Frederik Paul

Joined on Dec 29, 2007


Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Cartridges too small and no word of maximum print length. Can it handle panorama printing up to 112 cm as the old HP B9180? This feature most if not all currently available printers are lacking.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2015 at 05:35 UTC as 10th comment
On article Nikon D4s First Impressions Review (1032 comments in total)

Finally, Group AF mode comes back to Nikon SLRs.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 12:21 UTC as 225th comment
On article Canon EOS 70D Review (716 comments in total)

Use Canon DPP for raw development and apply some chroma NR and the 70D gets closer to the D7100. But some people will never get this…

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 13:53 UTC as 198th comment | 2 replies
On article How many megapixels do you need? (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeCanon: A4 print at 300ppi 3,508 x 2,480 9MP
A3 print at 300ppi 4,960 x 3,5081 8MP
A2 print at 300ppi 7,016 x 4,9603 5MP

Is this data is correct? A4 needs more MP and A2 less ????

6MP for A4 and then double as you step up. But half is okay, too, because 150ppi are enough. Also consider the viewing distance.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2013 at 11:28 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: Lost in Space (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: It is a great picture. It is an example of how post processing can circumvent gear limitation.
To you who think the reflections of some stars on the lake look brighter than their counterparts in the sky, and conclude it is not natural, you did not look carefully. The reflections are blue, never white, when many stars in the sky are white. So the reflections are not brighter, but bigger only. This is what happens when a light spot is reflected by a convex mirror (the top of a wave), plus the 15-sec exposure that combines each moving reflection into a larger spot. It is only your brain that concludes bigger equals brighter... Moreover, the kind of unpolished, matt surface of the lake acts as a strong AA filter, reflecting the bigger and brighter stars, filtering out the small and dim ones : just look at the small details of the mountain that are no longer there in the reflection.

It's not "gear limitation", how do you come to this conclusion?
It's photo manipulation, nothing else. By that, I don't want to say something against it.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2013 at 10:57 UTC
On article How many megapixels do you need? (229 comments in total)

The majority of people needs 3 MP, max 6 MP. That would be DIN 4A at 300 ppi or roughly 8x10". Even 3 MP is okay for that size.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2013 at 10:15 UTC as 33rd comment
On photo Puffin cleared to land in the Depth of field. challenge (13 comments in total)


Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2013 at 18:37 UTC as 6th comment
On article DxOMark tests Canon EOS 70D sensor and lenses (133 comments in total)
In reply to:

lensberg: DXO might serve as the holly grail for the average Nikon fan... but their "supposed tests" hardly serve as any meaningful purpose in determining which camera / brand is the best from an overall performance point of view...

DXO's only real purpose seems to be that of a proxy for Nikon's marketing department... to give the average joe something "scientific" to go by... Plus they should add a camera quality score... something where Nikon's D600 / 800 would score abysmally... oil spots and dust galore...

Best method of determining which camera is best suited for you is to read a broad spectrum of reviews across the web to formulate your own nonbiased opinions... Or just walk into any camera store and get a first hand account for which body suits your best...

DXO supports cheating by Nikon because it's quite obvious that Nikons (and Sonys) RAW files are processed in camera in the lower ISO range to gain more DR. It's very curious that from ISO 800 on the EOS 5D Mk. III takes over the Nikons, isn't it? And why the lower ISO values? Because you have less noise there after boosting the shadows, so the closer you get the narrower the gap gets until it disappears completely. And some guys call this "scientific". Another reason why we don't need science…

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 17:07 UTC
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (620 comments in total)

Looks more like a Bridge camera to me, very cheap look, including LCD. The upgrade path thinking is okay, but it could backfire when people regard the camera as too cheap and don't buy.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 07:57 UTC as 228th comment | 1 reply

Could it be that Canon finally got their things straight? I'm curious about the noise performance.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2013 at 08:23 UTC as 55th comment | 4 replies
On article Lightroom 5 Public Beta: What's New (90 comments in total)

Basically, even more PS in LR. So what do we get here, what do we want? Raw development or picture retouching? Let's see how far this goes and there won't be too much of a difference between the two. It's the same as with cars: entry level cars are getting bigger and bigger, and at some point a new model below gets introduced and it starts anew.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 15:09 UTC as 5th comment
On article Behind the Shot: Dark Matter (51 comments in total)

So what? Pretty straightforward...

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2013 at 17:54 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies

So Marissa Mayer is an amateur...

Link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 15:18 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply
On article 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) (353 comments in total)
In reply to:

Amateurbob: You left off Zoner, which will do everything picture takers need. It is powerful and easy to use and does not contain the bloatware of some software that was listed. Photoshop is for those who thing a good picture can only to taken with an expensive bulky camera.

What a nonsense...

Link | Posted on May 19, 2013 at 17:19 UTC
On article 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) (353 comments in total)

No programm here allows to work with any projects you’ve already started in Photoshop, because none has 100% layer functionality support.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2013 at 17:19 UTC as 64th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

yabokkie: a 42.5mm f/1.2 FourThirds is a 83mm f/2.4 equivalent on 35mm format (bring you every result the same) and thus worth about 60% of popular 85/1.8 ones, about 300 dollars compared with Nikon G.

Some folks here cannot even calculate correctly. The f-stop equivalent only applies to the DOV of a crop lens, not to the f-stop itself as the counterpart to the exposure time.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2013 at 08:28 UTC

You can just hope that the 30/1.4 has the same quality than the 35/1.4. If so, it'll a clear winner and better suited for APS-C. The current version is quite mediocre at best, particularly wide open.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:39 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies
Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »