Timmbits

Timmbits

Lives in Canada Montreal, Canada
Works as a inventor
Joined on Oct 8, 2011
About me:

Deutscher, living in Montreal Canada.
Cycling, chess, design, inventions, nature, photography, are some of the things I like.

Comments

Total: 1731, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

PS, also @Richard:
to address another point you mentioned, I do realize that a MFT or a 1" sensor with less pixels, will not be as good as a Full Frame sensor with more pixels. The size difference in photosite size is too great for that.
However, what is wrong with wanting an optimized sensor?
We don't actually need all that resolution, unless we're making huge prints or cropping everything because we can't frame a shot. But what everyone craves, is great dynamic range, great color saturation, less underexposed/dead pixels (noise)... that is what really looks impressive when you look at a photograph taken with a large sensor, like a full frame.
A medium sized sensor will not get you that quality...
but what is wrong with wanting it to give you a better quality?
For those of us who buy APS or MFT, (and now also the new 1" generation), these are reasonable desires.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 03:36 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

I guess it depends on your approach, your personal philosophy.
@Richard, you asked why not go with a larger pixel count if you can?
My answer is, I'll go with a higher pixel count on a larger sensor.
I want larger photosites. If I want to go with a smaller camera, then I prefer to sacrifice resolution, than sacrifice clean image and low light performance.
What's more, I am not that convinced that if you select a lower resolution on a 20MP sensor, that the firmware is actually keeping all pixels live and pairing them to effectively increase the area to capture each pixel. I know Fuji's old sensor on the X-S1 does this, but it was the exception, not the rule.
But even when the camera does do that, there is much wasted space on the sensor, between the photosites, where light is lost. So you will never get the same usable area and sensitivity from paired pixels as you would from larger photosites.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 03:28 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

I get an email telling me I got a reply.
It's not like I hang out here, in this thread, to read posts from ignorant, pretentious, arrogant, newbies, who still have a lot to experience.

The OP was intended as a service to you all, and to shame the manufacturers who take you all for idiots. You're only proving them right!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

thank you davec150,

You should not comment on a road you have not yet travelled.

Until then, you are only displaying your ignorance and frustration, and completely missing the whole point of the conversation. It seems like it is way over your head.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 00:27 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

Like I said in the op, it wasn't to criticize.
Where I was coming from, is we are starting to see a lot of cameras with larger but small 1" type sensors come out.
They fulfill the need for those who want an apsc sensor in a smaller package, but only partially relieving that need.

I believe that when you make a compromise, on sensor size, that the compromise be the resolution (the spec that people look at and think they need) and that more work be done towards having the largest photosites possible (the feature people just don't know how much they are going to love it).

We have more than enough resolution today, and it has already ventured into the needless. These cameras are very appealing to enthusiasts, who understand why they cost $1000 instead of $200. There are many who would be delighted to get even better IQ out of what is perceived to be a sensor that doesn't quite compare to a MFT or APS. Doubling the photosite size would narrow that gap.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 00:14 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

Just search through all the times that the "megapixel" race was mentioned here or anywhere else over the years, and how it was exposed and criticized.

I do believe I mentioned the benefits.
With everything else being equal (not comparing today's tech with yesterday's but employing the same technology)

* larger photosites (2x the size)
* smaller files
* better low-light performance.
* even less noise.
and I suspect better DR too.

It's all about cleaner images, color richness, basically, image quality, not resolution.

You don't actually "need" all that res, unless you're making very large prints.
We don't look at great photographs taken years ago, and suddenly say they are no good anymore, because they were taken at lower res than today's.

It is a bit akin to asking someone why they would want a monochrome camera, when you can get color. There are obvious advantages that the other doesn't offer, when you don't want or need what the other offers, for some applications.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 00:09 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: with new cameras sporting a large sensor and a zoom lens,
in a compact format and at a similar price point,
it's not really current anymore to offer a fixed focal length.

I would have expected Ricoh to add some kind of a good quality zoom lens into this iteration, to keep it current, and now that other manufacturers have proven it possible in this size format.

You can get with a MFT, which isn't too far off.
And the 1" aren't as good, but they are reasonable.
At the enormous size of this there should be room for a zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 23:50 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

come on guys... especially you @Richard... you should know better than this. it wasn't so long ago, that a Hasselblad 8MP gave tunning images, no noise, etc... and now, you are using larger sensor resolutions to justify higher resolution on a relatively small 1"type sensor.
It's not the same type of product.
For a 1" I think 12mp would be quite fitting.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

@ludwick123:
if you read my entire post, you would realize that I am not excluding super-zooms with the SAME type of zoom range (~10-24X) but have a larger sensor, like the ones using a 1" type sensor. You however, are not investigating to discover the existence of those.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

@greynerd: your attach on DPR, saying it is not a serious site, is unwarranted. I think it has all the makings of a good site.
And your argument that it takes sh!tty sensors so other can brag about fullframe is just inconsequential. NO ONE IS BRAGGING HERE! the post was intended to shake some sense into some (some need it more than others) and to publicly expose manufacturers for still feeding us junk. If you don't want quality, go talk to the clerk at walmart - I am sure he/she will give you plenty of insightful advice that you are perfectly OK with.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

@MikeFL, really? you picked up on that, and some voted your post too! wow!
I know it is "smaller"!
1/2" is less to type than 1/2.3" - it's the same to me.
it is less of a difference than, say, 1/1.6 versus 1/1.7, but in the 1/2" category, nobody really cares!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 20:15 UTC

I do not think that Taylor Swift, personally, being an artist, gets involved with the fine-grained nitty-gritty of such contracts, and other details. I don't think most artists even want to know all these minute fine details - they hire professionals to take care of all of that - agents, managers, logistics, lawyers... and those people, in their competencies, probably follow standard practices.

I am glad, however, that the photographer shed light onto this.
(puns non intended)

Now that Taylor Swift is aware of this, and having see how eloquently she handled the situation with Apple, to defend the smaller/poorer artists, I would not be surprised if she instructs her team to come up with a precedent-setting contract that is more photographer-friendly.

To me, she looks more like a person to do the right thing, to defend others, than a hypocrite.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 02:49 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Len_Gee: Does the MKII finally fixed the dust in lens issue that plagued the original GR?

... or just buy a different model from the competition! lol ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 02:32 UTC

with new cameras sporting a large sensor and a zoom lens,
in a compact format and at a similar price point,
it's not really current anymore to offer a fixed focal length.

I would have expected Ricoh to add some kind of a good quality zoom lens into this iteration, to keep it current, and now that other manufacturers have proven it possible in this size format.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 02:30 UTC as 1st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Aleo Veuliah: Great all around Camera.

Well done Panasonic.

...on paper, and if you like to buy cameras at walmart, never having tried a larger-sensor camera. believe me, once you try the larger sensor models, you'll never look at this category again.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 02:20 UTC

Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 02:16 UTC as 24th comment | 17 replies
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

Slowfish: What is the true resolution at 960FPS (2 sec option) ?

it brings me to a picture of the back of the camera, held in hand, with the LCD tilted down (almost horizontal).

I can see your text though. not the table/slide.

The link I posted is different (it's the menus/specs you want to know), if you scroll down, there are HFR settings, but they make no commitment as to the resolution (or native before upsampling) of each.
And what is 60p 50M anyways? is M a Japanese expression of MB (file size)?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 21:53 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

Slowfish: What is the true resolution at 960FPS (2 sec option) ?

@RB: it looks like your slide was removed or changed.
if I look at this link, they don't really say either
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-iv/4#S2

Not sure if that really matters though... at 1000fps, there is very much the luck factor if you manage to catch that speedy-bullet (or miss it) as it smashes through an orange (or whatever else is so fast that you would use that).
Seems like that works out to about 0.4MP - so it's like an upsampled webcam. hmmm

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 21:36 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1375 comments in total)

I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 21:20 UTC as 186th comment | 15 replies
On Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on article (668 comments in total)
In reply to:

justsayyes: I use my X100 (purchased used) exclusively in B&W+R unless asked to shoot snapshots by the wife...not because I'm a great BW photographer but because I don't shoot that often and doing so with the X100 in BW reminds me of the process of shooting that I first learned as a kid with my brother. If I could afford the new M and it's lenses I would do so in a heartbeat and, like my X100, enjoy using it just because.

yes, but your resolution is reduced dramatically as compared to a true monochrome camera. each photosite is only receiving one of 3 colors, where everything else from the spectrum is blocked from reaching the sensor. the sensitivity gain is enormous when you do not have that color filter blocking out most of light.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 20:16 UTC
Total: 1731, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »