Fois Giovanni

Joined on Jun 28, 2011

Comments

Total: 57, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

CanonKen: What...the...&#^@

I was seriously ready to buy this camera, now I will just keep my 6D and wait.

Canon, REALLY!?

I suppose he'll wait for something better from Canon or another manufacturer, whichever comes first. Then he will change the nick to NewBrandKen.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 12:08 UTC

I see a great field in the bridge cameras, since they usually have long zoom and have fixed lens. Usually we have a new objective design for each launch, I do not see problems in using a curved sensor in a new project. I only see vantages, more zoom, more brightness, or both.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 13:34 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (693 comments in total)

PS: To see the green lights and golden balls on the Christmas tree, you must enlarge the photo.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 16:44 UTC as 142nd comment
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (693 comments in total)

Who put so much green lamps and golden balls on the tree at the extreme right of the photo https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/7675116335/Samples/SDIM0159.acr_2.jpeg
We are at the middle of the year very far from Chrismas!

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 16:41 UTC as 143rd comment | 2 replies

Jeezzzz ... this camera specifications tell us that can do microscopic photos (new feature for cameras) and no one of such photos in the samples.... Com´on DP!

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 12:33 UTC as 57th comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

melgross: Since more OVFs do superimpose electronic info over the screen, we've almost got hybrid VFs these days. I would like to say that EVFs are my favorite, but not yet.

Canon was recently asked when they would replace the OVFs in their high end and pro models, and their response was that someday, they would, but it's not there yet.

That's exactly correct. Maybe in five years, just a guess as to time.

Or Canon could do like Kodak when asked if they were going to make digital cameras ..... They said that at the right time, they may have waited too long.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mac McCreery: I wonder if younger photographers are influenced by their experiences of using screens on phones, compact cams, tablets and so on. It seems that we are increasingly seeing the world through or on a screen.
I do hesitate when I see folk with dslrs handholding and using live view with the camera at arms length. But if it works, who cares! I just find it funny!

Gon0S - I wanted to say that an OLED EVF consumes less energy than an LCD so if you use the OLED EVF to frame and check your photos you will be running low on battery power. Already who owns OVF and usually uses the LCD to frame or check your photos will not have this option. In the settings you can ask the OVF to turn off whenever it is not in use.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 15:54 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

BBQue: EVF !!!
- to get the right composition, OVF and EVF are "even steven"
- but being able to instantaneously magnify the image to check for critical focus, that is priceless. Therefore EVF wins in my book.

Webber15: - What if the chosen exposure time was not fast enough? And other adjustments? I doubt you take a trip or a job without checking from time to time, and the main photos, if everything has been satisfactory! "No need to check!" Are you kidding?

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 22:08 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Is this a fair summary?

Many of the folk here prefer EVF because that gives them a better idea of what the final image will look like from a doctored image through the electronics which compresses the dynamic range closer to the end result. Some, but not all of the group who grew up with film like me, prefer OVF because we learned to judge from the original when there was no alternative and prefer to see that, having no problem with it. A few OVF fans appear to have no such earlier background.

Most of those starting out with EVF and/or LCD seem to prefer EVF. I suppose that is not surprising, given that reason above and I am sure EVFs will still be around long term and continue to improve.

Those OVF diehards like me probably only need worry if we are in such a small minority that manufacturers abandon us. But will that happen?

Hopefully not. My reading of the comments is that EVF are favoured by the majority but that there is a sizeable minority for OVF. Do you agree?

The vast majority still buy DSLR ie OVF. In 2012 the ILC, or mirrorless, began to be part of the market and since then maintains a constant sales volume, while the DSLR had a fall. See the chart: https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/9398648371/Cameras

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 21:58 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

firemonkey: Why don't jet fighters have an EVF instead of a glass canopy with heads-up display? Because, all its advantages notwithstanding, an EVF would put the pilot at a disadvantage, which would mean losing his plane and his life.

I think the essential problem with EVFs, no matter how good they are, is that they abstract the world away from you. You're no longer looking at the scene in all its immediacy, but rather at a representation of the scene. It's like trying to do photography via closed-circuit TV. That might be interesting in itself, but it's a different experience from being immersed in the environment you're recording.

EVFs confer some advantages, but let us ask ourselves, why are manufacturers pushing EVFs? Is it because of these advantages? Or is it because they are far cheaper to produce than a good optical finder? I contend that it's the latter, and that if money were no issue they would offer optical viewfinders, albeit with the option of a heads-up display.

Firemonkey - Neither one nor the other, I believe that there are manufacturers that bet on the OVF even being more expensive. Other manufacturers bet the EVF after other advantages at a cost that other consumers will appreciate. For example: What is the best memory card format, Compact Flash, Mermoy Stick, SD, others? Only time will tell which is preferred and over the years the leadership has changed.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 21:30 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artur - Brasil: Well, my only experiences about the motif were on Samsung NX30 and the Nikon D5500. I have to say that Samsung's EVF, in my opinion, was far, far, far advanced than Nikon's one.
First the inconvenience of the mirror up and down, with the terrible noise and shaking.
Other the low amount of information on OVF, the difficulties on very iluminated ambients, the impossibility of using the lcd while on movie mode, and many others I don't remember now.
My vote is EVF!

I came to the same conclusion a long time ago. They speak of the delay that the EVF has, but they forget that nowadays it is only 1/120 s while the time of raising the mirror of an OVF is approximately 1 / 60s, twice as slow. They talk about energy savings, but going up and down the mirror takes place on the battery.
Portuguese version:
Eu cheguei a essa mesma conclusão há um bom tempo. Falam do atraso que o EVF possui, mas esquecem que hoje em dia é de apenas 1/120 s enquanto o tempo de subida do espelho de um OVF é aproximadamente 1/60s, duas vezes mais lento. Falam de economia de energia, mas subir e descer o espelho ocorre por conta da bateria.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 21:19 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Playright: A very interesting set of perceptions and preferences! For me it is OVF, simply because of the lack of any form of Lag (other than Shutter button). Also, coming from a film background, there is still a small amount of anticipation with OVF which makes me work to get things right first time through understanding the scene.

You are forgetting the 1 / 60s of mirror lifting to then get exposure.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 21:11 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mac McCreery: I wonder if younger photographers are influenced by their experiences of using screens on phones, compact cams, tablets and so on. It seems that we are increasingly seeing the world through or on a screen.
I do hesitate when I see folk with dslrs handholding and using live view with the camera at arms length. But if it works, who cares! I just find it funny!

"I see folk with dslrs handholding and using live view with the camera at arms length." - True, this happens frequently. Since they use the LCD they could be happier to stop loading the volume / weight of the mirror box with pentaprism and all the vibration and noise it causes. They could be happier with an ILC and they do not know. On second thought, they talk so much about the energy savings that the OVF provides but all the noise from the beating mirror comes from the power of a battery and the LCD spends more battery than an EVF. It should be much harder to take pictures of birds with a DSLR, because if it is at short distance it is just a photo for bird, with the noise they all go.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

King Penguin: One thing nobody's mentioned yet is in the manufacturing process it's probably cheaper to slap on an EVF instead of designing, manufacturing and aligning a good optical finder.......so perhaps we're being sold it as a benefit in the guise of cost cutting and streamlined manufacturing.......just a thought!

The EVF cuts in the noise and vibration of the mirror, in the space (without mirror, pentaprism, focalization plate, condenser to illuminate the corners), in the weight, the fragility of these optical and mechanical elements at the time of an impact, in price, weight and Volume of the lenses as they can reach the sensor without the need for retrofocus. The consumption of an OLED is reduced to a minimum (only pixels lit) and the EVF consumes less power than the external display, usually LCD, that those who use OVF constantly consult. Nowadays EVF are in the range of 120 fps (1 / 120s) while the rise time of a mirror is usually 1 / 60s, which one starts capturing before then? It has less DR for sure, but it gives you a better sense of what the DR in the photo will look like. If you do not like what you see on EVF you probably will not like what will appear in the photo. The image of an EVF is usually larger than that of an OVF. The choice is quite personal

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 15:33 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

chshooter: You can use an OVF without battery power to frame or compose a shot. You can't do that with an EVF and you are going to drain your battery just setting up.

At the time of the analog cameras there was that photographer who beat a single photo of each thing to save film does not it? I bet they'd like the mechanical shutters and the spring-loaded shutter and spring-back lever on the mirror to make the battery last even more. Maybe a selenium photometer would get rid of the battery at once .... or not ... need to go back to the analog system. Digital sensor uses battery too. I exaggerated a little but it is to be able to reflect that a good photo is priceless. Buy spare batteries if any, but use the best features to get the desired result on your photo.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 20:10 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

shigzeo: I have vertigo. EVFs exacerbate it when the camera is moved or the lens zoomed. OVFs are much easier for me. My wife also has trouble with EVFs and with small OVFs, but more with the former, but it's more eye strain.

Our cases are anecdotal, but germane to our interaction with cameras.

Ever tried to close the eye that is not in the EVF?

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 14:49 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: Mirrors will eventually die off and high-performance EVFs will take over. Noisy cameras will fade away. And one great source of image-degrading vibration will cease to be a factor.

When I bought a Lumix FZ 50 I was fascinated by photography. I have this camera to this day (working perfectly) being my favorite for documentation photos due to manual zoom of fast and precise framing and the adjustable LCD very useful using tripod. At the time I thought it was time to venture into the highly praised DSLR and bought a Canon EOS 450. I noticed something strange in the night shots taken with Canon. The stars and city lights appeared as tiny vertical / horizontal scratches in panoramic / portrait photos, even using a heavy tripod. With the FZ 50 I could take photos without these artifacts even without a tripod. I concluded that it was the mirror beating that made the camera wobble before the capture began. To avoid this I should raise the mirror in advance but rather fix the focus, zoom and framing. If this happened to the camera on a tripod ... what should happen to the daytime photos taken in your hand? It was the end of my DSRL adventure. Nowadays I use a FZ 2500

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 14:24 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

David GranoDeOro: The instant view of OVF is easy on the eyes and replicates the dynamic range our eyes will see. But this is only meant for framing when shooting with film per the very reason it was invented. But the days of film are behind us and today to shoot in OVF is quickly showing it's age when compared to modern EVFs as the formers benefits give way to ever improving technology.

The very first EVF I've used was on the Fuji HS10 which was after using a Canon 5D for 3 years working in a photo studio and renting out a Canon T3i during my time at SCAD. In that time I greatly enjoyed the OVF but had the constant issue of chimping. After every shot I had to check the photo on the live view to be curtain I had exposed correctly and had nailed the focus and froze the action. Often I wouldn't realize I had moved from strikinglydifferent lighting all indoors and went an entire shoot with the same settings only to find many of the photos overexposed, blurry, missed focused, etc. Chimping wasn't a solution as I would often miss shots or would have the subject waiting while I checked.

Now on my Fuji HS10 the EVF was terrible in every respect to OVF except one crucial difference that blew away most of its weaknesses and that's exposure preview. This alone allowed me adjust on the fly while actively shooting and with playback in EVF I never missed a shot. Bc of this function I quickly developed my own style of shooting around the weaknesses of EVF to get as close the my experience with OVF. When time came for my first purchase of a DSLR I had a difficult choice. Go back to the system of OVF or see if there were EVF DSLRs. This easily sent me in Sony's direction as they were the only ones doing DSLR with EVF. After a few years shooting with the A65 I upgraded to the A7Rii.

There simply is no point to OVF looking through the lens when the camera will never record what you have seen as no camera is capable of recording the dynamic range of the human eye, nor the perception of the brain. It's far better to see what the camera will see and adjust in real time before taking the shot.

Today's EVF has nearly matched OVF in every way while exceeding it in orhers. And contrary to the comments of DPreviewers writer's comments it's incredibly useful in low ligjt. I've used the Sony A7Sii in total darkness out doors where I was shooting the milky way for the first time. I was amazed at the fact that it was able to display a live view of the milky way by gaining up on ISO and setting my shutter to 30s. Never before could I actively frame the galaxy in real time through the viewfinder before taking the shot.

I also love to focus manually with an 85mm f1.4 but on an OVF this was a pain as nailing focus truly was guess work. EVF on the other hand allows for image magnification and focus highlights which utterly trounced my experience with manual focus with OVF.

As far as I'm concerned OVF is a thing of the past best suited to diehard purists who would enjoy it along with driving the Model T and hand writing letters to friends....it's more of an emotional self serving experience that is no longer practical nor reasonable in today's world.

Just my humble opinion.

Really enjoyed! You put a stone on the subject.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 13:25 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Eckerlin: The reason why I am not interested in a camera with an EVF: the ugly blue-ish rendering by the EVFs of the subjects/scenes. Why that ugly blue-ish rendering? Why are camera makers not capable to build EVFs with natural color-rendering? I have many times be told: look at the modern EVFs of excellent camera makers and you will get positively surprised - that positive surprise never occured. .

When shooting, enjoying what I see through the viewfinder is an essential part of my enjoyment (am I the only one?). And the ugly bue-ish rendering by the EVFs just destroys my pleasure.

I would not mind at all EVFs with a true-life color-rendering.

Probably, I'm pretty sure, your setup for the WB was for artificial light and the EVF was trying to warn you of that. All EVF cameras will do the same bluish image if you miss the WB in this way.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 13:18 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: Not so much wrong answers as wrong questions, perhaps.

I think the relevant questions relate to how well any given finder satisfy my requirements.

I switched from a 20D to a 5D, the OVF experience was like going from looking through a tunnel to looking through a window. Optical finders, different experiences.

The primary requirement from a good finder is I want to see the frame big, bright and covered.

EVFs started out poor and objectionable in every respect; small, dim, grainy, flickery, laggy. They weren't preferred, simply tolerated due to Hobson's choice.

But they have progressed tremendously in all areas.

If an EVF passes your standards, then they start to reveal their unique party tricks: exposure/effect simulation, warning blinkies, magnification, focus peaking, etc.

These are useful tools to have in the locker.

But it still comes down to Hobson's choice, most people just enjoy or tolerate the finder that came with the camera they chose using a variety of other criteria.

Really enjoyed! You pinned the point.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 13:10 UTC
Total: 57, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »