fPrime

fPrime

Lives in United States CA, United States
Joined on Jul 17, 2012

Comments

Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Canon EOS M5 real-world sample gallery (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Ok...

I click in this review link and the very first image I see - a simple shot of an apple chosen by Allison to illustrate the first page - has a color rendition, tone mapping range, micro contrast management and appropriate sharpness acuity that make the apple look like it is popping in 3D from my monitor.

If people can't see what Canon cameras bring to the table (...regardless of weaker or stronger feature sets than the competition...) in terms of sheer overall image quality, I really can't help them.

You're confusing strong color contrast pop in the apple shot with 3D pop. The rest of the M5 samples underscore that its lens struggles to render any meaningful rendition of depth in routine use. This gallery actually counts among some of the flattest examples of practical photography that DPR has recently posted.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 16:20 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: A very good, professional lens for sure - Photozone tested it already over a year ago, but not with a final statement here:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/964-canon35f14mk2?start=2

Photozone came to the conclusion: ..."The USM AF is silent and fast but the competition is pretty much on the same level nowadays. Speaking of the competition we are primarily talking about the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art."

So, whileas it's not exactly the same thing, one could be way happy with the Sigma 35/1.4 Art...for those, who really need it.

But for this amount of money, even whileas owning a way old 5D, i'd choose a classical MF, Zeiss 35/1.4 - why?! Because of the Zeiss Colors, Rendering & 3D Pop, therefore...i mean, *if* i would have that money, and really need that fast lens speed urgently.

Because i don't, i am way happy with the older C/Y 35/2.8 Lenses, and a fast Samyang 35/1.4 MF is good enough for my needs, as amateur.

@Marc - Well said... some lenses have great 3D pop, others not so much.

This is why I wish DPR would put forth some effort to test lenses for their 3D Pop rendering capability. If they're already going through the effort to take comparator shots to evaluate bokeh quality, why not do the same with a test scene involving three dimensional objects in the foreground, focus plane, and background to evaluate spatial rendering? Seems stone cold simple.

I simply can't believe that no one at DPR has ever owned a Zeiss lens nor is able to differentiate photos with high 3D Pop from those that are flat.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 16:40 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Personally the 35L Mk I is a better choice for me than the 35L Mk II. I prefer the older lens for it's well known ability to produce superb 3D pop.

Sure, at pixel level the 35L Mk II is slightly sharper and has better correction for CA. But these same optical corrections have also robbed a little of the 3D magic from it. This was the penalty for adding 3 more elements to the design. The lower element count rendering of the older 35L Mk I contributes to its ability to create a deeper illusion of depth.

Wish DPR would have included some comparative examples of real three dimensional objects so the depth rendering could have been studied. The examples here are unfortunately flat, distant objects and therefore only useful for comparing sharpness and CA.

@Rishi - There are plenty of theories about the flattening effect of multiple lens elements, for the sake of moving forward let's choose to disagree whether they are sound or not. And many photographer's and sites obviously reference '3D pop' as the term appears ubiquitously in the discussion of lenses. If you think it's too "vague" a term then please feel free to propose a better one.

May I suggest that if you guys are looking into ways to do controlled comparisons of bokeh quality then it's not much of a stretch to also do comparisons on the ways lenses render depth. Since plenty of other lens review sites already cover sharpness, CA, bokeh, and vignetting in their lens reviews, DPR could distinguish itself by comparing how lenses render 3D space. Certainly would make for more interesting discussion as well versus comparing color fringes on micro details of the Seattle skyline or bikes against a hedge.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 00:32 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: A very good, professional lens for sure - Photozone tested it already over a year ago, but not with a final statement here:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/964-canon35f14mk2?start=2

Photozone came to the conclusion: ..."The USM AF is silent and fast but the competition is pretty much on the same level nowadays. Speaking of the competition we are primarily talking about the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art."

So, whileas it's not exactly the same thing, one could be way happy with the Sigma 35/1.4 Art...for those, who really need it.

But for this amount of money, even whileas owning a way old 5D, i'd choose a classical MF, Zeiss 35/1.4 - why?! Because of the Zeiss Colors, Rendering & 3D Pop, therefore...i mean, *if* i would have that money, and really need that fast lens speed urgently.

Because i don't, i am way happy with the older C/Y 35/2.8 Lenses, and a fast Samyang 35/1.4 MF is good enough for my needs, as amateur.

@iamatrix - If one still shoots with a 5D Mk I these days then one probably does that for the extra color fidelity that its strict CFA and low density sensor enable. If you're shooting with high density micro 4/3's sensors and an adapted Zeiss lens don't expect them to be able to record the better color, rendering, or 3D pop that the 5D Classic does with the same optic. My chips fall with Marc on this one.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 22:57 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

HarryLally: Rather a 'rave' review - could almost have been written by Canon. The Photozone review (using the same camera) is more balanced IMHO. The lens still gets an excellent review, but it's rather less gushing.

Just look at how the word plastic is treated every time it's used by the reviewer... it's never used in isolation like it should be but always sugared up with marketing hyperbole like "engineering-grade" plastic or "tough" plastic.

Then look at how he characterizes the build... it's never described accurately as slightly above average but instead as "robust", "beefed-up", "military grade", even "extra-robust"? LOL

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 16:56 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (284 comments in total)

Personally the 35L Mk I is a better choice for me than the 35L Mk II. I prefer the older lens for it's well known ability to produce superb 3D pop.

Sure, at pixel level the 35L Mk II is slightly sharper and has better correction for CA. But these same optical corrections have also robbed a little of the 3D magic from it. This was the penalty for adding 3 more elements to the design. The lower element count rendering of the older 35L Mk I contributes to its ability to create a deeper illusion of depth.

Wish DPR would have included some comparative examples of real three dimensional objects so the depth rendering could have been studied. The examples here are unfortunately flat, distant objects and therefore only useful for comparing sharpness and CA.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 16:47 UTC as 61st comment | 9 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Casio QV-4000 (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: You guys might as well stop doing these if you are just going to write a couple of paragraphs and link to old reviews. We can all search for old reviews on our own. The quality of these Throwback Thursday posts has dropped tremendously.

The 5D throwback was a valuable contribution because it involved actual work by DPR to test an old classic against its current camera comparator scene. Similar value would come from testing other DSLR classics like the D1x, D200, and S5 Pro.

Let's face it... these kind of Throwback Thursdays are throwaways.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 05:27 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Nikon D40 (174 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: I loved these cameras. I still remember the backlash when D40/x were announced. The photography forums were boiling with fury about how super simplified it is. Damn, what's next! A DSLR with a plastic lens mount or without manual settings? And true, it looked pretty stupid on paper.

Then I got a D40x for one day (for a review) and I fell in love with it. It had the most important features of my D200 - the same IQ, decent AF (compared to the previous gen), a surprisingly good viewfinder (for the price and again compared to D50), a good LCD, very solid built (unlike the cheap Canons of the time), no hassle, no fuss, just a very solid camera.

Later I got the D60 myself. I liked the D3100 as well although it seemed that with every iteration Nikon messed up some detail (D60 - the HDR mode or whatever; D3000 - Guide mode, D3100 - the two I had were buggy as hell). Still solid cameras to this day, although not as interesting anymore compared to low-cost MILCs. I've switched to V1 myself.

Low density CCD's had strict, legacy CFA's which meant that rich colors (like blue skies) could be recorded simultaneously alongside subtle colors (like skin) with equal fidelity and without the need to amplify either.

The high density CMOS sensors of today have weak CFA's that are better suited for capturing light at high ISO than they are for discriminating color. To capture useable images they are forced to rely on aggressive color transforms to push up weak sensor signals which limits how richly they can then render a mixed scene of weak and strong color. That's basically why the rich blue skies of the D40 are still so impressive today... we just can't get these sort of dense colors from today's high resolution sensors anymore.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 22:48 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: The Nikkor 24mm 2.8D... lots of contrasty 3D pop, great colors, compact and light, plenty sharp, and more than fast enough unless one doesn't own a decent flash.

Only $250 on the used lens market compared to spending over $700 for either the Nikon 24 1.8G or Sigma. Just sayin'...

@ philharris: If you're happy with the flat images from a zoom lens then what follows may not line up nicely with your expectations. Nikon's 1.8G's vary in performance but are uniformly bigger, heavier, and more expensive than their D counterparts. Only the 20 and 28 G's have decent 3D pop, however, the rest are as flat as your zoom. The D primes generally have great pop so I'd only suggest avoiding the 20 and 28 D in favor of their G replacements.

@ kewlguy: Oh, I have seen! I'm talking Nikon D pop levels here versus the rather meh G lenses and the uniformly flat Sigma lenses. Zeiss and Voigtlander are obviously in another 3D pop league altogether. ;-)

@ Nicolai: Who cares what's happening in the corners of your wessing photos if the main subjects in the center of the frame are rendered flat as a pancake?

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 00:51 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)

The Nikkor 24mm 2.8D... lots of contrasty 3D pop, great colors, compact and light, plenty sharp, and more than fast enough unless one doesn't own a decent flash.

Only $250 on the used lens market compared to spending over $700 for either the Nikon 24 1.8G or Sigma. Just sayin'...

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 19:38 UTC as 30th comment | 6 replies
On article Petzval 58mm real-world samples (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: I'm not a fan of the swirly bokeh, but some of these samples have very nice 3D pop.

No wonder why the pop... only 4 elements in 3 groups. If they made this lens without the swirly bokeh it might be an excellent prime for general 3D pop.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 22:46 UTC
On article Petzval 58mm real-world samples (58 comments in total)

I'm not a fan of the swirly bokeh, but some of these samples have very nice 3D pop.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 18:33 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: the Samsung NV10 (75 comments in total)

Punchy and vibrant colors thanks to the CCD sensor, but a Schneider-KREUZNACH lens that renders everything shot with it flat as a pancake.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 15:01 UTC as 51st comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS 5D (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

henrikbengtsson: And there they are again, those perfectly balanced images in terms of pleasing colors. I don't know what Canon and Adobe did back then, but they sure made images look better from scratch. There was a warmer, almost filmlike Fuji-touch which is more obvious now when comparing with todays super-contrasty profiles and - to be honest - not always great colors.

You can thank the the strict legacy CFA's that were used by both Canon and Nikon at the time. After 2007 the race for higher resolution and higher ISO performance drove both manufacturers to progressively weaken the CFA's in their later cameras to allow more light to reach the sensor at the expense of color fidelity.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 11:36 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS 5D (224 comments in total)

I'm currently on two week holiday in central China with only my 5Dc and a solo 35mm 1.4L Mark 1 lens. As others have already mentioned, the colors and tonality produced by the 5Dc's huge full frame pixels and strict legacy CFA are unmatched by today's high megapixel monsters. Add a classic lens like the 35L
Mk 1 and you return with vibrant images that are rich in three dimensionality. Wouldn't trade this combo for a 5DSr as I prefer the color of the 5Dc and frankly don't need more than 12 MP resolution!

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 14:03 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS 5D (224 comments in total)

Excellent way to add some classic cameras into the comparator, DPR! The 5D Classic is perfect choice to start with as well based on the special place it holds in the evolution of digital cameras and the unique features it still offers today (low pixel density sensor with a strong legacy CFA).

Please consider the following classics for upcoming throwbacks... the Nikon D1x, D200, and D700 and the Fuji S5 Pro. Each are still treasured by photographers today for their special color quality.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 13:27 UTC as 49th comment
On article Photoshop CC 2015.5.1 available (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Hmm... looks like mostly bug fixes instead of feature enhancements again. I am following what Adobe is doing with CC but honestly still don't see anything substantial or critical to my work that they've added since going subscription.

Meanwhile I'm still entirely happy with my standalone Photoshop CS6 edition. Cost per month... nada. Best purchase I ever made in retrospect.

@ Nobby2016: Your point about ACR being orphaned is true... if that's their marketing strategy for CC then Adobe must think most people are still on the camera upgrade treadmill. Too bad for them that the market is showing the reverse.

Luckily for me I don't use ACR for RAW conversion and Canikon aren't releasing any newer cameras that appeal to my interests. ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 17:04 UTC
On article Photoshop CC 2015.5.1 available (89 comments in total)

Hmm... looks like mostly bug fixes instead of feature enhancements again. I am following what Adobe is doing with CC but honestly still don't see anything substantial or critical to my work that they've added since going subscription.

Meanwhile I'm still entirely happy with my standalone Photoshop CS6 edition. Cost per month... nada. Best purchase I ever made in retrospect.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 16:24 UTC as 26th comment | 7 replies
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)

I'm not opposed to the "new" studio test scene, but year(s) after launch it still has no older cameras in it's database... only cameras released in the last four years. Although it may be a surprise to the DPR editors, there still a lot of people who still shoot with a D700 or D3s. It'd be great to be able to compare these classics against the D5 or D810 on the comparator, wouldn't it? Similar examples could be found for Canon, Leica, Sony, Pentax, etc. Adding a handful of classic cameras to the comparator would reconnect it with the large user base still enjoying older tech.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 16:43 UTC as 40th comment | 3 replies

Thanks for posting a real world use of the tech. Although interesting to see, I leave with the impression that the Theta is a device that is broadly suitable for its time... quick disposable images for the age of posting disposable I-was-there selfies on Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 15:58 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »