Joined on Dec 22, 2011


Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15

It's not the camera that was reviewed, but my year-old Olympus TG-870 Tough, with a bigger lens, bigger sensor, and more megapixels, as well as more room for electronics, than the iPhone X, produces images that are surprisingly inferior in every way to the ones produced by the phone. Resolution, color rendition, dynamic range, and contrast in the Oly images (saved at highest quality) are all quite obviously worse compared on my computer monitor to the X images of the same scene taken at the same equivalent FL at the same time. Whether this is evidence of substandard results from the Oly or of the incredible image quality that can be rendered by a camera the size of a gel-cap tucked seemingly as an afterthought into a corner of a handheld communication device, I don't know. But I can't imagine why Olympus can't do better than this embarrassing result.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 16:01 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply

The DPReview mention must be causing a spike in sales in the past 2 days. The U.S. App Store price is now $9.99, not $6.99 as stated in the story.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 15:38 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Video: Sony a7 III overview (223 comments in total)

Still no sign of the glaring lack in the lens lineup, an interchangeable version of the Zeiss 35/2 prime lens of the RX-1 that would make the a7 an excellent and convenient carry-around. The available primes and zooms are notably bulky and heavy.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2018 at 16:16 UTC as 14th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

brycesteiner: These have come a long way. I see comments suggesting the laws of physics are stopping progress.
The laws of physics are not really "laws". People use them to try and suggest they are right when in reality we are seeing sensors pushed beyond what nobody would have believed 10 years ago. Did they break the "laws"? no.
I remember when 4/3 was on the scene and people were saying at 8MP they could never get higher because of the "laws of Physics". Same goes with cell phones. Now, taking many frames per second with out overheating.
The current generation of smart phones are very good and can easily suit 95% of people's photo needs quite well.
Perhaps "laws" were made to be broken. Or, we just use the term as alternative facts to suit my argument.

Thanks, Beaver! Not often that we see scientifically sophisticated and nuanced comment on user forums. Nor well written, cogent statements with proper spelling, punctuation, complex sentences, and so on. Literacy.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 13:11 UTC

The editor in me can't help pointing out that the misapprehended term in the second sentence of the story is not "B-line" but "beeline", meaning a straight line between two places. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, "with reference to the straight line supposedly taken instinctively by a bee when returning to the hive." In other words, the finder goes directly to the used-camera section whenever she enters a thrift store.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 16:32 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies

Argh! No mention, or question, about the possibility of a compact, fast 35mm prime lens for the a7, a la the beautiful little optic of the RX1.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 12:59 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Challenge of Challenges winners announced (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boeing skipper: Always funny to read these "not impressed" comments. Show us your work so that we can compare.

It doesn't take a singer to perceptively appreciate singing and have standing to form an opinion or criticize a performance.
It doesn't take a gymnast to perceptively appreciate...
It doesn't take a writer...
It doesn't take a painter...
It doesn't take entering a photo competition...

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 13:31 UTC

I came here expecting to see videos FROM a drone carrying a weaponized light source, and while I wish there had been some (more) of same, what I did find was fascinating – ground-based videos of the landscape and other subjects illuminated by said light source passing overhead. What a treat! Best of all were the stands of trees rendered by this eldritch point source of intense light moving by directly overhead. Surreal!

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 12:37 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

I have to agree with many others, Levi. It seems odd that you've been moved to process only a single roll in over a year. You seem not to have much optimism that you'll find anything but mundane family photos, and you haven't shown us why we should if you don't. Process a dozen, scan and post the results, and we'll decide whether to contribute.

And what are we to make of the VERY odd way in which the photographer chose to handle his work: Seemingly to leave it to posterity to process, by what seems to be obsessional packaging and storage of unprocessed film? Is there reason to think that someone with so little interest in seeing the result of his own work nevertheless made images that the rest of us would want to see – at our cost, no less?

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 20:41 UTC as 21st comment
On article #1 in France: Hands-on with DxO ONE (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

DRDL: Number one in DP's awards and no images to compare? At least one reviewer did
say that the image quality was not as good as his iphone 6, so this seems like a non starter for me!

Well, that would be a highly suspect assessment, as the One has a far larger lens and a sensor with almost twice as many photosites, each of which is much larger than the iPhone's. Not to mention that the people who run DXO are not exactly incompetent, which they would have to be to make a camera that big that performs worse than the iPhone's. In fact, I ran a quick comparison right after I got my One for Christmas, photographing a scene in my front yard with the One attached to my iPhone 6S Plus and then with the iPhone's camera. I then viewed the images on-screen. The iPhone's image is quite good, as expected, but the One's is quite obviously superior—also as expected. Unless the reviewer you mention doesn't realize that color-balance differences are not a reflection on inherent quality, I'd say that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and clearly never examined comparable images side-by-side as I did. So far, I'm quite happy with the One.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2015 at 15:44 UTC
On article AP cuts ties with Pulitzer-winning photographer (164 comments in total)

Re cropping vs content alteration: the focal length used for the photo is wholly arbitrary, and therefore so is the field of view and therefore the amount of potentially extraneous material. Nothing holy and inviolable is graven in stone regarding the FL, FOV, or peripheral material in a photo at the moment of exposure. There is no moral obligation for a photograph as published to contain anything peripheral to the focus of interest, even if inclusion of that peripheral matter would alter the viewer's understanding of the situation, any more than it's incumbent on the photog not to 'crop' by using a longer FL. Cropping is OK; alteration of included subject matter is not.

Re Contreras' technical skills: Awesomely clumsy! Some 'donor' material of the image is right on the other side of the fighter's right forearm, and more near the Rt edge! It's as though he wasn't even trying to disguise his alteration. Worst thing since the cloned plumes of battle smoke in Lebanon a few years ago.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 02:40 UTC as 6th comment

After more testing, I'm absolutely flabbergasted. In the corners, at the optimal(?) aperture of f/5.6 the new AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G lens simply blows away the new AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G at both 24mm and 85mm. The '120 produces severe smearing and chromatic aberration in the corners, while the '85 yields a surprisingly better image, not as good as the one from my AF-S Nikkor f/1.4G 24mm prime, but a heck of a lot closer to that image than to the one from the 24-120.

I wonder if my copy is defective. If it's in-spec, I see little reason to choose the '120 over the '85, given the above and what I described in my last post, the size and weight advantage, and the cost saving of more than half. You'd have to need to spend a lot of time between 85 and 120 mm to justify the disadvantages of the '120.

Next: compare the new 24-120 with the old.

I'll be sending this lens to Nikon USA for evaluation. If there's no defect, I'm returning it.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2012 at 03:23 UTC as 7th comment

I used the old 24-120 VR for walk-around on my D700, but when the D800 came out, after the new gold-banded 24-120 VR became available, I got both. Now, this combination is of daunting mass and volume, so I decided to consider the new (but non-gold banded), much smaller and lighter 24-85 VR, as I rarely use the extra focal length of the 24-120. I received this lens just yesterday, and after reading the opprobrium heaped on this poor little lens in this forum, I ran some tests of my own.

The results at 85 mm are surprising. At mid-apertures, the central-zone performance is barely distinguishable from that of the new 24-120 at 85 mm. There is very slightly less resolution and contrast--viewed at on-screen magnifications that begin to visualize individual pixels in the image. Even more surprisingly, at the edges near the corners, the ONLY difference I can see is slightly more chromatic aberration in the 24-85.

Next, a test at other FLs and out to the corners. Stay tuned.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 19:46 UTC as 8th comment

Prediction: the announced price of $7195 for the new apo aspheric Summicron 50mm (!) will prove to be erroneous. The price is completely unreasonable--higher than any other M lens except the $10,995 Noctilux, more even than the exotic 21mm f/1.4--and almost twice that of the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux, which would mean no market position at all for it!

And yet B&H just listed it--for, yes, $7195!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 22:05 UTC as 65th comment | 3 replies

It's simple: single-exposure image files, computer displays, and printed images represent ARBITRARY LIMITATIONS re the objective standard for the dynamic range that can be represented, i.e., what can be encompassed in real time by the human visual-perception system.

To enshrine the limits of what can be represented by a print of a raw single-image file on a sheet of paper is to enslave print photojournalism to an incidental, inadequate 150-year-old standard. Elliot thinks this is more honest why?

It is this arbitrary, limited standard--not the use of accurate HDR--that represents distortion of the truth. Conscientious, conservative HDR to simulate the same dynamic range as the human eye is nothing more than a way to make an artificial representation MORE honest.

By way of a fairly trenchant analogy, the same objections were voiced with: stereo vs. mono; color vs. B&W; talkies vs. silent films. Each was vilified despite overcoming an arbitrary limitation. I rest my case.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2012 at 03:06 UTC as 59th comment
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15