Joined on Jun 21, 2013


Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

techjedi: I think that one point is missed. Are there shooting opportunities with silent mode (like golf pre-contact) that enable a A9 shooter to sell a photograph that DSLR shooters cannot? If so, there is potentially lost income by not switching. I don't know that 20fps itself translates to more sales, but I think silent shooting may definitely have that result.

Because the readout on the E-M1 II is too slow, and will warp the golf club. The readout on the a9 is effectively as fast as a mechanical shutter, so you wont have those warped clubs.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: I highly doubt any pro will consider a9. There is a reason pro bodies are even bigger than any dslr, because that's more convenient for big lenses. What's the point of a9? 20fps? maybe some care about the jump from 14-15 to 20, most won't. My feeling is A9 is a mistake from marketing stand point.

20 fps with zero viewfinder blackout and completely silent shooting. The silent shooting won't matter much for a lot of sports, but it'll be huge for golf photographers and for event photographers and photojournalists, where shutter sounds can be distracting.

Before you say 'such and such a camera has had electronic shutter for years', the big difference here is the readout. Most electronic shutters have a readout of 1/15-1/30s, so fast motion causes serious warping in the frame. The a9 has a readout of greater than 1/500s, so it still will stop fast action without warping, or at least no worse warping than is present with a mechanical shutter at high speeds.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

PanchoVilla: Look huge and ugly! This makes FF look like M43 sized cameras and lenses!

Umm...it's slightly smaller than a Canon 5Ds.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: wow. That's wide. f1.8 that wide is not much slower than good FF ultra-wides in an amazingly small package. I want to see how quickly that f1.8 falls off. 18 is so wide I might need to zoom. Wow, I can't believe I just said that. 22 would have impressed. 20 would have made people take notice. 18 is just... wow.

RidgeRunner22 - No...it's not. Distortion (as in barrel distortion) is a function of each individual lens design. Perspective distortion (which I believe you are referring to) is simply a function of the angle of view combined with your distance to subject. The angle of view is only a factor in wides because you're cramming more of the scene in, but the perspective taken with this lens from a fixed position will be identical to a full frame 18mm lens. Perspective is a function of distance and distance releationships between you, the subject and the background and doesn't depend of focal length at all.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 15:36 UTC
On article Have your say: Best Lens of 2015 (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

uMad: Where is the Fujinon 90mm?

It's an ultrasharp, apochromatic, beautiful lens (with 4 motors and weather resistance) and you can get it for under 800$ right now.

Furthermore this lens has earned the "best lens" award from other sides too!

Agreed. The omission of the XF 90 is a terrible oversight. I review mirrorless gear, and of the lenses I used this year, the XF 90 is the best of the bunch. It is honestly nearly a flawless lens: brilliantly sharp from wide open, exceptional bokeh, no CA, no distortion, fast and accurate AF. It's an incredible optic.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2015 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: excellent ......but will it clog after some non use period............I love inkjet prints but the clogging makes me sick...............

I've had clogging problems on Epson printers, but my Pro-100 hasn't had a single clogged nozzle, even if it sits for a month or so.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 04:07 UTC
In reply to:

evangelos k: Did they really say a complete ink set is ~$660?

Because it's cheaper than a lab per print. 80mL tanks at 11 colors should yeild around 600-800 13x19" prints, or less than a buck a piece. Add $1-4 per sheet for paper and you get lab quality 13x19" prints for under $2 each and better quality than lab prints on fine art papers for around $4-5 per sheet. At 16x24, you'll be spending around $5 per print for lab quality luster. Do you know where a lab can produce a 16x24 for under $5?

I only have a 13" wide printer, so I get larger prints done at WHCC or ProDPI, but my 12x18 and smaller (most of my prints) get done at home, and the quality is astounding on good paper.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 04:03 UTC
In reply to:

Alphabart: 1/32,000th of a second indeed. not 1/3200th which is rather a big difference

Yes, electronic shutter is rolling, like it is in almost all CMOS sensors. This makes 1/32,000 not good for action shooting, but it's still very nice for really any other type of shooting. It's wonderful to have when shooting f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses in bright sunlight when you want the background blur: no need to put on an ND filter.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
On article Fujifilm makes XF 90mm F2 R LM WR official (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

pictureAngst: I think this is the first Fuji lens without any aspherical elements.

I've previously heard talk that aspherical elements, while improving some optical characteristics, can contribute to harsh bokeh - wonder if this is why Fuji went with this design?

It'll presumably also be the first not to have the retro 'Fujinon Aspherical' labelling on the lens.

The Fuji 55-140/2.8 is also non-aspherical, and bokeh is outstanding.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: An APS sensor module mounted to a smartphone. Probably the stupidest invention in some time. Sony really does want to commit financial suicide.

But all the current E-mount cameras can already be controlled via smartphone. This adds no new features, barely saves any weight (and while smaller horizontally, it's thicker than current cameras), and LOSES a lot of real functionality. So you save less than 70g in weight and lose real camera controls and a non-laggy screen to gain, what exactly? The a5000, a5100 and a6000 can all do the same remote shooting as the QX1.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 11:17 UTC
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: What is the point in these cameras, especially the QX-1? Why would I want to use such a camera?

Cell phones have enough power issues, without adding constantly on WiFi and screen to actually be able to use the QX 'cameras'.

Are quadcopters so sensitive to weight that the 218g body of the QX1 is notably better for this use than the 284g body of the a5100?

Also, this won't make a great quad-copter camera because the WiFi in these cameras only works to about 25 feet or so.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 11:15 UTC
In reply to:

Charlie Jin: I actually saw a professional photographer who used this camera (previous model) in a city event. There were so many people around the mayor's announcement, but the photographer just had a nice long pole which was attached with this Sony camera at the top. He was controlling all the stuff using his smartphone, since they were wifi-connected. He was behind the crowd, but I guess that it is him who got the best photo shot. He was also taking pictures of the event from high angle, without any more facilities. I asked him about the stability, and he said there was no problem since there was a optical image stabilizer and he was wearing a belt to stabilize the pole. Very nice.

Paul - this camera is a whopping 67g lighter than the a5100. That's it. 67 flipping grams. That's almost nothing. What exactly are you saving here? That's the problem here, you save almost nothing in size and weight, gain exactly ZERO features over existing sony E-mount cameras, and lose the ability to, you know, use it like a real camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 11:14 UTC
On article Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review (2257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Couscousdelight: Olympus does the same, and no one seems to complaint.
Personnaly, i don't like this at all, they sell prime lenses which in fact are not real primes... optically speaking.

I don't want a prime lens who need computer assistance to deliver full perfromances.

You do realize that the word 'prime' simply means that it's a single focal length lens, right?

Link | Posted on May 3, 2014 at 12:36 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: Pricey on its own, but a fair deal with the GM1.

I still think the Lumix 14mm and the 20mm pancake primes make more sense size-wise on the GM1. This new 15mm prime looks better suited for bigger m43 cameras.

Nice touch with the aperture ring too, more m43 optics should have that feature.

Actually this should handle better than the 20/1.7 on the GM1. The GM1 is so small that the 20/1.7 is actually quite large on it, since it has a wide diameter...it tilts the camera back and makes the grip smaller. Since the 15/1.7 has the same diameter as the 14/2.5, the extra length doesn't pose much of an issue. The GM1 handles really well with the 12-32 kit (of course), the 14/2.5, 17/1.8, 9-18mm, Oly 25, and Oly 45.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

Lee W: What about LR?

Adobe's done plenty of Lightroom RC versions....I can't remember a time when they haven't done a Lightroom RC in addition to the camera RAW version.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 21:16 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-M1 Review (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecm: Hm. I looked through the samples and thought, "The Fujifilm is getting it's butt handed to it by the likes of the Olympus E-M1 and Canon 100D" - and then I read the article's conclusion.... there's a disconnect between what I see in the comparometer and what their conclusions are.

I suppose it could be the lens - I've been fooled before by a fantastic lens on a so-so camera here at DPR - but it looks more like over-agressive noise reduction to me. The green feathers are a blur at any ISO.....

I also recognize that ultimate sharpness and detail is not everything; it's something that I crave, but others might prefer the warm almost "creamy" smoothness of the Fuji's output - with the right subject and at the right enlargement it would be quite nice.

A lot of it is that X-Trans requires different sharpening algorithms. The detail is there, but at default sharpening, appears soft. Adjusting up reveals tremendous amounts of detail, easily as good and in many cases a little better than my E-M5. DPR however, normalizes sharpening for all cameras. While good in theory, when comparing a Bayer sensor vs an X-Trans, it doesn't work well.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: I've never considered Fuji to be premium.. they sell expensive cameras and lenses like other makes. But, its hardly a premium brand.

All of the Fuji X lenses are really, really good. The 14/2.8 is the best ultra-wide lens I've ever used. Period (including several Canon Ls, the Panny 7-14, Zeiss Touit 12mm and more). The 35/1.4 and 60/2.4 are exceptional and the 55-200 is brilliant as well. Frankly, there isn't a bad lens in the lineup, and they all have a beautiful rendering with great bokeh and a wonderful contrast curve. Truly excellent lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: I'v seen at least one review (digital rev?) trashing the ergonomic of the X-M1

issues included how you have to reach over a control wheel to get to the shutter button and a touch thumb dial on the back that was too easy to easy to hit accidently.

Could any users of the X-M1 comment on how good/bad it is to handle?


I couldn't disagree more with Kai on those points. I have never, even once, accidentally changed the top dial while pressing the shutter, or changed the top dial while changing the rear dial. To do the latter requires a ridiculously stupid amount of extra thumb movement and an intention to hit the top dial. I find the ergonomics on the X-M1 to actually be exceptionally good for a small camera. I also have the X-E1, and while the X-E1 ergonomics are a little better, it's also not as responsive as the X-M1, so I end up shooting with both pretty equally.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 12:44 UTC
On article 6 things iPhone photographers want from Apple (66 comments in total)

You can look at all the marketing speak around 'ultra-pixels' and the like, but aside from the Lumia 1020's PureView (which is really excellent), and maybe the Xperia Z1 (barely), none of the newer hardware, on either the Android side or Windows Phone side are actually better than the iPhone 5's camera.

Rumors are pointing to an f/2.0 lens, so that'll be nice...I'd like to see a slightly larger sensor and a little more robust camera app. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with the 5's camera. I don't use it for serious photography, but it's nice in a pinch when I just need a snapshot.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 18:44 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »