors smaller than M4/3, I never found that they made sense with interchangeable lenses. Cameras with single lenses can have faster apertures, can be more compact and I think that all the hassle of having different lenses doesn't really result in so much added versatility and quality than what you get in APS-C or bigger. To me the small sensor ILCs seemed rather like toys, while toys may sometimes sell.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 09:57 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

A lot of people in photo forums seem to work this way: "If you criticize the brand I love, I'll discredit you".
The 85/1.4 is a single lens that heavily falls out of their range of compact primes. And it was the only real tele option besides the standard 50-200mm tele zoom for a few years. I wasn't talking so much about my very own preferences, but thinking in terms of sold lenses and cameras, or number of satisfied customers.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

"They didn't leave the market because they were too slow. It probably had more to do with profitability and their failure to meet very aggressive targets they set for themselves.

I seem to recall Samsung saying they would be the MILC market leader by 2012. By then, they probably had perhaps a 10% share."

I couldn't really find numbers about their market share, but in the numbers I found (2014 and 2015), they are even not listed, so low was teir share.

The guy from mirrorlessrumors made a comment on Samsungs plans to become number one and on their market share in 2012.
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/not-again-samsung-says-they-want-to-become-the-number-one-in-the-mirrorless-market/

It was not exactly slowness, but like someone above stated "making some odd choices".

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 10:45 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

"Why are you answering with a point about a 50mm lens, when I asked about a 60mm that's a macro by the way?"
You asked if 2.4/60mm wasn't a fast lens and I said no - 2.4 at 60mm was not fast.
"It's unfortunate that people like yourself expect systems to appear fully formed, as if it were an adult emerging from the womb"
No, I don't. I just expect that the most important (= most demanded) lenses would be launched in the very first years. Primes are great, but in my opinion, zooms other than the slow aperture kit zooms are essential, and a wide angle zoom too. All these were too late. If someone cited Canon or Sony as worse examples - you're totally right, but these names seem to have some strange magic to them so people buy their cameras anyway.
Finally, I take back "insanely stupid" (...camera division). I wanted to say that It could and should have been a system appealing to a broader audience much earlier and I could understand all the people buying into something else instead.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

"And an f/2.4 60mm isn't a fast lens?"
It's not if you consider that everyone has a 50mm with at least 1.8 AND a standard zoom like 2.8/17-50. And like I mentioned, I'm sure that wideangle zooms are more demanded than wideangle primes in the hot selling lists, so that one should have been launched not only two and a half years after the first camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

Ok, I get that different people have obviously different lens preferences.
Right from the start, I was interested in the system, that was in 2010. I find a wide angle zoom essential, for example, and that was only available in late 2012. nearly three years after their start. Then, I was looking for a faster standard and tele zoom which are also essential in my opinion. Those were even only available in 2014. And I was hoping for a light but reasonably fast tele prime and I didn't understand why the 85mm had to be 1.4 - that was big and heavy and expensive in respect to their available cameras. To me, the whole system just started to make sense in the end, with the NX1, right before they stopped.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 11:53 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

Sorry, but I did pay attention to their lens line right from the start! That's where I got disappointed by them announcing strange choices like a 85/1.4 and the more essential ones like a wide angle or fast zoom lenses just after a few years.
And my point was that they exactly just stopped after they got it right when before they took years and years of making bad choices.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 07:36 UTC

I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 21:27 UTC as 58th comment | 23 replies
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)

Good bye Adobe!
I loved Lightroom, but I have enough (essential) subscriptions already, and the running costs of everyday's life are no fun. I think that you won't really care for me, because you're looking at people with lots of money anywhere rather than Joe next door.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 11:42 UTC as 307th comment
In reply to:

tbcass: Not quite true. It's the first full frame camera to reach 100. The MF Pentax 645z scored 101. Regardless the difference between 101, 100, 98 and 97 is more academic than real because you can't see the difference.

Dear John Koerner: "RIF (Reading is fundamental). The first **DSLR** to reach 100."
You should excuse for your statement.
1) Pentax 645Z is a DSLR.
2) Who said "DSLR"? In the headline, DPReview say "the best camera".

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

RDKirk: So according to the given specs, at three feet it's 1000 lumen, meaning it's only 250 lumen at six feet. That's the equivalent of a 20-watt incandescent bulb.

Not exciting to me. Sure not exciting at over 300 USD.

I can buy a much cheaper video LED with a lot more power than that, or a much more powerful Godox AD200 HSS TTL flash with interchangeable bare-bulb head or focused speedlight head for the same amount.

Also, CRI can be extremely misleading for LEDs. No LED source has a true full spectrum, so it's easy to fudge the CRI numbers. I'd want to see some real test result reviews.

Do you refer to "Lux"? As far as I remember, the thing measured in Lumen is the total light output of a light source, and independent of distance.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 11:13 UTC

Sorry, I'm not a friend of Wikimedia and PETA anymore. Next time, David Slater would either keep the images for himself or just lie and say he himself pressed the shutter.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 08:07 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D5600 review: making connectivity a snap? (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

SolidMetal: This camera (or it's predecessor, which is the same just without snapbridge) was soooo superior to the 700D when they came out. It was just a better DSLR in every aspect. But now the tables are turned, the 800D is better in almost everything (except Raw dynamic range, but now the Canon is close), and Nikon is still selling the same camera.
I'm not a fan of either brand, just find this very exciting.

I am curious about the new 800D also, but AF tracking in viewfinder/phase detection mode on the new Canons left the DPreview crew much less impressed than that on the D5600!

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 12:42 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: backers, please sue them. It's incredible they don't intend to offer refund.

to be honest, I never read the fine print of those crowdfunding platforms. I just read the main text in a few projects some time ago and those sounded like a promise, like "you give us the money and here's what you'll get".
If the say somewhere that "sh..t may happen and you may not get anything back for your money" of course then you should be aware of the risk. Still I think that the mistakes the funders make have not to be of the negligent kind to not be liable in some way. I mean, in case of a lawsuit, they will have to prove how they used the money.
Also I wonder how ALL of the money could even go away... without even having a product AND no money at all to pay back - the mistake in their plan then would be very very big not to set an end to the project in time.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2016 at 21:50 UTC

backers, please sue them. It's incredible they don't intend to offer refund.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 20:14 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

fberns: Wow, that sounds great for a mid class phone. I just hope it supports RAW format...?

thanks for answering, Lars!
For me personally the option to shoot RAW in difficult conditions is very nice to have.
So on my list of affordable smartphones with great ameras the Nexus 5X remains on top.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 19:40 UTC

Wow, that sounds great for a mid class phone. I just hope it supports RAW format...?

Link | Posted on May 17, 2016 at 21:31 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies

"... is smaller than most used by current smartphones".
As far as I know, 1/2.3" (and bigger) is just used by a few smarphones and most current smartphones have sensors smaller than 1/2.6"!

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 22:07 UTC as 28th comment
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (562 comments in total)
In reply to:

fberns: I've read this ("same image quiality") a few times here lately, but NO, Mirorless cameras don't have the exact same image quality as DSLRs.
I'm sure you are aware that the sensor that is always on, is warmer than a DSLR sensor and that adds noise - I didn't see any measurements yet, so I'm not sure how relevant that is. BUT - I could always confirm the theory by comparing equal (or near equal) sensors in your lab test image. DSLRs with the same sensor are noticeably less noisy in every comparison I did yet.
It's only with imroved sensors that aren't available for DSLRs that they can keep up with DSLRs (Samsung NX1 against the likes of Pentax K-3 or Nikon 7200 / or Sony A7R II against Nikon D810)

Ok - in the meantime I remembered on one hand Panasonic and Olympus, which always appeared to be very good even with the smaller sensors.
ANd yes, of course, Fuji always impressed me too, but the X-Trans sensors are hardly directly compareable in the DP test images because their Lightroom's RAW render results are somewhat softer than the Bayer pattern cameras. But I remembered the Fuji X-A2 and well - finally the theoretical difference on noise that I mentioned in my initial post may really be more a theoretical thing - the XA2 seems to be on par with the best DSLRs (with the same 16MP sensor I mean). And Sony and Samsung really only seem to have worse image processing? But then - that's a big shame!

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 22:18 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (562 comments in total)

I've read this ("same image quiality") a few times here lately, but NO, Mirorless cameras don't have the exact same image quality as DSLRs.
I'm sure you are aware that the sensor that is always on, is warmer than a DSLR sensor and that adds noise - I didn't see any measurements yet, so I'm not sure how relevant that is. BUT - I could always confirm the theory by comparing equal (or near equal) sensors in your lab test image. DSLRs with the same sensor are noticeably less noisy in every comparison I did yet.
It's only with imroved sensors that aren't available for DSLRs that they can keep up with DSLRs (Samsung NX1 against the likes of Pentax K-3 or Nikon 7200 / or Sony A7R II against Nikon D810)

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 23:37 UTC as 18th comment | 5 replies
Total: 72, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »