noirdesir

Lives in Switzerland Switzerland
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Nov 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 572, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

FuhTeng: I think I saw that one was taken at 1/40th (Spencer) and the other at 1/50th (Kai). If that's right, I love the neat display of the difference 1/10th of a second can make! If it's not right, well, my brain done failed me.

I think the difference is not due to the different shutter speed, but rather a slightly better panning motion by Kai. And the difference between 1/40 s (25 ms) and 1/50 s (20 ms) is not 1/10 of a second but 5 ms or 1/200 s (5/(5*40) = 5/200 and 4/(4*50) = 4/200). A more intuitive difference would be that 1/40 s is 25% longer than 1/50 s.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

piratejabez: I saw Pfaffenbach's used in the memes I saw—Bolt's expression is just a tad better :)

And sharper.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

Nick Brundle - Photography: Just goes to show that the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II can be used for sports as well as landscapes. We must remember that Dpr recommended the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (the camera that took both pictures) for landscape photography and 4K video in there review.

In your binary world, maybe.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

FuhTeng: Dear DPR - if you get a chance to ask Nikon what they were thinking, please do so. This reveal is insulting.

The 55-300 mm was launched at $400 and weighs 530 g
The 70-300 mm f/x-6.3 VR is launched at $400 and weighs 415 g
The non-VR version is launched at $350 and weighs 400 g.

Some people might appreciate the weight saving of 22% (for the VR version).

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 15:05 UTC
In reply to:

User8303410032: I don't see a VR-Off button, is it permanent VR?

It's permanent 'no-VR'.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 14:57 UTC
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

noirdesir: That Four-Thirds model gonna be a huge hit. Or rather the opposite.

Putting a wide-angle FF lens in front of a 4/3 sensor is already wasteful enough, releasing something for a mount which saw its last and final camera release almost six years just takes the crown in pointlessness.

Note that Zeiss doesn't even offer its completely manual ZK lenses (ZE/ZF line for Pentax) anymore because there were not enough sales. And there are probably about 10x as many Pentax APS-C cameras currently in use than 4/3 cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 11:48 UTC
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

noirdesir: That Four-Thirds model gonna be a huge hit. Or rather the opposite.

Putting a wide-angle FF lens in front of a 4/3 sensor is already wasteful enough, releasing something for a mount which saw its last and final camera release almost six years just takes the crown in pointlessness.

The Pana 20 mm f/1.7 is a lens for a mirrorless mount, it won't fit on DLRs of 4/3 line.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 22:41 UTC
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: offering it in samsung nx mount ? i guess the nikon rumor was true but fell thru?

or something .... isnt nx a dead system? do enough people own cameras in that mount ......im stumped

Just missed your post, releasing it for Four-Thirds is even stranger.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:34 UTC
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (146 comments in total)

That Four-Thirds model gonna be a huge hit. Or rather the opposite.

Putting a wide-angle FF lens in front of a 4/3 sensor is already wasteful enough, releasing something for a mount which saw its last and final camera release almost six years just takes the crown in pointlessness.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:33 UTC as 31st comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

kuklukklak: Lol. We recommend the 1dxii for landscape. R u serious? This is why i stop taking this site seriously. I find the info and testing extremely useful but the opinion is usualy very dumb and bias. Every article is crafted this way: 1. the canon is great as its superior in 3-4 ways; 2. but the nikon comes out the winner as it excels in 1-2 ways, which dpreview thinks its most important (which also changes from one article to another, depending on the strength that nikon have); 3. altho both is good, just to prove that we are very neutral. Muahaha

Yup, sometimes it seems people want to misunderstand.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

kuklukklak: Lol. We recommend the 1dxii for landscape. R u serious? This is why i stop taking this site seriously. I find the info and testing extremely useful but the opinion is usualy very dumb and bias. Every article is crafted this way: 1. the canon is great as its superior in 3-4 ways; 2. but the nikon comes out the winner as it excels in 1-2 ways, which dpreview thinks its most important (which also changes from one article to another, depending on the strength that nikon have); 3. altho both is good, just to prove that we are very neutral. Muahaha

So when DPR says that camera A is better at X than camera B, you accuse them of being biased. When DPR says that both camera A and B are very good, you accuse them of showing false neutrality.

They can't win with you, can't they? Whatever they say, you are going to slam them. Maybe if they go through your posting history and copy & paste your comments, you might be happy. But I would wager a lot that even then you would complain because your postings very likely show at least the same level of inconsistency that you accuse DPR of.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

Ayoh: 135mm 1.8 would be more useful. The DOF would be the same. 105mm is too close to 85mm.

And 28 mm is too close to 24 mm (only 17% longer, 105 to 85 mm is 25%). And 35 mm is too close to 28 mm (only 25%). And 24 mm is too close to 20 mm (only 20%). And 20 mm is too close to 18 mm (only 11%). And 600 mm is too close to 500 mm (20%). And 500 mm is too close to 400 mm (only 25%). Or look at the Zeiss line up: 18 to 15 mm (20%), 21 to 18 mm (17%), 25 to 21 mm (19%).

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 15:21 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think there is some confusion as to what a "long zoom camera" is. If the 8.3X and 10X zooms belong in this group, then maybe the 25X zooms need to be in another group.

I realize 8.3X was once considered "long zoom" but that was back in 2004. Today, long zoom means "30X, 40X, 50X and more."

DPR has assembled a group of 5 SLR styled "bridge cameras" and 1 compact travel zoom camera of various zoom ratios, and called them "long zoom camera." The only things they really have in common is they have sensors 1.0 inch or larger, and they all "cost a lot."

Marty wasn't talking about superzooms, he was talking about "Enthusiast Compact Camera Roundup" (the precise title would be: "Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras"). In that group, the Fuji X30 and XQ2 have (had) 2/3" sensors.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: The P9 can indeed produce shall DOF effect, but not the DR and the smooth transitions of a high end FF cam w a good lens.

As I said, my doubts are in regard to how the blurred area looks. I don't think you can fully recreate the look of the blur of a 'large aperture' lens. In particular since the accuracy of the distance information will be limited.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 21:17 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: The P9 can indeed produce shall DOF effect, but not the DR and the smooth transitions of a high end FF cam w a good lens.

But as shallow as a 70-200 mm f/2.8 on FF? And isn't this partly based on using the two cameras to identify depth and blur some areas to simulate shallow DOF? (Ok, maybe what they are actually doing is a bit more complex but I still doubt it can replicate the shallow DOF of FF).

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 19:42 UTC

I'm wondering, if one configures the card to connect to ones home WiFi network, doesn't this mean that the password for said WiFi network needs to be stored on the card. And therefore, if somebody would manage to wirelessly hack into the Eye-Fi card, that password would be exposed?

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 23:10 UTC as 21st comment

Correction by Hasselblad: There will be zoom lenses for the X1D
http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/hasselblad-ceo-perry-oosting-says-x1d-actually-will-have-zoom-lenses

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 22:29 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: For those waiting for 'pancake' lenses for this Hassy; it won't happen. Ever. Unless you want it to be f22 pinhole-cap lens?

While marketing can fool you into .. "look kids, we have shrunk the flange distance: quickly go buy our camera now!" .. mood, they cannot distort the laws of optics same as they can twist our minds into the mirrorless fad.

Front element of any decent lens still nees to sit at a certain distance from the sensor, and there is no way around it. (Unless you want *&^_@ image quality).

Slim down the camera, but the lens must grow bigger then. Really good pancakes are a trait of the SLRs, not of the larger format mirrorless cameras. With mirrorless fad, you will get a slimmer camera body, but almost always some 'beer can' or 'tomato tin' of a lens.

PS. Check the Fuji 27mm/2.8 and Pentax DA40/2.8; Pentax lens is half the height of Fuji, and still there are no optical cheats in it; only but 100% tele-centricity.

The smaller flange distance isn't causing squat. It's the lens design that a smaller flange distance enables (but in no way requires), that can cause problems.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 13:04 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (803 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: The MF paradigm is shifting. This camera is the starting point. In my opinion.

Joe, you are using Canon's APS-C size as a reference which is a bit smaller than everybody else (as I already said):
Width: 22.3 mm, Height: 14.9 mm, Area: 332 mm²

APS-C (Sony α DT, Sony E, Nikon DX, Pentax K, Samsung NX, Fuji X, Leica T/X):
Width: 23.6–23.7 mm, Height: 15.60 mm, Area: 368-370 mm²

And digital FF is also not always exactly 24 x 36 mm, its width varies between 35.8 and 36 mm, and the height between 23.8 and 24 mm and thus its area between 856 and 864 mm².

Canon 1DsII/1DsIII/1DX/6D/5D/5DII/5DIII: 24 x 36 mm
Leica SL: 24 x 36 mm
Nikon D700/D3/D3s/Df/D4/D4s/D5: 23.9 x 36 mm
Nikon D600/D610/D750/D800/D800E/D810/D3X: 24 x 35.9 mm
Pentax K1: 24 x 35.9 mm
Sony A850/A900/A7R/A7RII: 24 x 35.9 mm
Canon 1DX II: 23.9 x 35.9 mm
Sony A7/A7II/A99: 23.9 x 35.8 mm
Leica M9/240: 23.9 x 35.8 mm
Canon 1Ds: 23.8 x 35.8 mm
Sony A7S/A7SII: 23.8 x 35.6/8 mm

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 19:18 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (803 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: The MF paradigm is shifting. This camera is the starting point. In my opinion.

You are mixing up definitions of percentage-based increases.
- The X1D has a sensor that is 1.68x larger than FF, or has 168% of the area of FF, or has a 68% larger surface.
- FF has a sensor that is 2.33x larger than APS-C, or 233% of the area of FF or has 133% larger surface

(Taking the more common version of APS-C as used by Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Samsung, Leica & Ricoh instead of Canon's version of it. Also MF 6x6 film was only about 56 x 56 mm or 3136 mm², not 3600 mm².)

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 13:24 UTC
Total: 572, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »