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: 208, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2067 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
In reply to:

abolit: who is this camera for? nothing comes to mind so far....

@Entropus: "There are no standout features other than a viewfinder and sensor at the back and a lens mount at the front" How can you ignore that it also looks a lot more like an SLR than previous Sony E-mount cameras, including ones like the NEX 6 which has all the features you list? Even after I mentioned that SLR resemblance in the post you are replying to?

I would say that compared to previous Sony E-mount cameras, looking like a SLR is THE standout feature!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 18:48 UTC
In reply to:

Maverick_: Sony just put the nails in the APS-C and Mirrorless cameras coffin. The future is only FF DSLRs and Phone cameras. Wanna know why Pana struggles with the GH3, it was priced 600 over where it should have been. Nice job Sony. Now the APS-C is going to go down in price and eventually move out completely and make way for low priced FF.

A new, well-priced entry-level APSC mirrorless camera does not put a nail in the coffin of either APSC or mirrorless cameras! It might be part of the downfall of entry-level DSLRs, with their unsatisfactory small VF images caused by the combination of a small format and a penta-mirror (instead of penta-prism) OVF. Sony is right in touting the advantages of the a3000‘s EVF over the OVFs of similarly priced DSLRs.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 13:08 UTC
In reply to:

abolit: who is this camera for? nothing comes to mind so far....

Phone and compact camera users wanting their first "serious camera", and who still believe that such cameras must at least look like the SLRs that pros use. At the cost of a completely imobile rear-screen, greater bulk. It is the "suburbanite's SUV" of mirrorless cameras. It will probably sell frustratingly well, at least in the USA.

P.S. never mind: the second paragraph of the preview says it already!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 12:49 UTC
On Canon announces PowerShot N Facebook ready edition article (48 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: This looks like a camera phone without the phone part. Is this any more useful than an iTouch?

My iPod Touch does not have an 8x zoom lens.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2013 at 22:12 UTC
On Canon announces PowerShot N Facebook ready edition article (48 comments in total)
In reply to:

completelyrandomstuff: It costs too much, but the idea is not that dumb. Sure, phone can take pictures and post them easily on facebook. But it does not have zoom and takes poor pictures in low-light (clubs, parties, movie theathers, etc etc). It is made to be very pocketable, looks like a piece of make-up and serves the purpose of being partly a fashion accessory, partly a communication tool. I would put an option to send text in there, but still I expect it to see it in purses of 16 year old girls across the country, as long as the price drops a little.

Adapop: even people who post photos on Facebook might want far more zoom ability than any phone gives. Even the Nokia 1020 with its crop-to-zoom has no match for this 8x lens.

Zoom range is probably the single most common reason for camera-photographers to also want a camera-only device. i expect fixed-lens small sensor cameras with less than 4x zoom to die out fairly soon.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2013 at 22:11 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: I still have Kodachrome 135 and 120 film in my freezer.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5196/5842743706_b1ecffa5a1_b.jpg

Developing the first and most famous color film, which even has "chrome" in its name, as black and white only is ... bizarre. I am guessing that was never Joe's plan.

Did some freaky darkroom photo nuts actually do that, and perhaps try to rationalize it as a superior artistic choice over any of the films actually designed for black and white?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 03:04 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: I still have Kodachrome 135 and 120 film in my freezer.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5196/5842743706_b1ecffa5a1_b.jpg

Did you miss the news that the last Kodochrome development facility in the world shut down a year or two ago? All youncan do with that stuff now is keep it in the freezer forever as a souvenir.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 02:36 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: Let's just hope the sale to UK employees' pension plan doesn't mean the end of Kodak film. After all, Ilford went into receivership and now it is going on with their core business. And Italy's Ferrania is rising from the ashes right now. There's still a niche that needs to be filled.
Today, still unaware of this news, I bought a T-Max 100 35mm roll for my Olympus OM-2n. I hope it wasn't the last Kodak roll l loaded my camera with. I still haven't tried Tri-X and Ektar...

Richard,
Ilford FP4 Plus, ISO 125, is the one you are thinking of, and it is still going strong. It is probably time for B&W film enthusiasts to get behind Ilford and keep its products viable!
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=6

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 02:34 UTC

Thanks for the nostalgic fun. But to the comment that "Other things, such as ... music playing capability have all gone the way of the dodo bird" I point out that the great majority of cameras sold these days have music playing capability, (along with phone-call-making capability) so FujiFilm was ahead of its time on that one.

P. S. beaten by tt321: yep, scriptable too, as in Instagram ...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2013 at 01:50 UTC as 96th comment
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: For me, the future seems to contain a lot of smallish, big sensor cameras (FF and up), with compact lenses (an inch-thick 24-70/2.0 would suit me fine - even a prime around that length), and CX-sensored cameras with long zoom lenses (my Nikon 1 is more or less glued to my AF-S VR 70-300).

I have a FF camera, and a CX camera, and they have totally replaced my DX/APS-C cameras (I have a few), and that's not their fault. All brilliant in their own way, and their own time. One was famous as video camera, one had the best dynamic range among APS-Cs, and a very friendly price as well!

Less than three years on, and they are relics of a gone era! No matter that they were ground-breaking then!

I do get far more out of the FF and the CX, as both have better AF, faster startup, and quicker/quieter shutters. In short: Much fewer missed shots! And that is important to me.

How do you make that lens, one stop faster than any current 24-70mm zoom, "compact"? New sensor technology does nothing to reduce the sizes of the lenses needed with larger formats to get even a modest amount of telephoto reach, which is why all the compact digital cameras with larger sensors are limited to rather short focal lengths.

There were compact 35mm film cameras reaching focal lengths like 70mm to 100mm, but they kept the lens compact by having very small front elements inside telescoping designs, and so high minimum f-stop towards the long end, so that ISO 400 or 800 film became the standard for them. That was OK with film because 35mm film and processing was as cheap as smaller film formats (print costs dominated over film and development), but doing that with an expensive 35mm format sensor cancels out the low-light and shallow DOF advantage over using a smaller format with a shorter but brighter (lower minimum f-stop) lens and inherently less expensive sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

Clint009: "Graphene Sensor Boosts Camera Performance"
Published June 13, 2013 | By Brian Albright
- See more at: http://www.engineeringontheedge.com/2013/06/graphene-sensor-boosts-camera-performance/#sthash.lKj7Ku0J.dpuf

"Future Cameras Could Mimic Human Eye"
Researchers Develop Curved Image Sensor
http://cameras.about.com/od/technologies/a/human_eye_camer.htm

That graphene sensor story is very misleading, started by a puff piece from an ill-informed university PR office, and has been debunked many times in these forums. The actual claim is a 1000x improvement over previous _graphene_ sensors, which had pathetically low sensitivity, _not_ a comparison to current silicon sensor technology. The new sensor is not better than current sensors -- which by the way are at over 50% QE (apart from light loss to color filters, which graphene sensors would also need in order to record color) so there is very little room for further improvement in sensitivity, whatever the sensor is made of.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 17:25 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: More Pixels=More Resolution.
Larger Pixels=More Sensitivity and Color accuracy.
Larger Sensor Area=allows to fit Bigger Pixels and More of them.

Additional benefits of Larger Sensors is relation to Optics= Better Micro-Contrast and Better DOF control.

Thats all in a nut shell.

More than 5 Megapixels is overkill for mobile devices, if not most of consumer applications. Better sensitivity is needed though (aka larger pixels)

4K video is a joke, a marketing push for TV sales, but perhaps needed for digital cinema with big theater size screens and big budget productions.

@HowaboutRAW, let me explain one more time.
We agree that larger photo-sites give better SNR _per pixel_ at _equal ISO speed_, but

1) with equal sized sensors, downsizng the image from a higher resolution sensor to that of the lower resolution sensor improves the per pixel SNR due to the mathematics of noise averaging, roughly cancelling out the difference in visible noise levels. Even printing at the same size and so at higher PPI from the higher resolution sensor reduces its visible noise level. That is why comparisons at equal print size or equal size on-screen are far more relevant.

2) if the larger sensor is limited to a lens of the same (front element) size and same FOV, it will have a -higher minimum f-stop_, so a higher ISO speed is needed for equal shutter speed. Your replies repeatedly ignore this, as if you are comparing always at equal ISO speed, which is not relevant in this "equal total camera size" comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2013 at 14:19 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: More Pixels=More Resolution.
Larger Pixels=More Sensitivity and Color accuracy.
Larger Sensor Area=allows to fit Bigger Pixels and More of them.

Additional benefits of Larger Sensors is relation to Optics= Better Micro-Contrast and Better DOF control.

Thats all in a nut shell.

More than 5 Megapixels is overkill for mobile devices, if not most of consumer applications. Better sensitivity is needed though (aka larger pixels)

4K video is a joke, a marketing push for TV sales, but perhaps needed for digital cinema with big theater size screens and big budget productions.

@howaboutRAW: yes I am saying that increasing sensor size with lenses of the same maximum effective aperture diameter does not improve performance at equal shutter speed in equal light, because the higher minimum f-stop forces the ISO speed to be increased enough to cancel the advantage seen in comparisons at equal ISO sped: the photons gathered per unit time stays the same.

I do not understand the relevance of comparing two sensors of different brands and designs at the same size, since the subject here is sensor size. It seems you are making the usual mistake of comparing at 100% pixels or looking at per pixel noise measurements, so that the image from the sensor of lower resolution (bigger pixels) is effectively being viewed at lower magnification, making noise less visible. Compare at equal displayed image sizes to see the real story.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2013 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: More Pixels=More Resolution.
Larger Pixels=More Sensitivity and Color accuracy.
Larger Sensor Area=allows to fit Bigger Pixels and More of them.

Additional benefits of Larger Sensors is relation to Optics= Better Micro-Contrast and Better DOF control.

Thats all in a nut shell.

More than 5 Megapixels is overkill for mobile devices, if not most of consumer applications. Better sensitivity is needed though (aka larger pixels)

4K video is a joke, a marketing push for TV sales, but perhaps needed for digital cinema with big theater size screens and big budget productions.

How many times does this need to be said:
- increased low-light sensitivity (also) requires a larger _lens_, with larger front elements to get a large effective aperture diameter, while
- to keep a camera compact, larger, heavier lens elements are not really an option.

Just putting a larger sensor in front of a lens that is no larger gains nothing in sensitivity, because the longer focal length used to cover the same FOV means that the minimum f-stop is higher (f-stop = effective aperture diameter divided by focal length), balancing out the higher usable ISO speed.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2013 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: That's been mentioned many times on the forums that the only game left to increase IQ is increasing sensor size, and given time, the FF prices will go down and virtually all compact cameras will be FF.
For some reason this simple fact provokes knee jerk reaction from people with small sensors. Must be a Napoleon complex.

The massive shift from compacts to phones shows that the mainstream compact users are mostly satisfied with the IQ they are getting, and want it in ever smaller cameras, which for one thing means smaller focal lengths, and thus smaller sensors and pixels to get adequate telephoto reach.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2013 at 23:44 UTC
Total: 208, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »