AngelicBeaver

Lives in United States San Antonio, United States
Works as a Steel Detailer
Has a website at www.ndowell.com
Joined on Nov 3, 2004

Comments

Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Reginald II: I experimented the studio scene comparison and I'm not even impressed with the painting-like image of iphone 7, nor the oversaturated S7.

My top 3 based on that studio scene are these:
Nokia 808 Pureview
Nokia Lumia 1020
Nokia Lumia 1520 (i prefer 1520s color than 1020)

Man, they sure make it hard to do straight up comparisons on these phones. The ISOs are totally mismatched between manufacturers. The CM1 does 125 OR 3200. No comparison for ISO 800 between it and the pureview 808.

I agree though that the iPhone 7 looks terrible, even at ISO 50. People seem to like buttery smooth, even when it makes them look like they are melting.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

Reginald II: I experimented the studio scene comparison and I'm not even impressed with the painting-like image of iphone 7, nor the oversaturated S7.

My top 3 based on that studio scene are these:
Nokia 808 Pureview
Nokia Lumia 1020
Nokia Lumia 1520 (i prefer 1520s color than 1020)

I'm not a fan of the destructively aggressive noise reduction cell phone manufacturers love. Skin turns to plastic. Fine details to mush. The Nokia phones seem to be the only ones that appealed to photographers, but they had to go and be on weird operating systems. The Nokias managed to be grainy where all other camera models went with smudged. I keep hoping someone will break the mold and slap a big sensor, fast lens, and a classy JPEG engine into an Android phone. Panasonic had an interesting effort with the CM1, but the lens was relatively slow and the images didn't look great to me. Still a lot of aggressive NR.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 03:41 UTC

This kind of noise doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it seems to bother a lot of other people, thus camera manufacturers makes sure to smooth it all away. I wish we'd just accept and leave it. Banding or weird pattern noise is another issue entirely. A little grit is fine.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 15:43 UTC as 9th comment
On article Pinnacle Prime: Olympus ED 25mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

frosti7: please take wide aperture-shallow DOF pictures of subjects that are far from the camera,

one does not need a wide aperture of f1.2 for a closeup dof pictures since every camera can do that from a closeup.

My point being, I don't know if you could find a full frame camera + lens + spot on AF for under the street price of this lens. The Canon 5d mkII runs about 900 USD used, but I suspect you'd be dealing with misfocusing issues. I'd certainly like to be able to achieve that shallow DOF/super-blurry background for more distant/ full body portrait subjects, but it certainly isn't my priority and I accept this limitation of the system in exchange for what it brings.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:42 UTC
On article Pinnacle Prime: Olympus ED 25mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

frosti7: please take wide aperture-shallow DOF pictures of subjects that are far from the camera,

one does not need a wide aperture of f1.2 for a closeup dof pictures since every camera can do that from a closeup.

Honestly, unless the full frame DSLR came with quick and accurate contrast detect AF, I wouldn't want it for shallow DOF. My old Canon with 85mm lens loved to focus on people's ears instead of their eyes, and I even had the focus checked at a repair shop. With the E-M1 and 75mm, I almost never have that issue. AF was the final reason why I switched to Micro 4/3. I was keeping my Canon for portraits, but the AF was so poor that I realized it was practically obsolete.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (663 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngelicBeaver: I'm really hoping they'll let you dial back the noise reduction in JPEG mode. The E-M1 still applies a ton of NR, even when noise filtering (or whatever their special noise reduction term is) is turned off. That's my biggest gripe about the E-M1. I don't mind the noise as much as I mind the visible loss of fine detail due to smearing. Just give me an option to leave the grit (luminance noise).

@Hellraiser - I don't think it's too much to ask for a less destructive noise reduction option for the JPEG engine (which they used to provide, prior to the last couple of generations). The JPEG engine has always been a positive point of the Olympus system. I don't want to deal with massive RAW file sizes or processing for one single issue that should be relatively easy to fix, not to mention that it's a problem that Oly introduced after I'd already bought into their camera system.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:17 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (663 comments in total)

I'm really hoping they'll let you dial back the noise reduction in JPEG mode. The E-M1 still applies a ton of NR, even when noise filtering (or whatever their special noise reduction term is) is turned off. That's my biggest gripe about the E-M1. I don't mind the noise as much as I mind the visible loss of fine detail due to smearing. Just give me an option to leave the grit (luminance noise).

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 04:27 UTC as 13th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Teila Day: About time! I don't know how many times I've posted that the "writing was on the wall." You don't have to have a special line on corporate secrets, just a shred of common sense. Look at the greater photographic landscape. FF is just running out of Oomph and marketability. There's technical reasons why MF has advantages but there's also a very basic marketing reality as well. FF isn't "shiny and new" compared to MF. Most photographers dont know MF was practically the most popular format decades ago... people too casually call MF a "specialize tool". It's not.

The only reason MF isn't as popular as it once was is due to system price. The only reason MF hasn't become smaller, better AF, etc., was because manufacturers like Hasselblad, Phase, Mamiya and Rollei could get away with it; like Ferrari got away with building trash in the 80's (I digress).

MF can't get away with a single focus point and poor electronics today. Margins are thin & competition is heating up...

good!

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "better". Teila Day presented a market analysis. You provided a feel-good comment.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Pinnacle Prime: Olympus ED 25mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

frosti7: please take wide aperture-shallow DOF pictures of subjects that are far from the camera,

one does not need a wide aperture of f1.2 for a closeup dof pictures since every camera can do that from a closeup.

He's talking about full body portraits. You can get shallow DOF with a point and shoot if you're taking a picture of a cup two inches in front of the camera, but we want to see what kind of isolation you could get when the subject is a reasonable distance away from you. With the 75mm f1.8, you have to be pretty far away to get an entire body in the frame. I am also curious to see the isolation capabilities of this lens on slightly more distant subjects, like a full body portrait. Background to subject distances do play a role as well.

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

rbach44: Full frame user (switched from M43 once upon a time) not looking to troll but asking an honest question:

Looking at the 25mm 1.2 makes me think the same thing as when I saw the f.95 Noktons: Isn’t this just the wrong system for shallow DOF? Putting a big, heavy, and expensive lens on a system built around portability makes no sense to me…

Especially considering that the cost of this lens is the same as a used D600+50mm 1.8, which will provide similar DOF characteristics at little size/weight penalty when considering the whole combo. And that is not even considering the (at least in my opinion) poor ergonomics of a big lens on a small body, the IQ advantage of full frame, and the (presumably) poorer performance at f1.2 compared to a good ol’ f1.8.

Of course M43 has its other advantages, but doesn’t a larger format just make more sense for shallow DOF than shoehorning a very fast lens into a system that really just doesn’t excel in that area? Am I missing something here?

Portability is one option for the system. You can go small if you like, or now you can go larger. I have a small camera and pancake lens for when I want ultimate portability, and I have a larger camera and lens for when I want the best quality the system can offer. As long as the new lens doesn't cost the same as a full frame camera+ 50mm lens, I think it's a reasonable offering. That's where their premium longer lenses were running into trouble. At their price point, you could buy a DSLR and Sigma super-Tele for less and use that as your dedicated telephoto option. If blurriness is your only desire, it absolutely makes more sense to go full frame at this point. I like micro 4/3 for the price/quality/size relationship. Lenses and cameras that really excite me are offered at prices I can actually afford (E-M1, 20mm, 12-40 2.8, 75mm).

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

misspiggy01: i think the more natural competition for this phone is another phone, not a DSLR or ILC.

could a flagship android device produce the same pictures at a major sporting event? that´s the more relevant question than what it could do for DSLRs in the future.

btw NOTHING in this phone is an innovation. but it´s probaly a decent implementation of a number of technologies that have been around for some time.

They're just saying that the iphone raises the baseline for all the nicer cameras above it, meaning compact cameras need to be better than the iphone, and therefore enthusiast cameras need to be better than the now-better compacts, and so on until you reach the DSLRs. A trickle-up effect?

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 12:22 UTC
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (296 comments in total)
In reply to:

felix from the suburbs: Kind of a silly stunt. If the cameras still work, why destroy them? Can they not be donated to some school program or at least sold to a collector. I have some old film cameras that I only use rarely to shoot a few rolls of slide film, but I would never destroy them for the sake of being funny.

Have you seen the movie "Idiocracy"? I think we're well on our way to that future.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 13:26 UTC
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (296 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: This is cringeworthy. Two beautiful cameras crushed by some clown with a ridiculous accent. What do people do these things for? I can understand Jeremy Clarkson bombing an Alfa Romeo Arna, but this is just gratuitous.

It gets views on YouTube, and they get paid good money. There are kids that make millions of dollars a year playing games and posting videos of them playing the games along with their commentary. This guy smashes expensive things. I guarantee you he's making way more off this video than the cameras cost.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 22:44 UTC
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (296 comments in total)
In reply to:

felix from the suburbs: Kind of a silly stunt. If the cameras still work, why destroy them? Can they not be donated to some school program or at least sold to a collector. I have some old film cameras that I only use rarely to shoot a few rolls of slide film, but I would never destroy them for the sake of being funny.

Crushing really expensive stuff is their thing. They crushed a really big diamond the other day. They probably make pretty good money off these videos, way more than the cost of the things they are smashing. If you can get enough people to watch your videos, you can be a YouTube millionaire.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 22:42 UTC

Interesting video, but I don't understand why this particular photo is so popular. I enjoy a lot of Ansel Adams' work much more.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 04:34 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Oh well... 1.4 http://petapixel.com/2014/02/21/olympus-patents-impressive-12mm-and-14mm-f1-0-lenses/

I agree that the 12/25/50 lineup wouldn't be too thrilling. I'd really like a legitimately updated 20mm with snappy autofocus. I find that the focal length suits me better than the 25. Since I won't be buying new lenses anytime soon, I hope you get your 17.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 02:56 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Oh well... 1.4 http://petapixel.com/2014/02/21/olympus-patents-impressive-12mm-and-14mm-f1-0-lenses/

Apologies. I assumed that you believed that your link was referencing this lens. My mistake. I'm looking forward to the rumored Olympus fast prime announcements.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Oh well... 1.4 http://petapixel.com/2014/02/21/olympus-patents-impressive-12mm-and-14mm-f1-0-lenses/

This is a Panasonic offering, not Olympus.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

flektogon: Well, everyone is upset with the price of Leica. But Leica has been always far more expensive. And why not? It is fully made and assembled in Europe if not in Germany. So, how can you compare its manufacturing cost with those "Japanese" cameras made/assembled in China, Vietnam and who knows where else, just not in Japan? But even the products "Made in Japan", like what at least Sony claims, are made/assembled by the "guest arbeiters" from South America.

Hey BeaverTerror, you're like my name opposite!

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 19:41 UTC

Hey! We were just having this discussion! Unfortunately for the people asking for it, Leica was the only company listening.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 18:13 UTC as 313th comment | 1 reply
Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »