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: 203, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 First Impressions Review preview (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobbarber: Question:

If the output of this camera at ISO 200 is "not good", "unacceptable", "noisy", blah, blah, blah, as so many posters claim, and there are two stops difference between m43 and FF, does that mean that the output of Nikon FF cameras at ISO 800 is "not good", "unacceptable", and "noisy"?

There is no reason to expect smaller sensors to have a lower minimum usable exposure index ("ISO"), since that minimum is based on saturation of the photosites at highlights, and is mostly set by how many electrons the sensor can count _per_unit_area_ (along with the fraction if incoming photons that the sensor detects: QE). That measure is roughly 1500 to 2000 electrons per square micron regardless of sensor size, so the base-ISO speed does to vary much with sensor or photosite size: certainly not in direct proportion to sensor or photosite size.
This highlight-based lower limit (base ISO speed) is unrelated to the film-like "ISO speed", which is about signal-to-noise ratios and handling of low light levels, not highlight handling.

It is unfortunate that these different measures [(1) exposure level or EI (2) saturation-based lower limits on usable EI, (3) maximum EI or "ISO speed" based on noise] all get called "ISO" just because the same organization (The ISO) defines them all.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2014 at 16:53 UTC
On Phase One announces IQ250 50MP CMOS medium format back article (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anastigmat: I wonder if Canon and/or Nikon will shake up the market by making its own medium format CMOS sensors, cameras and lenses.

Almeida:
(1) Phase One management has said that the Sony sensor is available to all; no exclusivity. So I hope for a Pentax 645DII using it soon.

(2) One big barrier for Canon, Nikon or Sony offering a full system in a format larger than 35mm is developing a range of high quality lenses for what is always going to be a low volume market with vastly loess total revenues and profits than the 35mm and APS-C format DSLR markets. I doubt they see sufficient return on investment there, compared to investing in their 35mm and APS-C format systems.

After all, Canon and Nikon never bothered with MF film cameras (nor did Minolta or Konica or Olympus or ...), and that was a far larger and more profitable market than digital MF. (DMF has higher unit prices and profits, but only about one tenth the sales volume of MF film cameras, and about one hundredth the unit sales of 35mm format DSLRs.)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

James Pilcher: I'm a µ4/3 user and I'm glad to see the OMD E-M1 receving such recognition. The E-M5 received similar accolades last year. Having used 35mm film cameras since 1971 before switching to digital, I have to wonder why the giants Nikon and Canon are not better represented at the forefront of camera development right now. Are we awaiting an explosion of technology from Canikon, or is something amiss at those companies?

I am very happy with the innovations in Micro Four Thirds (and from Fujifilm X and Sony E), but since Canon and Nikon DSLRs still dominate system camera sales and profits, their apparent lack of innovation might simply mean that they will only have a profit motive to take mirrorless systems seriously when those newcomers bite deeper into DSLR sales.

In particular, Canon is probably in a good position to make EOS-M a more serious competitor, by adding an EVF, dual pixel PDAF, and a few more lenses. All of which might already exist in the R&D department.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2014 at 17:21 UTC
On Want to remember something? Don't take a photo article (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

neo_nights: One more thing: did anyone actually read the WHOLE study?

Anyone who has done an academic research knows how frustrating/infuriating it is to spend months/years reading, reasearching and such, write pages and more pages about something and then the press just publish a couple of lines about it, about its conclusion, and then everyone starts b*tching about it.

Be careful with pre-judgements, people.

Some commenters here do not even seem to have read the whole of the DPReview article; maybe they scanned the headline and jumped straight to the comments.

The second quote from the research paper indicates that the effect is likely to be only when people just take a quick snapshot and move on without otherwise paying attention to the subject, whereas looking at the subject carefully enough to compose a good photograph has the opposite effect.

In other words, some commenters here looked at the article in the the same way that some sloppy snapshooters look at the objects they are photographing; in either case, little is learnt.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2013 at 16:10 UTC
On Roger Cicala cynically re-defines photography article (54 comments in total)

He overlooked the classic
"Circle of Confusion: a bunch of photographers sitting around a table arguing about depth of field".

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2013 at 00:06 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On SD card labeling for 4K video announced article (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

scrup: Will the compact flash card die now! all it takes is for canon and Nikon to stop using this format. SD cards are getting faster and faster. all laptops have sd card slots.

The battle to replace CF is now between SD on one side and the two new rival "post-CF" high end formats, CFast and XQD on the other. The latter two offer higher speeds and capacities than CF or SD, and so might win some of the high-end video camera market, but I suspect that SD will continue its path to overall market dominance by becoming "good enough, supported by far more computers and cameras, and a lot cheaper".

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 23:15 UTC
In reply to:

Archiver: Interesting how this is available only for the C100 at this time. If this can be implemented with the C300, it will show that dual pixel AF is a function of the CMOS sensor shared by the C100, C300 and C500, rather than the C100's hardware.

The C100 has four photodiodes for each output pixel: a 3840x2160 photosite array but maximum output resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, so it could easily have a single microlens over each 2x2 cluster of photodiodes, allowing it to use a pair of them for AF. Maybe
GG
RB
under each lens and feeding wach output pixel,
and using the GG pair for AF.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 02:29 UTC

The C100 uses four photo-sites to produce each output pixel (3840x2160 active pixels, but maximum output resolution of 1920x1080 HD). That is probably critical to its ability to do dual pixel AF, which uses multiple photo-diodes per output pixel. The other dual pixel PDAF seniors also have those pairs of photo-sites behind a single micro lens, so it is also likely that each four photo-site cluster feeding a single output pixel in the C100 is behind a single micro lens.

So do not expect any such upgrades to other cameras whose sensors do not have these special hardware features.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 15:01 UTC as 36th comment
On Hands-on with the retro Nikon Df article (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

hidden1: Its a shame the included kit lens doesn't have an aperture ring.

It kind of ruins the retro camera experience when you have to use an e dial to set the aperture.

Apparently you have to use the dial anyway with any CPU lens: the aperture ring only works with (very old) non-CPU lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 18:56 UTC
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1514 comments in total)
In reply to:

3dreal: It will have a fixed prism and no AF, maybe removable screens. Dont dream too much. we dont need AF but the best focussing-system on all DSLRs.

It has both ann AF-on button and an AF kit lens.

What is entertaining about the Df teaser campaign is how it has lured some people to reveal their wishes and fantasies while ignoring any facts that contradict them. The Df is functionally a modern highly automated digital SLR, with the addition of half a dozen added dials and the pointless removal of video functionality.

Or is someone going to argue that adding one more video button along with the roughly 20 buttons it already has, or adding a fifth position on the MASP dial, would "ruin its photographic simplicity and purity"?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 20:56 UTC
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1514 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: But is it SLR? Or is it mirrorless? And if it is SLR, do it have a split image screen?

And is the rumor that it has no LCD true? That could be compatible with "Good things take time. They are worth the wait". I mean, you have to wait until you get home to look at the result.

"And is the rumor that it has no LCD true?"
No: the edge of the screen is visible in the rear view shot above. That "rumor" is just one of the delusional retro minimalist fantasies that people are projecting onto this camera with no supporting evidence at all. Another example is dreams of a split-image manual focusing VF on this AF camera.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 18:44 UTC
On Sony Alpha A7 / A7R preview (2381 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Is the resolution of the EVF 1024x768 (786,432 ppi) or 2.4 million? That's a huge difference. They both can't be right listed in the first impressions review.

That is the weird counting, which counts each color at each pixel as a dot, so XGA is 1024x748x3 giving the 2.4 million dots. Bizarre, but they all do it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 03:56 UTC
In reply to:

Kriekira: That any of these might be assumed to be paintings says more about the viewer's inexperience with paintings than it does about the images.

And there is the additional, never-addressed issue of reproduction: is a photograph an image or a print? It is worth always keeping in mind that you cannot ever "see" a painting on a computer (or in a book) -- all you can see is a (photo-mechanical) reproduction.

I saw a large print of "Thorn Trees" close up in a nature photography exhibition, and my first reaction was "why is that drawing here"? The illusion is partly due to the amazing contrast in lighting and color, which the eye/brain at first takes as an artist's unrealistic fantasy.

That one is in a different league from painting-like effects produced in post-processing.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2013 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

Renzokuken: I wonder how much of this technological improvement will translate to better stills??

Canon seems to have their hands full on video and their cine-line recently...

Typo: with a _sensor_ that big (36x24mm)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2013 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

Renzokuken: I wonder how much of this technological improvement will translate to better stills??

Canon seems to have their hands full on video and their cine-line recently...

None: the only technological change here is having fewer, bigger photo sites; about 2MP, which is good enough for HD video, but too few for almost any still photography with a se SLR that big.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2013 at 22:23 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

dw2001: love these focus tracking test where you shoot at like F22 and absolutely everything in the frame is in focus...that really gives you an idea of how the focus tracking performs....

Look at the full resolution images by clicking on the small downsized ones displayed in the web page: the OOF effect is clear, and looking at the ground, the plane of focus is clearly at the front of the horse, very near the plane of its eyes whee it should be.

Of course tiny downsized "web thumbnail" images show lots of DOF.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2013 at 15:47 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: Well, well... not bad for a dead medium!

Seriously, I chanced to try an FP4 125 Plus roll during the past two weeks. After seeing the results I must say I'm impressed with the sharpness and contrast this film is capable of. Grain is not as smooth as Kodak's T-Max, but somehow it adds expression to the pictures.

foto guy,
the demand is there partly because people like me have lost access to local labs that used to provide this service, and local darkroom rental options (and do not want to mess with photographic chemicals in our bathrooms). So good news, but not due to any increase in overall B&W film usage, I suspect.
I like the idea of getting scans too, since I suspect my bigger prints from B&W film will be inkjet or an online digital file printing service.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2013 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Two polarizers: how much light loss there is?

Sounds like a good idea which is really not needed. And even less in the future with ever sharper sensors.

No polarizers: one layer that rotates polarization, different from a polarizing filter that blocks light of a certain polarization.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2013 at 02:40 UTC
In reply to:

G G: I'm not sure this is a truly useful exercise. One of its drawback is to reduce light transmission, as any polarizing filter does.
The future is probably something like this:
- increase the pixel density above the lens resolution (a low pass filter)
- filter digitally for lower resolution.

Low pass filters already have two filters: the innovation seems to be allowing rotation of light in between them, to turn the low-pass fitering effect on and off, rather than having the second physically rotated relative to the first by an appropriate angle. Like what happens if you swap between a D800 and D800E: they differ by having the two filters in different relative orientation.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2013 at 02:27 UTC
In reply to:

Frank_BR: In the beginning there was the D800 for $3000. So Nikon stripped the AA filter and tge D800E was born. Because less is more, Nikon charges $3300 for the D800E. The next logical step would be a D800F with a configurable AA filter for $5000. E la nave va.

Frank: you trust KR for technical information rather than the details provided by Nikon or at this site?! KR is simply wrong on this: surprised?

P. S. Lower volume specialty versions products can cost more due to economies of scale even when they cost no more to make.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 15:02 UTC
Total: 203, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »