vadims

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Joined on Mar 10, 2006

Comments

Total: 363, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

NJOceanView: I'm very struck by this technology. I keep telling friends who need a quick smartphone portrait to shoot farther away and then crop in because of this very dynamic. I think if this is incorporated into smartphones, even the average selfie-taker will appreciate it. They have already learned how to frame their photos better because looking at the screen vs. a viewfinder is helping their composition, and I see no reason they won't over time appreciate how this will dramatically improve their selfies. Please keep us apprised of this company's progress, and thanks for the article.

> And I know 2 or 3 smartphone guys will jump in very soon.

And you saying that will automatically invalidate everything they might say, just *everything*. Smart move!

Welcome to the "who needs AF?!" camp.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 10:10 UTC
In reply to:

Fotogeneticist: We need to stop using the term "mirrorless" to name these latest cameras. Imagine if we called cars "horseless carriages". The image follows a different path from the scene to the sensor to the finder. We used to call cameras with two lenses Twin Lens Reflex. Then Hasselblad ushered in the Single Lens Reflex. I propose Digital Sensor Reflex (DSR). The image goes directly to the sensor through the lens and the sensor "reflexes" the image to the finder. TLR --> SLR --> DSLR --> DSR.

While you're at it, stop using "wireless", too...

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 16:08 UTC

A bit on Michael:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57802683

Link | Posted on May 21, 2016 at 19:01 UTC as 19th comment
On article DxOMark Mobile Report: Lenovo Moto G Plus (15 comments in total)

Who exactly benefits from 3 "reviews" in a row?

Definitely not readers. Those who don't care about mobile photography have more stuff to filter out, and lesser visibility of the stuff they need.

Those who (like me!) do care, have to jump between articles for no reason, feeling like a target of some cross-selling techniques and being aggravated in the process.

This is what DPR has become: a photography-centered kinda-twitter, no longer a review site, but still in search of self-identification.

Oh Michael Reichmann, Michael Reichmann... you will be so sorely missed... I paid $12 for annual subscription, and would gladly pay that much a month if you were still around.

DPR? Would not pay a cent for what it is *today*. But they surely don't need that as long as Amazon is happy with the clicks and their exposure. Which is probably the answer to my question.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 21:12 UTC as 3rd comment
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-1200 (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

Expat Nomad: In terms of presenting information in these round-ups, would it not make sense to have a concluding global table with a restatement of key features/ usability? This would also help consistency of information between model pages.

> I don't think there is any general camera
> specs/judgments 'comparison' page

It's been there for ages:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras

Link | Posted on May 16, 2016 at 13:14 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Holland: Is #3 from the Wynnewood tornado?

It is.

At least, this is what the pop-up balloon says here:
https://500px.com/mikeolbinski

Link | Posted on May 14, 2016 at 18:50 UTC
On article Benchmark performance: Nikon D810 in-depth review (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

WGVanDyck: Please understand; I am a huge fan of DPR. DPR is my first stop for news and I have very high regard for their staff. But, two years between the introduction of a camera (2014) and the publication of its review? The first sentence of the review says it was two years between the D800 and the introduction of the D810, so it strikes me that the D810 review may be out just in time for the release of a new D820.

(continued)

> are you suggesting that in-depth mirror/shutter
>related findings, low light AF performance dip,
> and DR/SNR matching 645Z, which no other
> review I can find on the 'net, covered are irrelevant?

Mirror/shutter: no. But the findings are hardly surprising; not for me, anyway.

Low light AF performance: last (last, not first) time I read all about it on LL forum in mid-April, after people started to assess their D5's. Again, everything people would ever *really* need to know about D810's AF was all over the net for ages.

DN/SNR: we already knew from great many sources that it's best in class, head and shoulders above competition. Heck, I didn't even have to look at D810 review... When you posted that article on K1's pixel shift mode, the very first thing I personally noticed how damn good D810 looked compared to both K1 and 645Z.

But all that is not the point.

The point is... Well, on the second thought I think I shouldn't belabor it. You know it already.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2016 at 04:55 UTC
On article Benchmark performance: Nikon D810 in-depth review (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

WGVanDyck: Please understand; I am a huge fan of DPR. DPR is my first stop for news and I have very high regard for their staff. But, two years between the introduction of a camera (2014) and the publication of its review? The first sentence of the review says it was two years between the D800 and the introduction of the D810, so it strikes me that the D810 review may be out just in time for the release of a new D820.

> You speak as if all our camera reviews take 2 years

Rishi, on many occasions, you rightfully blasted DPR users (myself included) for making assumptions. So please practice what you preach and don't do this to me -- I did not say anything close to what you assumed.

That said, many reviews of important cameras have never appeared on DPR because of your review policy. Again, not saying it is "wrong", so no point in defending it. All I'm saying is that I don't like it, and, from what I see in the comments, may user share my *opinion*.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2016 at 04:44 UTC
On article Benchmark performance: Nikon D810 in-depth review (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

WGVanDyck: Please understand; I am a huge fan of DPR. DPR is my first stop for news and I have very high regard for their staff. But, two years between the introduction of a camera (2014) and the publication of its review? The first sentence of the review says it was two years between the D800 and the introduction of the D810, so it strikes me that the D810 review may be out just in time for the release of a new D820.

WGVanDyck is right on all counts.

He's right in that the review appeared too late. One had to live in a cave for the last two years not to learn everything relevant about D810.

He's also right in that, being a DPR fan, he voices his concern and lets DPR know his opinion. Everyone understands those reviews are lots of work. OK, fine, cancel entire queue, start over, and do fewer and/or shorter reviews while they still matter.

As to "fewer reviews": if DPR stays committed to those multi-page monster reviews, then, since reviewers' resources are limited, pick only select cameras, the ones being truly important in this or that way, and review only them. But for goodness sake, do it in less than two years.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 22:00 UTC
On article Benchmark performance: Nikon D810 in-depth review (255 comments in total)

DPR, please understand that this is no longer a "review", it's kind of a summary of what's been known already for quite some time; a historic record for future generations.

Which I still do appreciate, as I often use DPR as camera/lens database; you made it very convenient, thanks.

But to be relevant as a *review* site, you have to have a much shorter turnaround times; post [much] shorter reviews, but much quicker. I doubt *anyone* needs 19 pages of info on D810 in May 2016.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 18:43 UTC as 79th comment | 4 replies

I find it hard to believe TIME didn't mention rounded corners as key innovations in either iPhone or iPad entries.

A gross oversight.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 01:23 UTC as 8th comment
On article Two in one: LG G5 camera review (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

melgross: So, the main camera is good, but not great. The wide angle camera is fair, but not really good, but you really like the fact that it's there.

Considering just how bad the reviews for this smartphone overall have been everywhere, it doesn't seem as though these cameras are going to move the sales much. Very few people consider the camera as being more than one aspect of consideration, and rarely the biggest aspect.

Perhaps if this was a better phone overall.

> Very few people consider the camera as being
> more than one aspect of consideration

True, but that's only because no-one has done it right so far. And with current obsession with super-slim phones, I can't see it happening any time soon.

Panasonic DMC-CM10 was a step in the right direction, and LG G5 brought some interesting ideas, but both were/are lacking... Let's wait see what the future holds.

There *is* a market for camera phones. I mean, phones with cameras in them treated at least equally important to the main function. I'm one of potential purchasers since, even though I always carry Sony RX100m2 on my belt, I still find it less convenient than a *proper* camera phone would be under many circumstances.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2016 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

Siobhan A: No surprise.
Nikon has for many years beaten Sony using Nikon, Sony or Toshiba sensors.
The D7200, D7100, D5500, D5300 and others were better than the A6000 (which had banding issues too). In fact, several camera makers including Samsung made better performing cameras.
This is just a continuation of that trend.

Of course Nikon makes cameras for Photographers while Sony makes electronic devices for gear heads.

> there's so much wrong in the OP that he didn't
> bothered to explain.

+1

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

caravan: Leica owners are essentially getting a new camera at no additional cost.That is great customer care,well done.

> "Fuji almost made a cult of firmware. The difference is: when the cult doesn't deliver, it hurts. When the company that don't promise much deliver, it IS meaningful."

You lost me here.

When did Fuji *promise* anything? They just do it again and again; arguably better than anyone else in the industry. Can you point me to a Fuji official making any promises?

As to your point on "meaningfulness": since when a single good upgrade is better than a continuing record of good upgrades?

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2016 at 01:37 UTC

Richard,

It is remarkable how many times you described why you picked 7D MkI (not MkII), or Sony (and not, say, Panasonic). Sometimes several times in a single reply string, with great patience, never loosing temper (let alone calling your readers jerks). I wish all DPR editors could act like that; it'd help make DPR forums/comments more civilized.

I understand being that patient means more work, and... arguably could be less fun for you :-) So just wanted to let you know there are people over here who do appreciate that. Thanks.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 01:53 UTC as 17th comment
On article Crossing the Bridge: Canon XC10 Review (258 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mlumiere: The reasons why I bought this video camera are, broadcast quality video in a compact, self contained package, including a 305-Mbps 4:2:2 video codec, a 24mm-280mm zoom lens, and access to the same color profiles used on Canon's professional Cinema EOS cameras at a reasonable price. The XC10 is capable of delivering very good video results.

> this video camera

Yeah, you said it.

I wish people stop calling it "bridge" (or "hybrid", for that matter).

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 18:01 UTC
On article Crossing the Bridge: Canon XC10 Review (258 comments in total)

"On the whole, the best summary of image quality on the XC10 is probably 'competent'; in other words, it's about what we would expect from a 12 MP"

I honestly do not know how you guys could write something like that... An old 14Mp Nikon 1 J3 performs way better (just select it in comparison tool and see by yourself).

I understand that, most probably, images look as if the lens was dipped in a soap water because of the super-strong AA filter (further evidence being circular shapes rendered nicely), not because that lens is *that* crappy, but then there are tons and tons of CA. All things considered, stills caps are simply inadequate.

Bottom line, this camera is anything but "bridge" (or, as was correctly pointed out below, "hybrid"). *That* should have been the title of this review, in big red blinking letters, to save a few lost souls who'd think they can shoot decent stills with this... camcorder, I guess.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 17:57 UTC as 72nd comment
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2150 comments in total)
In reply to:

perry rhodan: HUH!?
Considering the huge price differences it's very peculiar what body comparisons are made here. The pricepoint (at the top of the pack) and the ergonomics and lens landscape (at the very bottom of the pack) are NOT in the slightest bit appreciated in this conclusion. Oh well just saying. Tried 3 Nex/alpha milc bodies extensively the past years. The lens landscape and ergo sucked hard and there is no improvement. Period! Only some (overly expensive) non zooms are worth anything on 16 or 24 mp. Perhaps the only zoom that gets the heads up is the 10-18mm, at a price.

Mind you, I bought 3 bodies and a load of lenses the last 4 years. I wanted to like them. Also because of all the singing and dansing reviews. Every single time I was disgusted about the things I mentioned above and sold the stuff. Oh well.

^^^ What T3 said.

Exactly my experience: retained all my Canon FF gear which isn't used anymore. Have slightly different Sony lens set (see my profile), but overall experience (esp. during travel) is the same -- superb.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 20:24 UTC

I'd give Lytro all props in the world for innovation, but to say "product requirements had been firmly cemented in the minds of consumers by much larger more established companies" instead of a humble "we screwed and are going to learn from our mistakes while starting over" is a bad omen... I can see a quote like "Hollywood got brainwashed by larger companies and did not appreciate our excellence" in their future.

I was thinking about getting original Lytro to just play with it, but what finally stopped me was their insane inertial zoom touch-slider. I can barely live with anemic zoom ring of my Sony RX100II, and zoom-by-touch is definitely too much for me. Taking into account all the other craziness of the design, my weird-o-meter went into red zone, and I bailed out.

Sure, it's more noble to think they went against Canikon et. al., but fact is, they got lucky to be able to "compete" only with themselves, and still lost.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 03:56 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies
On article Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses (289 comments in total)
In reply to:

davidbindle: My question is.... just as the Sony A7R2 can now quickly AF with the latest Metabones adapter w (most/many) Canon lenses... is the a6300 going to work as well (or better? - or worse) than the A7R2 with this adapter? This could change the game for me as I can afford the the a6300 whereas I can not afford the a7r2 and I have quite a bit invested in Canon lenses.

I have a6000 and Metabones IV, both upgraded to latest HW.

AF performance with all my Canon lenses (see my profile) is, unfortunately, horrible. With 70-300 DO, for example, I first thought it wouldn't AF at all.

The only positive change that I saw after FW upgrade was the 50/1.4 started to AF -- even though the note on Metabones site at the time of the adapter purchase explicitly said 40/1.4 was not supported.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 09:21 UTC
Total: 363, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »