TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1525, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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.

"if i put the fuji 50S in the mix it is above the others "

At high ISO or where the Sony kicks into its secondary amplification mode, it's not. Note though that above ISO 1600 the Fuji stops amplifying the signal, hence the flat liner (can't be compared really, because the internal amplification stops there). The RAW converter does the boosting from there. Similar to many other Fuji cameras.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 02:06 UTC
In reply to:

frosti7: Anyone here upgraded from S6 to S7?

IMHO Galaxy S7 had worse image quality then S6,, too artificial and over processed.
I just hope that S8 wont make it worse.

I know the site I linked to measured both S6 sensors and the measurements fell within 0.3 EV, which is less than the margin for measuring error stated, never mind possible sample variance. Hence why I said for all practical purposes, where (when we do ignore the margin for error), 0.3 EV difference or less in noise normally wouldn't really be visible.

And I'm also well aware of the pictures you linked to, which show exactly what I meant with difference in color profile and contrast curve (the one with ISOCELL clearly has a higher blackpoint for example). Those are out of camera jpegs and won't tell us much about sensor performance to begin with. The differences in contrast curve and color profile shown there, were also addressed in a firmware update.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

frosti7: Anyone here upgraded from S6 to S7?

IMHO Galaxy S7 had worse image quality then S6,, too artificial and over processed.
I just hope that S8 wont make it worse.

The Samsung and Sony sensors almost identical for all practical purposes (within margin of measuring error of 1/3 EV) The main difference, if any, is in the resulting contrast curves and or color profiles, visible in OOC jpegs, but easily corrected in RAW. See S6 RAW comparisons at the time of release. Most other differences are from slight lens variations.

The IMX240 sensor does not have more DR and less read noise than the IMX260, au contraire, the S7 sensor has up to about half a stop extra DR from about ISO 100 onwards (similar at base ISO), resulting in better low light performance from just the sensor alone:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Samsung%20Galaxy%20S6(IMX240),Samsung%20Galaxy%20S7(IMX260)

Dual pixels don't necessarily result in less photosensitive area, for as long as it's compensated for in other areas (wiring under the sensitive area, adjusted and gapless microlenses, etc). Ceteris rarely paribus, so to say.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

zodiacfml: The value for money is minuscule or not there anymore as the Samsung S7's price are dropping while the 3 or 3T does not.

"the product will be dropped from updating"

Not sure about that, the S5 is still getting updates here, as is the Note 4, respectively 3 and 2.5 year old devices. The S4 received its last update 3.5 years after release.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 01:05 UTC
In reply to:

Samuel Jessop: The Galaxy S7 is a beautifully made device. The S8 would be top of my wishlist if it had 1. the larger sensor that is used in the Pixel, and 2. the option to turn off TouchWiz.

Touchwiz has been replaced for a while now with Grace UI. And can be tailored in many ways, including the look and feel. Besides that, you can always replace it with a different launcher (no need for root access).

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

frosti7: Anyone here upgraded from S6 to S7?

IMHO Galaxy S7 had worse image quality then S6,, too artificial and over processed.
I just hope that S8 wont make it worse.

"worse" is relative. The S7 has better low light capabilities (less read noise, faster lens), slightly more DR in RAW and much faster AF. The sharpening went up though, resulting in more artifacts at pixel level.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 12:54 UTC
In reply to:

Fujica: All this shows is that you pay much too much for your iOS device.

Apple is a master in profit optimisation.
Its also one of the reasons why I am starting to turn my head away from them. They don't listen to what their customers actually want, but all they care for are their investors.

The stupidity is in its userbase that think its great to get ripped off.
They'll even love their enourmous profits of which they don't get anything in return off.

Yes their devices work fine, but they would also work as fine if you paid a more honest price for them. Not to say that you are in a vendor lock in situation which makes it harder to break out off.

Apple has grabbed you by your balls so to speak ;)

"Yeah, the Samsung S7 Edge gimmick was really awesome"

It is great, if you value a relatively narrow width for more comfortable use in one hand. If you want a larger screen iPhone, you're stuck with a brick sized device.

Let's see if it's called a gimmick still once Apple adopts it (soon).

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 17:19 UTC
In reply to:

Fujica: All this shows is that you pay much too much for your iOS device.

Apple is a master in profit optimisation.
Its also one of the reasons why I am starting to turn my head away from them. They don't listen to what their customers actually want, but all they care for are their investors.

The stupidity is in its userbase that think its great to get ripped off.
They'll even love their enourmous profits of which they don't get anything in return off.

Yes their devices work fine, but they would also work as fine if you paid a more honest price for them. Not to say that you are in a vendor lock in situation which makes it harder to break out off.

Apple has grabbed you by your balls so to speak ;)

"but google charges to certify android phones,"

No, this is actually false. The only thing they may charge for, is access to the Play Store, if installed. But based on some of the information from the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple, the latter has actually paid Samsung, at least in the recent past, to install Google apps.

And the fact that there are 6 inch IPS LCD equipped Android phones for less than $100, including (paid) access to the Play Store, gives a good hint how free the Android software is.
http://www.androidauthority.com/best-smartphones-under-100-713793/

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 18:18 UTC
In reply to:

Fujica: All this shows is that you pay much too much for your iOS device.

Apple is a master in profit optimisation.
Its also one of the reasons why I am starting to turn my head away from them. They don't listen to what their customers actually want, but all they care for are their investors.

The stupidity is in its userbase that think its great to get ripped off.
They'll even love their enourmous profits of which they don't get anything in return off.

Yes their devices work fine, but they would also work as fine if you paid a more honest price for them. Not to say that you are in a vendor lock in situation which makes it harder to break out off.

Apple has grabbed you by your balls so to speak ;)

"The main reason Samsung and other android phones don't have profits are:"

Samsung still pulls double digit profits during a quarter where they lost one of their main profit drivers and had a lot of additional costs to swallow due to recalls. That's actually quite healthy by any standard. Sure, it's not >30% profits, like Apple. But the "in house" argument can be applied to Samsung too, that develops AND makes its own chips and parts. The Google profit argument doesn't hold much water either, since most of Google's profits come from ads, not Android licenses or the Play Store. That and outsourced service and repairs, doesn't explain 20% points difference in profits, not even close. In fact, Android software is free, the only cost comes from additional licenses for optional apps and in house development of their own skin and apps.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

LO Rivera: A flagship Samsung costs the same as an iPhone. One problem is that all the other manufacturers have 10 different models to choose from, Apple not so much. Also-and I'm sure someone mentioned this already-Android based phones have to dish out royalties to Google. Apple, all in house. I love how Apple haters ignore these significant facts and then blame Apple for evading taxes. Much like most American Corporations do, and our "illustrious" President has bragged on many occasions that he too, has evaded taxes.

"One problem is that all the other manufacturers have 10 different models to choose from"

As a customer, I don't see that as a problem, for as long as there is one that fits my specific needs. Rather a benefit, since I'm not one to buy in to a "one-size-fits-all" (akin to Henry Ford's approach) sales pitch. And for companies like Samsung, these diverse offerings actually work, the Apple approach would not.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 11:34 UTC
In reply to:

Fujica: All this shows is that you pay much too much for your iOS device.

Apple is a master in profit optimisation.
Its also one of the reasons why I am starting to turn my head away from them. They don't listen to what their customers actually want, but all they care for are their investors.

The stupidity is in its userbase that think its great to get ripped off.
They'll even love their enourmous profits of which they don't get anything in return off.

Yes their devices work fine, but they would also work as fine if you paid a more honest price for them. Not to say that you are in a vendor lock in situation which makes it harder to break out off.

Apple has grabbed you by your balls so to speak ;)

Well, if you factor in the cost of components, Apple does sit at the lower end scale compared to many of the high end phones from some other manufacturers, by saving on things. Things like the screen (LCD, much smaller than direct peers in the case of the iPhone 7), no fast charging support (less powerful charger in the box too), no wireless charging support, no headphone jack (no high quality built in DAC needed anymore, only a generic one for the speaker) , smaller batteries, rehash of existing designs 3 years in a row, no expandable storage (microSD slot). Those margins are more than just the result of efficiency and economies of scale (Samsung has similar benefits there too).

So in that sense, you pay the same for less features, or more for similar features, depending on the model and comparison at hand.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 11:25 UTC
In reply to:

TheDarmok74: The obvious question being if they Put it in the S8.

As usual, there will likely be two versions, the Qualcomm Snapdragon (SD835 in this case) and the Exynos version (8895). The only recent exception was the S6, which was released with Exynos SoC's only.
The Exynos S7 (as most other Exynos versions) was released in Asia (minus China) and Europe. So it's likely that Europe will receive the Exynos version of the S8 too.

To me, the more interesting question is, whether the SD835 equipped S8 will end up with inferior specs to the Exynos version, because the latter SoC is simply more capable when it comes to 4K recording and playback (120fps vs 30 fps), or whether they will cap the Exynos version to the limit of the Snapdragon version... I hope the latter is not the case and I can think of one precedent, where the Exynos version of the S4 was capable of 120 fps 720P recording, where as the Snapdragon version was not.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 20:16 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

MaxFury: How is this camera not a good value? Are you high DPReview? It completely mops the floor in terms of value compared to other cameras, like the 5D IV, and is less expensive!
Where else in the industry have you heard of 12fps with a 42mp camera? It's DOUBLE the resolutions of the Nikon D5 or Canon 1DX II at HALF the price!
This camera deserves a Golden Score above 90%.
And it's the only Full Frame camera with a front facing selfie screen! Come on! A front facing SELFIE screen!!

"and the AF isnt as good as most would hope"

Opinions/experiences appear to vary a lot on this one. The Dpreview review has been one of the only ones with a relatively negative experience in this regard. Which is not to say they are wrong, but it does indicate that not everything seems to have been set in stone on the subject.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 10:58 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovlov: Too bad Sony has all but abandoned the A-mount lens wise.

" all the latest Sigma and Tamron lenses like the 70-200mm G2 and Sigma 85mm f1.4 are now launched for A mount."

You probably meant "not", but this doesn't tell us anything, since Sony (and Pentax) versions were often announced much later, even when the A mount was Sony's bread and butter in the ILC market. The 35mm Art for A mount was announced almost a year after the Canon/Nikon/Sigma version as well.
Using this logic, the Pentax K mount has been dead for longer than the A mount.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 10:44 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovlov: Too bad Sony has all but abandoned the A-mount lens wise.

It's a bit of a fallacy. It's like saying Canon stopped supporting its top 50mm and 85m prime shooters respectively 10 and 27 years ago.

Strange thinking.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 09:07 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardf12: I will be tempted to buy a Sony once they improve their light skin tones.

It's an interesting topic and I used to follow Iliah Borg's posts on the subject with great interest. His stance was that older Sony cameras like the A900 were very good at discerning subtle hue changes/between colors, better than the A99 that followed it and much better than most Canon cameras at the time which were said to have sacrificed colors for sensitivity. And yet, many seem to prefer and have since preferred the output from Canon based on many of the popular RAW converters, especially when it comes to skin colors.
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/

In the end, still a head scratching topic.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 13:19 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardf12: I will be tempted to buy a Sony once they improve their light skin tones.

Skin color is also highly dependent on the RAW developer used and there are plenty to choose from in this regard. Granted, if Adobe converters are your preference, you're better off calibrating the default profile yourself.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: "The company is making big claims about bokeh ..."

They made pretty big claims about the other G-'Masters' too, and neither Photozone, nor Lensrentals were all too impressed with the reality.

"It seems to me that you are more interested in finding a source that confirms your personal opinion of the lens, than actually finding valid evidence. Confirmation bias."

Which is exactly what you did yourself above. Pick comments from Lensrentals about the 70-200 and conveniently ignore Roger's comments on the 24-70 GM, but rather instead pick a different review to find a negative comment on that one. Because this is what Roger had to say on that same lens:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/

To put this claim of yours in context: " nor Lensrentals were all too impressed with the reality"

Pot, cattle, black.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 13:05 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Mucks: It will be interesting to see if 85/1.8 is any good. Though it still looks overpriced compared to Canon, it's not as expensive as Batis. Unfortunately, Sony has a history of producing crappy lenses, so it's only reasonable to be skeptical at this point.

Lot's of chatter about APS-C, but people with APS-C cameras likely opt/opted for the OSS 50mm anyway, since it sits in the same price range.

The fact is, it's measurably better on a FF sensor, in overall light transmission, overall lack of optical distortion and in overall vignetting by a huge mile. And also much more consistent in sharpness over the frame when used wide open. The edges and corners on the Canon are simply not that useful wide open, which means for any type of sharpness, you need to frame towards the center = boring pics most of the time. The bokeh suffers a lot more from double edges and other artifacts as well.

Another "funny" detail, the A5000 with 20MP gives it an equal maximum sharpness rating compared to the 20MP Canon equivalent, the 70D, for a more apples vs apples APS-C comparison.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Mucks: It will be interesting to see if 85/1.8 is any good. Though it still looks overpriced compared to Canon, it's not as expensive as Batis. Unfortunately, Sony has a history of producing crappy lenses, so it's only reasonable to be skeptical at this point.

"It is a bit worse than Canon 50mm F/1.8 STM which sells for a little more than 1/2 the price. "

No it's not. Peak resolution is similar on FF, but the Sony is much more consistent wide open (much better outside the center where the Canon is weak) and the Canon suffers much more from vignetting (up to a whopping 3 EV vs 1.9 EV), worse transmission and worse distortion, according to DXOmark.

Not sure why you would compare them on APS-C cameras to begin with. On the A5000 (20MP) it scores higher peak sharpness than on the A6000 too. In other words, small differences like those can easily be attributed to differences in the AA filter.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 16:37 UTC
Total: 1525, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »