Dean Holland

Dean Holland

Lives in Australia Brisbane, Australia
Works as a Photography Trainer
Has a website at www.takebetterphotos.com.au
Joined on Feb 2, 2008

Comments

Total: 191, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Affinity Photo beta now available for Windows (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

sankos: Affinity Photo might render Photoshop Elements quite irrelevant, or push its price down. Is it going to successfully replace the LR+PS bundle for photographers? It might, for less demanding jobs, but I can see that happening in a couple of years' time, when the teething problems and gaps get cured. All in all, a good development for the market, putting some necessary pressure on Adobe so that they don't get complacent with their CC (Creative acCounting) plan.

Initially I thought its raw rendering was hopeless... until I checked out the instruction videos. In the Mac version, raws need masses of noise reduction, but then they can get pretty close to Lightroom's current rendering. I find the shadows and highlights to be much weaker than Lightroom's, but the rest is better than I expected for a version 1.x. An encouraging start.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 20:23 UTC
On article Happy Holidays from dpreview! (118 comments in total)

Merry Christmas to you all from a steaming hot Down Under!

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2015 at 08:11 UTC as 70th comment
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (497 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lan: Please can we return to slightly more neutral/objective reviewing?

"Like the X-E2, the X100T has yet to benefit from Fujifilm's latest AF update, but I'd be willing to guess it will receive some sort of improvement to its autofocus in the near future"

A guess? About a camera not being reviewed? If you're going to guess about something, make it interesting - I'd be happy with just the 6 winning Lotto numbers for the next UK draw ;)

"Many folks find the colors and skin tones produced by the X-Trans sensor to be more accurate and pleasing than tradition (sic) sensor types."

Many folks? Although the part I really take exception to is "colors ... more accurate". At best that's a little disingenuous, when the camera suffers the standard (and inherent) X-Trans issue of poor colour resolution. Look at the turf in the Safeco Field arena; it's just a mushy greenish-brown mess, and that's at ISO250. Yes, I know it's mud...

Less hyperbole, more facts and insights please. 6/10 Bronze Award ;)

I was just about to write in to say how much I enjoyed DPR including subjective and opinionated parts for a change! I do agree with the points Lan makes, but I'm very happy to overlook a little hyperbole as the cost of being up-front with bold opinions. I found the subjective comparisons with the relevant Sony and Nikon to be really useful. Personally, I'd vote for including more subjective stuff along with the objective stuff. As long as I can tell the difference, I find it positive.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

SmoothGlass: This test is pretty bogus because Canon APS-C sensors have hardly changed for many, many years. If you want to compare state of the art, you have to include cameras with Sony sensors, like most of the recent Sony, Nikon, and Pentax DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, as well as most of the recent Micro Four Thirds cameras.

It seems the author is cynically going for shock value and page hits by using a D800 at a high price point without filling in the gaps with other cameras which have evolved unlike the Canon sensors. For example, you can get Sony sensors in very cheap bodies such as the NEX-3N or a3000 or Nikon D3200. Those cameras would give you better image quality than the Canons and yet cost $200-300.

Hi Razor512, contemporary cameras vs contemporary phones would make an interesting comparison. I wanted to address a different question, though: where would modern phones fit into the evolution of DSLRs? Or wouldn't they fit at all? It's a bit like the ads showing that a modern family car is faster than a 1920's racing car - I wanted to find out if you look back far enough, would phones and DSLRs look similar? And how far back would you need to look?
I didn't think including modern cameras would change where the phones fit into history.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 04:09 UTC
In reply to:

SmoothGlass: This test is pretty bogus because Canon APS-C sensors have hardly changed for many, many years. If you want to compare state of the art, you have to include cameras with Sony sensors, like most of the recent Sony, Nikon, and Pentax DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, as well as most of the recent Micro Four Thirds cameras.

It seems the author is cynically going for shock value and page hits by using a D800 at a high price point without filling in the gaps with other cameras which have evolved unlike the Canon sensors. For example, you can get Sony sensors in very cheap bodies such as the NEX-3N or a3000 or Nikon D3200. Those cameras would give you better image quality than the Canons and yet cost $200-300.

Hi SmoothGlass, You make a good point that you can certainly beat a 2007 Canon EOS 40D with any of the cheaper 2013 cameras you list. Do you think including Sony sensors would have changed the figure of how far phones are behind DSLRs? The Sony alpha 700 was the competitor to the Canon EOS 40D, and to my eye the 40D had the edge, and it was cheaper too.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 11:53 UTC
In reply to:

DSMIW: Great work Dean, not an easy task to build a framework that enables viable comparison of these technologies and leads to a coherent conclusion.

I am an enthusiastic DSLR photographer who marvels at the work produced by the dedicated Hipstamatic community. They provide a wealth of reference data on the versatility of a smartphone as a camera that re-enforces your proposition that, "...we’re fast approaching the time to look again".

Shame really, I kinda like the mystic art of bodies and lenses. The mystic art of Hipstamatic just does not do it for me.

Thanks DSMIW. I think you (and Eolake below) hit the nail on the head why DSLRs will never completely die... we love using them. There will come a time when they will seems like anachronisms, and then it will only be the people who really ENJOY them who'll use them. Much like the car replaced the horse for transport, horses didn't disappear - they became a passion, rather than a necessity.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2014 at 00:38 UTC
In reply to:

niget2002: I agree with your review, but not sure I can agree with your conclusion. You stated that the cell phones are on average about 6 years behind the SLRs, but then canons that you compared it to are at best 4 years out of date already. Even your graph at the end showed that there's the 60d and 70d out which both have better output than the previous 40d.

As someone else stated, you can't beat physics. The best cell phone cameras will ever be able to do is 'come close' to that of SLRs.

I will state that the best camera you can have is the one you have with you, and most of the time, that camera is my cell phone. It is good for everyday shots of the kids, animals, weird happenings at work, but if I have the time to run to the car, then I'm using the 60d.

Thanks Niget, yes - at the start I'd never have guessed that I'd have needed to include 60D and 70D... I thought the results would put the phones much further back in time (closer to the 10D). Based on the pictures here, where would you place the Nokia? Would you agree with about 6 years back or would you put it somewhere else?

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

gurmusic: How do you convert film to digital is cahanges the DR, color detail, and contrast detail and may add more noise and color distortion...Its like retaking the printed film photo with a high end camera( you need a decent scanner or high end digital camera to go in digital world and this is a very expensive process)

I take photos with 30D+Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and iPhone 5 in every EV condition, 30D simply outperforms but iPhone 5 is also very usable for me...

Yup, there's no such thing as a perfect scan, nor a perfect analogue print either. We used a Durst Sigma scanner with a professional operator. It's a high-end scanner, but not a drum scanner. It did a good job of pulling out the detail - better than my old $3000 Nikon Coolscan 4000. The mega-high contrast, low dynamic range, and ultra blues really are Velvia... They look like that in the original slide too.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2014 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

delpic: Interesting, but with all the technology & software it really comes down to the laws of physics & the far larger sensors & massively superior optics of DSLR's are always far superior than manipulated images from small sensor cellphones.
I would argue conversely that even a 10 year old good high point & shoot camera can still produce better quality than today's phones. DSLR's, even the lowest cost are in a totally different league.
The main & possible only advantage of the phone camera is as it has always been that it is the camera you are more likely to have with you.
The reason some non photographers can't tell the difference is they are looking at such small images & maybe don't even care about quality at all.

Hi Delphic, I like your idea of testing old compacts too. Where would you place the Nokia among the cameras that we tested here on image quality? I was surprised to see how competitive it was. Can't wait to see if raw solves its limitations for dynamic range and processing.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2014 at 22:15 UTC
In reply to:

Willi Kampmann: I think the results are very interesting, but they aren't putting enough focus on the severe shortcomings of the phones, especially the low-light shots.

I've got an iPhone 4S and frankly, I hate the 1/15s shutter setting -- without an optical image stabilization I often get blurry results even when there are no moving objects. Compare that to my E-M5's IBIS which basically lets me shoot blur-free at 1/15s while jumping on one foot. To me this is one of the most impressive technical advances in cameras in the past decade! The Nokia 1020 has OIS but I doubt its efficacy because of its simpler nature. The Nokia 1020's low-light shot also shows another shortcoming: the poor dynamic range. The shadows are completely black!

Of course those shortcomings are just temporary. The iPhone 5S already captures near-instant HDR images thanks to its fast A7 processor; automatic pixel averaging through burst shots is the logical next step. Imagine the large Lumia sensor combined with the A7's speed!

Great summary. I suppose what we're saying is that it's not "phones v. SLRs" but "processing power v. hardware". Over a long enough timeframe, processing power will win over hardware. I couldn't agree more about the 1/15th sec on most phones. What goes on at the parties at Apple and Nokia that they find 1/15th sec to be fine? Motorola must have livelier parties, as they try to hold a more reasonable 1/30th sec (the iPhone 5s makes a timid stab at this too). I haven't tested Nokia's OIS side by side against a modern in-body camera, but it works OK with both feet on the ground. With Photoshop's motion-blur sharpening, wonder how long it will be before digital image stabilization will be able to do it just as well... another processor v. hardware battle.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

Alan2014: When digital cameras first appeared, film shooters used to rubbish them and even today DSLR's are considered to be inferior to medium / large format. I guess smartphones face the same challenges versus DSLR's. However, they represent the future due to their small form factor, ease of use and sharing. Also because smartphones integrate so many other features such as wifi, GPS, etc. that are clunky bolt-ons for DSLR's. For prosumer use, the direction is clear. DSLR's and their larger sized cousins will be relegated to increasingly specialized niches such as architecture sort of like the space occupied by large format , film today

@wansai, I agree 100% based on how things are now, but I think that DSLRs as a design only have a handful of decades left in them, at most. Within 45 years, devices will have about 1,000,000,000 times the processing power if Moore's law still holds. By then, I guess it will seem archaic to use big expensive lumps of glass to bend photons around, all just to work out which direction they came from. Technology will be able to do it cheaper, smaller, and better. Whatever replaces DSLRs might not look like a phone, but technology has to make the DSLR design obsolete sooner or later.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2014 at 13:37 UTC
Total: 191, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »