Deorum

Lives in Greece Athens, Greece
Works as a Sports Photographer
Has a website at www.georgespyros.com
Joined on May 4, 2003
About me:

Sports Photography 4_the_win!

Comments

Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Deorum: Lightroom already allowed to batch change time/date capture time

You are right. I haven't still got used to the Classic vs CC (ie cloud), name calling.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 17:29 UTC

Lightroom already allowed to batch change time/date capture time

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 17:17 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies

name me, one kickstart project that turned out to be a success...

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 12:44 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon 85mm F1.4L IS USM sample gallery (319 comments in total)
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: @dpreview team: stop using adobe standard color profile, it's terrible on Canon.

adobe camera raw needs to push the vibration + contrast+ saturation in double digits to make it look acceptable

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 15:27 UTC
On article Sony developing a 400mm F2.8 G Master lens (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Much joy among Sony fan people, the vast majority of whom will never be able to afford this $15000+ lens.

Canon equivelant lenses cost abou 10K, and sony is already more expensive with much smaller producation lines (as far lenses are concerned).
If not 15K, it is sure more than 11-12K.

I also wonder what the power requirements will be for this monster.
Canon has at least 1d bodies, with 11v batteries, able to drive the big whites.
Sony's miniscule bodies i believe will have trouble driving them, or even having a decent battery life

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 09:51 UTC

As far as the new online LR;
i dont know how things work in the US as far as internet speeds go, but filling some 128gb cards, each weekend (Especially us, professionals), means our photos will NEVER syncronise online. 98% of LR users are unable to properly use this cloud service due to speed limitations, and even if they do storage space is too expensive.
Maybe this model will work in 10 years, now we are simply not ready.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 21:43 UTC as 33rd comment | 2 replies
On article Canon EOS 6D Mark II Review (1129 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxmarra: can someone explain to me why DPR tests canon bodies with 25 years old 400 USD non L 85mm 1.8 but tests nikon with a more expensive lens which released in 2011 and also tests sony with a 900USD Zeiss lens?

Of course its not. Both sigma 85mm lens (the art and the non-art) beat this lens badly.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 06:26 UTC
In reply to:

Deorum: last one is ...way too oversharpenned?

i actually like that, now that you mention it

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 16:23 UTC

last one is ...way too oversharpenned?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 16:08 UTC as 88th comment | 2 replies
On article iPhone X: What you need to know (418 comments in total)

And you buy a specialized imaging gadget like a canon DSLR for 2-3K euros, lets say 5d4 or 6d2, and it struggles to do 60p at 1080. ...

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 14:37 UTC as 65th comment | 8 replies

I would swear i have heard the same backround song, in similar timelapses, a hundred times.
(great TL btw)

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 16:52 UTC as 38th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Moon0326: Who's gonna use 14mm f/1.8? For astro, you can just buy 20mm or 24mm then stitch. Those two focal length with the same F or faster (1.4) absorbs much much more light (at least 3x). I expected 14mm f/1.8 to be cheaper. At this price range, I don't really see a reason to buy one.

The total quantity of light is not directly corellated to the size of "pupil".
Yes, a f2.8 200mm has a much larger pupil entrance, from a 1.8 14mm.
But the 200mm, strives to get as much light from a much smaller cone of light, than the 14mm.
This is not the "TOTAL" ammount of light.
Thus for this simple experiment, you can take 2 manual photos, and just check the histogram.
The 1.4 24mm, doesNOT collect 3times the light than the 14mm.
the 24mm does collects 3 times the light from the area (cone of light - frame) of the 14mm that would be cropped to the same frame, but you forget that the 14mm looks at a much larger area, thus counter balances this.
I repeat, it collects 3 times the light, from the cropped part of the 14mm, that would produce the same frame like the 24mm. But it looks at a much bigger frame.
It is the front element tells more of the whole story (they are pretty equal).

All this can be verified of course ... from the histogram.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 08:42 UTC
In reply to:

Moon0326: Who's gonna use 14mm f/1.8? For astro, you can just buy 20mm or 24mm then stitch. Those two focal length with the same F or faster (1.4) absorbs much much more light (at least 3x). I expected 14mm f/1.8 to be cheaper. At this price range, I don't really see a reason to buy one.

So flawed logic there...

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2017 at 12:35 UTC

ok, but the sound is tottaly bogus

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2017 at 14:04 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply

Please define "professional portraits" . I once shot a race with 1500 runners. I consider all the photos professional (i used a FF dslr + pro lens after all).

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 22:59 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Deorum: Thus cancelling all the advantages of medium-format. Because MF advantage is mostly the fact that you use more mm of lens to achieve the same result. It doesnt matter if the light is converged to a narrow or wider beam, what matters is what was collected in the first place.

@Androole

Theoretically speaking if we could unlink sensor size-from lenses size, yes i argue that it offers no advantage.
Practically now, it is a different matter. and it is practical reasons (like less strain on lenses etc) that produce a better result. Theoretically the sensor could be as large or small. So still a larger sensor/lens offers better IQ, than same DOF exposure of smaller sensors.
Obvsiously converging the light of an FF lens to a pinpoint size sensor, would yield such a strong light with needs of exposure up to 1/20.000 which is impossible. It would even burn throught the shutter curtain.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 23:25 UTC
In reply to:

Deorum: Thus cancelling all the advantages of medium-format. Because MF advantage is mostly the fact that you use more mm of lens to achieve the same result. It doesnt matter if the light is converged to a narrow or wider beam, what matters is what was collected in the first place.

@Androole
Bigger sensor forces you to use bigger lenses. In the end this is what matters and makes all the difference.

@whumber. This is the theory of filling a well, photodiode is a well that is filled slowly. then you take the average.

Maybe yes, but i think it has to do ultimately with the NUMBER of pixels (because the total light has to fall into specific slots, and not the size of pixels itself. The analogy of the well is a bit flawed, not a fact that bigger wells fill slower.
I would argue that bigger wells, fill easied because the collect more light per well.
I am sorry i didnt understand this.
Longer exposure is better if total exposure is the same? 1/100-F2-iso100<1/25-F4-iso100 ?
Stopping down 1 stop Av, and exposing longer gives better SNR (for same iso?) how?

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

Deorum: Thus cancelling all the advantages of medium-format. Because MF advantage is mostly the fact that you use more mm of lens to achieve the same result. It doesnt matter if the light is converged to a narrow or wider beam, what matters is what was collected in the first place.

You get the better SNR ratio of bigger sensors, because you use bigger lenses (more mm of lens) to get the same frame. Not because the sensor is larger it self.

For example, if you use a theoretical 100% efficient boost, you could get the same noise levels with FF-lenses on a crop-body. The 1 stop (or whatever) noise advantage, would be there because the f4 lens would count as 2.8 lens efficiently.

Take a magnifying lens, and play with it. What matters is the light that is collected in the begging. How the final beam is converged (narrow and strong, wide and faint) doesnt change the total output.

FF sensors have the advantage we all know, because they use bigger lenses, not because they are just bigger.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 19:06 UTC

Thus cancelling all the advantages of medium-format. Because MF advantage is mostly the fact that you use more mm of lens to achieve the same result. It doesnt matter if the light is converged to a narrow or wider beam, what matters is what was collected in the first place.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 18:16 UTC as 30th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Father Bouvier: Should you stick with sRGB? Here how the same picture looks in 6 different browsers: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/06/ugPTu.jpg

Does your browser support ICC profiles? Check yourself: http://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/

According to the The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), all untagged images and page elements should be considered sRGB by the web browser.

All images (even sent out to be printed i would dare say, unless you really know what you are doing) should be treated as sRGB.
that said, AdobeRGB or other spaces, are still valuable for our own satisfaction when viewing our images.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 22:05 UTC
Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »