Royal Majesty

Joined on Sep 22, 2012

Comments

Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

BG_CX3_DPREVIEW: Nice, in the end, its still just a MFT.

Lol, BG! :D

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2018 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: The reason for the "deceased" battery life in the GX9 is because the GX9 now has a flash whereas the GX8 doesn't. CIPA Standards for measuring battery life in a digital camera with a flash is that every other photo taken must use full-power flash illumination. Therefore, the GX9 gets 130 non-flash photos AND 130 full-power-flash photos whereas the GX8 gets 340 non-flash photos. DPReview should have explained that.

I would imagine that full-power flash in the GX9 would be consuming around half of the battery power used to make that photo. If so, those 130 full-power-flash photos would consume as much battery as 260 non-flash photos. If so, then the GX9 would actually be getting about 390, or 50 more than the GX8, non-flash photos per charge.

Besides, who shoots 50% of their photos with full-power built-in flash? And so I propose that CIPA should have a 3rd battery rating which would be for 25% of photos to be taken at full flash output, and a 4th battery rating with every photo to be taken at full flash output. Lol, but I digress...

Alas, while I obviously haven't put the GX9 through a CIPA test for non-flash number of photos on a single full-battery cycle, I would still venture a confident guess that for non-flash photography the GX9 will take about as many photos as the GX8 will, give or take a few percent. In other words, my bet is that there is a negligible difference in battery consumption between the 2, and *possibly* a higher rating for the GX9.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2018 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: The reason for the "deceased" battery life in the GX9 is because the GX9 now has a flash whereas the GX8 doesn't. CIPA Standards for measuring battery life in a digital camera with a flash is that every other photo taken must use full-power flash illumination. Therefore, the GX9 gets 130 non-flash photos AND 130 full-power-flash photos whereas the GX8 gets 340 non-flash photos. DPReview should have explained that.

I would imagine that full-power flash in the GX9 would be consuming around half of the battery power used to make that photo. If so, those 130 full-power-flash photos would consume as much battery as 260 non-flash photos. If so, then the GX9 would actually be getting about 390, or 50 more than the GX8, non-flash photos per charge.

Well, just to split hairs... I'm finding 8.64Wh (7.2v, 1,200mAh) for the GX8 and 7.59Wh (7.4v, 1,025mAh) for the GX9. ;)

Smaller EVF on the GX9. But I believe LCOS needs more power for equivalent brightness/area vs. OLED. Hardly my area of expertise, so hell if I know the difference in power consumption between the 2 EVFs...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend or denounce the GX9 or GX8. I own neither, nor will I. But the battery life comparison, when comparing a flash camera to a non-flash camera, should be so disclosed/explained. And frankly, CIPA should have a no-flash battery rating alongside its "normal" battery rating for cameras with built-in flash so as to remove some ambiguity. But even then, there's the variable of how much battery that flash will consume at full-power, as different flashes will have varying consumption.

Continued...

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2018 at 22:32 UTC

The reason for the "deceased" battery life in the GX9 is because the GX9 now has a flash whereas the GX8 doesn't. CIPA Standards for measuring battery life in a digital camera with a flash is that every other photo taken must use full-power flash illumination. Therefore, the GX9 gets 130 non-flash photos AND 130 full-power-flash photos whereas the GX8 gets 340 non-flash photos. DPReview should have explained that.

I would imagine that full-power flash in the GX9 would be consuming around half of the battery power used to make that photo. If so, those 130 full-power-flash photos would consume as much battery as 260 non-flash photos. If so, then the GX9 would actually be getting about 390, or 50 more than the GX8, non-flash photos per charge.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2018 at 17:12 UTC as 32nd comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: Every Pentax body has a big, beautiful pentaprism viewfinder. They always have.

I visit the plebs pretty regularly. I'm here right now, aren't I? ;)

Sorry, dude. But Pentax lenses for smaller-than-medium-format are just rubbish. It was a rude awakening for me. I have 2 Pentax 67s and their lenses always made me smile. So I got a K-3 when they first came out, with a kit lens and a couple other lenses. Don't even remember the lenses anymore... They were so bad I thought they were defective. I tried other copies of the glass and body and they were all the same. I was beside myself. They really ARE defective... but that's just how they are. I could NOT believe Pentax was actually selling literally "defective-bad" gear as market-ready gear. I returned all my Pentax digital stuff and closed the book on them. No respectable company would ever release anything anywhere near that bad.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 05:19 UTC
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (482 comments in total)

Who is the girl in photo #4 regarding the D850 getting the D5's AF system?

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 05:08 UTC as 10th comment

And lol, did any of you notice how what this photographer says throughout this whole interview sounds exactly like what every photographer getting interviewed about the gear they are sponsored with says?

"Yeah, it's the best thing ever to happen to anyone. I'm going to get several of them and they are going to make my life wonderful for a really long time." - every photographer ever interviewed about their sponsored gear

Only 1 week left before they start shipping out to me. Geez, I'd like to see some genuinely-representative high-res sample photos and read a legit review that's not just 100% pre-release fluff.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 04:48 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: Dammit! No goddamn AF-assist beam or pop-up flash!!! Cheese and crackers, that's what kept me from buying the goddamn D500! And now the goddamn D850 has no goddamn AF-assist beam or pop-up flash! Goddammit!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D :P

Yeah... Looks like the camera I have to wait for now is the D750's successor. But what is Nikon gonna take away from IT? This whole no-built-in-AF-assist-beam-or-flash trend is REALLY upsetting me!

And Snapbridge... pppfffttt... Snapbridge. Rubbish. Put a doggone GPS in the flippin' body already and nix Snapbridge once and for all, gonfonnit!

I'm SSSOOOOOO hoping that Fuji or Sony starts making full-frame DSLRs with OVF/hybridVF with good ergonomics (Sony's ergonomics SUCK!) features and lens lineup. Not mirrorless.

After more than 3 decades shooting Nikon SLRs/DSLRs, I'm finally ready to sell all my Nikon gear and bail on them.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 21:42 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: Every Pentax body has a big, beautiful pentaprism viewfinder. They always have.

Lol, Pentax FF and APS-C lenses are utter rubbish. Could be the greatest body in the world, but with that kind of glass, it just doesn't matter.

Pentax's medium format glass is great though. Too bad that didn't carryover to the smaller lenses, and boy oh boy, it sure didn't...

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 06:09 UTC

Holy cow! Even at only ISO 400, images look HORRIBLE! Wow... wow wow wow. I pre-ordered several D850s and now I'm thinking it's time to cancel the pre-orders. Hhhmmm... :(

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 06:05 UTC as 7th comment
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)

Dammit! No goddamn AF-assist beam or pop-up flash!!! Cheese and crackers, that's what kept me from buying the goddamn D500! And now the goddamn D850 has no goddamn AF-assist beam or pop-up flash! Goddammit!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D :P

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 05:31 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Class A: Some of the bugs they fixed (at least one of them a very serious one involving actual loss of images) were over five years old.

Not sure whether I should admire them for being able to keep track of bugs for that long or shake my head in disbelief how long it took them to address these issues. Some of the bugs (fix broken keyboard mappings) would have taken minutes to fix but they let users struggle with them for years and years.

Some of the 5+ years bugs still live on and for those they tried to address the commentary uses vocabulary like "should", etc.

I enjoyed Lightroom for several years but the quality control never picked up to a level that was acceptable and Adobe's subscription model (hiding the stand alone LR version as best as they can) pushed me away to a different RAW converter that I'm enjoying much more now.

Hi Class A. I'd love to ditch Lightroom! What software did you replace Lightroom with?

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 05:31 UTC
In reply to:

StevenN: I use the Lightroom desktop version (6.8). Does this update affect me, or just CC users?

-------------
Nevermind, apparently it does. Version 6.12 is available.

.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 05:30 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1651 comments in total)
In reply to:

GiovanniB: What do you mean by "JPEG colors are still second-to-none"? IMO Canon's green hues still miss the richness of any of their competitors, resulting in almost uniform green areas with brownish shadows. Skin colors are quite good but for landscapers, Canon means trouble - lots of effort in post-processing and some irrecoverably spoiled shots, particularly in challenging high-contrast lighting conditions. Of course my observations are based more on RAW files than JPEGs but in the JPEGs I've shot and seen so far I found nothing yet to support any claim of a particularly good color fidelity, again except for skin tones for which Canon equipment seems to be primarily optimized.

Lol, there are people that still shoot JPEG? :D

Yeah, I find the A7RII's RAW images just take so much work. Nikon RAW is a lot easier to get to where I want. I just set up a Lightroom User Preset for Importing and now when I Import into LR6, the heavy lifting is taken care of and I just fine-tune. But I just find that with the A7RII, there's too much of a difference in look from scene to scene and no single User Preset can really be too effective.

Now if only Nikon would come up with an FX body with IBIS, dagnammit!

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 02:37 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I just do not understand why the A7RII gets sooo much low-light/high ISO praise! I have an A7RII and its images are very noticeably noisier than my D800E's and D610's images. I mean, it's not even close. To say the A7RII's images look like an APS-C's (D7200) images isn't much of an exaggeration.

Also, Fuji glass vs. Nikon glass... this will nearly always be a nod for Fuji. Not to mention Medium Format glass vs. Full Frame glass... Of course the nod goes to Medium Format.

Fuji sensor vs. Sony/Nikon sensor, well, personal taste. I love them both for different subjects. Skintone easily goes to Fuji whereas vivid color easily goes to Sony/Nikon.

If I had an extra 15 grand lying around specifically for photo gear, I'd love to grab this new Fuji system.

Medium format is just better, megared. Don't let Rishi confuse you. And Fuji glass is exceptional, truly top shelf in performance and construction. The downside to MF is price and speed (as in frame advance, AF speed, etc.). So if you're not ready to invest around $10,000 in a new system, or need a sports/action rig and/or diverse lens selection, then this is not the system for you. But if you've got the money, don't need the speed and are satisfied with current and anticipated lenses, this is a wicked sweet system.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I just do not understand why the A7RII gets sooo much low-light/high ISO praise! I have an A7RII and its images are very noticeably noisier than my D800E's and D610's images. I mean, it's not even close. To say the A7RII's images look like an APS-C's (D7200) images isn't much of an exaggeration.

Also, Fuji glass vs. Nikon glass... this will nearly always be a nod for Fuji. Not to mention Medium Format glass vs. Full Frame glass... Of course the nod goes to Medium Format.

Fuji sensor vs. Sony/Nikon sensor, well, personal taste. I love them both for different subjects. Skintone easily goes to Fuji whereas vivid color easily goes to Sony/Nikon.

If I had an extra 15 grand lying around specifically for photo gear, I'd love to grab this new Fuji system.

Okay, for you, Bustard, I'll make a little comparison. Set your alerts for this thread...

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 05:46 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I just do not understand why the A7RII gets sooo much low-light/high ISO praise! I have an A7RII and its images are very noticeably noisier than my D800E's and D610's images. I mean, it's not even close. To say the A7RII's images look like an APS-C's (D7200) images isn't much of an exaggeration.

Also, Fuji glass vs. Nikon glass... this will nearly always be a nod for Fuji. Not to mention Medium Format glass vs. Full Frame glass... Of course the nod goes to Medium Format.

Fuji sensor vs. Sony/Nikon sensor, well, personal taste. I love them both for different subjects. Skintone easily goes to Fuji whereas vivid color easily goes to Sony/Nikon.

If I had an extra 15 grand lying around specifically for photo gear, I'd love to grab this new Fuji system.

Lol, Bustard. You have to forgive me. I don't really post here. How do I post RAW images?

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 04:32 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I just do not understand why the A7RII gets sooo much low-light/high ISO praise! I have an A7RII and its images are very noticeably noisier than my D800E's and D610's images. I mean, it's not even close. To say the A7RII's images look like an APS-C's (D7200) images isn't much of an exaggeration.

Also, Fuji glass vs. Nikon glass... this will nearly always be a nod for Fuji. Not to mention Medium Format glass vs. Full Frame glass... Of course the nod goes to Medium Format.

Fuji sensor vs. Sony/Nikon sensor, well, personal taste. I love them both for different subjects. Skintone easily goes to Fuji whereas vivid color easily goes to Sony/Nikon.

If I had an extra 15 grand lying around specifically for photo gear, I'd love to grab this new Fuji system.

PART 2:

IBIS is the sole reason I bought the A7RII. So that I could have "VR" on my old Russian, and Lomography, and non-VR (AF and manual focus) Nikkors. I was thinking the same thing too about how awesome it would be to shoot my 14-24mm indoors with IBIS so I could lower my ISO and have just awesome grain. Meh, turns out I like the results better shooting my D800E and D610 2-stops higher ISO without IBIS than I do 2-stops lower ISO with IBIS on the A7RII. Not to mention that the ergonomics and menu of the A7RII is truly just horrible and makes the camera borderline unusable. So, though I really planned to use the A7RII with the 14-24mm Nikkor indoors and all kinds of other non-VR Nikkors, all I ever actually use my A7RII for is my Petzval 85mm or Achromat 64mm or Helios 44-2 or Pentacon 50mm outdoors with bright points of light to create trippy bokeh.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 04:00 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I just do not understand why the A7RII gets sooo much low-light/high ISO praise! I have an A7RII and its images are very noticeably noisier than my D800E's and D610's images. I mean, it's not even close. To say the A7RII's images look like an APS-C's (D7200) images isn't much of an exaggeration.

Also, Fuji glass vs. Nikon glass... this will nearly always be a nod for Fuji. Not to mention Medium Format glass vs. Full Frame glass... Of course the nod goes to Medium Format.

Fuji sensor vs. Sony/Nikon sensor, well, personal taste. I love them both for different subjects. Skintone easily goes to Fuji whereas vivid color easily goes to Sony/Nikon.

If I had an extra 15 grand lying around specifically for photo gear, I'd love to grab this new Fuji system.

Geez with this character limit, lol...
PART 1:
Regarding the A7RII's noise, yes, I'm looking at the pixel level, which is awful. But also just editing in LR6 in "Fill Screen" view where all photos from all cameras will render at the same screen dimensions.

For my Nikon bodies, DX and FX, I just set Noise Reduction for Color (CNR) at +10 and don't think about it. That's all I ever need with Nikon. With the A7RII, I'm often at CNR +50. And the A7RII is just grainier too, but I rarely deal with Luminance NR (LNR).

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 04:00 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I just do not understand why the A7RII gets sooo much low-light/high ISO praise! I have an A7RII and its images are very noticeably noisier than my D800E's and D610's images. I mean, it's not even close. To say the A7RII's images look like an APS-C's (D7200) images isn't much of an exaggeration.

Also, Fuji glass vs. Nikon glass... this will nearly always be a nod for Fuji. Not to mention Medium Format glass vs. Full Frame glass... Of course the nod goes to Medium Format.

Fuji sensor vs. Sony/Nikon sensor, well, personal taste. I love them both for different subjects. Skintone easily goes to Fuji whereas vivid color easily goes to Sony/Nikon.

If I had an extra 15 grand lying around specifically for photo gear, I'd love to grab this new Fuji system.

PART 5:
But their sensors just seem like a whole lower grade that are 8 years behind. And you can check your DPReview Test Scene to confirm that, HA! ;)

Ah, you got me. I forgot the GFX 50S went Bayer. I'm thinking X-T1, which in my opinion, renders the best skin tone of any digital camera at any price in any format (but I haven't shot the X-T2 yet). And it's got pleasing saturation but it simply can't pop the colors the way Nikon/Sony does, nor deliver the dynamic range the way Nikon/Sony does.

I don't know anything about JPEG color rendition as I never shoot in JPEG.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 03:46 UTC
Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »