oscarvdvelde

Lives in Spain Prov. of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Works as a thunderstorm & lightning researcher
Joined on Apr 29, 2006

Comments

Total: 170, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rfsIII: With all this medium format happiness coming our way, it's time for DPR to do some serious stories on tripods and speedlights. It's going to be extremely tough to get truly sharp shots without either a rock-solid tripod or very short flash duration.

At the 100% zoom level, shake does not relate to pixel size but to angular resolution and motion.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 15:46 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands on with Sigma's latest lenses (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The 85 F1.4 is a massive piece of equipment. How long can this trend last? When do prime lenses go down to reasonable sizes again?

They are making such lenses for 40+ MP cameras where they can make a difference.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 19:19 UTC
In reply to:

Mark Eberts: did I miss anything ... or where is the Fuji FF camera ?

This *is* Fuji's FF camera. It just got a little more full.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 17:40 UTC
In reply to:

oscarvdvelde: This should be sold under €6000 if we take the sensor surface as representative of camera cost. The step between APS-C and full frame is larger (1.5²) than between full frame and fuller frame (1.22²).

But it already does work quite well. High-end APS-C is €1600, times 2.25 gives high-end full frame at €3600. m43 would be 4 times cheaper than full frame which would be €900. Divide all by 2 for lower end products.

Maybe when this 44x33 format becomes more competitive and the sales good, the price for a high-end body will be €5300 while a lower-specced body could eventually go below €3000.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 17:46 UTC

This should be sold under €6000 if we take the sensor surface as representative of camera cost. The step between APS-C and full frame is larger (1.5²) than between full frame and fuller frame (1.22²).

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 16:56 UTC as 80th comment | 5 replies
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1915 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ouchy: Around six years ago I found myself with enough spare cash to buy a EOS 5 mkII and 24-105L lens kit for £1900.

6 years later, with a better job, but more responsibilities, I have a similar amount of cash to spend on a camera - I find that two iterations later the camera now costs two and a half times the price. Does it run on a fusion core or something?!..

The 6D line continued the old 5D line. The current 5D line is probably what rumors thought the 3D would be or a cheaper continuation of the 1Ds line.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 00:38 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1915 comments in total)
In reply to:

yoms: Thank you for the quick review of the 5D Mark III. It has just landed here in France :)

As a main one-shot AF shooter, I would have been interested in more details about focus accuracy, especially with the 5 dual cross-type AF points, rather than tracking.

Would you say focus is so accurate using one of these 5 points that it's mirrorless accurate? I would consider using them all the time, albeit at the expense of cropping/reframing in post to place my subject where I wanted initially to be, if I'm sure focus will be eye-lash accurate almost all the time.

Don't really care about tracking actually...

It's mark IV

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 23:16 UTC

Amazing dynamic range. ISO 4 million seems to look a stop brighter than necessary, probably the applied curve is too flat. I am curious how good a still looks.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 03:33 UTC as 23rd comment

6, 8 and 16: wrong category...

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2016 at 21:35 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

HMF70: The official price on the lens have been out for about a month now, so that is old news. Here is a review (swedish) https://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=irix15blackca on the lens, where they explain that Irix 15mm is overall better lens compared to 14-15mm primes from Samyang, Canon, Nikon and Zeiss, and almost as sharp as Canon 16-35/4L, Nikon 14-24/2,8 och Tamron 15-30/2,8. The only thing the article doesn't tell is how the lens handle coma, and that is crucial if you want to use the lens for astrophotography.

I almost forgot... It doesn't work on Sony e-mount with Metabones adapter.

Coma is handled very well by many wide angle primes. It's the astigmatism people really seem to worry about while calling it coma.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
In reply to:

jakegrahamphotography: So what's the new gold standard in wide angles these days? Talking purely image quality, not so fussed about auto vs. manual focus, size of lens, etc.
Is it this Irix 15mm f2.4?
Is it the Laowa 12mm f2.8?
Is it the Sigma 20mm f1.4?

Which of the optical imperfections are you willing to trade against which qualities? Which gold standard focal length? 12mm and 20mm are miles apart, let alone 24 and 35mm...

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

km25: Also more "air" would lend to a cooler running camera.

It would delay only the heat coming out, internally it runs just as hot. You need ventilation else it is not useful to have any air inside.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 23:00 UTC
On a photo in the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sample Gallery sample gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

oscarvdvelde: Where has the detail gone in JPEG? Or was noise reduction enabled?
You would think that in 2016 a camera this powerful should be able to produce the same level of detail as a raw developing software.

Also, a strange choice to throw the background just out of focus here.

Sounds good. I am a raw shooter but it would just be a good thing in case JPEG is needed for something, that they have the same level of detail.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2016 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

ZeneticX: Can it hold my Pentax 67 without leaving a crack on the wall?

I was hoping for it to hold my Bronica S2A. The holder and wall look a bit fragile.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 10:21 UTC
On article Updated: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV real-world sample gallery (485 comments in total)

Disappointing that a high-end camera in 2016 still needs to produce JPEGs void of texture and with sharpening halos two pixels wide. Look at the red bricks of the building shot or the jeans/hair in the waterfall shot. In its predecessor's official full size sample pictures there was just 10 MP worth of detail (you can test this by downsizing and then up and see what you lose - essentially nothing)

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 13:36 UTC as 90th comment | 5 replies
On a photo in the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sample Gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

The JPEG is a blurry mess. Where is the texture of each brick? Why is poor JPEG quality still necessary in 2016's most powerful cameras?

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 13:07 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sample Gallery sample gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bastian09: I am asking me, what are this colorspots in the image. Most visible are the red spots. But there are blue, orange, green, too. Look at the 100% view. I hope they do not have a hot/stuck-pixel problem ... again.

it looks like blurred hot pixels. It makes JPEGs at this ISO completely unusable...

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 13:01 UTC
On a photo in the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sample Gallery sample gallery (3 comments in total)

Where has the detail gone in JPEG? Or was noise reduction enabled?
You would think that in 2016 a camera this powerful should be able to produce the same level of detail as a raw developing software.

Also, a strange choice to throw the background just out of focus here.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 12:53 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS 5D (222 comments in total)

This DPReview article seems to be laughing at 5D image quality. But the 5D could already produce excellent A2 format prints. The noise performance up to ISO 1600 isn't even so much worse compared to the later 5D models. The typical quote was 2/3 to 1 stop difference. In fact, only in recent years APS-C has made it to this very same level.

I once met someone with 5D mk III and did an ad hoc ISO 3200 test: my 5D produced a way brighter image at the same exposure settings.

Those newer 5D models only produced a slightly bigger image/overall somewhat reduced noise and better features, kept the same DR. Banding was removed only in 2012 with the 5D III. The 5Dsr finally is a big step, but even my Fuji X-T1 has more DR...

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 15:48 UTC as 39th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS 5D (222 comments in total)
In reply to:

TORN: When the old 5D is at its best I get a good laugh comparing it to my Fuji T1. My Canon can still focus in low contrast situations where the AF of my Fuji goes Nirwana and the clarity of pictures up to 800 and maybe 1600 is hard to achieve for the Fuji in Lightroom. I know the show ends if I push the shadows by 3 or more stops but it is funny how the old lady still puts up a fight against the "Uber-Fuji".

The X-T1 is what I replaced my 5D with in 2014. I agree with your remarks. I find the image quality very comparable and Fuji certainly wins in DR.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 15:29 UTC
Total: 170, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »