a777

a777

Joined on Nov 17, 2013

Comments

Total: 109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony a7 IV review (2317 comments in total)
In reply to:

a777: Interesting. Old 42Mp A7Rm3 can shoot 10 fps lossless RAW's, but new 33Mp A7m4 can't. Sensor is still slow in E-shutter for moving objects. It looks like new A7 is not so well-rounded as predecessor was by the time of arrival.

Well, that's made my choice heavier, because I prepared to buy old A7Rm3 after many readings and comparing's. Bad luck, it would be much better for me if Sony either to made A7m4 a little better or a little worse) Now I stuck at resolution/speed VS video enhancement dilemma)

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2021 at 09:31 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2317 comments in total)

Interesting. Old 42Mp A7Rm3 can shoot 10 fps lossless RAW's, but new 33Mp A7m4 can't. Sensor is still slow in E-shutter for moving objects. It looks like new A7 is not so well-rounded as predecessor was by the time of arrival.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2021 at 06:24 UTC as 238th comment | 4 replies

There is certainly one good thing in all that negative hype - that prices on new R's will be a little less in a little sooner… But otherwise - better don't intimidate any maker to innovate)

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2020 at 15:12 UTC as 429th comment

I'd rather choose to have great ability for a limited time, then be limited of abilities at all. Let's them all makers innovate, just let them be straight about limits. Canon was.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2020 at 14:29 UTC as 450th comment | 9 replies
On article Canon EOS R5 added to studio test scene (547 comments in total)

Not bad. Again I want to add my opinion - why @DPR use same jpeg-compressed tiles for RAW, as for jpegs? Why not to use losseless, like tiff or similar. Not a big deal, but I sometimes see some patterns in RAW mode, which are really absent in real RAW. But - not a big deal, of course.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2020 at 14:19 UTC as 106th comment
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII Review (999 comments in total)
In reply to:

a777: Would you be so kind at DPR, to mention in review has it still destructive compression in RAW? Or with choice of uncompressed? And this another bug - star eater. Has it occurred in RX100m7 series?

@mick232, @entoman - thanks for your comments, I don't see how they helped me or my questions, but anyway, thanks for your estimations and suggestions:) And I don't know why you think star eater is about astro only? It's about long exposures, you know.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2019 at 08:57 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII Review (999 comments in total)

Would you be so kind at DPR, to mention in review has it still destructive compression in RAW? Or with choice of uncompressed? And this another bug - star eater. Has it occurred in RX100m7 series?

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2019 at 15:49 UTC as 274th comment | 4 replies
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS RP (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

a777: Would you be so kind, at DPR, to confirm that sensor is equal to 6dmII. It'll spare me from wasting my time at any future materials about this particular camera.

I assume this is the cheapest, smallest and lightest FF ILC ever produced... It means that battery has to be small and weak. Forget about batteries, I can swap 5 in 20 seconds, and one spare is enough for majority... No, the sensor is only deal breaker for me. Even for 1300...

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2019 at 11:46 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS RP (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

a777: Would you be so kind, at DPR, to confirm that sensor is equal to 6dmII. It'll spare me from wasting my time at any future materials about this particular camera.

@voronspb I can easily swap battery, but can't swap sensor at all.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2019 at 13:57 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS RP (758 comments in total)

Would you be so kind, at DPR, to confirm that sensor is equal to 6dmII. It'll spare me from wasting my time at any future materials about this particular camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2019 at 05:16 UTC as 145th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Sir 7: Ruh roh...

20MP 1/2.3" sensor sounds a LOT like the one used in the B700, and that one's just too noisy.

Whereas the Canon SX60HS, Nikon P610/P900 all seemed to use the same 16MP sensor, it looked great (for a tiny sensor), with the Canon the only of the group to allow RAW capture. I was very pleased with the RAW-processed images I got out of my SX60HS. Not pleased with my B700 RAW-processing.

20MP is simply TOO many pixels for such a tiny sensor. Besides, when you can zoom this far, cropping should be minimal so crazy resolution is moot.

Amazon says my P1000 is arriving tomorrow and I'm stoked! But honestly, I'd be way more stoked if it was 12MP or even 10MP instead of 16MP.

@ Sir 7 yeah - I'm for almost decade keep using different sensors - 1/2.3, 1/1.7, 1 inch, crop and even FF, so I'm aware of how they perform. But I can assure you, that new BSI sensor is way better than old CCD, for example. Rolling shutter is out of this comprasion, of course.
So sensor in my current FZ82 performs visible worse than old sensor from SX50HS. For one part because of lossy raws, but for another - sony tech is simply better. So, it seems logically to want most advanced sensor in given category.
Personally, I admit that low MP helps low light, but let's face the truth - 1/2.3 is no way low light champion. But high MP helps landscapes on wide end - so I'm fine with 20MP.
That's why it's bad news that you don't like b700 sensor - I believe it's sony's design too. Let's wait for example photos.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 12:53 UTC
In reply to:

DiffractionLtd: People still buy these things?

@DPR - so, can we hope for reviews for P1000 and sx70HS? SX50HS had very thorough review. I bought it then and was very happy with camera, till the moment when it just became old and slow in performance to novadays standarts. Then I bought FZ82 which only had part in your quick roundup. And I found tons of cons with that camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 08:28 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: Crikey! 20MP from a sensor measuring only 6.17 x 4.55 mm seems to be pushing things a bit! Surely the images will be terrible? Even at low ISO I'd expect to see either a lot of noise, or a combination of extreme noise reduction and over-sharpening that would result in very waxy looking images. But I'll be very happy to be proven wrong.

@entoman: 'Surely the images will be terrible?' When comparing with 30kg 30000$ equipment - yes, of course:) Problem is - not everyone has such equipment, not everyone can afford that equipment, and, importantly, not everyone wants to have it in first place:) And no phone can even nearly approach such zoom range.
I choose to have not ideal photos of smartphone quality but with any imaginable zoom available, than not to have at all. Choice is even simpler, when bridge is not only one camera in posession.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

Camera Conspiracies: I almost got excited, but this is actually pretty awful. I have the sx50 and love it, but it's not very good for video. I've been waiting for an update and while I love the wider 21mm, they give us a mic jack and remove the hotshoe? No slow motion? No touchscreen?

It's weird how they seem to get worse with each release. I went with the sx50 over the sx60 because apparently the sx50 had a better quality lens, and less megapixels making it better in low light. Then they further cripple the sx70 by taking out key video features like the hotshoe for the shotgun mic, and they removed slow motion (or dpreview didn't bother listing it?). They should at least have 720p 120fps in there.

Lets that high fps modes just omitted from specs, but not camera. Hotshoe mic impossibility is true, but at least I can use usual clip-on

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 08:07 UTC
In reply to:

Sir 7: Ruh roh...

20MP 1/2.3" sensor sounds a LOT like the one used in the B700, and that one's just too noisy.

Whereas the Canon SX60HS, Nikon P610/P900 all seemed to use the same 16MP sensor, it looked great (for a tiny sensor), with the Canon the only of the group to allow RAW capture. I was very pleased with the RAW-processed images I got out of my SX60HS. Not pleased with my B700 RAW-processing.

20MP is simply TOO many pixels for such a tiny sensor. Besides, when you can zoom this far, cropping should be minimal so crazy resolution is moot.

Amazon says my P1000 is arriving tomorrow and I'm stoked! But honestly, I'd be way more stoked if it was 12MP or even 10MP instead of 16MP.

I hope that sensor will be from sony. And sony sensors are best what 1/2.3 can offer. And 20mp is much better for wide-end sunny landscapes. Let's hope that it'll be different from b700 then, and for sure different from FZ82 sensor, which is much worse then SX50.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 07:59 UTC
In reply to:

MannyZero: Have you ever own a car and thought that maybe those guys who designed and made it have NEVER driven it?
This Canon geniuses have just amputated this little, tough camera, from one of its elements that made these series so versatile: The Hot Shoe.
I'm sticking to my SX60 HS.

hot shoe is not big deal when bridge is not only one camera in posession. I'll just switch to more proper camera in difficult lighting.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 07:53 UTC
In reply to:

Gal Root: No touch screen, same lens... What a joke.
It's an SX60s.

Canon has zero innovation these days.

SX60HS is very slow in RAW capture and without 4K. Lenses in other bridges, as I discovered for myself, can be even worse. Even if there are 5fps AF-locked raw capture is possible with SX70HS - I'll buy it. If 10 - it will be very good. But if cr3 will be in lossy implementation here - that will be a deal breaker at once.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 07:50 UTC
In reply to:

Sammy Yousef: What a disappointment. I'm keeping my SX50HS for as long as it works and I can get batteries. I've even used my hotshoe for manual flash playing around on occasion.

My perspective is quite opposite: I finally sold SX50HS only because of very poor performance in serial RAW capture - less then 1 fps. Then bought panasonic FZ82 only to discover that it has much worse lens, sensor, stabilization, rolling shutter and finally - lossy RAWs. And with fixed screen - I thought that I can live with that, but no - I'll not buy any camera in future without vari-angle screen. Yet performance of FZ82 is great - but, sadly, useless. 4K is unusable even at wide end due to heavy rolling shutter and poor stabilization when not using tripod. SX50HS (though in 1080p) was much better.
With bridges only as backup cameras for me I'm not very disappointed in hot-shoe loss - when I forced to use flash I'm just use the more proper camera.
P1000 is somewhat too big for my use - usually in bicycle bag. That's why I'm very impressed with SX70HS so far and will wait for review.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 07:32 UTC

With so many serious camera introductions lately, I fear for sx70hs to be properly reviewed:) So, I want to kindly ask DPR to find some time and try this camera even for quick review... No matter what so many peoples said here about unusefullness of ultrazooms - they are exciting backup cameras for sunny day trips. Really.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 07:19 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic DC-LX100 II Review (1131 comments in total)
In reply to:

a777: I believe all raws will be of equal size - again. Stubborn manufacturer, destructively compressing raws without any option. Like sony in alpha-crop. Impossible for me to understand

@Jacques Cornell - RX100 it's a SONY line, with similar, but worse problem - not only destructive, but erratic compression. Please at last refer to studio comprasion tool: for example, ALL GX85 and G7 raws around 18.9 Mb, all GX8, GH5 - 23 Mb. Then we see canon, for example. Low pixel count 7D with losseless compression iso100 = 25.3 Mb. iso12800 = 32.9 Mb !!! with GH5 still 23 Mb even at uncompressible noisy iso25600 !!! AND 7d only 18MP, but GH5 is 20. Forget it, it's unposibble to maintain such results without lossy compression. You simply can't mathematically compress noisy 20Mp even 12-bit image to 23 MP. You can try for yourself with heaviest zip compression.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2018 at 07:40 UTC
Total: 109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »