mmartel

Joined on Feb 3, 2013

Comments

Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

steven gaspari: Lets not try to make it more than it is...this sites main goal is to sell you on new gear...who sells new gear?...amazon of course...who makes new gear...sony of course!
There is infinite amounts of money to be made selling you new gear...improving your photographic skills...not so much.

Heaven forbid people be interested in gear! And how dare a website about photography equipment discuss gear!

/s

Link | Posted on May 17, 2018 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

James Benet: Big Fan, wish you all the best! Glad you are staying in Canada. DPreview made a good choice!

+1

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2018 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

escapewheel: A recent trip to Disney brought me out of my mirrorless / enthusiast bubble. By far, most of the ILC's I saw were: entry-level Canon DSLR and Nikon 1 mirrorless - 2 cameras very near the bottom of my list of cameras I'd want to use personally. These companies are in the business of moving units, and they're going to continue to produce what sells best, regardless of whether its really a better product than the competition. The average consumer doesn't visit DP Review, so they're buying what marketing or the sales guys suggest...

Maybe we see what we want to see?

Was at Disneyland in Anaheim 2 weeks ago for 3 days.

I was one of two Nikon 1 owners I saw in those 3 days.

The rest were 99% phones.

The remaining 1% were mostly crop DSLR, more Canon than Nikon, mostly with kit zoom lens. A very small number of full frame users here and there with heavy 2.8 zooms. Perhaps a small number more than that had mirrorless, a mix of Sony A series, Fuji, and Olympus. I don't think I saw a single Panasonic or Canon mirrorless, and I definitely didn't see a single point and shoot.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2018 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: Now imagine these shots with an adequate camera like a D850 or A7Riii...

@ZeBebito, are you skewering Canon? Or saying if can't afford a $3500+ body and a $1000 lens, you should just stick with your cell phone (or at least have the decency to not share your rubbish shots with the world)?

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2018 at 16:43 UTC
On article Buying Guide: The best cameras for parents (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

dnscott645: The best camera for parents would be a good quality cell phone such as the iPhone 8, Galaxy 8, or equivalent, not large sophisticated camera.

@dnscott645 clearly doesn't have kids.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 06:37 UTC
On article Buying Guide: The best cameras for parents (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

xiao_xiang: Fantastic use case.

What I feel is missing is some FF options. Why? Because in this use case you have low light situations and also high movement in low light. A good quality FF with affordable fast prime is just what the doctor ordered.

Whether it's a sleeping baby, a private moment between mother and baby, or the kid running full speed out of their room not wanting to go to bed - low light and high shutter speed with best of class focus is what is needed.

@xiao_xiang

I followed the advice of folks like you who say to get a fast prime, and you'll get beautiful low light pictures indoors.

Based on my experience, that worked out not as well as expected for light and focus/depth of field reasons. Natural sun light is great but standard tungsten and fluorescent light is crap from a color quality perspective. Bounced flash provides much better colors.

Also, one can bounce flash AND use a fast prime stopped down a bit which provides a nice balance of background blur, depth of field, great colors on the subject, and high shutter speed to freeze motion.

Also, to clarify, I only recommend a hotshoe mounted flash tilted to the ceiling to bounce. It's plenty of power. And it's no hassle. I just leave it on the camera.

Anyway, glad you're happy with your approach. I don't think it's the best or easiest for most people, but tastes, equipment, and lighting differ.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 02:10 UTC
In reply to:

Stigg: this kid had more balls and guts than everyone on dpreview combined - definitely including myself. a rebel with a cause, he could have gone a long way in life if he didn't go down. i've seen a lot here in the streets of NYC and for a time photographed the aftermath - most of it for the most trivial and meaningless reasons. for a short while mr. yongning was on top of the world.

Highly risky, death-defying behavior requires grand courage... grand foolishness... grand delusion... Or some mix of the three.

Some care more about fame and a big thrill more than anything else, including life itself.

Is that guts? Desperation? A mental illness? I'm not sure what the case is here.

It was surely his life to throw away. Just hope he didn't land on anyone on the way down.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 01:23 UTC
On article These are the best cameras you can buy right now (486 comments in total)
In reply to:

snapa: I wish DPR would stop trying to tell us what cameras/lenses to buy and spend more time and energy posting full reviews of them. That way, we can all decide for ourselves what is best for our own personal needs.
I'm just getting a bit tired of having someone else tell me what they think "I" should buy. If you look at the first page on DPR, there is at least 10 articles trying (hinting) to buy something, and only 1 review, of a PHONE! :-/

You're trolling, right?

This is an annual feature, not a new one, similar to those run by just about any peer site in the consumer electronics during the Christmas buying cycle.

Why should Consumer Reports, Wirecutter, Imaging Resource, and CNET be the only sites telling you the editor's picks in various categories?

And publishers DO have to pay salaries and hosting costs and office rent and so forth. Do you want this site to go out of business?

Let DPR run their content. If you want more of something, ask for it. But don't tell them what you don't want to see. Just don't click on it. Simple.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 15:15 UTC
On article Buying Guide: The best cameras for parents (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

xiao_xiang: Fantastic use case.

What I feel is missing is some FF options. Why? Because in this use case you have low light situations and also high movement in low light. A good quality FF with affordable fast prime is just what the doctor ordered.

Whether it's a sleeping baby, a private moment between mother and baby, or the kid running full speed out of their room not wanting to go to bed - low light and high shutter speed with best of class focus is what is needed.

I disagree. Low light still demands wide aperture unless you're using flash. Wide aperture means narrow depth of field. On FF and even on APS-C, there's very little margin to miss focus, especially on moving subjects.

I think the best advice and cheapest route for most parents is to get an external flash, bounce it off the ceiling, and capture the image with a DSLR with kit lens, MILC with kit lens, or even DSLR-styled 1" superzoom. Set it to shoot it with Auto ISO, max aperture, min 1/160s to 1/60s depending on subject motion. Capture RAW+JPG if they're not comfortable with RAW only yet.

Indoor and outdoor shots in decent light will look great with any of these rigs. You'll nail sharp focus every time and have beautifully-illuminated scenes that bring out colors, textures, and skin tones.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: Sounds about right. Has Nikon made a single compact worth buying in the last 5 years, except for the Coolpix A if you got it on closeout, or the P900 or B700 ultra-superzooms?

They had no answer whatsoever to the onslaught of 1" sensor cams from Sony, Panasonic, and Canon that ate up the money of anyone who cared about the quality of their compact camera. Low-end buyers just went for their smartphones.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the Nikon 1? As in 1" sensor? The V1 launched before the RX100, actually.

Of course it turned out to be a flawed product strategy. Turns out people who are willing to buy a small sensor want the camera to be as small as possible - and having fixed lenses vs interchangeable lenses is just better in that regard. It also turns out beyond birders people who want to zoom a lot don't really care about a small body.

Nikon also thought people would value and wish to use their lenses forever and just trade up bodies every few years as the tech improves, just like with their DSLRs. They should have approached it more like phones or TVs, like Sony. Upgrade the whole thing every few years and sell or give away the old one. Disposables.

By the time Nikon pivoted to DL series, it was clear there wouldn't be room in the market.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Jeez, what a loser. Doesn't he know that fill flash is anathema to the DPR philosophy.
The only acceptable method to deal with contrast is to spend hours analyzing dynamic range charts, buy the camera with the best specs regardless of price and ignoring any investment in the camera system he already owns, shoot to over-expose the photo to a very specific, though maddeningly undefined and arbitrary, ""ETTR" value and then spend countless hours processing the photo to recover image data which may or may not be there due to his belief in the theory that there's no such thing as a "correct" exposure.

Nailed it.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 02:42 UTC
On article Don't buy another lens, buy a flash instead (336 comments in total)

I agree very much with this advice for family amateur photographers (or moms and dads).

Once I learned about bounce flash, I enjoyed the results from indoor family portraits and casual events much more than struggling to get the right ambient/natural light and balancing depth of field with a fast prime. Most homes have terrible lighting for good photography!

For family casual photographers: Better results and way cheaper to go kit lens and hotshoe mounted flash than fast prime. (Of course fast primes have their place, too!)

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 14:02 UTC as 113th comment
In reply to:

firesurfer: ah, excuse me. The cell phone killed the Nikon 1, as well as many others.

@BarnET

I own 1" and APS-C. In decent light, the quality difference is negligible. Yes, you'll get some potential for shallower depth of field with the larger format and that had its charms. Aside from a that, I've looked at the image tests here and at sites like imaging resource. In ordinary print sizes, the difference in quality between m4/3 and 1" in decent light is negligible.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 15:31 UTC
In reply to:

firesurfer: ah, excuse me. The cell phone killed the Nikon 1, as well as many others.

@BarnET

Because some people already have lens investments, and the quality difference between 1" and m4/3 in decent light is negligible. But yes, of you were buying new, it would make way more sense to buy m4/3.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 14:59 UTC
In reply to:

firesurfer: ah, excuse me. The cell phone killed the Nikon 1, as well as many others.

The cell phone has diminished demand for all compact cameras.

That said, I think the Sony RX line and Nikon's own product waffling around 1" (fixed lens vs interchangeable) had more to do with the failure of the N1 line.

The J5 is actually a pretty decent body with the same very capable sensor as the Sony RX line. It's just that most people don't want interchangeable lenses in a compact consumer body.

The J5s biggest problem is that it really should have been a V4 - with detachable EVF and grip, dual shutter, and external flash option. But Nikon had already decided to go down the DL path instead.

I still think a V4 could be a hit product. It'd just be a hit within a very, very limited market. And probably wouldn't make enough money to be worth the risk.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
On article Nikon announces midrange D7500 DSLR (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

redhed17: The more Nikon does, the less I understand their reasoning. Make minor improvements on a previous model, but then take features away that were on the previous model. :-/

You would think one of the aims of a new camera is to appeal to users of the previous model, and yet they take stuff away that those users may have been using on the previous camera, muddying the water on whether an upgrade is worth it.

It seems penny pinching at its worse, and a lack of respect to their users, which may improve their profits per unit, but maybe not if people pass on the lukewarm update.

Because product strategy.

D7xxx was originally supposed to be high end enthusiast, not pro. But somewhere near the start of the D7200 planning cycle, Nikon planners decided that the distinction wasn't significant enough or market niches large enough to build both products. So they added the cheapest features they could to the 7200 to try to keep some pro appeal while also keeping cost down: double SD slots, for example.

After launching the D7200, of course it became apparent that the strategy failed. If anything, it hastened the departure of Nikon pro DX users to alternative systems.

They then decided to build the D500 to retain the pro DX users. Previous features are distinctly pro needs like dual SD slots get tossed.

Sucks for pros who want a D500 at a D7XXX price. Makes sense for Nikon.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
On article Lenovo Moto G5 Plus camera first impressions review (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

JCoolowski: This will probably be my next phone.
I have the G3 and It's a good cameraphone, I especially like the motorola camera app with the easy exposure compensation, and quickstarting the camera via handmotion or double tap on the powerbutton.

I think you'll be very happy. I upgraded from a G3 to a G4 Plus and although it took some adjustment to get used to the larger size, I love it - camera, battery, display all superior. The G5 Plus with its slightly smaller size should be even easier to move over to and love. Heck, I'm even considering moving over to it.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 14:35 UTC
On article Lenovo Moto G5 Plus camera first impressions review (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

thx1138: It still seems that smartphones are given a free pass because they only have their IQ examined at smartphone size. The 100% jpg's still blow chunks, painterly mush and over sharpened, what we used to get from cheap P&S 10 years ago. The IQ is only fit for social media.

Disagree, but of course this might vary depending on what phone and p+s you're comparing.

I'd say certainly the JPG output on my Moto G4 Plus phone is equivalent or better than my Panasonic LX7 (defaults) or TS5 shot at the same ISO. In fact I slightly prefer the G4 Plus output.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

runbei99: The Nikon 1 Series were the cameras that everyone panned and frowned at until they actually used them. And then - wow, did Nikon squeeze some special juice out of that tiny sensor. My V1 pics (in good light) still look wonderful to me, even though I'm shooting with a Canon full-frame 6D these days. In low light, ugh, ISO 3200 that destroys skin. Not sorry I sold the V1, but in the right conditions it was spectacularly ... nice.

Mostly agree, with the sentiment of your post.

That said, in low light, the Nikon 1 with 18.5/1.8 is faster than the RX100s, which are roughly a full stop slower at medium-range focal lengths.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 07:54 UTC
On article Nikon D5600 sample gallery (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: According to DxO Mark, the D5600 Performance is the same as the D5500 - so 1st Timers should get (if into the Market buying a 1st DSLR from Nikon) the D5500 with 18-55 AF-P for a bargain price, and upgrade Lenses later.

Instead of dropping all 2 years new DX Bodies on the Market - Nikon should finally start to produce a decent DX Lens Lineup, not always these 18-55, 18-xxx Iterations - that nobody needs or wants.

How about a decent 24, 35mm DX Prime in FF-terms focal length? A 23mm/1.8 DX (35mm FF-equal) , since the D100 - not there - check....a 16mm/1.8 DX - check, not there (24mm FF-equal)...and so on...Nikon really lost it's way here - the only DX Lens which is good, albeit very expensive from the latest Zooms: 16-80E VR - but still, for this price, i'd go -if i wouldn't have that focal length- 100% for a FF 24-70 2.8 VC Tamron, or even better, the Tokina ATX-Pro 24-70/2.8 - because both lenses are worth the price.
In APS-C terms, i go Fuji - because Fujifilm cares about lenses.

@calxoddity Same boat. I do love my D5100, though! I don't see any reason to upgrade the body either, given what I shoot and my workflow and print size needs.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 01:05 UTC
Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »