peterpainter

Lives in France Finistère, France
Joined on Aug 12, 2008

Comments

Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

iae aa eia: "I like that the lens has a bit more reach than the FZ1000, but the way it's always-extended feels a bit awkward, though I understand why Panasonic is doing it."

Why is Panasonic doing it? I am not sure if I understand that. Is it that external parts moving make the camera more expensive to produce and doesn't allow for a lighter and silent zooming? I think those are the or some of the reasons.

Mixed feelings on this. I loved my old Fuji S5600's (5200 in the USA?) internal zooming / focussing lens but having such a small sensor it wasn't very long. This looks like the sort of thing clumsy oafs (like me) will knock into things, and potentially reduces some of the ability to photograph in 'unusual places.' On the other hand, constant distance for subjects from the front element is good to have especially for macro. Looks like a nice camera - the longer zoom reach is appealing to me too. Interesting, and nice one Panasonic!

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 15:27 UTC

Nope, still don't care. Tbh I can't afford to keep paying for the next iteration, so I still lug cameras round and use a PC to process the pics. One day, maybe;)
It's nice to see that they've got round to 2 lenses. I've some really old tat cameras that I bought cheaply, and one is an ITT 110 camera with, gosh, 2 lenses! and I remember early Kodak digitals being slammed for having 2 lenses instead of a zoom - how fashions change! I thought they were a good idea, btw.
But to me it is the electronics, software, pocketabilty and so on that make these iPhones interesting - if I could afford to spend for each iteration I probably would. Meanwhile, I'll stick to cameras and my 25Euro dumb phone - let others pay the price for all the R&D!

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 19:56 UTC as 177th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

barrym1966: 7000 for a piece of glass made in Leicester, no thanks

Leicester crap? Come on, guys, it's the home of last season's football (sorry, soccer to some of you, I guess) Premier League Champions. A bit of reverence, please!

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 19:47 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Still good to have...

I think it would be useful if focus is just a tiny bit off (subject movement, photographer movement etc.) - it doesn't replace the front / back focus correction in my opinion. Looks like the equivalent of maybe around 1 or even less on their microfocus adjustment scale. Although I use a DSLR I suspect I'll make the move to mirrorless, possibly with my next camera. Front / back focus haven't really been a problem for me, though (I did have to adjust for two lenses but that only took a few minutes) but live view through a good VF plus electronic shutter may swing it for me.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 20:37 UTC

Well, it certainly makes a difference, but the amount does look rather small. When I miss, I miss by more than that (but I'd hedge my bets by using a narrower aperture). Thanks, that's a nice demonstration and maybe it will be useful for folk who don't miss by as much as I do;)

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 17:38 UTC as 87th comment

Nice - thanks!

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 11:52 UTC as 16th comment
On article Pentax K-70 added to studio test scene (36 comments in total)

The K70 JPEG colours look odd - 'colder' than the Canon or Nikon on the faces. The KS-2 colours look a bit odd too. I pulled up the K50 (because that's what I have) samples and the colours there looked fine, similar to the Canon and Nikon - and the 'red' looked 'red' - on the K70 samples (and to a certain extent the KS2) the red looks darker and slightly 'colder.' Mind-you, I've no idea which is right, just prefer reds to look red!
Raws look fine, though.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 22:08 UTC as 3rd comment

My weather resistant camera was a Yashica T5. Nice enough, and still going, but nowhere near as stylish - particularly as I bought the black version instead of the silver one. I loved using it, though, and it was rather amusing to see the rain draining from under the lens while the camera still carried on working. Sigh, those were the days......

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 21:49 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

TonyPM: Has anyone tried Photoscape?

I've been using it for a few years now.
It's free. Works pretty well and it isn't too complicated.

Ah, so I'm not sure what I'd gain from using Rawtherapee over Faststone. I don't do batch conversions, for example.
I do some HDR, but only in camera - the alignment seems fine (Pentax DSLR) and there is a reasonable amount of customisation, but as I haven't done much of it I can't really say if it is sufficient for everyone's needs. For the most part I get the effects from tweaking the raws in Faststone or later with Photoscape.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

TonyPM: Has anyone tried Photoscape?

I've been using it for a few years now.
It's free. Works pretty well and it isn't too complicated.

Thanks - probably will. At the moment I'm doing OK with Faststone, but I go to Photoscape for white balance and Paintshoppro for other things (detail editing plus stretching contrast mostly, although colour 'enhancement' is sometimes better too) - I think it would be worth trying RawTherapee as you suggest.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

TonyPM: Has anyone tried Photoscape?

I've been using it for a few years now.
It's free. Works pretty well and it isn't too complicated.

I use it a lot - and convert my raws in Faststone. There are a few tweaks that I occasionally have to do with Painshoppro7 - but I find those two a nice (and free!) combination.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

tex: As others have noted, a rather incomplete and idiosyncratic list....

I use Faststone, Photoscape and an ancient version 7 of Paintshoppro. Noticed the DXO program wasn't in the list, and keep hearing about Rawtherapee. The article kind of surprised me:) Yes, I have GIMP but have never got to grips with it.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 20:47 UTC

It would also be good if Getty had to pay the money back to the people who bought the pics from them.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 22:11 UTC as 20th comment
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Utterlyotter: Holy moly, some Pentaxians are reacting like soccer moms being told that they´ve got ugly kids..

Ah!! I'm being thick today (and yesterday, the day before and so on....hopefully tomorrow will be better). Perhaps the first would work nicely in non-English speaking places. As for the other, I'd be most upset if I caught my Pentax beating anything up - haven't had it long so it's still on probation;)

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2016 at 20:40 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

ervinberxolli: I have a Canon mark 2 and i was very happy with the camera but is an old camera and i want to upgrade to a new one. The Canon 5ds is to expensive and i dont like the colours and the dynamic range. Looking for other cameras i saw Pentax K1 and reading all the reviews that are on the internet about Pentax K1. Im thinking to give a try and change my gear to Pentax. The price is affordable and very good quality images. I shoot a lot of weddings and i want to know something more how pentax works with the flash if it is possible? AF is good enough for my kind of work also the 15- 30 mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm are good Lenses and cover 95 % of my work.

Nevertheless, Gio 645, he got a star on his posts and you didn't, so you can't be right.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2016 at 19:40 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Utterlyotter: Holy moly, some Pentaxians are reacting like soccer moms being told that they´ve got ugly kids..

???????

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2016 at 11:28 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

K1000usr: To quote from an interview (here on DPR) of Fuji execs regarding X-T2 camera and their goals: "We want the X-T2 to be able to capture all subjects. The X-Pro 2 doesn’t need such fast AF, because for snap-shooting and portrait shooting it’s not necessary. But our target users for the X-T series include sports photographers."

I hope, Pentax execs see what is missing in K-1, e.g. from this review, and make the next version (of K-1) a leader in every important category (e.g. AF, Jpeg rendition)

With its stellar price-point, low-noise and large dynamic-range, I am sure K-1' successor will win hearts of a whole lot of photographers -- not just Pentax-ians.

As such, I am sure K-1 will suite the needs of a lot of Pentax-ians even today, for this camera is no mean achievement by Pentax engineers.

The danger is, if Pentax just rests on K-1 laurels and follows with minor upgrades... ; I hope that doesn't happen.

I don't understand why Pentax stick to the standard JPEG settings - seems to get shot down in reviews. The first thing I did when I got mine (not a K-1, though) was to change colours to 'natural'. although I'm sure there other changes I could make. I tend to shoot JPEG to try things out and then save the RAW if I decide I'm likely to keep the shot - nice feature being able to do that.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 21:00 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

mediter: Very sad that the AF is not up to scratch for such a wonderful camera. Was hoping they sort it out and bring it up to par with the big boys.

Those passionate Pentaxarians must realise that when reviewers criticise the AF system of Pentax they are simply reporting thier findings. There is no point denying the AF system is not up to scratch and for me if one cannot AF on a moving bicycle, it is unacceptable. Pick up a Nikon to compare and you will realise its AF system is fast, faultless and infallible. That is why sadly I had to go back to Nikon after I had switched to Pentax although I still have a nice collection of lenses.

Unfortunately, Pentax AF system of today has not yet even caught up with Nikon's and Canon's accuracy of the film era.

The rest of the things Pentax do is outstanding and marvellous... but not good enough for my needs, could be for yours, however.

Oops, having read DuncanM1's thread seems Chasseur d'Images have updated their test, so please disregard the 'car on a winding road test' bit. I tried to edit the previous comment but was too late, sorry.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 11:19 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

mediter: Very sad that the AF is not up to scratch for such a wonderful camera. Was hoping they sort it out and bring it up to par with the big boys.

Those passionate Pentaxarians must realise that when reviewers criticise the AF system of Pentax they are simply reporting thier findings. There is no point denying the AF system is not up to scratch and for me if one cannot AF on a moving bicycle, it is unacceptable. Pick up a Nikon to compare and you will realise its AF system is fast, faultless and infallible. That is why sadly I had to go back to Nikon after I had switched to Pentax although I still have a nice collection of lenses.

Unfortunately, Pentax AF system of today has not yet even caught up with Nikon's and Canon's accuracy of the film era.

The rest of the things Pentax do is outstanding and marvellous... but not good enough for my needs, could be for yours, however.

I've seen some of Chasseur d'Images tests a while back. If the recent tests are the same, they looked to be focussing on a car approaching on a winding road. I mentioned this difference between conclusions of DPR / Chass-Image earlier in this thread and suggested that it is due to the different testing methodologies (but was accused of being a fanboy). Oh, and yes, it is a good magazine although I haven't bought one for a while.
Also of interest on this topic is DPRs Sony RX10 III review. It 'aced the bicyle test' but wasn't recommended for 'Peak action, sports' (?) because of the CDAF losing focus, unable to distinguish from back ground and so on. So I wonder why we are homing in on the bicycle test when presumably more tests were done to reach your conclusions - although, to be fair, as the bicycle test was the main feature of the AF tracking bit in this review one could be forgiven for thinking that it's result was why the conclusion was reached.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 10:57 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Utterlyotter: Holy moly, some Pentaxians are reacting like soccer moms being told that they´ve got ugly kids..

Having recently bought a Pentax DSLR I find that I have a tendency to skulk in the shadows in case anybody sees me with it. Still, if I'd bought a Canon, people would have been pointing at it and muttering 'dynamic range' if they saw it, so I'd have had to skulk with that too. Need advice on what sticker to get to cover the Pentax thingy on the front - Nikon?

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 14:49 UTC
Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »