talmy

talmy

Lives in United States Tualatin, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer
Has a website at www.almy.us
Joined on Sep 7, 2004
About me:

My wife has a D7000 with the 18-200 VR. I bought my (adult) daughter a D60
with the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR, and my (adult) son has my old D70, 18-70,
a Sigma 10-20, and my old Sigma 70-300 APO.

Film - Used to shoot with Minolta SRT102 with three prime lenses and a
teleconverter (and had a garbage K-Mart telephoto zoom). 20 year old Pentax
P&S when weight was a concern.

Computer Gear -- All Apple: iMacs, MacBooks, Minis (including one server)

Comments

Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3
In reply to:

sans culotte: As in mentioned equivalence article here are some important details omitted.
"the full frame camera will see four times as much light as a camera with a Four Thirds sensor"
The camera itself doesn't deal with light. Light is recorded by sensor pixels. So pixel density & efficiency is the key.
FF sensor area is 864 mm^2 & APS-C sensor area is 329 mm^2. That means Fuji 16MP sensor has lower pixel density (16000000/329 = 48632 px/mm^2) than new Canon (or Sony, who knows?) 50MP sensor (50000000/864 = 57870 px/mm^2). So in this example with FF you get more detail with relatively same noise, it's still nice, but easily shows that bigger sensor doesn't automatically means more light.
Also there is sensor efficiency which has an impact on final result.
All that means that the only reasonable way is comparing specific sensors noise rate.

Yes, the article should be talking about the pixel density. It really the light per pixel that determines the noise and not the sensor size. In the analogy given in the article, making the test tubes bigger will reduce the variations in water among the tubes.

Downsampling (downsizing) an image has the same effect as making the pixels bigger, so reduces the noise. Now if you just cropped the 50MP image to one that was 16MP, the noise would be the same, naturally, because the pixels are untouched.

Of course it is safe to assume that preparing an image for presentation, they would be resampled to the same size, making FX a "win" for noise over smaller formats. This is obvious in practice, at least from my experience.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 16:34 UTC

If it isn't *amazingly* good it won't stand a chance at that price. I'd call this one a disappointment after some of the other Samyang lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 21:27 UTC as 41st comment | 6 replies
On HDR for the Rest of Us article (199 comments in total)

I can sure feel the HDR hate in many of these comments. I think Rick Sammon did a great job in this article and kept tone mapping under control. My only complaint about the images is they are over-saturated. I've spent many years taking picture on the Oregon coast and have never seen things quite so vibrant!

I'd also have liked to see HDR and Tone Mapping differentiated. The sins are almost always with the latter.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 15:05 UTC as 25th comment
Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3