Joined on Oct 14, 2009


Total: 87, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (179 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Zimelka: Just like some Leica and all (to my knowledge) newer Fujifilm cameras, the RAW files have baked in lens profiles that can't be turned off in Lightroom or ACR.
It's quite astounding how much this lens costs and how much of the original image is gone after lens profile adjustments.
If you're on MacOS, try RPP or any other RAW editor that ignores the lens correction tags.

@martin Zemalka, so to summarize,

No actual photography related benefit, but because it supports your morals.

I can think of no practical reason to not correct the raw file, so that it is as close to physical reality as possible.

Also, there are more tradeoffs than what you mention. Adding optical elements to correct flaws leads to ... a heavier lens, a larger lens, less light transmission, a bigger more power hungry focussing motor, more cost, more variation lens to lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 01:30 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (179 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Zimelka: Just like some Leica and all (to my knowledge) newer Fujifilm cameras, the RAW files have baked in lens profiles that can't be turned off in Lightroom or ACR.
It's quite astounding how much this lens costs and how much of the original image is gone after lens profile adjustments.
If you're on MacOS, try RPP or any other RAW editor that ignores the lens correction tags.

Why would you want to ignore the lens profiles ... Don't they correct for lens distortions ?

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rascati: Thank you for the transparency on the focusing issues, but your admissions really bring up some questions for me. 1. If ANY camera has these types of focusing issues wouldn't that be something that should show up in the "cons" section for that particular camera. Rather than stating "Camera X is sharper than we thought", shouldn't you really change the headline to read "Camera X can achieve really sharp images, but only after some trial and error to achieve best results." 2. If, as Rishi points out in some of his comments that you'll never see this issue in everyday shooting then why bother taking the time to reshoot the tests? I'm sure that the Sony A9 is a great photographic tool and if I had an extra $5-6k on me I'd buy one today, but I don't understand DP Review's need to retest this particular camera. As has been pointed out by others in the comments section they all feel that their camera should be retested with the best lens combo. Why this one? Respectfully, Randy

"If by trial and error you mean properly focusing the camera, then I'd say yes, they should reword it :)"

This is the intersting part ... the level of difficulty of those trials is just not practical in most situations ( especially involving 3d objects). So in a sense this is unusable performance.

On the other hand, maybe the next big camera feature will be "human useable super accurate focus".

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
On article How do you know you need a new camera? (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

BeaverTerror: I read this article expecting some good advice from a professional camera reviewer, to hear the experience of someone who handles more cameras than I ever could. To my disappointment, the advice is simply to "upgrade when you feel like you need to". Thank you for wasting my time. I'm finding myself visiting this site less and less these days. It used to be that this site was a great resource for accurate, impartial information. These days the small number of real articles are drowned out by a vast horde of filler.

I don't get your anger - you were expecting a formula ? Afraid to trust your own judgement.
This is actually great advice : upgrade because you see the need; not because of someone else's need, or your need to keep up with them.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 04:16 UTC
On article Sony a9: more speed, less dynamic range (666 comments in total)
In reply to:

bilcobarnes21: Am I the only one getting a little tired of DP Reviews obsession with the A9 and Sony in general?
It makes me wonder what involvemt Sony have with DPR πŸ€”

Are you getting so tired of understanding technological advancement that you are simply categotizing articles by manufacturer ?

Could you maybe share your thoughts on how many angels should be allowed on the head of a pin.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 14:13 UTC
In reply to:

VisualFX: Another camera without a viewfinder. What a shame.

because your personal preferencees need to be supported in 100% of cameras produced, and your choices for a camera with a VF is so limited.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 16:00 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta DiMAGE X (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheAlligator: How can "Below Average" be a rarity? Are only the best cameras are reviewed? but I can't remember a mainstream DSLR that hasn't been.

yes, I think as a practical matter, DPR always pre-filtered obvious dogs and "me too" products. OTHERWISE the fd-31 review would never have ben published :-)

As an example, count how many cameras HP sold, and how many got reviewed here.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 15:32 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (502 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Amazon has some interesting pricing.

They will sell you a Sony RX100V for $998, or you can buy one for $1,098 and get a "free $100 gift card."

Does Amazon imagine their customers cannot do math?


What does the Sales Rank show ?

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

Sir Reginald: Am I alone in never having forgiven Sony for dumping the Minolta brand name? I'd be much more likely to dump Nikon for a Minolta-branded camera. Just sentiment, I know...

@Sir Reginald.
Not at all ! as an A-mount owner I was thrilled that my mount wasn't officially dead. Sony deserves a huge amount of credit for the enthusiasm they've put into A-mount releases.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

kamiyama: As Mr. Nagase demonstrates, the "o" in boke is pronounced as in the English "no" and the "e" as in the English "kept". The "h" now commonly added in the loan word in English is an unnecessary and non-standard Romanization of the Japanese . Boke is usually written in Japanese in katakana as γƒœγ‚±; it is a noun form associated with the verb 呆ける, bokeru, meaning "to be befuddled, confused, blurred". Japanese photographers refer to the quality or characteristics of the circles of confusion of a lens as bokemi, literally "the taste of confusion". Another common Japanese word including boke is jisaboke, literally "time difference confusion" a rather more accurate description of what in English is called" jetlag." Incidentally, Mr. Nagase, knowing that non-Japanese have a hard time pronouncing Japanese words that include either of the dipthongs "ryu" or "ryo," was being courteous when he accepted the interviewer's incorrect pronunciation of his given name Ryu as "ru".

@Bob Klein
but, etymology is more fun than e=mc2 !

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

Leandros S: Sooo.... prime lenses have a bad rep at Canon? Among the ten lenses mentioned, there wasn't a single prime. Are they considered too easy?

@Leandros S
Maybe over the period of timeinvolved, zooms have had more challenges and more need for innovation.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 14:25 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (392 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: Kodak Disc

I had one of those too. Ergonomically, it was a really good system design - very convenient & comfortable to use.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 19:37 UTC

Really interesting retrospective. There are a few things that standout to me :

1. Olympus did so much really good work on the lenses. It's amazing to me that they produced a fully populated Consumer and Pro lens line so quickly.

2. I always wondered why Oly weren't able to make small mods to their 4/3 optical designs, and make m43 lenses out of them. I guess the Telecentric design didn't make sense to continue with.

3. I have always wished Fuji would have produced m43 equipment. Not that they don't seem to be doing fine on their own, but I think all 3 companies could have benefited.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 21:13 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

RolliPoli: I still remember all the reviews of the e330 that asked: 'Why would anyone want this 'Live View' feature anyway?'
Olympus has been a great innovator, though it's features such as 'Live View' have been marketed most successfully by other companies.
Another example of Olympus over the horizon thinking would be the E10 and E20 DSLRs (in fact the first 'Live View' DSLRs) that were mirrorless designs; the mirrorless DSLR trail that Olympus cut was then followed to market success by Sony.

@RolliPoli, that definition would not explain TLRs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lens_reflex_camera

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 21:04 UTC
In reply to:

chrohrs: You should probably change the headline to clarify that this is not MICRO for thirds.

@hymenoptera ... It's a headline. Even less KQ (Knowledge Quality) than tweets.
(and compliments for getting me to gooogle insect orders)

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: The keyword here is "magazine" and not "photography."

ALL magazines are in deep trouble today. Literally hundreds have disappeared and were replaced by websites.

And please notice the cover price. In 1937 it was 25 cents, today most special interest magazines cost $6.95 or more, which even after accounting for inflation is a lot more. And they are competing against websites that are essentially free.

That 1937 price is about $5.00 today. I don't think the $2.00 diff is at all significant.

I also think a lot of that cost diff is accounted for by printing quality. I don't know what the 1937 Pop Photo was like, but a lot of magazines from that era are on newsprint-like paper, and the inks were far less enticing (even for the cover).

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: I wonder if National Geographic will be next to stop publication of their paper magazine?

I am a National Geographic subscriber, and I get constant emails from them asking for early renewal of my subscription. And some of the renewal offers are almost ridiculously cheap. That smells like desperation to me.

Since the 70s, "incredibly cheap" renewals have been a staple of Magazine distribution / sales. Even within the last 10 years, Road and Track Renewal offer was $12 / YEAR, and I think the cover price was $5-$7 range.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

Suave: You should really stop calling it "the same lens mount", even with qualifiers like basic. That it has the same geometry does not make it the same. 105/1.4 is about as usable on Nikkormat as its Nikkor-P ancestor is on D750.

Suave, I read the lens mount statement to refer to the idea of commitment to continuing improvement of the basic technology. The details of compatability aren't relevant.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: All these don't address the most critical aspects: Low quality products, manufacturing design product flaws and management continuous denials.

I smell blaclberry.

Except that, that's not what happened to Blackberry. I smell something too.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 16:21 UTC
In reply to:

Ocolon: β€œAh, the Coolpix A300. This 2016 release features a 1/2.3" sensor, 720p video and a low-resolution 230k-dot rear screen. Please Nikon, why?”

The rear screen and video specs could be better, but there are still people who don’t have a smart phone and want a cheap camera. It makes sense that someone produces them.

"there are still people who don't have smart phone".

This is the whole problem.

That on it's own is a shrinking segment, and that kind of camera has been in the market for 10 years; most that want one have got one.

And those that don't have people that know about craig's list - is that camera much better than my Fuji F31 (2006) or my in-law's Powershot SD880 (2008) .

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 16:19 UTC
Total: 87, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »