Stefan san

Joined on Oct 27, 2014

Comments

Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: In the studio scene, the images from the GR make the others look like they are out of focus, especially offcenter. Just look how soft the faces look from Fuji and Leica, RAW ISO 200. A lot of false color from Ricoh, though. And those high ISO's from Fuji are so clean but lack detail. Surely aren't they cooked?

<- GR User:

I noticed that I get less false color using RawTherapee (Amaze or IGV demosaicing) than the ACR-converted samples. Maybe they're not adding false color suppression or whatever that setting is called in ACR.

If only Ricoh's JPEG engine wasn't so poor - IMO; I wish it was more like Olympus or Nikon so I wouldn't have to work so hard on almost every shot with the GR). You get so much more detail out of the RAW files.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 19:21 UTC
In reply to:

thoth22: Dx0mark also gives their new phone cam a score of 85 for the super raw, kind of pathetic on their part. According to Dx0, their One is better than the 5d3 which is something I'm not willing to accept. Good thing they don't have a conflict of interest. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-DxO-ONE-SuperRAW-Plus___1008_795_1030

Does ANYONE do ANY research AT ALL before posting? The number of uninformed & upvoted comments makes my head hurt. Yes they have a potential conflict of interest but wow at least TRY.

Their super-raw is a blend of 4 raws, why are you surprised? "the SuperRAW mode records four RAW images in quick succession and instantly combines them into a single new RAW file, the SuperRAW"

DxO's results nearly always reflect countless other observations made on DPR and elsewhere about sensor and lens performance.

Disclaimer: I own nothing Dxo and have no interest in their products. And I think optics pro is pretty bad.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 20:51 UTC
In reply to:

watson076: People hate Canon for not building cool retro looking cameras like that of Fuji and Olympus and yet Canon does the impossible and builds a camera that uses retro sensor technology and people still are not happy. How can we satisfy this hipster generation ?

Reeks of trolling, but then again there's Poe's law... just can't tell with all these absurd comments.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 20:44 UTC
In reply to:

bmwzimmer: The DXO One iphone camera has a score of 85 vs the Canon 5DSR at 86. Either these scores are complete garbage or the DXO's 1" sensor iphone camera is as good as a full frame 50mp camera.

Troll or clueless comment?

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

Johnnie: My take on the Sony RX100 IV (as a video camera):
https://www.cinema5d.com/sony-rx100-iv-footage-review/

Thank you!

Johnnie

That 'barber brothers' video seems pro level to an amateur like me! Very nice. Now I hate to be critical as well since I'm a noob, but in my humble opinion the green/cyan tint in the video is really ugly. I hate it in particular on skin tones...

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 15:43 UTC
On article Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR (337 comments in total)
In reply to:

RyanBoston: A great DX lens at an FX price.

This is too expensive for only being a crop lens. It's almost the price of a D610 or 6D. You could even get an A7 with a kit lens for a hair more than just this lens alone.

I think Nikon missed the party on this one. I remember the rumors on this back 82 months ago. 😀

I'm always perplexed by the immediate reactions of "it's too expensive".

How do you know? Have you seen its performance yet? Maybe it is outstanding. And the lens at least as important as the body. Comparing it to those things is a false dichotomy IMO. So what if you have a good body but not a great lens in front of it?

Just because costs a lot and many can't afford it doesn't mean it's too expensive.

By the way I don't own anything Nikon and have zero interest in their system.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

wootpile: These samples make me buy Ricoh GR

Make sure you shoot RAW. The JPEG engine is honestly just not good, it leaves SO MUCH goodness behind in the RAW files.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 14:43 UTC
In reply to:

kona_moon: 43% (15 out of 35) of the samples were "edited to taste using Adobe Camera RAW". I would like to see more of what the camera does (unedited), not what post-processing can do.

@Biological_Viewfinder
"crutch of RAW"
"A real photographer..."
"Post-processing is for people who don't know what they are doing at the time when they press the shutter release..."

Oh dear. In case you're not a troll...

This man/woman desperately needs lessons in logic, fallacies, and different perspectives. My head hurts looking at this nonsense.

Dear person, in case there is the slightest chance you read this and consider a different viewpoint (unlikely, but here it is) - first of all using the 'real photographer' line is commiting the classic logical fallacy of 'no true Scotsman'. Here's a good list of them... http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg

Second... your camera is doing the PP for you when shooting JPEG... there are a limited number of adjustments you can make as opposed to using a more capable software later. The WYSWIG aspect of JPEG on the spot often doesn't help understand what the camera REALLY captured in RAW due to many factors I don't have room to explain...

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 14:39 UTC
On article Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Androole: I am a little bit puzzled by the use of the Olympus 45mm/1.8, to be honest. It was a great lens at the time, but its resolution is now bested by many, many lenses in the system. Even the 20mm/1.7 has better resolution.

Since you're stopping the lens down, why not use the PL 45mm/2.8 macro? Or the Sigma 60mm/2.8? Or the Olympus 60mm/2.8? Or the PL 25mm/1.4? Or the Voigtlander 42.5/0.95? Or the Olympus 75mm/1.8? Or the Panasonic 35-100/2.8?

Maybe you're restricted by the focal lengths that you can test with your current set-up, but every single one of those lenses can achieve better resolution. The Sigma is even cheaper.

And if you're deadset on keeping a cheap-and-cheerful ~85mm equivalent as your lens, maybe try the new Panasonic 42.5/1.7. It has been tested to be sharper than the 45, though only significantly in the corners.

Testing any sharp M4/3 lens at f5.6 rather than f4 or even f2.8 is already into diffraction losses, for what it's worth, but that's something else entirely...

Fully agreed. Please note DPReview! At LEAST put in the minimal effort to shoot M4/3 at f4 instead of f5.6. There IS a loss of resolution due to diffraction, and F4 is where the Oly 45 f1.8 (and most m4/3 lenses) are at their best.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 14:30 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel T6s Review (453 comments in total)
In reply to:

robjan245: DPR is being overly generous with a silver rating for this POS.

Even you are being 'overly generous' to DPReview by using the very mild phrase 'Overly generous' ;)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 19:34 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel T6s Review (453 comments in total)

$850 SLR and the same old usual important features cut-down because Canon and Nikon can. Basically because "FU, we make tons more money and the majority of our buyers don't notice or know it could be better"

- 95% pentamirror Cussing seriously?

- single easy-use control dial instead of dual dials (rear 4-way doesn't count for me and probably for most, hard to reach).

- no AF microadjust.

AKA the usual BS from the usual suspect(s). Please vote with your hard-earned money.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 14:58 UTC as 132nd comment
On article Pentax K-S2 added to studio scene (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

chillgreg: Thanks. Still waiting for the Ricoh GR though... :(

As a GR and E-M10 owner:

Nothing really to see with the GR - to be perfectly honest, the JPEG engine kinda sucks (especially compared to Olympus) - it does not extract as much detail as possible from RAW (Olympus gets extremely close), not a great gamma curve, and the images have a very slight green tint which I can't seem to fix with WB adjustments.

This camera definitely benefits RAW shooters. The RAW files are great.

Lens is great as shown by lens reviews elsewhere.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 18:55 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 Review (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

bluevellet: If I were buying my first DSLR, this is probably the model I'd go for. Unspectacular (for review sites), but fully functional, feature-packed and reasonably priced.

That's what Nikon and Canon have been banking on and winning big $$$ for years. Go with the "safe" (perceived safe, that is) brand name choice where they cost-cut important features instead of the superior underdog brand alternatives.

If I were buying my first SLR and had to buy new for whatever reason, I'd be buying a K-S2 (Realistically, I'd buy a used K-30 or K-50) and a Sigma Art lens. Even a new K-3 and D7000 costs less than a D5500 (yes they do weigh more) - talk about this camera being DOA to educated buyers.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 17:42 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 Review (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stefan san: This may not be true for too many buyers, but for me mid-priced Nikon SLRs never made it on my list due to the lack of a 2nd control dial and disappointing viewfinder compared to Pentax or Mirror-less offerings in the same price range and weight class.

It seems Nikon (and Canon) will never ever fix these issues (presumably not to cannibalize their higher-end model sales) and therefore I will never ever buy one of these cameras even though they have many other aspects which appeal to me (uh, the Nikons that is).

A6000 and E-M10 (and most - if not all - other mirrorless up to $900) have 100% frame coverage and at least a little larger magnification. I find frame coverage to be critical.

Both models also have two control dials.

Pentax's VFs (even in more inexpensive models) are not just 100% and larger but also higher quality pentamirror.

Basically Nikon and Canon say "FU" to camera enthusiasts because the majority of consumers will buy based on the brand name and give them more sales than the underdogs who offer better quality at similar or even lower pricing.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 17:23 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 Review (415 comments in total)

This may not be true for too many buyers, but for me mid-priced Nikon SLRs never made it on my list due to the lack of a 2nd control dial and disappointing viewfinder compared to Pentax or Mirror-less offerings in the same price range and weight class.

It seems Nikon (and Canon) will never ever fix these issues (presumably not to cannibalize their higher-end model sales) and therefore I will never ever buy one of these cameras even though they have many other aspects which appeal to me (uh, the Nikons that is).

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 17:59 UTC as 113th comment | 2 replies
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (883 comments in total)
In reply to:

ABM Barry: How do we process RAW Hi res. I downloaded the latest version of Adobe dng converter 8.8. However, none of my Adobe programs can handle the 40,000kb files and the 102,000kb have no chance?

The supplied olympus disc also states that it can't handle them, ... it states: "FILES TO LARGE"

I can't imagine the reviewers actually tested this out or they would have mentioned this problem? Or if they did, why wasn't it brought to our attention?

I probably would have put off purchase until it was sorted!

Also the shooting menue option is only jpeg or RAW+jpeg, can't seem to capture RAW only? not an option? (I don't shoot jpeg, far too limiting)

The logical question is: "What have I missed"

RawTherapee works :)

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2015 at 16:18 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 real-world samples (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

AKH: Those high ISO images, sorry for saying it, beats the crap out of every micro 4/3 camera on the planet and that together with better IQ, is one of the reasons why there is still a market for those relatively cheap DSLRs.

The sensor with 63% larger surface area (both being from similar or even the same generation / manufacturing quality) has better IQ, wow! .... Not exactly a shocking revelation.

But yes, given the low price and other factors (brand recognition, conscious or subconscious bias toward dslr = better, etc.) there isn't just 'still a market' for cheap dslrs, it's a massively larger market due to the aforementioned reasons. Users of more niche cameras such as m43 have to have learned all this information, and then still decide they want to compromise for weight/size or other reasons vs. iq for the money.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 19:14 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: How about 40mp HDR?

Sorry, to clarify I meant "time sink" as in time consuming due to having to sift through raws, select which RAWs to merge, export, and all that clicking repeatedly - the camera could just as well do it (they definitely can, since they merge the RAWs for the Hi-res shots); the process itself takes maybe 3 seconds on my machine (I use HDR Merge on W7 with an overclocked i5 2500K) but it's just an extra hassle.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 01:31 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: How about 40mp HDR?

On that note, in-camera 16mp HDR RAW would be far more useful and in many more situations than the high-res RAW (how many people view their images on very high res displays? or make huge prints?) Why does no camera do this :( It's such a time sink to merge the RAWs in post... I could care less about the super crappy hdr jpeg the camera produces.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): I have my popcorn ready: Awaiting the negative feedback and counter feedback to this announcement.

Carl

Lightweight DSLRs such as these are very appealing, even to serious enthusiasts... and yet they STILL, in a $900 camera, mock us by only giving us:

1. A single control dial

2. 95% coverage pentamirror

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it'll be a fine camera in many ways, but this is just extremely irritating and immediately and completely disqualifies it from consideration - at least for me.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 03:25 UTC
Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »