Rdmkr

Joined on Nov 9, 2014

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
On article #1 in France: Hands-on with DxO ONE (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chantal Lyndon: Interesting Physical Dimensions VS. RX100 M3:

DXO ONE:
Dimensions (WxHxD) 2.7 x 1.9 x 1.0" / 67.5 x 48.9 x 26.3 mm
Weight 3.81 oz / 108 g

RX100 M3:
Dimensions (WxHxD) 4.0 x 2.3 x 1.6" / 101.6 x 58.1 x 41.0 mm
Weight 10.23 oz / 290 g with battery and memory card

The Width difference is material. Not enough to switch from RX100, but enough to consider DXO One if you don't have either and are very pocket-space consious.

Would love to see a comparison between the two.

Personally, I won't switch from my Sony, but I prefer being able to shoot at 50mm-70mm and the Sony video is solid.

RX100-2 lens performed poorly on dxo's tests and this has a prime lens. However, rx100 real life performance seems a lot less bad than the testing suggests. I suspect it's because dxo's definition of "sharpness" is conflated with contrast and contrast problems are easily resolved with processing as long as noise is not too high (or you end up blowing up the noise as much as the detail).

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 15:31 UTC
In reply to:

Rdmkr: The resolution is *decreased* (article incorrect) from the last iteration and the underpowered processor + GPU that caused easily perceptible lag has not been replaced. I love these Amoled screens, but in light of these shortcomings how can this iteration be seen as anything but a massive letdown..?

If they *just* made this the tablet equivalent of the galaxy Note 4 / S6, everything would be good, but as always they stubbornly refuse to be rational.

A shame because I was looking forward to this thing. The earlier Tab S series came within a hair of pareto dominating Apple's offering. This could hit it home just by updating the processors like they normally do, but no. They decide to halt progress abruptly for whatever bewildering reason.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 15:15 UTC

The resolution is *decreased* (article incorrect) from the last iteration and the underpowered processor + GPU that caused easily perceptible lag has not been replaced. I love these Amoled screens, but in light of these shortcomings how can this iteration be seen as anything but a massive letdown..?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 15:05 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon D5500 real-world samples (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mssimo: Great camera, but where are the lenses? Nikon DX lens selection: 4 Primes, one f2.8 standard zoom and two wide zooms (all other are kit or super zoom lenses)

This segment will die next year. Full frames are almost hitting the magic $999 mark. Mirrorless have much better native lens selection and innovations.

Nikon has given up on DX, they are just "milking the cash cow till its bone dry" I would not invest in this system.

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is the best lens on the market for any system and is available for Nikon Dx. Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is a close alternative for wide angle purposes. On the telephoto end you get 1.5x reach so no complaints there. Nikon Dx superzoom lenses are uniquely excellent too.

Your comment is bewildering. Diametrically opposite to true. APS-C has excellent lenses. Maybe your insistence on sticking with Nikon lenses has you blinded.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2015 at 04:00 UTC
On article Hands-on with Samsung's new NX500 (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rdmkr: Shrinking camera bodies is a losing deal, because to make it matter the lens has to be shrunk as well, which is always to the serious detriment of optical quality. This is why I think the mirrorless ILC is overrated; it's like putting a u4/3 lens on an APS-C sensor and pretending it's just as good. It occupies this narrow and inhospitable grey area between a compact or bridge camera that goes all in on the "good enough" mentality and the DSLR that brooks no compromises.

When you put a serious lens on a DSLR, the weight of the mirror system and optical viewfinder is comparatively not a big deal. That's why we don't need mirrorless. What we need is mirrorless focus technology on the sensor of DSLRs so Live View works well when we need it.

"I think that samsung more or less acknowledged your thought, by building the bigger dslr like nx1."

Which has pretty much no advantages over a high end DSLR despite being similarly priced, nor does it have a weight advantage over APS-C DSLRs. It's like you're responding to my complaint that the trade-off for the reduced weight is not favorable by saying you can also have an option where you don't even HAVE that reduced weight. It's another step in the wrong direction.

"Speak for yourself - I don't need a 1 kg camera body with a 1 kg lens on it." - about half of that is good. It's what I use. But that's already APS-C DSLR territory. The compromise you and I like favors APS-C DSLRs, not mirrorless ILCs. It's a weight category where removing that 100 grams the mirror + proper focus system weigh doesn't make a substantial difference.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 10:00 UTC
On article Hands-on with Samsung's new NX500 (339 comments in total)

Shrinking camera bodies is a losing deal, because to make it matter the lens has to be shrunk as well, which is always to the serious detriment of optical quality. This is why I think the mirrorless ILC is overrated; it's like putting a u4/3 lens on an APS-C sensor and pretending it's just as good. It occupies this narrow and inhospitable grey area between a compact or bridge camera that goes all in on the "good enough" mentality and the DSLR that brooks no compromises.

When you put a serious lens on a DSLR, the weight of the mirror system and optical viewfinder is comparatively not a big deal. That's why we don't need mirrorless. What we need is mirrorless focus technology on the sensor of DSLRs so Live View works well when we need it.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 11:28 UTC as 64th comment | 8 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

havanna60: Very intersting conclusion. At the moment (9 Dec 2014) the RX10 is 50 EUR cheaper than the FZ1000. The RX10 in the meantime received a new firmware with XAVC-S. The built-in ND filter, the professional-grade (parfocal) zoom lens, excellent XAVC-S codec, professional weather sealed body, cheaper price today makes my decision much harder. My problem with 4K is that to exploit its (great) advantages it requires a huge amount of disk space, and more importantly an enormous amount of post processing time. Decent FullHD video footage is all I'd need. Image stabilization efficiency is another big question. Hmm.

The 4K video is not all it's hyped up to be. This mode crops the sensor to 8MP in its center, meaning you lose full wide angle capability and get the image quality of a sensor much smaller than 1". Only slightly bigger than a smartphone's. Thinking about it, all that processing, all that storage space, to get the image quality of a sensor that small.

It's a red herring as far as video quality is concerned, so on video the RX10 is imo the stronger contender.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 00:50 UTC
On article Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR review (15 comments in total)

It's too bad to see DPReview say this lens especially performs poorly at 300mm when they've done barely any testing on rival 300mm lenses. A quick review of the data at dxomark.com reveals that this lens holds its own against other 300mm lenses very well. It just so happens that high quality 300mm lenses are hard to come by, so this lens performs well at 300mm *comparatively*. In fact within all the dxomark data I've looked at, no other Nikon Dx lens scores higher on sharpness at 300mm than this one.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2015 at 16:57 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Nikon D5300 Review (324 comments in total)

I traded in a Sony A6000 for a Nikon D5300 and never looked back. The lenses available for Nikon Dx are in a totally different league than those for e-mount. Between my lightweight Nikon 18-300mm f/6.3 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 I have both daylight and night conditions covered in two perfectly convenient solutions. With the A6000 I had to switch lenses more for lesser quality results.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 23:49 UTC as 37th comment
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11