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

361–370 of 387 posts

Re: DPReview.com to close

#361

Post by t0bia_s »

tagrun wrote: post #357
t0bia_s wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10bit and 4:2:2 is only for editing in post, majority of consumers don't need that.

If you read the last sentence of the post that you're replying to, I already said that it won't matter to most people. That being said, "is only for editing in post" (which is not really true, banding is an issue in scenes with high dynamic range with 8-bit, not limited to sky but also with strong lights or deep shadows) doesn't mean people won't want it. Around 10-15 years ago, in the age of single-digit-GB slow SD…

Majority of displays are 8bit and it will probably stay as standard for while.

Btw, over 10 years old Canon 5DMIII can shoot RAW video with MagicLantern. Manufacturers should open/update code to their old cameras that are capable do this. Its really disappointing when marketing ruin whole product. No wonder that camera market dying.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#362

Post by Kye »

mod50ack wrote: post #360
Krisando wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the grand parent. > The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos. I've had the opportunity to play with iPhone 14, it has 12 megapixel cameras, but I find that the image quality is no difference to 8 megapixels of detail, and if you use third party applications that can take pictures without post processing, it's often closer to 6 megapixels and the grain in the image is not great. Smart phones do…

Yeah, the iPhone doesn't have the best camera by any means. But having received some RAW photos from one, I feel like they at least don't look super shitty before you push them. Now, they do not compare to RAWs from my actual cameras (whether the R5 or 5Diii). But they at least might be worth looking at. The iPhone does shoot RAW, by the way: 12-bit DNG, but apparently perhaps only on the Pro models. Also, the 48MP c…

I had been hoping for metamaterial lenses to solve the physics problem, but that recent demo made it clear consumer applications are a very long way off. I can't actually find the demo, but it was someone from one of the three letter agencies showing it off on a stage. Maybe someone else will have it. It only shot in monochrome. The quality was good, and the lens was a lot smaller than an ordinary ILC lens on a camera you'd normally need to get that quality. But the presenter didn't offer much hope of it being better quickly. The demo was for a very specific scientific application.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#363

Post by JamesAdir »

dahwolf wrote: post #243

Sure enough the camera market has drastically shrunk, but even then it is bizarre to have the singular most popular website/community in the industry, with a treasure chest of 25 years of content, only to wipe it out like it never happened. As for this faith being "in the stars" as so many suggest, note that until very recently they had open positions. And as far as I know, plans to rebuild the entire site. It wasn't…

This is not "panic" in tech just corporate politics. Some middle manager wanted to shutdown this site for several years and didn't have the approval of higher managers or consensus with others. It's the same with Amazon Smile program. It's meaningless for Amazon in terms of cost, and imho it causes much more harm in communities like non-for-profits in the case of Amazon Smile or photography hobbyists in the case of DPReview.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#364

Post by max51 »

ajolly wrote: post #347
max51 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're willing to post process your images, the 80D will look way better for night pictures. The problem is that there is no built-in function for it and you have to manually process each pictures. You might even need more than one tool if you want to take advantage of the same type of AI fakery that phone have.

One thing I love about my A7S is the ability to tilt the screen and take candid photos of people while we're having a conversation. Also that thing pretty much shoots in the dark so I find that magic.

I regret not buying a Sony when I got my Canon 6D. Almost all of the lenses I use now are old/vintage and it sucks not having image stabilization for the extra 2 stops and a digital viewfinder to properly focus the lens. I almost resold my 6D many times in the past but I got too attached to it to ever pull the trigger.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#365

Post by mbajkowski »

redindian75 wrote: post #299
sunflowerfly wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Found Phil's interview - https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/5323285840/phil-askey-fo... http://photo.askey.net/

What a trip down memory lane, thanks for this. I was running a hardware review aggregator site in the 90s, and dpreview and the above provided quality content. When search engines were not great and link sharing / exchanges were useful, what a time it was.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#366

Post by stephen_g »

irrational wrote: post #279
vwoolf wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn't expect that to happen... Especially with lenses (full of expensive bits of glass) but new cameras will always be sold at a premium. Firms set prices for products, supply and demand mostly doesn't come into it (except pushing prices up perhaps when availability of components are constrained).

Re: DPReview.com to close

#367

Post by stephen_g »

t0bia_s wrote: post #335
vwoolf wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cameras made after 2016 are so good in terms of image quality that you will not see any improvement in newer cameras. So upgrading is reasonable option only for those, who need better functionality, which majority of amateurs don't need.

It depends for what. There are still ways to go with video, but mostly only for people who care to colour grade their footage. I expect a significant proportion of people now are buying mirrorless cameras now almost entirely to shoot video so I expect it is a major consideration. Things like in-camera 10-bit raw video recording which is still fairly rare. Probably mirrorless cameras will start being able to shoot 5K or 6K too, which is useful (for reframing by cropping in, otherwise downscaling to increase visual quality).

Re: DPReview.com to close

#368

Post by stephen_g »

riversflow wrote: post #249
mrandish wrote: post #73

Wow... I've been reading their comprehensive reviews and news for over 15 years. DPR got me into DSLR videography as a hobby which I've spent well over $10k on – much of it at Amazon. This really sucks as I don't know of another source I consider as authoritative for objective, thorough reviews and analysis of not only product but technologies and trends. Super disappointed in Amazon for not at least keeping the 25 y…

> I don't agree with those saying mobile photography/videography has (or will soon) make DSLR/mirrorless irrelevant. I like to go backpacking. I used to always take my Full Frame Camera and a couple of lenses, after several years of going with the same crew, they finally convinced me that I should just leave the extra pounds behind and use my phone. I won't do it again. The difference in the image quality, if you act…

Yeah, I agree with this. Last big trip I did, I brought my heavy full frame camera but still took a few hundred photos with my smartphone.

The iPhone photos (about 1 year old iPhone Pro) look fine, and are a great documentation of a lot of the interesting things I saw but which I didn't care to take pictures with the SLR (interesting things out the train window, shops and restaurants I went to, random things on the street, etc.). The SLR pictures are just something else though, and I had the eight or so best of them printed in large format to hang on the wall after I processed them, and I also show them to people on my iPad.

I guess the phone photos are all most people care to take, and that's fine. But I wouldn't just take a phone because I do want to actually make that art, and it really does make an incredible difference. I showed somebody some of the processed DLSR photos on the iPad and they were confused, thinking they were just iPhone photos I'd taken, saying "Why are these, like, good?". There's just something about a real lens and a full frame sensor that even non-photographers can immediately spot.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#369

Post by dahwolf »

JamesAdir wrote: post #363
dahwolf wrote: post #243

Sure enough the camera market has drastically shrunk, but even then it is bizarre to have the singular most popular website/community in the industry, with a treasure chest of 25 years of content, only to wipe it out like it never happened. As for this faith being "in the stars" as so many suggest, note that until very recently they had open positions. And as far as I know, plans to rebuild the entire site. It wasn't…

This is not "panic" in tech just corporate politics. Some middle manager wanted to shutdown this site for several years and didn't have the approval of higher managers or consensus with others. It's the same with Amazon Smile program. It's meaningless for Amazon in terms of cost, and imho it causes much more harm in communities like non-for-profits in the case of Amazon Smile or photography hobbyists in the case of D…

"This is not "panic" in tech just corporate politics"

You're quite confident in the thing you just made up. The CEO of Amazon literally has written an announcement detailing the process where they comb through their various businesses and making cuts, where they openly state that these are due to suddenly worse economic conditions.

Re: DPReview.com to close

#370

Post by midoridensha »

digitallyfree wrote: post #356
midoridensha wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For instance a phone can do a great job in a backlit scenario by intelligently cutting the highlights and boosting the shadows. The resulting image shows both the subject and background clearly but it doesn't represent the real-word lighting conditions. As a result it's great for a quick snapshot but is less useful in an artistic sense. This seems completely backwards to me. Artistic photography isn't about represen…

I guess I didn't really word this clearly, my intent was to state that the manual camera generally captures real-world conditions as a baseline. Then the photographer could in camera or in post manipulate the image to fulfill his artistic vision. While there are certain cameras which have inherent distortion for artistic purposes (e.g. Lomo camera) the majority of them are designed to realistically capture the scene…

I'm not so sure about this. Even very old cameras have many lens settings, such as f-stops, which change the depth of field and can massively change how a scene looks. I fail to see how boosting highlights and cutting shadows, so the viewer sees a more balanced image, is really any different than using a wide-angle lens to capture much more in the image than a human can naturally perceive (human vision supposedly looks like a 35mm camera with a 50mm focal length lens setting; telephoto and wide-angle focal lengths are showing things quite differently from how humans would perceive it), or arranging a hyperfocal shot (so that both near and far objects are in-focus, something human eyes are incapable of).
Post reply on HN