Drofnad

Lives in United States Mid-Atlantic, United States
Joined on Oct 12, 2008

Comments

Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article 2017 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

pete guaron: When I finally made up my mind, I preferred the build quality of the Canon PowerShot to the Sony RX100. Other people might prefer later models of the PowerShot, but I chose the G 1X mark II - not exactly a "pocket cam", but it has all the features I was looking for. At the end, the RX100 IV was "interesting", but the build quality didn't appeal. The Leica D-Lux was also a contender, but lacked both a tilt screen and touch screen.

Sorry not to have a URLink for this (I think it was posted, not PM'd), but IIRC the poster claimed to be reading Where from his own camera --so, a maker's lie if so by such indication, not merely from documentation or whatever.

Oh, sometimes one reads of reports that Leica chooses a less-warm JPEG output; that might impress various users as better IQ.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Apart from a few compact primes, can anyone tell me why so many Olympus MFT lenses are so large and heavy, many of them have such outrageous native distortion? The cameras, E-M1 II apart are compact and lightweight, especially the beautiful Mini Leica like Pen-F. Silly name though for what ought to be called an E-M2, perhaps.The bodies may be 4/3 but most of the lenses are 16/3.

The Pana 35-100/2.8 & 12-35/2.8 are examples of smaller (w/added plus that the tele doesn't extend inzooming).

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 21:03 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

pete guaron: When I finally made up my mind, I preferred the build quality of the Canon PowerShot to the Sony RX100. Other people might prefer later models of the PowerShot, but I chose the G 1X mark II - not exactly a "pocket cam", but it has all the features I was looking for. At the end, the RX100 IV was "interesting", but the build quality didn't appeal. The Leica D-Lux was also a contender, but lacked both a tilt screen and touch screen.

IIRC, someone remarked that THIS time (in the D-Lux & LX series), the bodies claimed to be built resp. in Japan/China!? But re "the Type 109 Leica is a lot more.", on what do you base this assertion? You cite some other cameras you own and can compare; did you also compare the Panasonic version?

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 00:31 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Have Sony since the RX line came in a policy of never ever discontinuing a camera and never again introducing a really new camera in a different body shell?
This whole current marketing fad of mark designation starts to make it look like they just can't get the thing right however hard they try and it could go on for ever until we are inundated with the things.

And then there's the array of Canon G 3-5-7-9 X models !

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 23:58 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (388 comments in total)

I'm disappointed that the Pany zoom's aperture doesn't have the nice gradual slope of wide open from 1.4 to 2.8 that prior LX models had (in sharp contrast to, e.g., the Canon S90). AND I also like the multi-aspect options previously provided.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 21:35 UTC as 83rd comment
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2142 comments in total)
In reply to:

GordonAtWork: I always find the ownit/want it/had it graphic amusing as there are always some people who say they've had a new camera before it's available. I guess these are the testers who get pre-production models (or they're just full of self importance).

+1 !!

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 22:31 UTC
On article RX aeternus? Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II review (271 comments in total)

typo : "(noticeably sharper than the Panasonic's FZ100's lens at 24mm)" ="FZ1000" --there are both 100 & 1000, but surely you mean the latter (as the other lacks 24mm, reaching down to 25mm only).
-d.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 23:15 UTC as 57th comment | 1 reply
On article The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 (1290 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dimit: They've gone crazy over there ay Panasonic!!! Should be mentally retarded not to grab A7ii instead of this m43 monster.Stupidity reigns !!!

>, they are dark and expensive.

> Why there are no small lenses on FF with the same
> equivalent parameters as MFT lenses? Nobody wants them.
> Nobody wants 24-70 f5.6 lens for 1000usd in full frame
> world. This only happens in MFT rip off world.

Hey, "Dark" lord, tell me what the difference (if not equivalence) is of shooting your beloved FF with a 70-200 f/4 (nobody wants 5.6!) to get the DOF coverage of a 35-100 f/2.8, at same ISO : how's your un-"dark" lens keeping up, shutter-wise?
Geesh, you are worse than a mere bore!
)-:<

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 17:36 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (878 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eugene232: don't understand all buzz about this camera.
I had an EPL5 which has a the same outdated sensor,
IQ is a mediocre

Each time I read about the supposed agedness of the E-M5's Sony 16mpx sensor, I recall how much fashion photog James Russell of Russell-Rutherford (posting on LuLa as "BCooter") praises it for great color separation (and finds that it delivers "prettier" images than his workhorse Canon 1DX, and better than the Pany-sensor'd E-M1) --to wit (as referred to by another shooter with similar appraisal):

[http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=86337.msg733774#msg733774]
" I also agree with BC about the look of the two cameras' files. There's greater tonal separation/differentiation with the E-M5. Sensor differences, CFA differences...whatever it is I wish the E-M1 had the same look."

But does someone want to be shooting at ISO XXX,XXX? Nope, the E-M5 won't go there.

-d.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 21:52 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1624 comments in total)
In reply to:

Drofnad: 1) Thanks for making --though one sh/could make it more strongly-- the point that "full frame" is a deceit to reality : that medium format is *fuller*, so to speak, and one can even go larger than that --but certainly there is medium format (available more cheaply in used gear, a real option).

2) "superior IQ" :: A long time ago (2010 October), Luminous Landscape made a splash with assertions that in a test of PRINTED output from a then-new compact camera (Canon G10) and an established 39mpx med.format one (Phase One back on a Hasselblad, IIRC), viewers with good familiarity with photographic output were unable to tell which camera had printed which image (!!). Now, to date, I've yet to see ANYthing on the Net challenging this bold assertion ("You've Got to be Kidding!"), but lots of echoes of its conclusions. (I remain skeptical.)
But, to the point, what IS this "superior IQ" so often asserted (with implied obvious distinctions of "blows away..." !) ?

.:. need more such tests!

> From all the photographers I know - only minority prints their photographs or think about prints quality while buying a camera.

So then what is their need for superior IQ --"100% crops" posted on Net forums?

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:15 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1624 comments in total)

1) Thanks for making --though one sh/could make it more strongly-- the point that "full frame" is a deceit to reality : that medium format is *fuller*, so to speak, and one can even go larger than that --but certainly there is medium format (available more cheaply in used gear, a real option).

2) "superior IQ" :: A long time ago (2010 October), Luminous Landscape made a splash with assertions that in a test of PRINTED output from a then-new compact camera (Canon G10) and an established 39mpx med.format one (Phase One back on a Hasselblad, IIRC), viewers with good familiarity with photographic output were unable to tell which camera had printed which image (!!). Now, to date, I've yet to see ANYthing on the Net challenging this bold assertion ("You've Got to be Kidding!"), but lots of echoes of its conclusions. (I remain skeptical.)
But, to the point, what IS this "superior IQ" so often asserted (with implied obvious distinctions of "blows away..." !) ?

.:. need more such tests!

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 22:47 UTC as 381st comment | 3 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)
In reply to:

LarryLatchkey: Distortion looks quite low at 24mm, I guess that's a reasonable performance for such a zoom. Would be cool to know the distortion percentages.

A pity the design isn't sexier. Looks rather indistinct and slightly 'rustic' to my eyes. A comparative sidelook at the Leica model would have been interesting ...
Anyway, thanks for the nice review.

> handled both, there is no sig. diff.

For you; others have other thoughts --and why else should Leica, again (I'm aware of their usual costlier clones), have to sell a separate grip?

As for "that DNG thing", isn't is now understood, as one Leica-asosciated (official, so to speak) reviewer has stated, "One thing I can say is that the RAW files are NOT DNG (but RWL files - same as the LX100)" ?

The things folks do to try to rationalize that costly red dot ... !
(camera l00ks, of course, essential --and it really looks so great (huh?) ! :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 00:34 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)
In reply to:

LarryLatchkey: Distortion looks quite low at 24mm, I guess that's a reasonable performance for such a zoom. Would be cool to know the distortion percentages.

A pity the design isn't sexier. Looks rather indistinct and slightly 'rustic' to my eyes. A comparative sidelook at the Leica model would have been interesting ...
Anyway, thanks for the nice review.

The "significant" diff. is that Leica wants an extra $$ beyond their already too-high price for adding a GRIP to the body --you know, something to WORK with (rather than --what's this?-- l00k at) !

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2014 at 07:47 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)
In reply to:

SulfurousBeast: Richard,

If you use the comparator tool, Seems like Pany's own FZ1000 outscores, albeit marginally, the LX100 in 6 of the critical parameters, IQ, JPEG and RAW, Optics, Performance and Video. Being close to the same 'class' of camera, would ypu say FZ1000 is slightly better than LX100? Only on the above parameters.

>> in favor of the GX7 by a large margin <<
NOOO --oops, mea culpa, alas (damn these confusing camera names), NB : "G7 X" --i.e,. Canon G7 X, the new 1"-sensor thing;
not "GX7", the Pany body whose sensor is allegedly used in LX100. I meant to refer to the Canon G7 X and its DPRating.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 22:15 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)
In reply to:

SulfurousBeast: Richard,

If you use the comparator tool, Seems like Pany's own FZ1000 outscores, albeit marginally, the LX100 in 6 of the critical parameters, IQ, JPEG and RAW, Optics, Performance and Video. Being close to the same 'class' of camera, would ypu say FZ1000 is slightly better than LX100? Only on the above parameters.

And as I also followed up to your observation below, "really, this LX100 rating --one way or the other-- is off by two measures : absolute (vis-a-vis the "Excellent" position) and relative (vs. GX 7's bars)!" The GX 7 is shown better by the bars, yet verbally described as worse, for IQ (i.e., the LX100 is said to be "superior" in IQ).

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 16:45 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)
In reply to:

Drofnad: I find it puzzling to read "Excellent stills image quality - especially in Raw" and yet see of the bar-graphed qualities that IQ is the farthest from Excellent of all save for Value (Raw better than JPEG, slightly) !?

"most compacts that they rate Excellent have similar ..."
Ha! Take a gander at that for competitor G7 X : laying a transparent small ruler on my 24" screen I see that it has slightly BETTER Raw & JPEG bars, and a much better High ISO one (nearly a full measure-mark closer to Excellent), and yet DPR say of it, in direct comparison, "The Panasonic LX100 is the newest entry to the enthusiast compact market and offers superior image quality" !?? One might ask that some numeric value be coded beside each bar (presumably, there is some rhyme & reason to the bar's length). But, really, this LX100 rating --one way or the other-- is off by two measures : absolute (vis-a-vis the "Excellent" position) and relative (vs. GX 7's bars)!

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 16:39 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)

I find it puzzling to read "Excellent stills image quality - especially in Raw" and yet see of the bar-graphed qualities that IQ is the farthest from Excellent of all save for Value (Raw better than JPEG, slightly) !?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 07:12 UTC as 139th comment | 3 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)

Nice graphic showing the lenses' sizes; I'd like to add to that what the size would be were the LX7's scaled up to a similarly reduced-size (for multi-aspect) 1" sensor : it would top the G7 X's speed at about the same range.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 07:05 UTC as 140th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)
In reply to:

raztec: This camera is an amazingly ambitious attempt at creating the perfect compact travel anywhere camera. However, I'm not sure it really hit that mark. But I applaud Panasonic for trying.

The reasons are:

1. The m4/3 size sensor doesn't give significantly better IQ than a 1" sensor. While it gives shallower depth of field, which is great, I believe that's offset by the expensive and slightly compromised lens and much larger size. Even the high ISO isn't significantly better than the Sony RX100III.

2. No tilt screen. This is an absolute must if you want use it as a video camera. It's a huge oversight in my opinion. Flash I can live without, but not a tilt screen.

But where it really delivers is in styling, 4K video (and still capture), fast lens, and manual control options. It's obvious that this is a real photographer's camera. But I believe Panasonic could have achieved all that with a 1" sensor, smaller camera and tilt screen.

I agree in spirit, raztec, but would take some different details : for your item #1, let's get another "name" than "LX..."; and for item #2, I'm willing (maybe you) to see multi-aspect workings reducing the 20mpx max to, e.g., 17-16-17 (would like a larger --than previous LX-- square aspect than crop of 4:3!), and thereby hope that the lens could be as relatively stellar as that 24-90 / 1.4-2.3 of the LX7!! (I want DoF and light, not shallowness, from the "fast" glass!) And maybe the stabilization gets even better, too!

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 05:49 UTC
On photo Wasps_2068 in the Insects or Spiders That Bite or Sting challenge (3 comments in total)

One should remark at the **pair** : typically, queens don't nest in pairs, but sometimes I think that sister queens will move in together --rather, more that one will move in with the other who's already begun a nest. (This tiny nest hasn't produced an adult, we can deduce from the size of cells.) I saw such a sharing happen one time, and it came only grudgingly on the part of the nest maker. There is an advantage : there's a parasitic fly that will lay eggs in the nest if it can --how sad to then see a wasp queen tend to young that will never come.

Good shot,
thanks!

-d.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 02:33 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »