TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1347, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I love how feeble-minded Samsung marketing trolls are. They come in hordes bad mouthing other brands and up-voting their own comments. I hope Mister Roboto is paying them in Dollar and not Won which is not doing very well.

Every single thing on this phone is copied from the market leader Apple.

Metal body - check
Glass back - check
Touch ID - check
Bottom speaker - check
TrueTone Flash - check
Waterproofing - check
0.8mm camera protrusion - check
12MP - check
Apple Pay - check
NanoSIM - check
60fps UI - check
4:3 sensor - check

Samsung cannot even come out with a new exterior design because Apple haven't released iPhone 7 yet.

Funny how most of those things were found on Samsung phones, many years before Apple tried them, including Authentec scanner below the screen, 12 MP (I laughed loud there), 4:3 aspect ratio (and harder there), waterproofing, this time actually certified and not some half baked attempt like the 6S, no camera protrusion (the S7 one protrudes 0.46mm btw), metal body, bottom speaker etc.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 01:49 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: Thats a great day I'll mark in my calendar.

It proves what I always said, that Canon Dual Pixel AF is a trivial patent which cannot be defended at court (Canon filed their patent the next Monday Fuji filed their orginal phase sensel invention patent in 2010 (the Friday before) -- a bold sign how obvious the idea really is).

I am so glad Samsng engineers were not stopped by those kindergaden games.

Now, we all will see good quad pixel AF (the correct execution of the dual pixel idea) from all vendors. Like everybody has already copied the much deeper original idea by Fuji.

Possible or licensed by Sony or Samsung.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 01:47 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: does this mean no more stupid CDAF breathing that renders cellphone videos now useless?

The S5 already had PDAF.

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

R Vaquero: Samsung releases its new iPhone

Time for an optometrist.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
On article Newly enthused: hands on with the Canon EOS 80D (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

XeroJay: 4k should be standard on every camera canon releases by now. Even smartphone mfgs aren't hesitating to put it in every new model now. If canon keeps trickling out these incremental rehashed updates, there will be nothing left for even die hard canonites to defend.

I wonder where and when they stated that, because the Note 4 in 4K and good light, already destroys anything else in 1080P, in terms of sheer resolution. And that's a phone from 1.5 years ago.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 17:47 UTC
On article Newly enthused: hands on with the Canon EOS 80D (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: The power zoom adapter is actually quite innovative (good to see it is compatible with future lenses). Im actually surprised this was released by Canon. I would have thought a manufacturer like Sony would come up with this concept.

The concept isn't new at all:
https://www.google.nl/search?q=PowerLynx+adapter&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixvY6PrYHLAhUBiywKHX6XCjYQ_AUIBygB&biw=1680&bih=955#imgrc=EBXy5byfRJsb9M%3A

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 12:51 UTC
On article Newly enthused: hands on with the Canon EOS 80D (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

LMBC: This is why I feel that Canon is trying to be the new KODAK company.

Since 2002 I have been loyal to Canon, and since my first Canon G2, I invested in several Canon Lens, a Canon 20D and Canon 7D which I still have.

In early 2015 I was hoping that Canon released a camera that could be an 7D upgrade, so that I can use it also for video, but I was wrong....

I checked for other cameras that could be great both for photo & video, like the Panasonic, Sony & Samsung, and decided for the latest, and bought Samsung NX1 for 1200 EUR !!!!! and 700 EUR for the lens.

Since then I have: 28 mpixel, 4K video, 1080p 120 fps, great ISO performance and a great lens.

Do I still use my canon 7D? No...
Why?
Because Samsung NX1 is so much better than my 7D in (almost) every way.

And I feel sad because all other brands are coming with great products (like SONY) and I still want to use my Canon Glass in the future, and also because I know that Samsung is leaving the market, and I hate Samsung for that.

I think what he's really saying is that Canon has failed to bring an update of his APS-C camera to the market at any pricepoint, even today (7 years later), that meets features found in APS-C cameras released in 2014.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 12:44 UTC
In reply to:

dwill23: SO THIS MEANS WE'LL SEE IT IN ANDROID LATER THIS YEAR....AND IPHONE IN ABOUT 2 YEARS. MMHHHMMM.

Luckily no one follows Apple in not offering RAW and charging extra over an already $700 phone to get OIS.

If I cared about profits, I would buy stock, not provide those profits through insane margins.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 02:51 UTC
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: If Sony is able to fill 22mp inside a small 1/2.6 "sensor, this means that today it could fit 220MP inside a full frame (which is exactly ten times larger), using the same technology

Atually, a FF sensor is about 38 times larger, which would equate to about (38*22.5=) 855 MP on FF.

It's close to 220 MP on (µ)4/3 format.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 12:55 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: It's not slight distortion, it's a lot of distortion. and he's only getting away with it (not really) because much of the time they have their faces at an angle.

And long lenses aren't just about bokeh but removing the distortion. Headshots of top models were done at 300mm+ on FF for a reason (cropping can do this now with shorter FLs).

That 'familiarity' theory is similar to the logic that went in to Robert Altman's use of wide-angles in his films. But really all it did was pierce the 4th wall and make a jarring affect. You essentially became the camera-man (or Johnny Depp's armpit).

Similarly, this theory sounds great, but the effect for me is to make highly refined snaps with the uglification of the distortion.

As with eveyrthing, I'm sure this works for some, and where there's a market there's someone to fill it.

"Not at all. The first view we have of people tends to be at this distance or longer. Nor doe sit make their faces look flat. For some with very square faces or with very round, then they benefit by a wider lens. But for the rest...."

Again, our vision does not apply compression distortion from larger distances. Visually, the neck for example, will have a similar relative width when seeing someone from a large distance, as shooting a head portrait with a medium telephoto lens from a closer distance. But shooting 300mm with the same framing, results in a relatively wider neck due to the compression. The neck is further from the camera than the facial features like nose, eyes etc, but the magnification of a long telelens makes it look closer. That's what makes faces look flat, or even squarish with a long lens. Same with other feature, for example when one shoulder is behind the face, that again will be magnified more, making the face look smaller, not comparable to what we see.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 18:00 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: It's not slight distortion, it's a lot of distortion. and he's only getting away with it (not really) because much of the time they have their faces at an angle.

And long lenses aren't just about bokeh but removing the distortion. Headshots of top models were done at 300mm+ on FF for a reason (cropping can do this now with shorter FLs).

That 'familiarity' theory is similar to the logic that went in to Robert Altman's use of wide-angles in his films. But really all it did was pierce the 4th wall and make a jarring affect. You essentially became the camera-man (or Johnny Depp's armpit).

Similarly, this theory sounds great, but the effect for me is to make highly refined snaps with the uglification of the distortion.

As with eveyrthing, I'm sure this works for some, and where there's a market there's someone to fill it.

@ The name is Bond:
Compression distortion with a 300mm is rather pronounced, compressing the perceived distance between objects in front and behind the main subject. To be fully correct, I should have called the wide angle distortion that you referred to above, extension distortion and the tele distortion would be compression distortion. Because both are in actuality forms of perspective distortion.

Shooting a 300mm from just 3 meter would be way too tight for my taste, I'd do double that.

With faces, 300mm makes them look rather flat, again quite different from how we perceive them when meeting people in person, face to face. Sure, if we see face from a larger distance, extension distortion isn't (very) visible, but our vision doesn't throw in the compression distortion either at those distances, caused by the magnification of a 300mm lens.

It can be rather flattering, no doubt. But I guess we have to differentiate between what we see and what we prefer to see. ;-)

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: It's not slight distortion, it's a lot of distortion. and he's only getting away with it (not really) because much of the time they have their faces at an angle.

And long lenses aren't just about bokeh but removing the distortion. Headshots of top models were done at 300mm+ on FF for a reason (cropping can do this now with shorter FLs).

That 'familiarity' theory is similar to the logic that went in to Robert Altman's use of wide-angles in his films. But really all it did was pierce the 4th wall and make a jarring affect. You essentially became the camera-man (or Johnny Depp's armpit).

Similarly, this theory sounds great, but the effect for me is to make highly refined snaps with the uglification of the distortion.

As with eveyrthing, I'm sure this works for some, and where there's a market there's someone to fill it.

Long lenses may remove perspective distortion (although arguably, introduce a view that is different from our own vision which includes perspective distortion, thus the tele lens look could be called abnormal still), they introduce a new type of distortion, namely compression distortion.

In the end, it still comes down to taste, which type or compromise you prefer in which setting at a given time.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 15:09 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nimbifer: Cooked RAWs? Thanks for the information, DPR. That was all I needed to know.

I'll never ever consider purchase of such cameras or lenses. To me it is the exact equivalent of olympic athletes proven guilty of doping. No way, Sony. I do hope, DPR takes this into account in their reviews and will not hand out gold or silver awards to that stuff.

The extra correction parameters come with the metadata. Whether you see the result of that metadata, depends on the converter used, as also highlighted in the article, because some 3rd party converters ignore such metadata to begin with. DCRAW based converters come to mind.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 01:38 UTC
In reply to:

Siobhan A: Forever?
Does he mean like all the Canon lenses those Sony owners have been scrambling to buy and keep?
Oh, and why are colors so bad in the two pictures from this story? Were these lenses used??

135mm ZA f/1.8 says hi.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

Thorgrem: 'We want to make lenses that can be used forever'. Not going to happen. Every mount will eventually be obsolete. If this was the startingpoint of these lenses the safest bet was to make it for Canon EF-mount or Nikon F-mount.

You conveniently skipped the rest of my post that addresses exactly the sensor size issue. I'm sure even fools would understand that part.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

Thorgrem: 'We want to make lenses that can be used forever'. Not going to happen. Every mount will eventually be obsolete. If this was the startingpoint of these lenses the safest bet was to make it for Canon EF-mount or Nikon F-mount.

@ Throgrem:
Your "simple logic" seems rather too simplistic and again based on a false premise:
"My assumption is that the flange distance wont decrease further because the distance in E-mount is already a problem."

There are already at least 6 mounts in existence with a shorter flange distance than the E mount. Of which one has about half the flange distance. The largest problem with larger digital sensors, is angle of incidence. That is however not a problem of the short flange distance, but rather one of designing a lens that sits closer to the sensor. Because a shorter flange distance only adds choice in this regard: you can have it sit far or close.

Your assumption that there won't be shorter flange distances holds no basis because there's still progress being made in improving the handling of digital sensors with large angle of incidence light rays. It's actually quite likely that we will see shorter shorter flange distances in the future.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 21:09 UTC
Total: 1347, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »