DtEW

Joined on Feb 17, 2012
About me:

Amateur photographer primarily shooting in adventure and urban exploration contexts.

Comments

Total: 72, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DtEW: Why is the image in the "Real world dynamic range image comparison tool" in the "Editor's Note" shot with totally different settings? Download the JPEGs and look at the EXIFs:

5DSR: shot at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO100
D810: shot at f/5.6, 1/15s, ISO64

Twice as much light, and exposed brighter to boot (ISO 50 would have been exactly as much exposure assuming both camera makers were ISO-accurate).

WTF, DPR?

How is that real-world? If exposure time didn't matter, we might as well just do multi-exposure.

(cont.) If they felt it was absolutely necessary to show the single-shot capability of the D810... they should have just included an 1/20s ISO64 exposure as an additional point of comparison in their drop-down menu. It would not have been hard and it would have allowed for a fully-fair comparison.

What you have instead is something that falls short of a fully comparable situation, through which they got to work in a 1/3-stop extra light for the D810, while leaving a more-relaxed 0.80-stop of highlight-clipping headroom in the 5DSR and a more-optimal 0.43-stop of highlight clipping headroom in the D810. Both can be seen using their RAW samples in LR6.5. Download both and see for yourself; the unprocessed exposure difference is fairly dramatic.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

DtEW: Why is the image in the "Real world dynamic range image comparison tool" in the "Editor's Note" shot with totally different settings? Download the JPEGs and look at the EXIFs:

5DSR: shot at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO100
D810: shot at f/5.6, 1/15s, ISO64

Twice as much light, and exposed brighter to boot (ISO 50 would have been exactly as much exposure assuming both camera makers were ISO-accurate).

WTF, DPR?

How is that real-world? If exposure time didn't matter, we might as well just do multi-exposure.

etto72, that's the whole part I don't get. I think everybody and their mother has been hammered with the point that Exmor-type on-chip ADC sensors can record a greater dynamic range at base and low ISOs. I think most everyone accepts that as fact. Of course, whether this matters greatly to the type of photography one does is up to subjective debate.

But to know exactly how much that would matter on equal footing would be a nice service to the photography public. All you have to do is expose all the cameras at identical manual settings (or at least not use two disparate metering modes to produce significantly different settings and exposures). Given that DXOMark has tested both the D810 and 5DSR to be almost identical in measured ISO100 (75 and 77, respectively), I don't know what can be going through their head to justify this.

And if a scene is static enough to take a 1/15s exposure, it can probably be bracketed. At these shutter speeds, single shot is an artificial constraint.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 18:51 UTC

Why is the image in the "Real world dynamic range image comparison tool" in the "Editor's Note" shot with totally different settings? Download the JPEGs and look at the EXIFs:

5DSR: shot at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO100
D810: shot at f/5.6, 1/15s, ISO64

Twice as much light, and exposed brighter to boot (ISO 50 would have been exactly as much exposure assuming both camera makers were ISO-accurate).

WTF, DPR?

How is that real-world? If exposure time didn't matter, we might as well just do multi-exposure.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 21:04 UTC as 8th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

osan: Blimey!!! This forum sounds like 80D has sent fanboys in to denial stage. So funny.

BarnET, it's funny that that you think Canon users, by choosing different from you, must be ignorant to the (limited) advantages of Exmor-levels of base-ISO DR.

Have you ever considered that there are many Canon users who have more than one system? Or came to Canon from another system?

Perhaps it is you that is ignorant to the advantages of the Canon system, and instead fixate on the specs you can point at and conflate that to all the difference in the world.

Trust me, it isn't.

Sincerely, Dual System User.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."

M Jesper: "Are you kidding me? It is as calculated as IKEA calling a cabinet BILLY .. it doesn't friggn matter it just does its job."

Uh, badly-drawn simile if you suppose people could actually mistake IKEA's obviously whimsical names as a technical description.

Also, as of right now the "Neutrino" coating does no job anybody is aware of, since nobody has a lens nor is the function of the coating defined in any marketing material so far. It could even be pure fantasy (i.e. not there), since you are obviously willing to accept whatever bullspit marketers toss at you.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 21:37 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."

FastGlassLover: You do a fine job of slurring an opponent by attributing a ridiculously petty interpretation of their motivations... albeit one that I have already explained in my prior post to CarlitosM. So a bit late on your part.

"you're getting ruffled up over people far away that you don't know naming a product with a term that is not being accurately applied."

The difference between you and me is that you are willing to chalk this up to mere "inaccuracy," whereas I am attributing it to marketing deception. It's a good calculation on their part, since they figure it'll be dismissed by the knowledgeable... but stands a chance of swaying those who are not.

Is this how you want things to work? How you want products to succeed and be rewarded in the marketplace?

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 21:37 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."

CarlitosM: By that loose reasoning, everything is a "galaxy" coating as everything is technically stardust.

The "Neutrino" coating marketing bullspit is calculated to leverage the general illiteracy of the public. People more-or-less get that a neutrino is some sort of particle. "Ah, they get lots of neutrinos and coat a lens! How brilliant!" is the leap they're led to make. They don't get that neutrinos are generated from cosmic/nuclear/particle-accelerator-levels of energy/narrowly-directed-energy.

The PR people are brilliant, sure. But this brilliance is the cynical (and apparently well-justified) manipulation of popular ignorance. You can't reward this.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."

I think between 'Likes' for the OP and that of Mssimo, we're getting a good sampling for the scientific (il)literacy of DPR readers.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."

Mssimo, to put it in terms you might understand... Irix might as well called it a "Galaxy" coating. Yes, galaxies exist, and surely you can Google-up a definition... but anybody who is educated in any sense would understand that it is not humanly possible to manipulate a galaxy in a useful way, much less apply it as a coating with technology as it exists now or in the foreseeable future.

You're showing yourself for what you are.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Soggoth: Thanks for the samples!
Edge sharpness seems to be good straight from f/1.4 and great on f/4.

Glad I preordered this lens

The edge sharpness is indeed quite impressive for not just wide open, but at f/1.4. It's certainly got me thinking!

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 00:45 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: What's the application for a 17 hour exposure?

A deserted Times Square?

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 19:20 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jostian: Nice pix (though the edges look a bit hazy even at the low iso's, maybe not the greatest jpeg engine), also, would like to have seen a few taken with the 16 50 kit (know it aint the best lens) but since its the lens most will use with the camera (at least to start out) it would be nice to see some results from it. Also to see if maybe Sony have improved the 16 50 at all...

cxsparc (cont.) - There is a reason why the SEL1670Z scores higher in all categories on DXOmark (not to mention the inscrutable overall score), and can sustain a premium price, and why the SEL1650 goes for ~$150 all over Ebay and Craigslist. The latter is undoubtedly the value leader, but the former is simply a step-up for most everything else. Otherwise you're the only sane voice, and the market/everyone-else is insane. You know what they say when one perceives that to be the case.

It's time to end your one-man campaign for your equipment choice.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 18:34 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jostian: Nice pix (though the edges look a bit hazy even at the low iso's, maybe not the greatest jpeg engine), also, would like to have seen a few taken with the 16 50 kit (know it aint the best lens) but since its the lens most will use with the camera (at least to start out) it would be nice to see some results from it. Also to see if maybe Sony have improved the 16 50 at all...

cxsparc - re: "the expensive 1670 is not known for good edge performance. If stopped down a bit, the 1650 yields better over the frame IQ"

That's demonstrably false.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-STAR-E-16-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-Sony-E-on-Sony-A6000-versus-Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56-on-Sony-A6000__1629_942_1082_942

Anybody can see using "Sharpness" and "Profile" (the latter aids in comparison *between* lenses) tabs that no part of what you claim is true except at 24mm, where the SEL1670Z is anomalously bad. The SEL1670Z either trounces the SEL1650 (≥35mm), or is a near-push mildly in favor of the SEL1670Z. And this doesn't even begin to take into account the superior CA and vignetting performance... not to mention optical distortion (if you've never seen unbaked output from a SEL1650, brace yourself when you do).

(cont.)

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 18:33 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeManr: I was going to buy this, but Im happy with my Canon G1x ii.

maxnimo - I had a great breakfast sandwich with sriracha this morning. And my cat was very busy cleaning herself as well.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: Is this the first mirrorless without video mode ?

All the Leica rangefinders?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 20:34 UTC

I pity the left-eye-dominant Sigma photographer.

But I guess they could always operate the D-pad with their nose. :P

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 19:23 UTC as 171st comment

Don't most of the Sony Xperias have heat issues? I guess it makes perfect sense to do this on a ski slope.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 01:29 UTC as 7th comment
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (740 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: A thorough review, but I question the conclusion. How does a camera that has:
Less dynamic range
Noisier Base ISO images
Poorer low light performance
A low ISO cap
Less JPEG detail
Slower AF tracking
Limited video features
No zebra or peaking options
Slow AF in Live View and video

...get an 83 compared to the 90 for the D810 and a7Rii, unless you count the first series of a7 cameras, which have different but significant shortcomings, as contemporaneous competitors.

Given the possibility (from my perspective) that the omission from your original post might have been deliberate... can you blame me for feeling the need to make a blunt, unmistakable point referencing pure evil?

Your follow-up did show that the blunt point was unnecessary, though.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 05:35 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (740 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: This is the first iteration of the Canon 5D that I would have absolutely no use for. I can see the purpose as a medium format substitute for studio use but even a 6D is a better general use camera. At least it's a niche model and Canon maintains alternatives.

noflashplease:

Pretty sure this will go right over your head, but here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1Ds_series

The point is that the "s" variant is the "super resolution" designation relative to the 1D III announced at the same time, which was only 10 mpx. The Nikon competitor was 12 mpx.

So of course there was a high res, landscape/studio-focused 1D body.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 02:25 UTC
Total: 72, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »