LJ - Eljot

LJ - Eljot

Lives in Berlin
Joined on Oct 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 568, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: At 32 inches the best resolution (to me) is 2569 x 1440. Anything higher than that and text becomes too small from a normal viewing distance. If you want 4K you should go at least 40 inches. There are some very nice 40" 4K monitors on the market now for around $1k. For mobile devices it's a totally different scenario as you're viewing the screen from 15" away or less. For anyone to say that we'll all eventually be using 8k displays doesn't make any sense unless they also specific the type of device - TV, monitor, or mobile.

Pixel density is a different story. The higher the pixel density the better - as long as the resolution makes sense for the type of device being used. And yes, scaling would then need to be involved.

This 32" WQHD is a great monitor and it's now less than $400:
Samsung 32” WQHD LED Monitor (S32D850T) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L3KNOF4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_hdqkzbCQA6B2T

I don't think Retina is a great idea either. But the piont is, they just quartered the pixel count for the displays to make things sharper, not smaller. And about scaling: we have TrueType fonts nowadays, not pixel based. Everything is scaled allready.
I have a very nice 24"screen with a resolution of 1920x1200. At this size a greater resolution would be very beneficial. 3840x2400 would be a little bit overkill, but it is double in each dimension. And there are 4k 24" displays allready. So bigger screens would benefit from even higher resolution. 8k at 32" might be not neccesary, but will not hurt. And 8k would be enough even for 50" screens.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 11:06 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: At 32 inches the best resolution (to me) is 2569 x 1440. Anything higher than that and text becomes too small from a normal viewing distance. If you want 4K you should go at least 40 inches. There are some very nice 40" 4K monitors on the market now for around $1k. For mobile devices it's a totally different scenario as you're viewing the screen from 15" away or less. For anyone to say that we'll all eventually be using 8k displays doesn't make any sense unless they also specific the type of device - TV, monitor, or mobile.

Pixel density is a different story. The higher the pixel density the better - as long as the resolution makes sense for the type of device being used. And yes, scaling would then need to be involved.

This 32" WQHD is a great monitor and it's now less than $400:
Samsung 32” WQHD LED Monitor (S32D850T) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L3KNOF4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_hdqkzbCQA6B2T

No, apple introduced the retina display, wich is essantially a display with 4 times the pixel count of the conventional display of the same size, a few years ago. The trick with retina is the API wich makes it a little bit confusing. But the point is, on retina displays scaling is used. Fonts do not appear with half the size on retina but with higher resolution.
It is essantially the same dabate as HD vs. 4k. Does 4k make sense in a 24" screen? Some say no, I say yes. Would 8k make sense in a 24" screen? Probably not.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 09:27 UTC

How is color accuracy and uniformaty of brightness? Can it be hardware calibrated like Eizo ColorEdge series? No, not so good? Ok, I like to have one for text anyway. But it is too expensive yet.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 07:54 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: At 32 inches the best resolution (to me) is 2569 x 1440. Anything higher than that and text becomes too small from a normal viewing distance. If you want 4K you should go at least 40 inches. There are some very nice 40" 4K monitors on the market now for around $1k. For mobile devices it's a totally different scenario as you're viewing the screen from 15" away or less. For anyone to say that we'll all eventually be using 8k displays doesn't make any sense unless they also specific the type of device - TV, monitor, or mobile.

Pixel density is a different story. The higher the pixel density the better - as long as the resolution makes sense for the type of device being used. And yes, scaling would then need to be involved.

This 32" WQHD is a great monitor and it's now less than $400:
Samsung 32” WQHD LED Monitor (S32D850T) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L3KNOF4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_hdqkzbCQA6B2T

I remember people arguing that 800x600 would be better becase at 1024x768 text is becoming too small.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 07:48 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chuck Yadmark: At that time major switches to Canon were occurring due to the advantages the 1D2 1Ds had over the D2X/H. I think to this day that advantage is being felt. If the D3 hadn't come along Nikon might have become Pentax.

P.S. Paul Simon defines how I pronounce Nikon.

Yes, but in the internet you can never know.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 16:53 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chuck Yadmark: At that time major switches to Canon were occurring due to the advantages the 1D2 1Ds had over the D2X/H. I think to this day that advantage is being felt. If the D3 hadn't come along Nikon might have become Pentax.

P.S. Paul Simon defines how I pronounce Nikon.

The one half of Simon & Garfunkel. Here is the mentioned Nikon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4ltLp30KVs&t=56s

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 15:07 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

Impulses: Wow, all this time I'd been pronouncing it right? Nick-on was just my inclination when I read it phonetically as a Spanish speaker, but I'd long noticed no Americans seemed to pronounce it that way...

Nippon Kogaku

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

Jacob the Photographer: Welcome back Hy6 !
Although not in name it will bear the top quality of Rolleiflex from years by-gone.
For those who are not familiar with Rolleiflex: since the 1930's it was the number one professional camera brand in the world ( see rolleiclub.com ) , in 1966 they came with the most unique medium format SLR ever the Rolleiflex SL66 , followed in the '70's by the Rolleiflex SLX and later the still highly usable Rolleiflex 6006 , 6008 series. Another interesting site to go is sl66.com , I used the Rolleiflex 6000 series for about 20 and still would have had the mother company of Rollei not stuffed up their marketing and technical service so badly. Still : the exceptional craftmanship to build high quality cameras still resides in DW Photo of Braunschweig and I only can hope and wish then good luck !! Once a Rolleiflex fan always a Rolleiflex fan :-)

I still have two SL66. Both broken and unrepareable du to lack of spare parts. Maby I can get them fixed now.
And yes: Very good system.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 21:15 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)

There are more very good cameras from Nikon wich can be purchased for very little money. The F-801s has everything you need and is also well compatible with non-AF lenses. The F-80 is a very modern camera wich is also very quite and can be bought for next to nothing. Beware of cheap 90s models like F-50, F-60, F-70! They lack the spot metering.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 19:22 UTC as 265th comment
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: Three classics missing from this list: The Canon A1 - the successor to the AE1, with aperture and shutter priority options, and the two smallest SLRs: something from the Olympus OM series (OM-1, 2, 3, or 4), and the Pentax ME. The Olympus cameras were relatively tiny marvels: robust, with great functionality, commonly used by professionals. I owned several versions of the OM2 (I still have an OM2P).

For novelty, I'll through in the Pentax 110 SLR, which probably is the smallest SLR ever made (I was tempted to buy the 3 lens kit)- but the "sensor" size (110 film) was too small for it to really be practical.

By the way, I bought an Olympus XA when they first came out. A great little camera that I carried everywhere for over a decade. But the seals on the back cover dried up and started cracking, so if you buy one, test it for light-tightness.

It is an interesting camera, but no recomendation. 110 cartriges are incredably hard to find nowadays.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 19:10 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Cameras: The Nikon 8008s is ridiculously giveaway cheap, I bought one in excellent condition for less than $20. Big, bright viewfinder and it works very well with manual focus lenses and gives you focus confirmation, also takes AA batteries and is a little lighter than the N90. But the N90 is also a fantastic bargain and very durable. If they advertise it as "sticky surface" that makes it cheaper - just spend an hour rubbing off the rubberized surface on the film door down to slick plastic. They all get that way sooner or later.
The later Canon New F1 with the AE prism is the best older Canon in FD mount you can buy. Very durable and long lasting, uses the PX28/4LR44 six volt battery, aperture priority, good meter and a very well made, satisfying camera to hold and use with a great feel of mechanical precision.
The Nikkormat EL is also a good choice. Very durable and solid, very reliable all metal Copal shutter, the CDS meter probably still works and it uses the still available PX28/4LR44 battery - accepts only non-AI lenses, but they're cheaper so: bonus. Any Nikkormat is almost impossible to kill but earlier models use the PX625/PX13 mercury cell which generated 1.35V from its chemistry. Modern replacements are alkaline and put out 1.5-1.6V and throw off the meter. Hearing aid batteries will work but last only a month once activated, requiring you to remove the battery cover too often.

You mean Nikon F-801s. It is called 8008s in US makret only. And yes, that is a very good camera indeed.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 19:05 UTC
On article Hasselblad launches A6D 100MP aerial camera (9 comments in total)

It looks so much nicer than the H6D.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 20:18 UTC as 4th comment
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (382 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonby: If I've understood correctly, in manual mode you are forced to use the dial on the rear face of the camera to change either shutter speed or aperture? Why? That dial looks tiny, fiddly and hard to reach. Why wouldn't Canon allow you to use the far better-placed dial on the rear shoulder to change these? Seems a strange choice to go to the trouble of having two well-placed top dials and then force you to use the poor rear one on the back if you use manual mode. Perhaps it's to keep it in line with their DSLR user interface, but the rear dials on their DSLRs are a different ball game compared to this tiny thing.

The other thing that ticks me off is that manufacturers are asking this much money for a camera without a viewfinder. The rise of mirrorless cameras seems to be edging the viewfinder into the 'enthusiast' and even 'pro' feature bracket. An LCD screen is simply a hopeless tool for composing photographs in a large number of real situations. Just a bit exasperated by this trend.

But most comact cameras do not have a viewfinder either. I prefer the screen over the EVF in most circumstanses, but would not forgo one. By the way, there is an optional viewfinder for the Ms. Allmonst all but the oldest mFTs from Olympus could be equipped with an optional viewfinder. I even found myself in favor of it over the fixed EVF of the OM-D series. I miss the ability to tilt it.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 20:37 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (382 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ivan Paganacci: The combo dial / function pad must die on all cameras henceforth and forevermore.

I don't think so. Ok, if there are only two dials, then it would be better to make a proper one instead. But if you want to have more, there are not so many options. It could be worse.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:48 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (382 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: DPR: In the Specs, you should have "Viewfinder Optional" rather than "Viewfinder No".

For most cameras without a viewfinder there is no optional one.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:38 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (382 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: I have the M5 now and I have to admit, I'll probably swap it out for the M6 my next swing through a first world country.

I miss the compact size of the M3/M6 camera bodies - I actually wish they would take the M6 guts and put it back into an M soapbar to be honest.

Sony usually gets the praise for how small they can back in technology, but the M's are about as small as you can get and still maintain a 3:2 aspect ratio LCD monitor. Which is certainly very important when you don't necessarily have an EVF.

I'm liking the new review format - I have to admit though, there's two sections of any review i look over most closely, one is usually the camera ergonomics and the other is usually the pros and cons. While there's usually some debate over the pros and cons I usually find it a good summary of what dpreview thinks - perhaps not what each fanboy thinks ;)

is there any thoughts to adding that back into the short review format?

There is an optional view finder for the M cameras. The EVF-DC2.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:37 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (382 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bambi24: The battery life on mirrorless remains poor imo.

M6 = 295 shots
T7i = 600 shots

Priced the same, same brand, yet the rebel offers over twice the battery life.

295 shots is not a lot.

Smartphone are still not at par with conventional phones when it comes to battery lifetime.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:34 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (382 comments in total)

I would never buy a camera without viewvinder again, because you are in trouble when the sun is shinig bright. It would be fair to mention, that there actually is a optional view finder for that camera, the EVF-DC2.
The cell in that table shoult not say "No" but "optional" instead.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:20 UTC as 70th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I stopped reading when I hit the chart and read "equivalent F-number". The nonsense doesn't seem to ease away.

You really don't understand, are you? Of course you don't see any difference because with the same relative aperture the illuminance on the sensor is allways the same. Thats why we use it all the time instead of absolute aperture. But if you use the same exposure settings (shutter speed, f-number) with different sized sensor and a corresponding focal lenght that gives the same DoF as the one on the other sensor, then you yield the same illuminance but different luminous flux and a differnt DoF. If you want to compensate, you have to change the apperture to a different f-number and get different expossure setting (and, if not compensated, a different brighness of the picture). If you have copensated for the same DoF, then you have a different illuminance but the same luminous flux. The signal noise ratio is mainly determined by the luminous energy wich, in that case, will be the same. The brightness can be adjusted thrue the ISO setting.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 20:57 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I stopped reading when I hit the chart and read "equivalent F-number". The nonsense doesn't seem to ease away.

@mgrum: With mft at f/1.4 small picture frame at f/2.8 you have the same DoF and if shutter speed is the same you have the same total amount of light and the same amount of noise (shot noise, from light). ISO does not matter that much. Take ISO 400 with the mft and ISO 1600 with the other one to get the same brightness in the jpg!

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 18:05 UTC
Total: 568, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »