GeorgeD200

Lives in United States The Great Lakes State, United States
Works as a Educator
Joined on Nov 20, 2007

Comments

Total: 83, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony 'striping': here's the fix (558 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: The problem is the sensor (hardware problem), NOT simply concealing the defects by software. Strips are still in the original RAW file. Every time you take a photo, the strips are there!

Maybe Sony should recall their cameras and replace a new sensor for free. Sony, customer satisfaction is most important for your business!

They don't have anything to replace them with. These are not defective sensors, they were manufactured to factory specs. If they replace them with new A7 III sensors, they will still exhibit the same problem. Sony users may have to wait for Sony to re-design and re-manufacture its sensors -- a process that could take years, if they are starting from scratch. The death of DSLR cameras just got less likely.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan Mac: Surely the image sensor is so small that the difference in light passing to it through the filter at one side is almost identical to the light that reaches the other side? A polariser or other non-graduated filter could be useful but anything graduated will see almost no graduated effect in the resulting photos.

@Melchiorum With an objective lens only a few millimeters across, adjusting the line of gradation would be incredibly hard. Moving just 1mm would drastically change the effect, and since it's held in the frame by friction, you would have to nudge it ever so slightly to move it, while not moving it too much.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2018 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

glenn capers: When you see the image of the two kids in the water playing with the bird flying over head. You immediately no it's from the Indonesian area. Sometimes photo workshops are conducted, and everybody shoots the exact same shot. The question is who's shot is it, and should the shot have been used in a photo contest by anyone being that it is so public and generic. This is kind of like the Associated Press ,Routers and every other professional photo group shooting the same sports athletes standing at the podium. Who's shot is it really. We question. Should judging be in concept of the idea or actual shot if the same.
blindmanshooting.com

Sorry, Glenn, but I don't follow your logic. This is not a case of two people shooting the same photo side-by-side; one shot it and the other bought it and manipulated it, then passed it off as her own in a photography contest. Not acceptable.

As for the unrelated sports situation you mention: if we are side by side, shooting the same thing, and we take "the same" picture of a particular instant, I own the one I took, and you own the one you took. It's that simple. Never mind the fact that legally, they could not be "the same" picture. Even the slight difference in angle from us being side-by-side would cause every pixel to be slightly different from your photo to mine. Even if the angle, subject, and composition are nearly identical, the photos would be legally 100% unique.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:18 UTC

A great story about the value of the m4/3 system. Sure, other cameras have larger sensors, but an equivalent full frame kit would be twice as heavy and bulky. Some may choose to carry that. I do not. Thanks, Ben!

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 20:02 UTC as 40th comment
On article Sony a9 banding issue: fact or fiction? (736 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trundling: About that clever explanation on 60 and 120Hz lamps from Jim Karson. It doesn't work like that. You can't calculate the shutter speed against the frequency of lights. You are comparing the sensor to ONE lamp. There are thousands of them on the stadium and they are not synchronized. So at any given moment you'll be catching light from thousands of impulses at various stages of the cycle.

And another thing that got me a little disturbed. 2% is not "only". It is, as you cleverly caclulated, 50 out of 1000. How many good shots were ONE out of a thousand? In sports photography every shot can be "the one". That said, however, we should remember that ALL good sports shots that really matter came from the era of film cameras.

How is it that any sports photos "matter"? And if they can, what difference does it make when they were taken? I don't think history, or the impact of photography on it, ended with the digital revolution.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 15:42 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Canon EOS 80D (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

farandhigh: plastic vs plastic

@quiquae "I'd be surprised if it was any different."

How does this inane statement get 6 likes? Making assumptions with no basis in fact is foolish and pointless. You're just wasting space, and implying something with no evidence to support it. The D7500 is clearly a VERY new body style. I wouldn't assume anything about its construction (and I've held one, as well as almost every other Nikon ever made.)

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2017 at 14:36 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Canon EOS 80D (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

J Graf: Very simple, if you have a Nikon, stick to it, if you have a Canon, stick to it. If you are a newcomer, this article is most useful.

"Insert vague, debate-inciting generalization here"

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 12:13 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Canon EOS 80D (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

I own 128 cameras: This paragraph seems confusing:

"The 4K video mode on the D7500 comes with an additional 1.5x focal length crop over the existing 1.5x crop from using an APS-C sensor, meaning a full 2.25x crop relative to the focal length printed on your lens. This means even at the 18mm wide-angle setting of the D7500's kit lens, you'll be getting a 40.5mm-equivalent field of view when you shoot 4K video. On the other hand, the D7500 has no crop factor when shooting Full HD, just like the EOS 80D, so you could argue that having 4K at all is a nice bonus"

I think the last few sentences need to be reviewed as you are talking about the wrong camera. Or, on the other hand, I could be mis-reading.

I think you are misreading. To paraphrase:
D7500 crops alot during 4k. The D7500 does not crop at all during regular 1080 HD. Since the 80D doesn't even do 4k, you can't really say that the cropping hurts the D7500 when comparing the two cameras. But when comparing to other 4k-capable cameras, the crop factor may hurt the D7500 comparative performance.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 12:01 UTC
On article Video: Nikon D7500 first look (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

glennwithtwo: Nice camera - only three things wrong: there's no grip, it doesn't have a grip, and the grip is missing.

DrGerm is not referring to the battery contacts. He is referring to the other contacts that allow for shutter actuation, AF control, front and rear command dials, etc. -- those dozen or so contacts that would be required for grip operation.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2017 at 11:54 UTC

Balanced or not, I would be an inch shorter after a day of using that rig! I'd guess it weighs around 25-30 lbs, including camera and lens. It may work for a day, but the long term health effects... And you'd need a zone of caution tape around you. You can't possible shoot and keep watch behind you. Those wheels stick out 18" behind him. A good fast swing of that thing, and you could knock someone flat, rubber wheels or not. In today's world, that would likely lead to a lawsuit.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 12:43 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

GeorgeD200: What about the original intent of the author/photographer? How would people feel if I decided that "Starry Night" should be more purples and greens, instead of blues and yellows? Leave B&W alone!

Maybe they are afraid to tell you it's a dumb idea because they know that you will argue incessantly with them.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 02:03 UTC
In reply to:

GeorgeD200: What about the original intent of the author/photographer? How would people feel if I decided that "Starry Night" should be more purples and greens, instead of blues and yellows? Leave B&W alone!

This is not "converting black and white photos into color". Let's call it what it is: artificially adding guessed-at colors to old photos. I don't see why anyone would want to add fantasized color info to their historical family artifacts, but that's just me.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 16:25 UTC

What about the original intent of the author/photographer? How would people feel if I decided that "Starry Night" should be more purples and greens, instead of blues and yellows? Leave B&W alone!

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 03:34 UTC as 1st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Arca45Swiss: Judging by the lack of comments on the last six or eight articles, DPR is sorely missing the mark with this fluff no one cares about

The biggest camera company in the world launchest a contest that could provide an entire summer of travel and photography to one of its readers, and you suggest that it's not newsworthy? Don't you have some MTF charts waiting for you somewhere?

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 10:12 UTC
In reply to:

Tommi K1: When they come out with f/1.4 and f/2 lenses then there will come many buyers more.

Also, f1.4 lenses would be massive and heavy. f/2 might come along someday, but I doubt it.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

upptick: So, the main reason I believe there is a God is because humans are able to devise machines and instruments that are far, FAR more complicated than what would be needed for mere survival --- Darwin would say that there is simply no selective / competitive pressure and therefore no survival advantage to create anything nearly as complicated as this Sony lens. Yet, here it is. What an exquisite beauty!

This has nothing to do with Darwin. Try Marx. "Prestige Value" items that cost far more than their function would dictate.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 04:19 UTC
In reply to:

ABM Barry: I shouldn't judge this lens family, however, they look rather plain and rather agricultural when you compare them to Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm and most of the well established makers.
There is no way on Earth I would pay their asking price given the competition.

I like the look: minimalist, straight lens tubes, not a lot of flaring or ornamentation, simple fonts and knurling. But then I like classic Leica lenses, too, which is clearly what they're aiming at.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 21:41 UTC
In reply to:

DVT80111: Since new camera has IBIS, I hope they remove the OSS feature and give us cheaper and more robust lens.

Cheaper? ROFL. Sorry DVT80111, but I don't think you know how this game works. Did Sony's SLR lenses turn out to be cheaper, because they didn't need OSS?

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2017 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

Zoron: any sigma Medium Format art lens for Fuji GFX 50s ?

Not likely. The market is too small. If Sigma isn't going to produce lenses for Sony A7 Series, you can be sure Fuji MF is out of the question.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 03:05 UTC
On article Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on (717 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lassoni: How is this thing any better than GX8? That lens looks a little bit like the panleica 15mm

Well, it has 3.84x the sensor area, and doesn't use a Bayer pattern to predict color. It also has an optical rangefinder. Frankly, it will kick the snot out of a GX8 for B&W.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 14:08 UTC
Total: 83, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »