nazdravanul wrote:
DIggloyd (sic) is a highly reputable reviewer with very serious content.
Well, perhaps at one time he was... now he's all about clickbait hysteria, with a dose of schizophrenia thrown in for good measure.
Next week, he'll discover that the texture of the camera's neckstrap is not to his liking, and the Panasonic S1R will suddenly become the worst f***ing piece of crap ever built.
Panasonic makes some great cameras now, and I'm sure this one is superb, but personally I don't want to be restricted to using only adapted lenses - I had my fill of that with Sony. Sigma is (or will be) releasing lenses in this lens mount, so if you like Sigma that might make it a viable choice.
molson wrote:
Well, perhaps at one time he was... now he's all about clickbait hysteria, with a dose of schizophrenia thrown in for good measure.
Next week, he'll discover that the texture of the camera's neckstrap is not to his liking, and the Panasonic S1R will suddenly become the worst f***ing piece of crap ever built.
I’m looking mostly at the images and testing methodology. And those are still solid. Defintely more solid and serious than this kind of comments.
nazdravanul wrote:
I’m looking mostly at the images and testing methodology. And those are still solid. Defintely more solid and serious than this kind of comments.
If you had subscribed to Lloyd's reviews for as long as I had (past tense), you would realize I'm not really exaggerating...
If you go back to his S1R review a few months from now, I suspect you'll find that a lot of his euphoric comments will have disappeared...
Jim Kasson typically does much more objective reviews of gear like this.
panasonic is trying to give customers things that sony doesn't have, similar to what canon is doing with the porky f/2 zooms, that no one in the real world wants to lug around all day.
is catering to obscure functionality a hallmark of significant market share and good platform longevity? will it result in better lens selection for a camera mount? probably not.
although i'd certainly like to own it and experiment with it
panasonic is trying to give customers things that sony doesn't have, similar to what canon is doing with the porky f/2 zooms, that no one in the real world wants to lug around all day.
is catering to obscure functionality a hallmark of significant market share and good platform longevity? will it result in better lens selection for a camera mount? probably not.
although i'd certainly like to own it and experiment with it
The biggest drawback for me is the same as why I abandoned the Panasonic m4/3 system - they don't repair their lenses, and in Canada they only offer a 1-year warranty. With no service or support available, I cam't fathom why any professional would look at this system.
molson wrote:
The biggest drawback for me is the same as why I abandoned the Panasonic m4/3 system - they don't repair their lenses, and in Canada they only offer a 1-year warranty. With no service or support available, I cam't fathom why any professional would look at this system.
Is that still true, now that they're making professional level cameras? I wasn't aware of it till a few days ago; I'm not too alarmed about it since I'm not buying any native lenses except the relatively inexpensive 24-105, but it makes me wonder how well the camera bodies are supported.
molson wrote:
The biggest drawback for me is the same as why I abandoned the Panasonic m4/3 system - they don't repair their lenses, and in Canada they only offer a 1-year warranty. With no service or support available, I cam't fathom why any professional would look at this system.
Hmm, let me think about that for a moment. What about native, portable, weather sealed, with AF, f2 Leica APO primes, with world class performance ? ))
Don't know about Panasonic bodies, though ...
Holger wrote:
If someone requires to do 3m gallery prints, it may be an option. A few pros might really need it. But how many do really require this? A tiny tiny minority, in my opinion. I find it more amusing that amateurs consider buying a camera just for _one_ feature, which they hardly _really_use in the end.
How much room do people have for huge prints? What is the benefit if you are not selling huge prints? What is the benefit if all the images are just stored to a local HD? What is the benefit, if you don't look at really huge prints?...Show more →
If I could like this quote twice, I would. A standard 42mp image from the A7R3 can make a HUGE print. We all know the human eye can only detect a certain amount of detail based on viewing distance. If you’re making huge prints, the viewing distance gets further away the bigger you get (99.9999% of the time - there’s always an exception). I’m all for improvement and I love new tech, but this high res pixel shift stuff will only benefit a few people.
molson wrote:
If you had subscribed to Lloyd's reviews for as long as I had (past tense), you would realize I'm not really exaggerating...
If you go back to his S1R review a few months from now, I suspect you'll find that a lot of his euphoric comments will have disappeared...
Jim Kasson typically does much more objective reviews of gear like this.
I've been and still am (present tense) a subscriber for almost 10 years. A few months from now, a 70MP Sony / Canon / Nikon body with multishot capabilites (one can only wish) could make those comments obsolete, don't you think ?
mudlake wrote:
If I could like this quote twice, I would. A standard 42mp image from the A7R3 can make a HUGE print. We all know the human eye can only detect a certain amount of detail based on viewing distance. If you’re making huge prints, the viewing distance gets further away the bigger you get (99.9999% of the time - there’s always an exception). I’m all for improvement and I love new tech, but this high res pixel shift stuff will only benefit a few people.
You can make any size print you want from any camera. But gallery viewing distance standard is 20cm - from 20cm you should be able to discern very fine detail, for a high quality print.
I've printed from D3x files, from standard a7r2 files, and from stitched files (up to gigapixel resolutions) from both cameras. The only thing that is huge is the difference in quality and discernible detail. And the impact a larger print has on the viewer, compared to a smaller sized print.
But again, composition and light will trump resolution any day of the year. A gazzilion MP of resolution will not save a bad image from succumbing to a highly creative iphone pic.
Here's a link I generated into dpreview's studio comparison widget comparing the S1R pixel-shift vs A7rIII pixel-shift vs GFX100 vs A7rIII non-shifted:
I like Lloyd, he's an interesting guy and a very methodical reviewer. He focuses on all sorts of things that may/may not be useful, but he shows it...focus shift, colour shifts, breathing, etc. You, the reader, can decide its importance to your use case. But he is very, very 'sharpness' oriented and he is like an on/off switch with that. I find his review samples and photography in general to be really quite uninspiring, disappointing considering his mountaineering gets him to some truly amazing locations. Most of his shots are not improved by increased resolution. That said, he's clear about why he shoots what he does and likes to look at things at high magnification on his high resolution monitors and rarely prints, so there ya go. Take all of it with a grain of salt. For his uses, he likes Panasonic's pixel shift high res mode and he'll continue to use it to create super detailed landscapes I'd really rather not look at at any resolution. But I think what he says has value when seen from the correct perspective.
snapsy wrote:
Here's a link I generated into dpreview's studio comparison widget comparing the S1R pixel-shift vs A7rIII pixel-shift vs GFX100 vs A7rIII non-shifted:
From Wikipedia: "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."
I think my own comments should give the lie to that.
The fact that I hoped to "spark" comments, is because I thought this was a seriously interesting subject, that I wasn't aware of having been covered here.
I don't intend to respond further, I'm sure I'll regret rising even this once!
snapsy wrote:
If you mean the pixel-shifted shot then that is likely the result of interpolation and magnification involved in generating the shifted image.
Thanks snapsy, Yes, I do mean that. It appears softer than I'd expect, from what I've seen from enlargements on Northlight-Images
