ptox

Joined on Dec 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 198, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

My first digital was an Apple QuickTake 100! Woo!

It sucked. I used it for about six months after the digital photo ID contract I had got it for was done, then went back to film.

The first digital I _liked_ was the Canon S10, purchased in '99. I got it on the strength of the DPR review: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons10

I had it for three years, then upgraded to the S400. Ahh, memories...

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 17:56 UTC as 45th comment
On article Real world test: The Panono is a 108MP spherical camera (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

JordanAT: Until it produces a view which is rectilinear and nearly free of wide angle distortion, it will remain a gimmick. To be immersive the viewing experience needs to be like turning your head. It's like 3D content - so much of it is exaggerated to make you say "woah, look at that 3D effect" instead of "wow, that looks like real life".

Huh? The view _is_ rectilinear.

And the visible wideangle distortion is entirely dependent on the zoom level; zoom in enough and there's no distortion at all.

(How would you project a wideangle view in a narrow viewport without distortion, anyway?)

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

racenviper: Ha Ha Ha, show me a picture with all of that. Please include the purchased cables and batteries to run all of that. It will be a rats nest of cables.

I have something similar target shooting on a 300 yard range.

It requires exactly one cable: a USB connection between the router and camera.

And the router has a rechargeable integrated battery.

All of which I learned within one minute of clicking on the link.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 18:01 UTC
On article Faster flagship: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T2 (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: I'd like to know how this compares to Sony a6300, esp. video wise. I don't care for the retro looks though - seems like with these two you have to choose between ridiculous ergonomics or random retro.

"It's like saying who cares what a car looks like, just drive it."

No, it's not like that.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

davev8: why is this lens so big and heavy....at 70mm by 70mm with a 62mm filter thread and 330g the canon FF equiv is the 24 F2.8 is ,at just over 68mm x 55mm and a 58mm filter thread and 280g ..the Nikon FF 24mm F2.8 AF D is 46mm x 55.5mm a 52mm filter thread and 267g

Maybe it's a better performing lens than the Canon 24mm f/2.8?

That would be the obvious possibility.

Or, maybe its internals are made of granite. That's also possible. I suppose.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

... because the only important attributes of a lens are its focal length and maximum aperture, amirite?

(Why bother posting anything interesting when you can make the same tedious comment that dozens before you have made?)

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 20:47 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Even if you want to talk equivalence, I still don't see how FF is coming out ahead.

Canon 5D3 with 24mm f2.8 is $3050 and over 1200g
Panasonic GH4 with 12mm f1.4 is $2600 and 900g.

Canon 6D with 24mm f2.8 is $2000 and 1050g
Panasonic G7 with 12mm f1.4 is $2000 and 750g (Also comes with free kit zoom)

Sony A7II with Batis 25mm f2 is $3100 and 940g
Panasonic GX85 with 12mm f1.4 is $2100 and 760g

Terkwoiz: and the light that falls on those sensors passes through what ? ...

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Even if you want to talk equivalence, I still don't see how FF is coming out ahead.

Canon 5D3 with 24mm f2.8 is $3050 and over 1200g
Panasonic GH4 with 12mm f1.4 is $2600 and 900g.

Canon 6D with 24mm f2.8 is $2000 and 1050g
Panasonic G7 with 12mm f1.4 is $2000 and 750g (Also comes with free kit zoom)

Sony A7II with Batis 25mm f2 is $3100 and 940g
Panasonic GX85 with 12mm f1.4 is $2100 and 760g

Terkwoiz: "And no, the panny 12mm 1.4 can't hang with this Sony combo, are you kidding? The Sony IQ would crush it."

How do you know? Have you got an advance copy of the production lens?

No? Then you have no idea. So why are you making things up?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

String: LOL, 384 replies in less than a day and the majority of them from FF users slagging the system and no interest in m43... Oh I so love DPR!

But thanks anyway guys because we m43 users never knew the system was so big/heavy, expensive and not able to even take mediocre images before you pointed it out... for the 1000th time.

Terkwoiz just wants the best IQ!

I assume you shoot with a Phase One, then?

Come on. What you meant was: "I just want the best IQ... in a price/size/feature range that makes sense to me."

Which is what we all want.

What you fail to realize--even with String making the point clear as day--is that what makes sense to you does not make sense to everyone else.

I mean, duh. What's with the solipsism?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

PerL: OK - so I found the comparison I was after.
This Pana 12 1.4 weighs 355g and costs 1300 dollars.
The eqv Canon 24 2.8 for FF weighs 281g and costs 550 dollars. (B&H)
The much faster eqv Nikon 24 1.8 for FF weighs 355g and costs 700 dollars.
Fast primes simply seems to be weak point for small formats, and you have to pay a significant extra cost if you want to go there. And there is no size advantage - rather the opposite - despite the small sensor.

You don't even know how well the lens performs!

You have no basis for the claim that it's not worth the money!

<smashes head against desk>

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

quangzizi: Hum let see:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_24_2p8_is&products=nikon_24_1p8g_ed&products=panasonic_12_1p4

Canon 24 2.8: 7 bladed - 11 elements in 9 groups - No sealing - Plastic construction - Heck, even the 24 1.4 only have 8 blades - 13 elements in 10 groups

Nikon 24 1.8: 7 bladed - 12 elements in 9 groups - No sealing - Plastic construction

Nikon 24 2.8: 1990s lenses - 7 bladed - 9 elements in 9 groups (no ED or any special element, questionable coating compared to modern lense) - No sealing - Plastic construction

Panasonic 12: 9 bladed - 15 elements in 12 groups - Weather sealing - All metal construction

Ah let me throw this in as well. Panasonic gives you a metal hood.

Any objection here?

tko: Don't be tiresome. If one picked MFT for _its_ small size and weight, there are plenty of options... obviously including the tiny (and quite good) Oly 12mm f/2.

(I know that's a couple of thoughts beyond what's right in front of your face, so if you need a bit of time before replying sensibly... no worries.)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

@Trk Yeah, purple fringing sucks.

But I still don't get why you're already convinced this lens won't be worth the money. It might be the sharpest and best-corrected lens in the entire history of lensmaking... for all any of us knows at this point.

With 15 elements, I'd at least expect it to be optically corrected to a higher degree than most m43 lenses.

But in the end, all that matters is the image -- not how it got made.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

@Trk I shot the 25mm f/1.4 for years. Your comment still makes no sense.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

Why on earth would this lens have "brutal aberrations similar to" a lens designed over five years ago for a different focal length and which is sold for (around) half the price? That makes no sense.

As for having a hard time selling... d'you suppose a multi-billion dollar company does market research first? D'you suppose they've gained confidence from the success of the 42.5 Nocticron?

They're not going for volume here. They're going for people who are already heavily invested in m43 and who are practising the art/craft/whatever of photography instead of hemming and hawing about equivalence.

You know, photographers. Not gearheads.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:45 UTC

PLEASE: everyone who is thinking of posting a snarky / patronizing / concern-trolling comparison with another system's lens JUST. NOT. BOTHER.

The math is simple. We all get it. We've all got it for years.

And unless you have a quality report on this new lens, you simply have no idea how well it works, relative to those others. Not that you care...

Thanks but no thanks -- we're sticking with m43!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:11 UTC as 89th comment

PLEASE: everyone who is thinking of posting a snarky / patronizing / concern-trolling comparison with another system's lens JUST. NOT. BOTHER.

The math is simple. We all get it. We've all got it for years.

And unless you have a quality report on this new lens, you simply have no idea how well it works, relative to those others. Not that you care...

Thanks but no thanks -- we're sticking with m43!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:05 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

AshMills: Who makes these now Stanley Kubrick has died?

FDD5: not to your education, apparently

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Looks pretty similar to the film set they use to film the moon landing.

Clint Dunn: given that there are 7+ billion of us, it stands to reason that a large absolute number will fall on the left and right of every bell curve you can think of... of course that's obvious for basic measurements like height, but as I get older it's become apparent that the same is true for behavioral traits like unaccountable paranoia. :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

ales82: I cannot spot the landing pod of the rover. It could be behind some rock, but is it possible the rover moved that far? If so, it's very nice. If I remember right, these rovers were supposed to move something like a 30 meters or so.
I hope they will send more missions to Mars and other planets too!!!

The rover's been on Mars for 1400+ Earth days. As of April 17 2015 it had travelled over 10 kilometers from its landing site. The next Mars rover is scheduled for 2020.

HTH

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 17:58 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: The question is how good of a copy does the author have?
Over on FM there is a great thread that shows there is a huge variation in these lenses regarding the corner softness - some of the new E-mount versions have very very poor corners while a few have very very good corners.

I have the -III VM version with very very good corners and a few people have a new E mount version with very very good corners.

So this lens, if you can find a good copy, does very well in the corners. Not pin sharp, but sharp enough for sure. I can't quite tell if the author has one of the good copies or one of the bad copies.

Still, if corners are at most doubleverygood, I won't be impressed; IMO it's not worth getting out of bed for anything less than very very very very good corners, and even then only if the center is also very very very very very very very very very very good. YMMV.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 22:13 UTC
Total: 198, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »