Pooya Rastin: Why does the guy in the outside have more motion blur than the shop signs?!
Here is another image showing the same effect.http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/200413861-001-woman-taking-photograph-from-car-window-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=BrkCzwuu7vGgcbQQ%2Bb8igPLQ9CNBA0apokgTU6Blur%2FGKxll26Pu78rIBr0kpfF%2Bgq8S8m%2FMJ2oSOO8adQ%2B6lA%3D%3D
It COULD be a composite, but I don't think that is likely. Any photo could be a composite, for that matter.
Here is what I think happens.http://i.imgur.com/aTRsUnB.jpg
BadScience's explanation doesn't work, because it depends on the motion of the men, but objects in the foreground such as the tiles which are not moving are equally blurred.
racin06: I suppose that if you are primarily a sports/action shooter, then the $6500 may be justfied. However, from a pure image quality standpoint, sorry...I just don't see it. The low-light image quality of the D5 is only slightly better than what the best APS-C and even Micro 4/3 cameras are producing with good glass attached. Under adequate lighting conditions, the difference is even more minuscule. Let the flamming begin! I have thick skin.
"...the difference is tremendous!"
Define "tremendous." Anything a non-pixel peeper would notice in a print?
Color me suspicious, but I regularly read comments in these forums about cameras being in different leagues, no comparison, image quality 1,000x better, and so on, when the differences in photos are barely discernible pixel peeping and certainly nothing that 999 out of 1,000 people would notice in a print.
"The distant objects - shops - show very little blur - about the same as the man in foreground shop.
ergo, the blur is motion blur from objects outside the train moving at different speeds. Nothing really more to say. Its blindingly obvious,"
The tiles fixed to the floor under the man's feet are moving at a different speed than the shops in the background!
What's more, it's "blindingly obvious."
You are happy you didn't have me as a teacher, and I am awfully, awfully happy, giddy even, that I didn't have you as a student! I'm glad that we finally agree on something.
You're right about my mistakes, although in my defense I'll point out that I didn't claim that the Coriolis effect had anything to do with it. I just said that I taught the Coriolis effect using these principles, that's all. I was wrong about people on the plane. I posted to quickly. Teachers make mistakes too. Everyone does, even you, although you won't admit to yours as I do to mine!
You're wrong, still, about why this effect happens. It is 100% due to the distance of the objects from the camera, as the non-mobile floor tiles in the foreground with motion blur equal to the man prove. I explained it nicely in the post just before the video of the train which Jules Tohpipi was kind enough to post. If you still don't get it, try drawing out a field of view as a slice of pie and drawing lines across it to follow my explanation. Manipulatives are often the best way to understand something, and not only for very small children! Best.
Any lens's field of view is like a slice of pie. The breadth it covers is narrower near you and broader farther away from you.
Let's say you measure the breadth of some lens's field of view at some distance from you and it is 10 feet across. You measure the breadth of the same lens's field of view at some farther distance from you and it is 100 feet. You then take a picture of two birds flying at 10 feet per second, one flying cross the narrower breadth you measured and one the broader. With a one-second exposure, the close bird blurs the entire field of view (it flies 10 feet), but the far away bird blurs across only one tenth of the field of view (it also flies ten feet).
What happened here is that the train was moving instead of the subject, but the effect was the same. The outside objects were moving with relation to the camera, and farther away objects had less apparent motion blur.
P.S. Not to flog a dead horse, but for the first people that answered this thread, the answer that the man is moving in a direction contrary to the train might be partially true, but is definitely not completely true.
Look at the tiles underneath the man's feet. They also show more motion blur than the signs in the background. The answer is that things appear to move faster the closer they are to you.
You seem to want to teach me something really badly, so I'll go along here and say that you are smarter than me, better educated, I learned from you, and you win.
Interesting that you talk about cameras and blur with stars. Reread my comment. I said, "to the naked eye," on purpose. Also, it is impossible for three people on a plane to be at the same distance from a single object. I hope this helps.
Interesting that I understand this concept well enough to have taught the Coriolis Effect, but not well enough to satisfy you. Best.
"So, with your example with the clouds you can easily prove your example is not always right: Distant clouds that are moving fast will appear to move more quickly than slow moving clouds that are near."
Well sure, if you make things move in one place and not in another, you will get a different result!
Clouds moving 60 miles per hour on the horizon appear motionless for all intents and purposes. Clouds moving 60 miles per hour right over your head, at an altitude of a couple of hundred feet, look like they're moving at 60 miles per hours. I'm sure most people can figure out for themselves how to apply the principle of things appearing to move faster the closer they are to you.
I understand your answer, but I used to be a teacher. You have to explain things so that people can access your answer. If you don't understand that principle, then you haven't very often received or sought out feedback for your explanations.
I realize that a bullet fired at 100 yards will appear to be moving faster than a flying chicken at 10 yards distance in the same direction. I also understand that it depends on angular momentum, which I would explain using a record album as an example; hopefully that would still work with this generation. But the simplest answer is that things appear to be moving faster the closer they are to you. And it's an answer that photographers can use.
A star moving across the sky at 100 light years distance appears motionless to the naked eye. Not so if it were a mile away from us. Best.
jonny1976: Unimpressed both technically and conceptually, cliche themeWith medium quality. But she is a nice young girl from germany. Good to win.
I like the photo, but I too wonder if age and gender might have played a role in the win. An average middle-aged white guy might be accused of exploitation for taking the same photo.
That said, more power to the winner. I hope she has a great career, and Zeiss certainly picked a photogenic face of the franchise.
BadScience might be right, but I didn't have the stamina to read his/her answer.
Short answer = things that are closer to you appear to be moving faster. You can prove this to yourself the next time you're in a car by looking at fenceposts along the highway and the mountains behind them in the distance. Or just look at clouds. When clouds are very close to you, they may appear to move fast. But that's never true when clouds are far away.
I really liked this, in part because it documents a region of the country I haven't been to, but would like to visit. Passing through New Orleans and southern Mississippi is as close as I've gotten to the Mississippi Delta.
To balance out the commenters who were asking for a more hard-core camera review, I was at the other extreme. I was starting to get a little exasperated at the rote recitation of megapixels, etc. but thankfully it was not overdone. And I did learn about the intervalometer, something I didn't know about before.
ecm: Wouldn't the sensor need to be re-calibrated for flat plane and rotation if you took it off it's mount like that? How would you do such a thing without specialized testing equipment?
The host site's name is "Ifixit" - does Panasonic even sell parts to the general public to repair a camera like this by yourself?
Other than "Ooooh, that's cool!" is there really a reason to do this? Guess I don't get it.....
@bernardly, They look like they might be to keep the image sensor on the right plane, assuming that the edge of the yellow mount goes underneath the lip of the hole it fits into. In other words, whatever register is called in a fixed-lens camera. Kind of hard to tell without the pieces in hand.
bobbarber: I think a lot of the complainers here don't get it.
It is a travel zoom. When you are in Hawaii waiting for your flight, and everything is stowed, and you need a picture of a small bird perched on the sign for a terminal, or a distant mountaintop behind the planes, you pull a camera like this out of your pocket. Ditto for riding the bus somewhere, or taking a tour of a city on somebody else's itinerary, not yours.
If I were limited to one camera and one lens, I would pick something like this. I liked travel zooms even when they were only small sensor. I still have the first one I ever bought. I mostly shoot in daylight. A lot of people would be surprised at what you come back with carrying something like this around all day in interesting places.
That's a really nice shot.
My old travel zoom, one of the Canon SX models, is my "worst" camera, and my favorite! I got a lot of shots kicking around in South America that I never would have gotten with a bigger camera or one that was more restricted in focal length. The name of this class of camera is TRAVEL zoom. As my wife would say, "Duh." A lot of these people seem like they're fresh off the Nikon D5 review and want to talk ultimate image quality. I wish there was an eye roll emogee on these forums. Thanks, Androole.
I think a lot of the complainers here don't get it.
Michael Uschold: This is great low light performance, however the ISO numbers are painful to make any sense of.
POP QUIZ: How may stops bigger than ISO 102000 is ISO 3,280,000?
You have to keep count of how many times you have to multiply the smaller number by 2 till you get the larger number. This is what log scales are for, and we already have one, we just have to start using it. For example, 100 speed is written as ISO 100/21°, One stop faster is written ISO 200/24°. It goes up by 3 for each doubling in speed.
So for the above quiz, the math is much easier if the speeds are written as ISO 102000/51° and ISO 3,280,000/66°. SUbtract 51 from 66 to get 15, and divide by 3 to get 5 stops. Viola.
And you dont have to do any math at all to get an intuitive grasp of the number. With the super high numbers, it is easy to get the number of 0s wrong.
I think the math to get the old ISO back, assuming you called ISO 100 1, ISO 200 2, ISO 400 3, etc. would be this: 2^(5.64385625+x) = old ISO
So, 2^(5.64385625+3) = 400 and so on.
Although why you would want to do that once everybody was used to saying 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. is beyond me.
The point of log scales is to use simple numbers. If it's complicated, you're missing the point. I agree with ThePhillips. Just call it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on, the same as the Richter and other log scales.
Love the cat.