Joel Halbert

Lives in United States Tucson, AZ, United States
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Jul 4, 2003

Comments

Total: 54, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Leica M10 real-world sample gallery (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

RetiredDilettante: I found them no better than my 1952 Browning! I was really looking forward to getting this camera. But these images leave me cold! Aurora? NOTHING about them gave me a sense of "Aurora" IMHO. What happened Leica? Disappointed...

RD,

First, a 1952 Browning would be a rifle or a pistol. Perhaps you mean a 1952 Brownie, which would be a Kodak camera.

Second, if you were really "really looking forward to getting this camera" you might not want to let a batch of DPR samples put you off so easily. Take your time and wait for more before you decide.

Third, as Mustafa said, you might mean "aura" not Aurora. People have discussed the Leica "glow" but no one claims it to be the source of the Northern Lights. And said glow, if achieved, is really a function of the lenses and not the M body itself.

If I were you, I wouldn't infer any radical superiority, nor radical inferiority, of the M10's CMOS imager compared to other FF picture-taking boxes. If you buy it to take pictures, you do so because of the way it operates, the way you would use it and the fact that it is a platform for the lenses.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 18:54 UTC
On article Leica Boss: Hands-on with new Leica M10 (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

Painting with light: I like what I see. The only thing I am really missing is an autofocus. I own a fuji xt2 and a Leica Q. Both are wonderful cameras. The Leica Q is very responsive, the image quality is outstanding, and it is working with a very fast autofocus. The only limitation is the 28 mm lens. It may not be possible for Leica to build a full frame camera this size with exchangeable lenses. If so, I would prefer another Leica Q with a 50 mm lens instead of the Leica M 10.

Point of history - the Leica model II (aka Leica D in the USA) was the first model with built-in coupled rangefinder, and was advertised as "The Autofocal Leica" - and it was, in the day. I don't have a ready link for that ad, but here's a related one advertising a Leica III-series model with the "Automatic Focusing":
http://camerasinthemedia.tumblr.com/post/75027859980/fromand-vintage-leica-ad-automatic-focusing

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 06:53 UTC
On article Leica Boss: Hands-on with new Leica M10 (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Looks nice. Since this is for traditionists, I wonder, would it be too much to ask for that lovely Leica script engraved on that blank top plate? And you can lose the red dot, which is like a guy driving a BMW with a license plate frame that says "BMW."

I'd say it's more like a guy driving a BMW with a BMW grille attached to the front. In other words. a brand-identifying design feature.

Very much like Canon L lenses with red rings., or premium Nikkors with gold rings.

For some reason the Leica red dot logo, which I find not at all objectionable, has been beaten to death as some kind of ever-amusing joke. The joke itself is now a tiresome echo, a predictable snicker in every DPR Leica press-release comment section.

There are Leica exclusivity-appeal practices that I don't particularly like, but the simple and red-dot logo isn't one of them.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 06:28 UTC
In reply to:

dmanthree: Further proof that this wasn't really designed for still shooters. Yes, the new sensor and IS are good, but every review or summary I've seen of this camera focuses on the *very* video-centric features. I'll be acquiring an Oly EM1 II when they're available.

I see this comment quite often, usually to justify Olympus vs. Panasonic. However, it's not clear how the rich video capabilities actually hurt the still-shooting capabilities. If you could explain I'd appreciate it. And since EM1 MkII now has 4k recording and other improved video features, would you say that it too has taken a hit as a desirable still camera?

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 04:41 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I thought the GH4 had auto ISO in manual mode? Does the GH5 have Auto ISO in manual mode plus exposure compensation?

Yes, I think this is one of the most significant points about this camera. Easy to overlook when people complain about sensor size.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (764 comments in total)

My first camera as a boy was a Diana, purchased by my parents for 77 cents at the JCPenney Christmas toy annex in town in 1967 or so. My dad gave me B&W film and taught me to develop and print it. Decades later, the Diana became a cult classic which I think is downright silly; it was serviceable but its poor lens was limiting, not "freeing" as would be claimed.

My first seriously good camera was a Konica Auto S2 rangefinder that my dad also bought for me, in 1974 during a NYC trip, at Olden's which is where he had purchased his own Rollei in the 1950s. The Konica was excellent and I shot lots of Kodachrome as well as B&W.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 17:03 UTC as 459th comment
In reply to:

marc petzold: That Nikon was built into 1948, as the Title says - i know this design from old Camera Gear Websites...but the truth is, as nice & cool looking this Nikon is, that Design was being cloned, copied from Contax, namely the Contax II.

For Comparsion, check here:

https://www.cameraquest.com/zconrf2.htm

http://retinarescue.com/contax2.html

And the Contax II came out back into 1936.

I'd love to see a Nikon FF into this Nikon I or Nikon S(2) Design.

And, can't say it enough once more - to these billionaire types out there, get the rights from Kyocera and rebuilt the Contax brand, make it famous once again...Contax was way often a Innovator & Industry leader in terms of Cameras, its such a shame they have had let this great german brand being vanished...i want them back, who needs Leica....Contax Zeiss lenses have always being a bit sharper then Leicas, whileas not that being expensive back into their heyday.

Nothing bad meant, i'm just a Zeiss Fan since my Teeniedays...and Contax.

Ben, I agree with you except for the bomber story. The FED factory started making Leica copies in the 1930s, well before any opportunity to extract one from an American airplane. Leicas were well-known around the world before the war.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 06:59 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: That Nikon was built into 1948, as the Title says - i know this design from old Camera Gear Websites...but the truth is, as nice & cool looking this Nikon is, that Design was being cloned, copied from Contax, namely the Contax II.

For Comparsion, check here:

https://www.cameraquest.com/zconrf2.htm

http://retinarescue.com/contax2.html

And the Contax II came out back into 1936.

I'd love to see a Nikon FF into this Nikon I or Nikon S(2) Design.

And, can't say it enough once more - to these billionaire types out there, get the rights from Kyocera and rebuilt the Contax brand, make it famous once again...Contax was way often a Innovator & Industry leader in terms of Cameras, its such a shame they have had let this great german brand being vanished...i want them back, who needs Leica....Contax Zeiss lenses have always being a bit sharper then Leicas, whileas not that being expensive back into their heyday.

Nothing bad meant, i'm just a Zeiss Fan since my Teeniedays...and Contax.

Marc, you are right that the body style, the nice long-base RF and the mount* were copied from the Contax II. However, the focal-plane shutter is a horizontal rubberized-cloth type similar to Leica, not the vertical-travelling tambour-style metal blinds of the Contax. IMO this was a good thing. Despite some claims to the contrary, in my experience the old screwmount Leica shutters usually work as found, though sometimes a bit sluggish, while old Contax shutters usually do not.

*The Nikon RF lens-mount is mechanically compatible and works fine with Contax lenses that have their own focusing mechanism (helicoid). However the focusing calibration is not accurately matched between Nikon and Contax for "normal" 50mm lenses that rely on the body's internal focusing system.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 06:51 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jacob the Photographer: Vandalism is impossible to justify. BUT at the same time we have to be realistic , looking at that peculiar rock I can imagine it would not have ben long before it collapsed anyway. Fresh in my mind the not so long ago collapse of an other of the 'Twelve Apostles' off the South Coast of Victoria / Australia. Just Google "Collapse of Twelve Apostles Great Ocean Road". And very recent the collapse of a huge chunk of Sydney Harbor (Port Jackson) North Head. Let's be graceful no one got killed - in Oregon and here in Australia

Jacob, these rock formations are sculpted over eons by wind and water erosion. You cannot get such a formation in less than hundreds of thousands of years even in sandstone. I searched this one and found the estimate of 18 million years. So, left undisturbed by man, it is quite likely this formation would have endured longer than we've inhabited the earth, and almost certainly longer than human civilization has been around which is about one one-thousandth of the time it took to for nature to create it. I am no extremist of the kind who puts nature above human life, but human life was enriched, not threatened, by this object. There is simply no excuse for the vanity, arrogance and stupidity displayed by these "visitors".

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 08:45 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: 30 seconds in (and a few times) they stop on what looks like as 3x5 camera array. Anyone know what that is?

Toselli, the camera you remember was probably a Polaroid Miniportrait, very common in shops that advertised passport photo services, and also for production of personnel ID badges and the like. The film was, of course, Polaroid instant sheet film.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: 30 seconds in (and a few times) they stop on what looks like as 3x5 camera array. Anyone know what that is?

Alphoid, that is a "Royal Mail Postage Stamp Camera', a small and well-known example of a multi-lens camera. The original versions of this, in a few variants, who manufactured by Butcher & Son in England, a bit over 100 years ago. I should note that collectors are often warned to be on the lookout for reproductions of this camera that were made in India in the late 20th century and perhaps ongoing still. (I'm not suggesting that the camera shown here is one of those copies; they are pretty good and there's no way to tell just by looking at the video.)

Generally, multi-lens cameras (often standard wooden studio cameras with a multi-lens board and septum) were not uncommon in professional portrait studios, but usually for producing larger "Cartes de Visite" or other sizes. This "postage stamp" sized output was more of a novelty version, but useful for locket-sized prints etc.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 22:44 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)
In reply to:

LFPCPH: In the past few years we have seen the introduction of 10 (ten) very similar lens bayonets.

Leica T aka (SL)
Nikon 1
Fujifilm X
Canon EF-M
Sony E (NEX)
Four Thirds
Micro Four Thirds
Samsung NX
Leica S
Hasselblad X1D

They all basically do the same. As a consumer I find it frustrating that so many products are incompatible. There are now more such lens mounts then there where lens mounts for 35mm SLR's (I think). There were never that many VCR cassettes types and CD's and tape cassettes were standards for several decades.

It is sad that the camera branch cannot deliver a common standard.

a. Medium format larger than so-called "full-frame": Leica S & Hasselblad X, but again SLR vs. mirrorless.
b. "Full-frame" & APS-C: Leica T/SL, EOS-M, Fuji X, Sony E & Samsung NX. All mirrorless, so here is your biggest opportunity for collaboration.
c. FT vs. MFT - again, transition from SLR (and very telecentric emphasis) to the original mirrorless mount.
d. Nikon 1 - much smaller sensor than MFT.

3. The "mount" is not just mechanical, but also the electronic & electromechanical interface (the contacts and detailed function). Different systems use completely different AF methods, power, lens correction data transfer etc. - and were developed at different times as systems evolved. A cooperative standard would need a much more generalized, reconfigurable and future-proof interface protocol than anyone has actually implemented - though that would be a good thing, it's easy to understand how the interfaces evolved and aren't inter-operable for both technical and competitive reasons.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 16:36 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)
In reply to:

LFPCPH: In the past few years we have seen the introduction of 10 (ten) very similar lens bayonets.

Leica T aka (SL)
Nikon 1
Fujifilm X
Canon EF-M
Sony E (NEX)
Four Thirds
Micro Four Thirds
Samsung NX
Leica S
Hasselblad X1D

They all basically do the same. As a consumer I find it frustrating that so many products are incompatible. There are now more such lens mounts then there where lens mounts for 35mm SLR's (I think). There were never that many VCR cassettes types and CD's and tape cassettes were standards for several decades.

It is sad that the camera branch cannot deliver a common standard.

Interesting observation, and I don't disagree that there could be benefits to both customers and manufacturers from a little more sharing of mounts.

However, there are at least three quite significant technical reasons for this proliferation:

1. Some of the mounts are for swinging-mirror SLR designs, others are for mirrorless product lines. This brings a strongly different minimum lens-to-sensor spacing requirement, which has a fundamental effect on lens design constraints and size.

2. The size of the image varies widely through this list, and this is a pretty fundamental issue in lens mount design, though one could make four broad categories:

(continued next post)

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: It's another Panasonic body and I'm not even sure what it's supposed to replace? Perhaps it's time for Panasonic to start reducing the number of overlapping models? The M43 world is increasingly crowded and there just isn't any real innovation.

Well, the new shutter is real innovation, and apparently very effective. 5-sais IBIS combined with lens-OIS, and available in 4k, is an unmatched combination. No-AA image capture algorithms are a step forward also. Such advanced features appearing first on a non-flagship model is an innovative strategy that seems to be generating a lot of enthusiasm.

Overall it's hardly a me-too effort or a boringly predictable budget model. I look forward to top-send models with these upgrades plus more.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

BradJudy: I like seeing the original Kodak Brownie in the list, but I'm not sure why DPReview chose to highlight an image of a Kodak model that was released 50+ years later.

If you are looking for the first rollfilm and "Kodak" named camera, it isn't a Brownie at all. The first Kodak cameras were introduced in 1888. Those had factory-loaded film and the customer shipped the camera back to Eastman for processing and reloading. The first user-loadable rollfilm "daylight cartridge loading"versions were 1891 I believe. The Brownie name, very popular but not representing all Kodak box cameras, came in 1900.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 16:36 UTC
On article Small but mighty: hands on with the Panasonic GX85/GX80 (309 comments in total)

In section 5: "Like the GX8, the GX85 includes 3-axis in-body image stabilization and a Dual IS system which adds two extra axes if you use a lens with built-in stabilization."

This seems directly to contradict the press-release (and the DPR summary just before it), which says that the In-Body system is 5-axis even before you add the O.I.S. tandem assistance:
"Combining an O.I.S.(Optical Image Stabilizer, 2-axis) and a B.I.S.(Body Image Stabilizer, 5-axis)..."

It seems like this needs to be clarified, and possibly section 5's blurb should be re-written. But thanks for getting the three features out so fast.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 06:53 UTC as 72nd comment | 4 replies
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Canon's G3X is a better buy.

Richard & co. have been beat up, quite recently, for long delays in other Panasonic reviews (namely GX8). I'm guessing they pushed this one out very fast because it changes the landscape of choices in the market, more so than most other camera introductions over the past year. Also perhaps helped by personal enthusiasm from at least one staffer - I detect that in this review, and have seen it quite a bit with (for example) Sony FF cameras lately.

Agreed that if you want to see a review of a camera (because you want to know about it, or because you want others to know about it), it is frustrating when it doesn't occur during the critical first several months of the product replacement cycle.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 01:02 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone please remind me - how big IS a 1" sensor? Even 35mm "full frame" is less than 1" in the shorter dimension ...

Brian

To amplify a bit on Richard's comment that "the naming system is broken" - a snip from a DPR post of mine about 1 year ago:

Image sensor size is described by an arcane standard, and it goes like this:

Back in the early decades of early video, when imaging was done via electron (vacuum) tubes, the image was focused onto a photo-charge-sensitive plate. Typically, the cylindrical glass tube that housed the imaging plate had a diameter of about 1.5 times the imaging plate diagonal. Engineers would refer to the imager size by citing the tube diameter, and since most of the development was in the USA, the measurements were cited in inches.

So, a "one inch" imaging tube housed an imaging plate roughly 2/3 of an inch diagonal, while a "four thirds inch" tube housed an imaging plate just under an inch diagonal.

This nomenclature, as silly as at seems now, has stuck and is used for describing the size of many digital still-camera image formats.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 00:54 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

Searching: Gold 82%........really.

I'd say it seems appropriate. This is a milestone product in the evolving landscape of digital cameras. So was the first TZ travel zoom, so was the first mirrorless ILC, so was the first 1" RX100 compact, and others. Very satisfying performance and versatility in a remarkably small package.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 00:34 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

Florida Kayaker: I don't really get it.
"Overall, the ZS100's photo quality is very good, though not the best in the 1"-type sensor class"
Well yes, detail looks terrible as does color comparatively.
"Despite a few quibbles, the ZS100's image quality is light-years ahead of any other compact travel zoom on the market"
because there is nothing else that qualifies as a travel zoom that employs a 1" sensor?

This review although bestowing "gold" has made me re-think purchasing this camera. I have had it in my basket on Amazon for weeks now but now i'm thinking better to give up the 100-250 range for significantly better image quality found in other 1" compacts. Anyone else feel this way? Maybe my take is all wrong.

"That is to say at the least shouldn't it be as good or comparable IQ to RX100-, G7X, at shorter focal lengths?"

In short, no. As with lenses for interchangeable-lens cameras, greater zoom ratio requires greater performance compromises.

I mostly use Panasonic`s pretty-darn-good 10x zoom on my MFT camera, for convenience, but could do better for critical IQ and low-light by switching between a couple of higher-rated zooms, and of course even better yet with half a dozen primes.

This camera is about versatility and compactness. It is pretty darn good, even by enthusiast standards, in any given situation. What makes it great is the extremely wide range of situations in which it can deliver pretty darn good results, while allowing you to forget it`s there when you`re not shooting.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 00:27 UTC
Total: 54, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »