Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DPReview.com to close

dpreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 387 posts

Re: DPReview.com to close

#271

Post by buildbot »

pixelmonkey wrote: post #246

Sad news. A guy named Ken Rockwell runs a solo operation publishing reviews of cameras and lenses across the DSLR / mirrorless ILC market. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm Example review of the recently released Canon R7 (a nice mirrorless camera I own): https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r7.htm Note that his review style is to start with sample images, and then kick off his prose/text review. So you hav…

Ken Rockwell is a complete blowhard asshole - it doesn't take long to find weird racism, extremely biased opinions, and bad advice. Does he still only shoot in JPGs?

Re: DPReview.com to close

#272

Post by chrismorgan »

Clamchop wrote: post #247
akho wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions. I find the opposite. Proper cameras are much more flexible and plain better when there's enough light. Inside, without a flash, you'll not get a great photo anyway, so might as well benefit from “computational” fakery.

A camera with a swiveling flash (almost always a separate unit) can yield stunning photos in dim indoor conditions. If you have a white wall or ceiling, bam, tons of diffuse light without any more props. Only available on a traditional camera. But even fewer people will bother with all that.

You can manually rotate the built-in flash in Sony’s α6000-series cameras: it uses two spring-loaded hinges, and still operates if you push/pull it backwards. This gives a range of motion from full-forwards to full-upwards to somewhat-backwards.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#273

Post by WWLink »

vwoolf wrote: post #130
giobox wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think times have changed though, DPReviews fortunes arguably have mirrored the fortunes of the ILC (interchangeable lens camera) market. The site (along with flickr.com...) was a daily visit for me 15 years ago at the height of the DSLR boom, but I honestly now can't remember the last time I checked. ILC/DSLR annual sales volume peaked in ~2010 I believe, and has rapidly declined ever since really, another victi…

I'm seeing a lot of people discussing sales numbers; here is one article showing the decline in terms of both lens and interchangeable lens cameras shipped: https://bythom.com/newsviews/real-camera-economics.html . Lenses appear to have declined by about 66% from 2012 to 2022. Cameras, by a little under 50%. This decline makes sense to me. I have a Fuji XT4 which I like a lot, but, also, starting around the iPhone 13…

"starting around the iPhone 13, phones got really good"

-exasperated sigh-

I wish I could agree but I just can't. I feel around that point pictures taken by phone cameras stopped looking real. They started forcing stuff like HDR and AI correction and very heavy handed noise filtering.

Looking back at my old pictures from the 2010s, I think my canon digital elph took better pictures than my phones do now lol. I realize how stupid that sounds.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#274

Post by WWLink »

asdff wrote: post #41
giobox wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think times have changed though, DPReviews fortunes arguably have mirrored the fortunes of the ILC (interchangeable lens camera) market. The site (along with flickr.com...) was a daily visit for me 15 years ago at the height of the DSLR boom, but I honestly now can't remember the last time I checked. ILC/DSLR annual sales volume peaked in ~2010 I believe, and has rapidly declined ever since really, another victi…

The thing is, there's another boom currently going on. The mirrorless boom, and this site is the gold standard for that one as well. Now there is no home, and its much harder to gleam the differences that are actually meaningful between these many mirrorless cameras (and new dslrs that do get made).

Yea now we're going to have to put up with youtubers trying to build a brand and shove their personality into every review they make. :(

Re: DPReview.com to close

#275

Post by WWLink »

astrange wrote: post #238
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only people who think Smartphone Cameras take better pictures than SLRs are not photographers. It is not just low light, it is depth of field, exposure control, the minimization or absence of computed exposures. I have an iPhone 13 Pro Max and only shot in RAW mode. That is the best I can do. Saving money fro a mirrorless camera so i can start shooting again.

SLRs don't take "better" photos, they take more detailed photos. The best photo is the one you actually took because you had the camera on you and didn't miss the shot. And if you want the most detailed photo, SLRs are not the highest quality cameras either when you could rent a Fujifilm GFX 100.

> SLRs don't take "better" photos, they take more detailed photos. The best photo is the one you actually took because you had the camera on you and didn't miss the shot.

At this point I want to go back to using a pocket camera. I can turn it on and take a picture without having to look at the screen. There's no automatic cloud uploads. I don't have to worry about someone logging metrics or scanning the pictures or AI doing weird things like filling in moon textures. I take picture. I get picture. That's it. I don't have to worry about cloud subscriptions or "ecosystems" (GAH!) or whatever. I stick the SD card in my computer and there's the fucking pictures. Done.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#276

Post by getlawgdon »

Well, shoot. This one hurts. One of my favorite no-nonsense places to get info or just browse. And smartphone cameras are getting good but they're not remotely close to real cameras. Had a 13 max until my new/much better s23 ultra and the best shots on either absolutely pale compared to my Lumix G3, now quite long in the tooth.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#277

Post by outofpaper »

Lammy wrote: post #229
gsich wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And with good reason. While I like shooting with DSLM some software and hardware parts are just bad. No GPS. The cheapest Android phone from 5 years ago has this. I don't want to use the shitty app to get geoinformation. Yes, battery lifetime - no need to enable it by default. No embedded storage. With SSD prices cheap as now, add some 64 or 128GB storage. Keep the card slot. More computational stuff, no need for ena…

They exist! My YN455 interchangeable-lens Android camera has all of those things. It uses the same 20MP MFT sensor as my PEN-F and I love it a lot: https://www.yongnuomall.com/product/detail/16254

Does that have a cell modem? An m4/3 camera with wifi and cell data sounds amazing?

Re: DPReview.com to close

#278

Post by deltarholamda »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #79
johnvanommen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a $600 DSLR that I bought at Costco on a whim, fifteen years ago. Once in a blue moon I look at my old photos and realize they just look night and day better than anything I've taken in the last decade. Camera phone lenses do alright when it's sunny outside, but DSLRs kill it when it comes to medium and low light.

The only people who think Smartphone Cameras take better pictures than SLRs are not photographers. It is not just low light, it is depth of field, exposure control, the minimization or absence of computed exposures. I have an iPhone 13 Pro Max and only shot in RAW mode. That is the best I can do. Saving money fro a mirrorless camera so i can start shooting again.

The final output isn’t the only criteria either. The file may look good, but when you really know your SLR, you can compose and shoot much much faster with more options. Aperture, shutter speed, even ISO, and you can create art.

On a phone it’s all kinda pre-canned. And you have to paw at the stupid thing like a monkey.

You might have an equally sharp or whatever JPG, but it’s the difference between watercolor and crayons.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#279

Post by irrational »

vwoolf wrote: post #130
giobox wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think times have changed though, DPReviews fortunes arguably have mirrored the fortunes of the ILC (interchangeable lens camera) market. The site (along with flickr.com...) was a daily visit for me 15 years ago at the height of the DSLR boom, but I honestly now can't remember the last time I checked. ILC/DSLR annual sales volume peaked in ~2010 I believe, and has rapidly declined ever since really, another victi…

I'm seeing a lot of people discussing sales numbers; here is one article showing the decline in terms of both lens and interchangeable lens cameras shipped: https://bythom.com/newsviews/real-camera-economics.html . Lenses appear to have declined by about 66% from 2012 to 2022. Cameras, by a little under 50%. This decline makes sense to me. I have a Fuji XT4 which I like a lot, but, also, starting around the iPhone 13…

I'm still a bit interested in buying a ILC camera, but I assumed at some point the prices would start dropping, but they really haven't. Demand has gone way down and supply isn't really limited. There is even competition. But the prices remain fairly constant.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#280

Post by reagle »

sunflowerfly wrote: post #266
redindian75 wrote: post #172

Phil Askey's Photo Review (DPReview's old name) was a pioneer in camera reviews even in back 1998/99 when I first encountered it. I remember it was run from Singapore with the url philaskey.net/~photo or something. He used to review cameras in such clarity and detail that it was so popular among digital camera nerds. Huge loss!

I was trying to remember the old name. I believe it was just Phil running a blog solo? Content was slow to appear but incredible quality when it did. It would be great if someone took it back to its roots.

https://reagle.org/joseph/2013/photo/photo-net.html
Post reply on HN