technic

Joined on Jun 13, 2008

Comments

Total: 152, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

marc petzold: Too bad, even the 760D doesn't feature a mag-alloy body like the 50D from the past...err, yes it's "just" only a 3-digit Canon series, so we won't see that anyway into a Canon that way...Canon also stepped away from that with the 60D, only the 7D Series now is mag-alloy...and the higher end series...

Edit - still a simple & cheap Pentamirror OVF like into the absolutely Beginners DSLR, Canon? Epic fail again in that way! Every little better DSLR does feature a Pentaprism Glas OVF, just for the record, D80, D90...and so on, even the K-10D, GX-10 Samsung back into the older Days.

Rebel level construction at almost xxD level price, way to go :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: Is this a Canon sensor or Sony sensor? 5Ds (R) all use antiquated Canon sensor (essentially 7D II sensor scaled up to FF).

Judging from 5Ds and the official specs, probably another antiquated Canon sensor :-(
Good news for Nikon, Sony and Samsung.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

leonche64: That "entry level" price keeps creeping up along with the specs.

In Europe you can buy a 70D (with pentaprism, tougher construction, weather sealing, higher speed etc) for that 'entry' price, if you look around a bit ... I don't have much hope for the new 24MP sensor given the obvious 5Ds disappointment, which would be about the only really improvement over 70D.

Of course one could still prefer 750D/760D because of size/weight but the price seems a bit out of line.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 10:19 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1607 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidNJ100: Basically, Canon and Nikon APS-C owners should run out and get the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 50-150/2.8 OS if they don't have it. These are the best of very few lenses that move the APS-C camera close to full frame cameras.

you mean 'move the APS-C camera weight close to that of a full frame camera?
;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 21:33 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

uzevla: Seriously, what's this trend with using low-end EVFs just to satisfy some "pro" wannabees ?
0.46x magnification and 1.1K dots - who needs that ?

Compact camera like this one needs good LCD. 3.3" would be good, yet they gave us 16:9 LCD which is more like 2.5". Hopefully, they didn't do what Sony is doing as their 921K 16:9 LCD on Nex6 is extremely dim - Samsung OLED w/ 230K looks better than that.

On top of this, flash sync speed stays 1/50.

Who is buying this crap ?

YOU need ..... keep stating your demands, but you are clueless.

Many photographers are less demanding than you and accept that every camera is a compromise. Why MUST a camera hava a state-of-the-art EVF? Just being able to frame in bright light with an EVF and see basic control information can be all you need, especially if it means the camera can be lighter and cheaper and saves battery power.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

perry rhodan: Built in flash doing wireless would be nice! Touch and swivelscreen. Separate EVF, tele macro, some kind of wheatersealing. Room for an OLY XZ 100 then?

Yes, despite the impressive feature list the lack of a tilt screen puts this camera much lower on my list. Really a surprise as the FZ1000 does have EVF and tilt screen ...

And when comparing to cameras like G7X and RX100-3, that LX100 lens better be VERY high quality to compensate for the increased weight/size/price... will be interesting to see how much better the LX100 is with all those ED/aspheric lenses (I guess RX100-3 and G7X also use special lens technology ...).

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 12:13 UTC
On article Size matters: Hands-on with Canon PowerShot G7 X (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: The new G7X sure is closer in size to the S120 than the G1X.

G7X vs G1X Mark II:
http://j.mp/1ubUF5K
G1X Mark II weighs almost double that of G7 X and is significantly bigger in every way.

G7X vs S120:
http://j.mp/1ubUYxy
G7X weighs 40% more than S120. Its width and height is very similar, but it's a whole centimeter deeper. Try changing camera direction to see for yourself.

The G7X might be too big for me, as I currently own an S110 for my pocket camera needs. But the potential IQ benefit from the larger sensor and two stops faster tele aperture is tempting. In low light I consider the S110 a fixed focal length camera, but with the G7X it would be possible to zoom a bit even at less than perfect light. Also, the G7X wouldn't be diffraction limited at full tele + full aperture (S110's f/26 equivalent in the long end is nothing to write home about).

All in all, this camera has a respectably small form factor for what it is: a camera with a 1" sensor and an f/1.8-2.8 4x zoom lens.

regarding 'diffraction limited' S110 at maximum tele: I found the images of the S110 at 120mm to be VERY sharp (very fine details visible), but low contrast (a bit 'hazy'). With some PP they can look quite good, I don't think diffraction is the real problem here.

Big advantage that I see for G7X compared to S110 (I tried one but returned it due to insufficient IQ): due to the much bigger sensor there is more leeway for in-camera processing like distortion and vignetting correction. In the S110 this produces visible increase in noise and artifacts near the borders, even at low ISO (especially when working with the lens full open). I see the same in G7X images (especially increased noise and more 'rough' looking texture towards the corners), but the effect is much milder and acceptable to me.

And of course, the G7X can finally produce some decent DOF control, a big step up from the S series.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 08:19 UTC
On article Size matters: Hands-on with Canon PowerShot G7 X (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

h2k: 24 mm equiv. at f1,8 sounds nice. But i had (around) these parameters on the G1X MkII – and the image quality was bad. It only got better around f3,5 or so.

The monitor hinging is very unfortunate for all but selfie-enthusiasts. Now there is no angle at all to shoot top-down – say onto a plate of food, onto a low flower or above a crowd. I use this perspective regularly. This newest iteration of the verticially hinged monitor is even more useless than the more common vertically hinged monitor that allows at least some kind of top-down view.

I have no idea why almost every company now abandons the much more versatile side-hinged monitor, which easily gives you many more perspectives onto a subject.

question for DPR crew: how does the G7X handle when turned upside down for 'over-the-head' shots?

@hk: G1X2 needs stopping down 1-2 stops for good quality, especially at the extreme ends of the zoom range and for closeups. Probably the same goes for G7X (already clear at f/2.8 100mm). Do you know similar cameras that don't have this problem wide open? RX100 isn't great wide open either, although RX100-3 seems a bit better than G1X2 wide open. If the image quality wide open is insufficient, maybe better buy a camera with slower (smaller, lighter, cheaper) lens that is sharp at f/3.5, e.g. GM5 with kit zoom?

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 08:09 UTC
On article Size matters: Hands-on with Canon PowerShot G7 X (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

olypan: Love the way dpr have manipulated the front page with Canon headlining all week with articles on the weakest introductions at Photokina.
Substitute any other brand for these dismal products and the Amazon control is obvious.

funny, over at the Canon forum some people are loudly complaining about the 'Nikon sponsored Photokina coverage'.

I guess Canon has a bit more new camera products at Photokina than most other companies (who may have chosen to introduce new gear on other tradeshows or simply as soon as it is ready).

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 07:59 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomV: pre-ordered... but curious, if the main feature that distinguishes this from the GM1 is the addition of an EVF, meaning that enthusiasts were purchasing almost solely for this reason, why would they put a cheaper low resolution version in there, why not a nice big high rez unit? I wonder if the HDMI port functionality has changed from the GM1. The GM1 only allowed playback out of the HDMI port, it would be welcome to allow live monitoring or better yet, clean uncompressed recording too as a bonus.

big high res unit: bigger camera, more power drain, higher cost. Just doesn't match the GMx concept.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 17:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

Catalin Stavaru: Increasing the size of the camera was the stupidest thing Panasonic could do. Just make a detachable EVF and bundle it with the camera for free, not necessary to ruin the camera appeal and the display size for a small EVF.

I like to have an EVF but I would NEVER consider a detachable EVF that makes the camera definitely non-pocketable, is inconvenient in many ways, tends to get lost or damaged etc.

An add-on EVF for such a compact camera is a kludge, bad idea. For big equipment it's another story.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 17:36 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

uzevla: Seriously, what's this trend with using low-end EVFs just to satisfy some "pro" wannabees ?
0.46x magnification and 1.1K dots - who needs that ?

Compact camera like this one needs good LCD. 3.3" would be good, yet they gave us 16:9 LCD which is more like 2.5". Hopefully, they didn't do what Sony is doing as their 921K 16:9 LCD on Nex6 is extremely dim - Samsung OLED w/ 230K looks better than that.

On top of this, flash sync speed stays 1/50.

Who is buying this crap ?

the 'crap' you are talking about was acceptable to every pro videographer just 5-10 years ago. I used several digital cameras with 200K or so viewfinders around ten years ago, and they saved the day many times. People who call this 'crap' don't know what they are talking about.

An EVF, even a basic one, can have big advantages over an LCD (especially a fixed one) e.g. for using the camera against the eye (better stability, not obvious from a long distance that you are taking a picture), for those with aging eyes or to make sure you can see the image as seen by the camera in very bright light.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 17:33 UTC
On article Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review (476 comments in total)

Seems mostly a bigger and more expensive alternative to e.g. Olympus XZ-2 that offers some better technology (EVF, video) but little real advantage for images (slightly bigger sensor but slower lens).

Compared to Sony RX100 series it will be difficult to compete - maybe interesting for those who want a built-in EVF and lament the lack of longer tele on RX100-3 (and don't need the best possible image quality in small size ...).

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 08:27 UTC as 133rd comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sirandar: I am fairly impressed with this camera, and if I hadn't bought an EM5 I would probably get one.

The dynamic range and low light performance isn't nearly as good and the FZ1000 seems pretty noisy above 800

BUT

To never have to change a lens actually outweighs both these cons for everyday practical use.

From my experience with the Pana FZ30, I found that the lack of dynamic range and telephoto end that was too slow to be useful are the only reason I am stilll not using it, megapixels be damned.

The dynamic range on the FZ1000 isn't bad .... may not be a limitation.

I have a suspicion that the telephoto end of the FZ1000 and may be still to slow to capture great pics in anything but the brightest light. That and the noise at high ISO, may limit this camera at the long end.

"I have a suspicion that the telephoto end of the FZ1000 and may be still to slow to capture great pics in anything but the brightest light. "

Why do you think that? Seems a ridiculous statement to me. f/4 for a 400mm lens (for this sensor size or bigger sensors) is plenty bright for most subjects, unless you want to work in near darkness which is not the typical conditions for a 400mm lens. There are f/2.8 400mm lenses but those are big and VERY heavy...

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 15:43 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: If you want a superzoom, just get any lightweight Nikon/Canon DSLR and attach an 18-200 zoom to it and it will be ahead of this Panasonic in every way. Or if you want a mirrorless camera, get a Sony A6000 with 18-200 zoom, or Samsung with 18-200, or Olympus with 14-150.
Only those who are interested in half baked 4k video may find this camera interesting.

even the still image quality of the DSLR won't be better by definition. For the same reach you need a lens like the Tamron 16-300 which is a very compromised optic, more so than the FZ1000 lens. The DSLR may win easily on noise performance in low light conditions (I couldn't care less about that ...), and in DR (but only for Nikon, not much advantage for Canon DSLRs), but probably not for sharpness across the frame and across the zoom range.
AF of the FZ1000 will probably be faster and more accurate than most 'lightweight' Canikon DSLRs with cheap consumer zooms, and the framerate will be much higher. Sometimes getting the shot is far more important than having the 'best image quality' while the subject has disappeared from the frame. Add to that the 4K video and many other features that don't even exist on DSLRs and it is clear how biased this 'DSLR is ahead in every way' claim is.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 15:33 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

007peter: Incredible. This thing offer better value than buying a Canon DSLR with 100-400L, or buying Panasonic G6 + 100-300mm. I was leaning toward M43 for its 2x crop factor advantage in telephoto, but the more I think about it, the more incredible these LARGE SENSOR point/shoot are. Maybe they the are future. I can see myself carrying 2 L.S.P&S, one for zoom, and one with 35mm f/1.8 type of lens for wide angle portraits

"It should be noted though that on a small 1 inch sensor there is not much room for cropping quality wise."

I don't think there will be much more room for cropping on an m43 ILC or DSLR with a consumer level superzoom with its crappy optics (especially at the top end of the range). Yes, you can crop more when using an FF camera with a big white, but then we are talking about combo's that are 4-5 kg at least, so in a completely different league.

The equivalent aperture says a lot about 'light gathering': most of these combo's are relatively close in low light performance or DOF control. I don't see the value of 'Formal F-number' like having f/2.8 at 600 mm equiv. on an FZ200 when the tiny sensor means that you are stuck at low ISO. That 'advantage' is an illusion.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 08:09 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Curious how 17 people own this camera already when it hasn't shipped yet?

even more curious: how is it possible that 29 already returned the camera? I smell some anxious RX10 owners ;-(

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 18:08 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

gmke: Ouch. I had higher hopes for the ISO range, that the noise reduction fall-off would be gentle out to 1200 ISO, but no. It appears you get one stop only over 1:1.6 and two stops less than top of the line 4/3 or APS-C sensors. Loss of detail at 1600 ISO is pretty ugly. Of course the relatively fast f2.8-4.0 aperture over such a wide zoom range backs you away from the need to go there very often. How different would things be if, instead of 20MP, a 12MP 1-incher had been available? The average fabrication error compared to perfect pixels would be much smaller, translating to an ISO range that would be a bit deeper and a bit more serious compared to DSLR sensors.

"How different would things be if, instead of 20MP, a 12MP 1-incher had been available?"

Very little, probably so small that the average user would not see it in practice. This issue of 'too small pixels' hardly applies anymore for current sensors. If you definitely want less noise, you can always downsize the 20 MP image to 12 MP, at the cost of lower resolution ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 18:07 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

utomo99: Panasonic please prepare new version:
1. Look at the cons list
2. use New sensor which work better on low light.
3. Body redesign so it is better

'use new sensor which work better on low light'

I'm curious, what sensor should they use with better low light performance, or are you going to design it for them?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 18:03 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

kff: a cheap APS-C camera with a compact lens like Pentax DA 50/1.8 + 35/2.4 would give a better picture quality and with cropping to 1" too :)

But why not Panasonic or Sony :)

how would that work for focal lengths like 25, 100, 200, 400 mm equiv.??

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 18:02 UTC
Total: 152, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »