XeroJay

XeroJay

Lives in Toronto
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Dec 4, 2007

Comments

Total: 160, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DarnGoodPhotos: I agree that it is impressive software, but I think this article would have been better if could compare the off/on images side by side. the 8+ HDR article does that.

Can you control the amount of HDR+? Can you change it after you take the photo like you can with background blur on the iPhone Portrait Mode?

The Pixel is different than other smartphones in that it defaults to HDR with all images. Google has actually said that this is how the camera was designed to be used. It actually has to be manually disabled.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 18:10 UTC
In reply to:

GregFranklin: "Did it do anything that I couldn't with a Raw file and about 30 seconds of post processing? Heck no. But the point is that this is the new normal for a lot of people who take pictures and have no interest in pulling shadows in Photoshop."

Perfectly said.

100% agree. This was my point when they added the Pixel 2 gallery a few weeks back; It gives a look that I spend lots of my life in Lightroom working to get, but without any of the legwork.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 18:08 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (769 comments in total)
In reply to:

XeroJay: Don't get me wrong, I love my EOS M6, but I feel like we're hitting a point now where any compact digital camera system is basically diminishing returns, as smartphones like the Pixel and current iPhones are really closing that gap. As a working pro I rely on all the horsepower that a full frame pro system can offer. In my personal life though, I'm finding that the phone is just giving me less reason to bother bringing a dedicated camera to most outings, let alone lenses and accessories.

Sirandar: I don't know how exactly the HDR on the Pixel works, but you can have quite a bit of movement and it does not seem to affect the HDR imaging in any way. I have yet to see any double-image or ghosting. It just feels like a single shot.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 17:29 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (769 comments in total)
In reply to:

XeroJay: Don't get me wrong, I love my EOS M6, but I feel like we're hitting a point now where any compact digital camera system is basically diminishing returns, as smartphones like the Pixel and current iPhones are really closing that gap. As a working pro I rely on all the horsepower that a full frame pro system can offer. In my personal life though, I'm finding that the phone is just giving me less reason to bother bringing a dedicated camera to most outings, let alone lenses and accessories.

Ebrahim Saadawi: why bother with a compact system like the M100 if you're going to buy and carry all of those lenses and adaptors then? Why not a more complete system with full manual control and less gimmicky faux picture styles?

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 15:19 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (769 comments in total)
In reply to:

XeroJay: Don't get me wrong, I love my EOS M6, but I feel like we're hitting a point now where any compact digital camera system is basically diminishing returns, as smartphones like the Pixel and current iPhones are really closing that gap. As a working pro I rely on all the horsepower that a full frame pro system can offer. In my personal life though, I'm finding that the phone is just giving me less reason to bother bringing a dedicated camera to most outings, let alone lenses and accessories.

For those who are saying "try the EOS-M with a bunch of other lenses and accessories and you see the difference..." You're missing my original point: I'm a pro photographer with an extensive kit of full frame bodies and about 12 lenses an other great gear. The my point is that the EOS M starts quickly becoming as cumbersome as a full sized DSLR when you as all of these things, at which point, I might as well grab my 5DIV and a couple of lenses instead. Me phone on the other hand, is already with me, taking up no hands until I need a quick shot.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 15:12 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (769 comments in total)

Don't get me wrong, I love my EOS M6, but I feel like we're hitting a point now where any compact digital camera system is basically diminishing returns, as smartphones like the Pixel and current iPhones are really closing that gap. As a working pro I rely on all the horsepower that a full frame pro system can offer. In my personal life though, I'm finding that the phone is just giving me less reason to bother bringing a dedicated camera to most outings, let alone lenses and accessories.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 01:54 UTC as 146th comment | 24 replies
In reply to:

justmeMN: So, DxOMark gives this camera high marks in "Sports". Hmm. :-)

Yeah, DxO REALLY needs to change the wording of their high iso category from "Sports" to just "Low Light".
Just goes to show, they may know a great deal about sensors, but really have no clue about cameras or photography.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 16:35 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

medon78: Colors suck.
The iPhone 8+ Gallery is much better in comparison, although even these iPhone images have poor color rendition.
Somehow these image galleries of both the iPhone and the Pixel phone seem unnatural, kind of over-processed. I do like much more the look of classic cameras, even phone cameras, which do less background-processing.

Are you kidding me? It looks as though the photographer was intentionally trying to find the most challenging scenes possible for the Pixel... All that backlit, mixed lighting, high contrast is not easily captured. The iphone gallery is much more "ideal" in terms of conditions. Regardless, look at the indoor tungsten shots in the iphone gallery; they're far too warm. This is a point for the pixel.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 14:56 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): This is good news! No more pesky software pirates. The royal navy of subscription service is here to save the day. I will definitely support this with my hard earned money.

+1.
Adobe has been one of the most pirated software companies ever. They've made it fair and competitive with their existing product model, but closed the door to pirates. Good.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:45 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)
In reply to:

dylanear: Hear hear!!!

After 22+ years of loyalty to Adobe, always paying for my software, but only when they offered enough improvements to justify an upgrade, I am done. Having to pay monthly forever to see/use raw edits from the past is beyond ridiculous to me. NO WAY I'm going to get trapped into that and loose control of MY images.

Bye Adobe. I really will miss you. But this is one step too far.

Yeah but, it's not the legitimate paying customers who have and will continue to pay for Adobe products and updates who are affected by this; it's the pirate, serial, keygen players who are out of luck now, and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:39 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2114 comments in total)
In reply to:

caravan: Could this be the last great mirror box cameras ?

Fine job Nikon.

I'm done with mirrors. Literally. I shoot professionally full time, and I use the 5DIV, but I basically live with live view now. Canon's DPAF easily destroys using the mirror PDAF in terms of accuracy, precision, and subject recognition and tracking. Not to mention the other benefits; low light AF in almost pitch dark, and no longer needing to chimp shots. The mirror is dead for me.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 23:32 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

turvyT: I have the impression that my iphone 4s produces same or better pictures most of the time. Not kidding.

Yeah I had a 4s. Yours must have been a whole different 4s, cause mine couldn't touch this.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 21:58 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Camp Freddy: Pretty astounding DR for a mobile- multiple exposure merging on the fly? Better DR than iPhone 8, also with colours which seem true in hue if a little over saturated.

Oh, btw dpr images are pretty compromised on detail. But when will an image taken on one of these ever be viewed 2000 px wide from two inches away from thw screen? They'rw going to FB, snap and Insta' people !

I think the Pixel 2 has a lot more going for it than just the camera. Lots of people buy expensive phones for many different reasons.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

medon78: Colors suck.
The iPhone 8+ Gallery is much better in comparison, although even these iPhone images have poor color rendition.
Somehow these image galleries of both the iPhone and the Pixel phone seem unnatural, kind of over-processed. I do like much more the look of classic cameras, even phone cameras, which do less background-processing.

I thought the iPhone 8 gallery looked just as good too, maybe better... Until I got to the indoor low light shots of the iPhone. This is where the Pixel walks all over the iPhone.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 15:54 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (140 comments in total)

I hate to admit it, being a pro photographer, but except for the fake portrait shots, these images all look incredible for full-auto, straight out of camera (er, phone). I spend considerable time and resources processing DSLR images in Lightroom from pro photographers, with the goal of ending up with this final look. To have a phone just get it right without any legwork should really be a wake-up call to SoCaNikon. So far only the EOS-M comes anywhere near "kind of close" to this level of intelligent automatic image acquisition, and it isn't that close.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 15:37 UTC as 36th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

mattz10: Google talks about "unlimited original quality"
but here https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6220791?hl=en they say
"Photos are compressed to save space. If a photo is larger than 16MP, it will be resized to 16MP."

And 12MP < 16MP

I probably shouldn't reveal this, as I don't want to ruin the party for myself, but I do own a Pixel. I also use Canon's wifi app to transfer images from my Eos M6 and 5DIV to my phone. These images get added to my google photos account, and since I have the Pixel, they get added in Original quality. See for yourself: https://photos.app.goo.gl/a903clUCNFjn63LS2
That's a 24MP M6 image, right from the camera to the phone, then from the phone to google photos. It is the exact same size and resolution as the file on the SD card.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

mattz10: Google talks about "unlimited original quality"
but here https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6220791?hl=en they say
"Photos are compressed to save space. If a photo is larger than 16MP, it will be resized to 16MP."

And 12MP < 16MP

That's only for the"high quality" setting. This article is about the the original quality setting for Google photos.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 15:05 UTC

I think manipulation of subjects in a image should have to be stated in this scenario. It sets a presence for truth in advertising the reality of an image to be made known. It will likely put additional pressures on models, unfortunately. It will also reveal the true imperfections of celebrities. The bottom line though, is that this just requires that manipulation be revealed. That's fair.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 15:19 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

XeroJay: Didn't like the Quantum Q Flash 15 years ago, and this looks basically like the same thing.

Obviously I realize it's not a rebrand. It's just not a new concept by any stretch, and the old concept was one that I happily passed on. BTW, the go-to for portable lighting 15-20 years ago was the Metz Mecablitz system. Your local shop should know that.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

XeroJay: Didn't like the Quantum Q Flash 15 years ago, and this looks basically like the same thing.

What?! Who ever said the Quantum Q flash was the "go-to" for wedding and event photographers?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 23:47 UTC
Total: 160, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »