HubertChen

HubertChen

Lives in China Guangzhou, China
Works as a CEO
Joined on Jun 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 739, showing: 721 – 739
« First‹ Previous34353637Next ›Last »
On Article:4886827527 (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

HubertChen: I wonder why two sites instead of one? By this choice you emphasize how different mobile photography is from what you refer to as "serious" photography. I believe this is an opportunity lost for dpreview to grow as a community. By your choice of two different sites you are promoting the focus on technology rather than photography. It is a subtle difference if dpreview a) focus on the technical aspects of photography to be complimentary to other websites who focus on the artistic side or b) focus on the technical side of photography because this is all what you can see. This difference of view is shaping attitude. Where readers of type a) would embrace mobile photography and look for things to learn from this new exciting community, readers of type b) would alienate. I am afraid for dpreview that your choice of two sites will attract more readers of type b) and repel more type a), making dpreview a less attractive place for me to come back to.

Yeah, I saw many posts. Let me make sure we are talking about the same type of posts and that we interpret them the same way:
1) dpreview writes about mobile photography
2) a huge portion of readers respond with alienating comments
Let me know if this is what you feel is the problem and if that is why you chose to split the community. Or if you have other considerations or you refer to other kind of posts, please be so kind to share them.

Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 03:10 UTC
On Article:4886827527 (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

jquagga: Wait wait - they have readable fonts! And its not white on black! Can we "accidentally" copy that css file over here? :).

If that's one of the potential "skins" for this side of things, then my only question is "how soon?!"

Yeah! I second this one with emphasis. I understand that using black background makes the pictures zing and this is a photography site. But with my eyes getting older your site is becoming harder and harder to read. After reading ( white and black ) for a while and then looking at the pictures they appear to me as having white horizontal lines in them, distracting me from their content. So I need to look for one minute at something else before I can enjoy pictures. I saw some compromise sites that have black text on dark gray background and images had a deep black frame. That looked as zinggy but was more friendly to read. Or simply make skins and allow your readers to choose.

Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 02:52 UTC
On Article:4886827527 (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: Thanks for dragging us old-timers with reduced kicking and screaming into this brave new world of imaging. Years ago, decades ago (film era), American Photographer gave point and shoot cameras to "everyday" citizens. The results were superb, so I never disparage someone with less fancy equipment or less experience.

I second this and go one further. Photography is a skill and skill improves with practice. I envy those happy snappers shooting more pictures than I and wondering when they will shoot better pictures than I or better, how I can I learn from them to shoot more pictures myself :-)

Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 02:46 UTC
On Article:4886827527 (249 comments in total)

I wonder why two sites instead of one? By this choice you emphasize how different mobile photography is from what you refer to as "serious" photography. I believe this is an opportunity lost for dpreview to grow as a community. By your choice of two different sites you are promoting the focus on technology rather than photography. It is a subtle difference if dpreview a) focus on the technical aspects of photography to be complimentary to other websites who focus on the artistic side or b) focus on the technical side of photography because this is all what you can see. This difference of view is shaping attitude. Where readers of type a) would embrace mobile photography and look for things to learn from this new exciting community, readers of type b) would alienate. I am afraid for dpreview that your choice of two sites will attract more readers of type b) and repel more type a), making dpreview a less attractive place for me to come back to.

Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 02:34 UTC as 71st comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: Pentax seem to have forgotten the K-5 is an aps-c camera when designing the 40mm lens.

On a full frame camera that focal length is great (I owned an Zuiko 40mm F2 in film days) but on aps-c with a f.o.v equal to 60mm I can't think of a more useless specification for a prime lens.

Pentax are not the only one to do this. Sony brought out a 50mm "portrait" lens when that is really too short to be a classic portrait lens with a f.o.v of a 75mm.

They are both far too conservative and seem to think they should stick to focal lengths that are really for full frame rather than develop specifically for aps-c. A 28mm prime which is approx 42mm f.o.v would have been much better.

When taking pictures the change from FOV 50 mm -> FOV 60 mm Full Frame is not that dramatic. It sure is on the longer end of the "normal" lens range. If your shooting style calls for the shorter end, you want the 35 mm equivalent FOV to FF, then simply use the 21 mm Limited lens. It is only slightly larger and has an amazing IQ. There you have it. Just pick what suits you.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2012 at 02:23 UTC
On article Pentax announces K-01 K-mount APS-C mirrorless camera (867 comments in total)

It is interesting that most posts are complaining how Pentax made this camera wrong. However, there is something they made right: This camera is extremely interesting! Check in the news section of dpreview. This camera evoked more posts (by a huge margin) than any other camera announcement :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 15:29 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
On article Pentax Q Hands-on Preview (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

steve131: Common sense .....

Most photographers who care to carry with them and change lens because they can do something extra to achieve the image quality they want.

If Pentax thinks ppl will change lens for fun and don't care about image quality, then they will learn a lesson.

I think most mirrorless fans will go with m43. Sony die-hard fans will go with NEX, but I suspect Sony as a company is going to a dead-end. Sad ... I used to be a big fan of Sony.

I just hope Pentax Q will not become a big joke in the history of mirrorless camera. Look at that little camera, it's lovely, if you can ignore the sensor part.

my experience is that any 12 MP sensor can out-resolve almost any lens given enough light. Prime lenses always have been significantly better than standard zooms. When I am going out, I do not bring all my primes, but only one or two matching the trip. I can easily see it happen that a Nex5 combines with a standard zoom will be bagged by the Q with a prime in terms of IQ. If you have enough light, sensor size is almost irrelevant, lens quality then becomes the deciding factor. I am also certain that a Nex5 will bag the Q when you shoot at candle light, no matter the lens :-)

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2011 at 06:13 UTC
On article Pentax Q Hands-on Preview (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: The key thing will be the camera's low light performance. I see it as a potential competitor for the G12/S95 range. If the image quality can match, AND it has better lenses (fast, with good optics) it could be an interesting camera.

Note that I may be one of the few who remembers the Pentax compact 110-film SLR. Yes, it was limited by the image quality from the 110 film (probably about the size of the sensor in this camera!), but the control options and lens options made it very interesting for somethat that small.

Dear Jeff, thanks for reminding us on the Pentax 110. I just looked it up. Cute little thing. This gives me even more hope that Pentax knows what they are doing :-)
Dear AnHund, when comparing sizes, you forgot to put the time line into your equation. The 110 was introduced in 1978. At that time resolution of 35 mm film was not has high as it is now. I made tests in 2002 and concluded 35 mm FF was about 12 Mega Pixel. From feeling I would say the pictures I shot in late seventies have about 1/3 resolution that they had in 2002. That makes it 4 MP in late seventies. FF is 860 mm2, you said 110 is 221 mm2, that makes 110 to be the size of 1/4 FF, that leaves it to be 1MP at the time. 1 MP is about the resolution of a 15" laptop, the maximum size most people look at their pictures. They were successful with that ( much | little) image quality then. So they might be more successful with the Q now as it has much better IQ than the 110. Or maybe IQ is not so relevant here ?

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2011 at 06:00 UTC
On article Pentax Q Hands-on Preview (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

eadrian75: Those who are quick to pass judgment based solely on sensor size, without any hard proof of actual IQ or handling of the Q are those who enjoy the pixel peeping "dark side" of photography.

I think odds are good that PENTAX was not thinking of you when producing this camera. So please continue posting your lame duck, pixel perfect shots of bricks and flowers.

The Q looks like it could be fun and isn't that what photography is supposed to be when you're not making a living from it? Granted the $800 price tag is a bit to swallow right now, but I applaud the bold move by PENTAX.

Dear BBsLX5, I have quite a collection of lenses for my APSC DSLR. And when I am going out shooting for fun, which do I carry? Recently only the 35 mm f/2. This is actually a 53 mm equivalent. I certainly could live with the 47 mm :-). My only wish would be to have a camera that is lighter but operates like my DSLR. Maybe the Q will deliver. I agree with eadrian, just can not write as nicely as he can. Sometimes when you go out, you want to have fun with the camera. For my shooting style the Q offers a great promise. Using it will show if it can deliver. Pentax needs to be commended to deliver us as complete different animal of camera. Isn't that great? More choice for us photographers? Why berate a company giving you more choice? Germans would say, you are cutting into your own flesh. And how can you make a judgement this camera is no FUN??? Fun is an emotional response in real life. You would actually need to use the Q to be able to comment if is fun for you or not.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2011 at 05:45 UTC
In reply to:

Lights: It's kinda cute, except for the pop up flash that looks like a miniature "War of the Worlds" knock off. I can't understand the market though. People who want good quality IQ seems to me, would stick with a camera like the G series or LX with a single fixed lens they don't have to monkey with, and the cleaning. People who wan't better IQ that larger sensors may provide, would go for APS-C or M4/3, and the size penalty isn't much comparatively. It's disappointing to me, I'd thought Pentax would come in with a small APS-C (able to use existing lenses) or M4/3, which would have given lens junkies a boost. Man it sure isn't cheap.

Dear sera666, thanks for your experience report on the X100. I saw that there was a new firmware release, but some photographers were still not happy with it. I do not doubt the extraordinary image quality. I own many fujinon lenses. How is focus confirmation with manual focusing? Is it useful? I maybe shall wait for another firmware update and then borrow this camera to get a feeling for it :-). I certainly like the design and it is great that the lens is very flat. I would need to see how the weight feels if the camera is if carried around the whole day. I live in the tropics. Now is 33C with 75% RTH. I usually wear bahamas shorts with really large pockets. Would the X100 fit in it? Wearing a belt and a pouch would be harder and would look funny with shorts.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2011 at 07:21 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: Pentax delivers a new class of camera. It has almost all of DSLR handling features at the size of a pocket camera. To me this is a winning concept. I already have a very small APSC DSLR (Pentax with Pancake lens). I am looking for a camera that is significantly smaller, yet handles like my DSLR. To me it seems only the Pentax Q fits the bill. And with significantly smaller I mean camera __and__ lens. This is why e.g. a Sony Nex does not fit the bill. The camera is small, but the lens is not. So if I can get the small camera with DSLR features only in case I sacrifice sensor size, so be it. You only can take pictures with a camera you have with you. A Sony Nex or Olympus Pen I would never carry with me at all times. A Pentax Q I might. I now carry with me a Fuji F 50. I am happy enough with the image quality, but when using creative control handling is too slow. I am expecting that the handling of the Q is excellent and fast. I am waiting for this camera since years.

I am not saying that the Q is a great camera for everybody or that it even will work for me. I would only know that after I use it for some time. Can I hold it in my hand comfortably. Can I indeed change all settings w/o looking at the camera. Basically, is it possible that the camera disappears in my mind and all I see is the picture I want to take. If that will happen, then the camera is for me. All I am trying to do here is to offer a different perspective to think about: That for some shooting purposes, like family pictures, the following things could be more important than IQ: How fast can you change the settings, can you do it intuitively without loosing the concentration on what you want to photograph, is it comfortable to hold the camera for a long time, is it small enough to be with you at all times. Is its appearance not intimidating to not scare the people you want to take a picture off. Is it small enough to not cover your whole face, so you still can smile at your kid ?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2011 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: Pentax delivers a new class of camera. It has almost all of DSLR handling features at the size of a pocket camera. To me this is a winning concept. I already have a very small APSC DSLR (Pentax with Pancake lens). I am looking for a camera that is significantly smaller, yet handles like my DSLR. To me it seems only the Pentax Q fits the bill. And with significantly smaller I mean camera __and__ lens. This is why e.g. a Sony Nex does not fit the bill. The camera is small, but the lens is not. So if I can get the small camera with DSLR features only in case I sacrifice sensor size, so be it. You only can take pictures with a camera you have with you. A Sony Nex or Olympus Pen I would never carry with me at all times. A Pentax Q I might. I now carry with me a Fuji F 50. I am happy enough with the image quality, but when using creative control handling is too slow. I am expecting that the handling of the Q is excellent and fast. I am waiting for this camera since years.

I am not saying that the Q is a great camera for everybody or that it even will work for me. I would only know that after I use it for some time. Can I hold it in my hand comfortably. Can I indeed change all settings w/o looking at the camera. Basically, is it possible that the camera disappears in my mind and all I see is the picture I want to take. If that will happen, then the camera is for me. All I am trying to do here is to offer a different perspective to think about: That for some shooting purposes, like family pictures, the following things could be more important than IQ: How fast can you change the settings, can you do it intuitively without loosing the concentration on what you want to photograph, is it comfortable to hold the camera for a long time, is it small enough to be with you at all times. Is its appearance not intimidating to not scare the people you want to take a picture off. Is it small enough to not cover your whole face, so you still can smile at your kid ?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2011 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: Pentax delivers a new class of camera. It has almost all of DSLR handling features at the size of a pocket camera. To me this is a winning concept. I already have a very small APSC DSLR (Pentax with Pancake lens). I am looking for a camera that is significantly smaller, yet handles like my DSLR. To me it seems only the Pentax Q fits the bill. And with significantly smaller I mean camera __and__ lens. This is why e.g. a Sony Nex does not fit the bill. The camera is small, but the lens is not. So if I can get the small camera with DSLR features only in case I sacrifice sensor size, so be it. You only can take pictures with a camera you have with you. A Sony Nex or Olympus Pen I would never carry with me at all times. A Pentax Q I might. I now carry with me a Fuji F 50. I am happy enough with the image quality, but when using creative control handling is too slow. I am expecting that the handling of the Q is excellent and fast. I am waiting for this camera since years.

Thank you sportyaccordy for your reply. Isn't it interesting how we differ in the approach? You are looking for the smallest body that has a large sensor and accept that the lenses fall where they may. I am looking for the smallest camera (incl. lens) that has all creative adjustment dials and for me the quality can fall where it may. To me the small sensor size is perfectly OK. But e.g. the NEX camera would not be OK for me, because it does not have all the create control dials, that the Q has (or any DSLR for that matter). I want to get the shot I see in my mind. That means I can adjust shutter speed, bokeh, focus, ISO setting just using mechanical controls without looking at a Display. If I would need to look at the display, I would leave the "zone". I would loose the moment. To be able to control the camera without looking at it is most important to me to get the shot. That the camera is as small as the Q is important too, so that I have a camera with me when the shot happen.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2011 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Doleman: As much as I'd love to be enthusiastic about another entrant to the "high-end compact/mirrorless" market, I fear that this camera is all but dead on arrival. I cannot for the life of me figure-out where on Earth this camera fits-in. I just don't see why anyone would choose it over any of it's potential competitors. The issue is the sensor. If a truly compact camera were my goal, why would I choose this camera over a Canon S95 or Olympus XZ-1? Or, if I want a small "system" camera, why would I choose this over a 4/3 or APS-C sized camera such as the Olympus EPL series or Samsung NX? It just doesn't add-up. I think it is a huge gamble to build an entirely new lens system around a small-sensor camera like this. I honestly hope I'm wrong, and that this camera finds a niche. But on another note entirely, they haven't helped matters much by creating a... um... let's call it "awkward looking" camera body...

Maybe this camera fits into the hands of DSLR photographers who look for a significantly smaller camera than their DSLR, but which has the same handling as a DSLR, with all creative adjustments to be accessible by their dedicated buttons and dials. And with all dials to be easily accessible with a high quality of feeling. The Canon S95 would not have all the DSLR style dials. And a 4/3 camera is not significantly smaller than a Pentax DSLR with a 40 mm pancake lens. Actually to me the "awkward looking body" is what is attracting me the most. It seems like the only possible design to offer so many dials and buttons in a way that they are easy accessible with large hands on a really tiny body. If this camera could keep me "In the Zone" while shooting, it would be different then any model in your list, except a 4/3 Pen camera with viewfinder (which then is about same size as my Pentax DSLR).

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2011 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

Lights: It's kinda cute, except for the pop up flash that looks like a miniature "War of the Worlds" knock off. I can't understand the market though. People who want good quality IQ seems to me, would stick with a camera like the G series or LX with a single fixed lens they don't have to monkey with, and the cleaning. People who wan't better IQ that larger sensors may provide, would go for APS-C or M4/3, and the size penalty isn't much comparatively. It's disappointing to me, I'd thought Pentax would come in with a small APS-C (able to use existing lenses) or M4/3, which would have given lens junkies a boost. Man it sure isn't cheap.

I agree with you that IQ will not be great. From my experience with this sensor size (Fuji F50) it will be sufficient for documentary or family shots. What if the key attraction of this camera is not IQ, but handling. What if the target customer is a DSLR user, who wishes to have a camera that handles exactly like his DSLR, but which is significantly smaller. If one comes from a Canon 1Ds I am sure the Olympus Pen camera will look much smaller. But if one comes from a Pentax DSLR with a 40 mm Pancake lens, the Olympus Pen is not that much smaller. To me the size different was not significant enough to buy it and use it when my Pentax DSLR is too big. The Canon G series was same problem, too big. The Panasonic LX handles more like my Fuji F50, which I am not happy with the handling. By the time I am done to make a creative adjustment, the shot is lost. To me the Q is a camera to fast adjust creative setting and get the shot. It may be the smallest camera with fast creative control.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2011 at 03:10 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: Pentax delivers a new class of camera. It has almost all of DSLR handling features at the size of a pocket camera. To me this is a winning concept. I already have a very small APSC DSLR (Pentax with Pancake lens). I am looking for a camera that is significantly smaller, yet handles like my DSLR. To me it seems only the Pentax Q fits the bill. And with significantly smaller I mean camera __and__ lens. This is why e.g. a Sony Nex does not fit the bill. The camera is small, but the lens is not. So if I can get the small camera with DSLR features only in case I sacrifice sensor size, so be it. You only can take pictures with a camera you have with you. A Sony Nex or Olympus Pen I would never carry with me at all times. A Pentax Q I might. I now carry with me a Fuji F 50. I am happy enough with the image quality, but when using creative control handling is too slow. I am expecting that the handling of the Q is excellent and fast. I am waiting for this camera since years.

Thank you for the suggestion. I indeed looked at the Fuji X100 in great detail. It is a beautiful crafted camera, I do not mind the fixed lens, the great IQ is a bonus. On paper it has exactly the Camera gestalt I am looking for. But if you read photographers reports on using this camera in real life, the X100 falls really short very badly behind its potential. It has many quirks that would prohibit me to take the shot. I am considering to buy the Pentax Q to have a camera to take the pictures in casual situations. I do not care the image quality so much. Right now I am using the Fuji F50, which has the same sensor size as the Pentax Q. I am happy with the IQ. I do not need better. But I am really not happy with the Gestalt. Say I want to switch between Aperture priority to Shutter priority. By the time I am there my shot is lost. Say I want to change the shutter speed. By the time I did the shot is lost. IQ is not everything in every case. In my case handling is way more important.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2011 at 02:50 UTC
In reply to:

Xon_Fedaa: It is what it is, and we shall see if it succeeds.

Still, I cannot recall much banter on Pentax forums requesting such a camera. I can, however, recall many, many folk yearning for a Pentax full-frame camera. Imagine if all of the research and development for this camera and its lenses had instead been used to develop a Pentax full-frame camera.

Now THAT would have created a positive stir!!

My guess is that the Pentax Market Strategy is to cover the complete scope of ILC (Interchangeable Lens Camera) without having too many models. Including the Q, ILC sensor sizes have now 5 classes: 1) Medium Format, 2) 35 mm FF, 3) APSC, 4) MFT 5) 1/2.3". Pentax simply chooses to span the all classes but to leave out 2) and 4). If after shipping the Q they keep listening to user feedback and continue commitment to the Q System I believe it will be a very successful product. Time will tell. At this point however I welcome this camera to offer me a choice previously did not exist: Handling like a DSLR at the size of a pocket camera. I will certainly try it.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2011 at 07:07 UTC
In reply to:

Skywalker23: knowing it would come with a 1/2.3" sensor, i thought this would be much smaller; close to compact camera size. it is only slightly smaller than the Sony NEX it's compared with in the preview.

A Nikon P300 has the same 1/2.3" sensor, also has a f/1.8 lens, but is much smaller than this Pentax Q. A Canon S95 has a larger 1/1.7(?)" sensor and f/2.0 lens, and is still smaller...

and this basically can't be compared to Sony NEX, MFT, or Samsung NX because those "large-sensor" systems can comfortably shoot at ISO 1600-3200...but based on the review of other 1/2.3" cameras I've seen, the Pentax Q will have major trouble with anything past ISO 400.

the lenses are disappointing too in my opinion, if they're using a 1/2.3" sensor they need to go faster than f/1.9...and come on, out of the first 5 lenses, 2 are toy lenses and 1 is a fisheye? i have nothing against specialty or toy lenses, but shouldn't the basics--telephoto zoom, macro prime, portrait prime, SWA zoom--be covered first??

I am using Pentax camera and lenses since a long time. They seldom have the best specs on paper, but instead they strike a great balance of handling, usability, price and image quality. Pentax usually focus on what matters, like great viewfinder, good resistance against flare, how the camera can be hold in your hand. My expectation is when looking very careful at the camera pictures, that the Q is following in these foot steps. It is a tool for photographers to take pictures. Its choices seems not not be made to impress on paper. The proof will be of course once once can buy the camera and actually use it in daily life. I have the feeling that many posts are missing the Gestalt of this camera: Be as small as possible (camera __and__ lens), be as fast in creative control as a DSLR, be better than a DSLR when socializing with your images (better Display, more Art Filters). The small sensor was not chosen to make the camera smaller, but the lenses!

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2011 at 17:36 UTC

Pentax delivers a new class of camera. It has almost all of DSLR handling features at the size of a pocket camera. To me this is a winning concept. I already have a very small APSC DSLR (Pentax with Pancake lens). I am looking for a camera that is significantly smaller, yet handles like my DSLR. To me it seems only the Pentax Q fits the bill. And with significantly smaller I mean camera __and__ lens. This is why e.g. a Sony Nex does not fit the bill. The camera is small, but the lens is not. So if I can get the small camera with DSLR features only in case I sacrifice sensor size, so be it. You only can take pictures with a camera you have with you. A Sony Nex or Olympus Pen I would never carry with me at all times. A Pentax Q I might. I now carry with me a Fuji F 50. I am happy enough with the image quality, but when using creative control handling is too slow. I am expecting that the handling of the Q is excellent and fast. I am waiting for this camera since years.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2011 at 17:23 UTC as 24th comment | 8 replies
Total: 739, showing: 721 – 739
« First‹ Previous34353637Next ›Last »