BJL

BJL

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 17, 2002
About me:

Olympus E-520, E-1, 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, 50-200 f/2.8-3.5
Olympus C2040
Canon Elan II/EOS-50, 28-105 f/3.5-4.5
Pentax K1000
Kodak Instamatic
First camera: Kodak Brownie

Stabilization by Manfrotto

Comments

Total: 228, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X-T10 First Impressions Review preview (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Coliban: Really nice little camera, no question. For me, the competitors are, until now, sony a6000 and canon m3. The Canon m3 has the smallest dimension (therefor, the Fuji T, which is, for a second(third) camera with mobile usability.

It´s a pity, that there are, until now, no tests for the Canon M3, so i can only rely on assumptions and interpolations: IF the sensor of this camera (X-T10) is the same as the one used in the Fuji X-Pro1, THEN the IQ of the X-T10 is worse than the IQ of the sony a6000.

Then i saw in the internet a user review on a private side, which stated that the IQ of the Canon M3 is superior to the sony a6000, and that means (assumed that the statement is correct, but the M3 should have the same sensor as the Canon 750, and that IQ is superior) that the IQ of the Fuji X-T10 is much worse than the IQ of the Canon M3.

So, compared with those cameras, i thin i should prefer the Canon M3 (smaller dimensions) over the Fuji X-T10.

Is that correct?

photominion asks: "So, on a flat grey surface, evenly lit, the fuji would have exactly the same exposure?"
Morally I think that it _should_, since the flexibility or REI is _intended_ to allow for handling variations in subject brightness, but without having read the official standard (which costs a LOT) I will not stick my neck out and guarantee even that!

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 17:36 UTC
On Fujifilm X-T10 First Impressions Review preview (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Coliban: Really nice little camera, no question. For me, the competitors are, until now, sony a6000 and canon m3. The Canon m3 has the smallest dimension (therefor, the Fuji T, which is, for a second(third) camera with mobile usability.

It´s a pity, that there are, until now, no tests for the Canon M3, so i can only rely on assumptions and interpolations: IF the sensor of this camera (X-T10) is the same as the one used in the Fuji X-Pro1, THEN the IQ of the X-T10 is worse than the IQ of the sony a6000.

Then i saw in the internet a user review on a private side, which stated that the IQ of the Canon M3 is superior to the sony a6000, and that means (assumed that the statement is correct, but the M3 should have the same sensor as the Canon 750, and that IQ is superior) that the IQ of the Fuji X-T10 is much worse than the IQ of the Canon M3.

So, compared with those cameras, i thin i should prefer the Canon M3 (smaller dimensions) over the Fuji X-T10.

Is that correct?

@ZoranHR: thanks for the explanation (So this is a different issue than some complaints about Olympus cameras).
Unfortunately the ISO 12232 standard for exposure index setting (what the "ISO" setting does) allows a lot of flexibility for multi-zone metering decisions to handle subject of non-uniform brightness, so that the only case where chosen shutter speed/aperture combination is guaranteed to be consistent is with a uniformly lit "gray card" test shot.

To see what I mean, look in particular at "Recommended Exposure Index (REI)" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#The_ISO_12232:2006_standard
This REI, along with the "Standard Output Sensitivity (SOS)" are the two methods prescribed for all Japanese camera makers by their industry association, CIPA, and REI is the only one usable with multi-zone metering.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: 'If successful the algorithm may have serious consequences for the flexible rubber lens hood market, though early indications suggest polarizing filter manufacturers will be safe for some time to come.'

I'm so glad the main concern here is for possible effects on industry and commerce rather than the implications for personal privacy.

Tungsten, this was obviously a joke -- at least to anyone who remembers that jokes were not always automatically followed by a smiley face.

Direct link | Posted on May 19, 2015 at 19:10 UTC
On Fujifilm X-T10 First Impressions Review preview (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Coliban: Really nice little camera, no question. For me, the competitors are, until now, sony a6000 and canon m3. The Canon m3 has the smallest dimension (therefor, the Fuji T, which is, for a second(third) camera with mobile usability.

It´s a pity, that there are, until now, no tests for the Canon M3, so i can only rely on assumptions and interpolations: IF the sensor of this camera (X-T10) is the same as the one used in the Fuji X-Pro1, THEN the IQ of the X-T10 is worse than the IQ of the sony a6000.

Then i saw in the internet a user review on a private side, which stated that the IQ of the Canon M3 is superior to the sony a6000, and that means (assumed that the statement is correct, but the M3 should have the same sensor as the Canon 750, and that IQ is superior) that the IQ of the Fuji X-T10 is much worse than the IQ of the Canon M3.

So, compared with those cameras, i thin i should prefer the Canon M3 (smaller dimensions) over the Fuji X-T10.

Is that correct?

"aren't Fuji ISO values incorrect? Fake,to say the truth."

If you are referring to what DXO arrogantly refers to as "true ISO" measurements, then no; nothing is fake here. Those DXO measurements look at how much highlight headroom the raw files have, which tells you nothing about how much noise you will get in a given low-light situation, or what shutter speed the camera will choose at a given combination of lighting, f-stop and ISO exposure index setting.

When DXO says that the "true ISO" is less than the camera's ISO setting, they are simply reporting that the raw files have more than the MINIMUM amount of highlight headroom allowed by ISO standard 12232 "Photography - Digital still cameras - Determination of exposure index, ISO speed ratings, standard output sensitivity, and recommended exposure index".

Clearly "more than the minimum allowed" is not a falsification or fake; it is just a larger margin of safety against highlights being clipped by over-amplification.

Direct link | Posted on May 19, 2015 at 14:19 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 offers 4K video article (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I am not seeing a lot to dislike about this camera. They would sell a lot more of these if they advertised them more and also sold them in stores like Best Buy right from day one. As it stands right now Canon will sell many times as many T6s/T6i cameras as Panasonic will sell G7 cameras.

That is also despite the fact that the Canon cameras had a significant defect in a large portion of their initial shipments(Which they addresses quickly), the T6s only does 5 FPS vs. the 7 FPS for the G7, The G7 is cheaper, and the G7 does 4K @ 30 FPS video vs just 1080p @ 30 FPS for the Canon cameras.

Panasonic’s issue is not that they don’t make great cameras. There issue is that not enough people even know they make cameras.

@neez: "Actually hard drives are downsizing because they are switching from optical drives to SSD."
No one is being forced to abandon a larger hard drive in favor of a smaller SSD, and people who want to store a lot of video, photos and such can easily opt for a large capacity, or an SSD/HD combo. With Macs at least there is also the option of a fusion drive: basically a larger capacity hard drive combined transparently with a smaller capacity SSD, keeping the stuff that benefits most from speed on the SSD part.

So, no: there is not the slightest sign of a trend towards people have less access to large storage capacity on their personal computers if they want it!

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 22:17 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 offers 4K video article (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I am not seeing a lot to dislike about this camera. They would sell a lot more of these if they advertised them more and also sold them in stores like Best Buy right from day one. As it stands right now Canon will sell many times as many T6s/T6i cameras as Panasonic will sell G7 cameras.

That is also despite the fact that the Canon cameras had a significant defect in a large portion of their initial shipments(Which they addresses quickly), the T6s only does 5 FPS vs. the 7 FPS for the G7, The G7 is cheaper, and the G7 does 4K @ 30 FPS video vs just 1080p @ 30 FPS for the Canon cameras.

Panasonic’s issue is not that they don’t make great cameras. There issue is that not enough people even know they make cameras.

@neez says that "less than 1% of the population owns 4k TV's or 4k monitors, so 4k is useless to most people. Plus most people buy laptops ..."
Apart from the trend to ever cheaper 4K TV's, those laptops along the desktop computers that lots of people also still buy are already moving to screen resolutions beyond the 1920x1080 of HD TV, so 4K video will already look better on many computer screens, which is where many of us watch videos these days. Those computers are also acquiring ever more and cheaper mass storage, both onboard and with the option of external drives for those with big photo/video collections, so the "not enough storage space for higher definition images" fails, as it has repeatedly.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 16:19 UTC
In reply to:

J A C S: The 8mm is about 10% longer than the Canon 15mm, the same width and a few grams lighter only. More expensive and collects less light.

Similarly, the 7-14 is 23mm longer than the Canon 8-15; width and weight about the same, 1 stop less light, same price.

What happened to the portability of the m43 system?

"Cheaper - no. There are FF bodies for ~$1,200" and there are MFT bodies with EVF for $450 (E-M10). Or are you for some reason comparing the cheapest, superseded, end-of-life model in one format to the most expensive in another?

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2015 at 02:04 UTC
On Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses article (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

alatchin: Every time I read equivalence pop in such as the f 3.5 comment about the fisheye, you should always add "which in turn makes the ff biddy own like a m43s body. Otherwise you are just being misleading with only half the information... The half that makes a ff Ensor like a cure all for less light... Which is only true if you have a large physical aperture, not an equivalent aperture.

Every statement about f-stop equivalency should say something like "this f/1.8 MFT lens is 'equivalent' to a f/3.6 lens of twice the focal length used in 35mm format AT FOUR TIMES THE ISO SPEED", just case people forget to consider _that_ change into noise and IQ comparisons.

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2015 at 01:53 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: Now, if they can only update the 3.5 year old sensor, they will really have something worthy of consideration. Changing body material, colors, firmware updates is nice, but... a new improved sensor would be even better, IMHO.

@mosc: why are you obsessed with limiting MFT resolution to what its slowest lens can handle at its slowest f-stop? And when you say "There is plenty of f2.8 m43 glass, it's just very expensive and large", you are thinking only of zoom lenses; there are plenty of MFT _prime_ lenses of f/2.8 or faster that are not particularly expensive and far from large: I love my 60/2.8 macro.

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2015 at 01:45 UTC
In reply to:

nikkornikon: They Need to, Like Fuji...to Step away from 16mp. It is time to move on. When 24mp is truly old...16 seems freaking ancient.

@mosc, i agree; I am not really suggesting going to 80MP for the sake of the f/2.8 lenses! I am just saying that many existing MFT lenses can give a resolution/detail advantage from sensors going significantly beyond the current 16MP. I am a fan of the idea of mid-speed f/4 or f/2.8-f/4 zoom lenses, and if the diffraction limit the useful resolution from f/4 is about 40MP (as for the equivalent f/8 in 35mm), then other factors will probably set a limit between 16MP and than 40MP. Frankly, i would use 20MP+ mainly to crop for more telephoto reach than the lenses I prefer to carry.

P. S. Pixel sizes that give too much noise at high ISO speeds do not worry me either: so long as a "high res. low ISO" sensor can give nice highly detailed images at low to moderate ISO speeds, then higher ISO speeds can be handled by trading some of that resolution for noise control by downsampling or other noise reduction strategies, or there can be different models for people with different priorities.

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2015 at 01:35 UTC
In reply to:

nikkornikon: They Need to, Like Fuji...to Step away from 16mp. It is time to move on. When 24mp is truly old...16 seems freaking ancient.

@ mosc: if as you say "F2.1 16mp 1/2.33" is not diffraction limited", then with the 4/3" format being over 3x larger, neither is f/6.3 16MP in 4/3", and so nor is f/5 24MP or f/2.8 80MP in 4/3" format -- the MP count for a similar level of diffraction effect goes up as the square of the f-stop and the square of the linear format size.

There is a bunch bunch of MFT lenses (including most MFT primes) offering f/2.8 or faster, and for them 16MP is a very long way from the point where a further increase in pixel count will stop giving further increase in detail due to diffraction effects when used wide open. And when these lenses need to be stopped down beyond f/2.8 for more DOF (the same DOF needs that require higher than f/5.6 in 35mm format), the diffraction limit for equal DOF sets the same MP limit for any format, due to the higher f-stop needed for equal DOF in a larger format.

Give as much resolution as the best lenses can handle, I say.

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2015 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

nikkornikon: They Need to, Like Fuji...to Step away from 16mp. It is time to move on. When 24mp is truly old...16 seems freaking ancient.

@ 5inchfloppy: people have been saying that 4/3" format is at its limit since the original 5MP E-1 model! Meanwhile there are smaller 1" format sensors at 20MP in some Sony cameras and 18MP in some Nikon One models.

Diffraction is far from being a limy at 16MP for the faster MFT lenses. and why should bodies be limited to what benefits the slowest kit zooms?

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

Ace of Sevens: So this is aimed at filmmakers, but has no 24 fps option?

It has all the usual frame rates from 23.98 to 60; the article only mentions 30FPS as the maximum with global shutter.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

M Jesper: I'm European, what's a 5lbs? ^.^

@Richard Butler: how about the sensor diagonal in mm? This is also used in the sensor industry, as in "diagonal 11mm" for type 2/3" format; see the Sony product list at http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/sony/44/

This conveys the information that most people want: a single number measure of (linear) sensor size, and in the units used by all but three nations in the world, plus many scientifically literate people in those three nations too.

(Some might complain about the different sensor shapes that can have the same diagonal length, but weirdness like 1/3.2" is no better on that score.)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

M Jesper: I'm European, what's a 5lbs? ^.^

@Rickard Hansson That gap from yard to miles is bizarre, but the US has a solution, in the form of two new units of measure often used in the news media: the "school bus" (about 20 meters) and the "football field" (about 100 meters.) I preferred the old-style chains and furlongs.

But its; not just the USA: last time I checked, Liberia and Myanmar were the other two official users of the old British style measures.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.
So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.

Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.

HowAboutRAW: I was not disagreeing with what you said; my post just happened to appear after yours, but I was commenting on the thread as a whole.

Raist3D: I agree with your defense of Pentax as having made some innovations in the realm of IBIS: for example, using the IBIS motors as an optional moiré avoidance tool, in place of a low pass filter, is cool! But the early IBIS models from those two companies being mentioned mainly reflect that Olympus and Pentax both followed the IBIS lead of Konica-Minolta at about the same time, a years or two after K-M pioneered IBIS, so I would not get to excited about claiming either O or P as the great innovator on the basis of those 2006-2007 models.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.
So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.

Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.

HowaboutRAW: There was IBIS from the very first K-M DSLR, in 2005: http://www.dpreview.com/products/konicaminolta/slrs/konicaminolta_5d/specifications

What am I misconstruing? I am just stating some facts, along with my opinion that debates about finely-defined and minor points of tech history do not interest me very much!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.
So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.

Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.

It's strange that this sub-thread has wandered into a rather trivial debate about which company had what aspect of IBIS first. But since we are here:
Didn't Konica-Minolta have IBIS first, before either Olympus or Pentax? (Strange that the new owner Sony moved away from it for a while, but now is moving back!)

Anyway, I care far more about what various companies have now and are likely to provide in the foreseeable future, not who had what when in past. And on that front, Olympus and Pentax are between them doing the most interesting things with their "levitating sensors", so I am inclined to praise both, rather than pick nits with either.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.
So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.

Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.

The OMD EM5 II multi-shot samples (at least some of them, at some sites) show a clear, substantial improvement in image detail over the single frame 16MP images, so why should we care that Pentax says that it was not able to achieve any significant IQ gains in its efforts? I am tempted to quote Aesop "Those grapes are sour anyway."

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 02:04 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor article (255 comments in total)

1) Some commenters have missed Canon's description of that this sensor is for: "video production, monitoring, aviation, and space applications". So _not_ DSLR's. For some uses like wide-area security monitoring, aerial mapping and satellite-based surveillance, ever higher resolution is still sought.

2) The sensor size of about 30x20mm fits within the maximum field size of 33x26mm of all suitable IC fab. equipment, and so avoids the higher costs and lower yields of on-wafer stitching that everyone including Canon need to use when making sensors in sizes like 36x24mm and up. (Yes, Canon used to make a stepper capable of 50x50mm, but it had a minimum feature size of about 0.8 microns, too big for making SLR sensors.)

3) Sounds like Canon is finally implementing column-parallel ADC, as in Sony EXMOR etc.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 20:00 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
Total: 228, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »