PIX 2015
Lee Jay

Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 628, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: No AA filter = no sale.
No OVF = no sale.
I suspect I'll never own a Sony camera since they'll never produce something I'd buy.

What? Losing money making camera with poor system support and lousy ergonomics? Why do the majority want that?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 22:11 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

salamander1: "One of the major points of that entire section was to dissuade users from ever moving AF points manually."

real photographers want to choose their own focal point for various reasons, which is one of the most important things in photography i dare say. there is nothing like putting your square on your subjects eye, not the forehead, not the nose, and not the eyelashes, and taking that sublime and masterful shot of exquisite beauty and excellence. canon pro bodies can do this very well, real quick and easy, thank you very much. :)

Interesting...I just did that 5DS test on my son with my 7D Mark II, and it tracked his eye just fine.

Maybe it's because I set it up for that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 22:10 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

salamander1: "One of the major points of that entire section was to dissuade users from ever moving AF points manually."

real photographers want to choose their own focal point for various reasons, which is one of the most important things in photography i dare say. there is nothing like putting your square on your subjects eye, not the forehead, not the nose, and not the eyelashes, and taking that sublime and masterful shot of exquisite beauty and excellence. canon pro bodies can do this very well, real quick and easy, thank you very much. :)

Especially when the subject is moving.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 22:05 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)

No AA filter = no sale.
No OVF = no sale.
I suspect I'll never own a Sony camera since they'll never produce something I'd buy.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 22:04 UTC as 187th comment | 27 replies
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Why not have both?

I shoot stills with the far-superior lag-free zero-power use OVF on my 7D Mark II.

When I want to, in a second I can shoot videos with an eye-level EVF with the addition of a Hoodman Custom Finder Kit. I suppose I could shoot stills with it too, I've just never found the need.

That's one trick you'll never be able to do with a mirrorless camera. It's not like you can easily add a mirror and prism.

Every EVF I've ever tried.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Why not have both?

I shoot stills with the far-superior lag-free zero-power use OVF on my 7D Mark II.

When I want to, in a second I can shoot videos with an eye-level EVF with the addition of a Hoodman Custom Finder Kit. I suppose I could shoot stills with it too, I've just never found the need.

That's one trick you'll never be able to do with a mirrorless camera. It's not like you can easily add a mirror and prism.

First, I doubt it's that low. Second, I'd consider 2-5ms, in all lighting conditions, to be tolerable.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 03:57 UTC

Why not have both?

I shoot stills with the far-superior lag-free zero-power use OVF on my 7D Mark II.

When I want to, in a second I can shoot videos with an eye-level EVF with the addition of a Hoodman Custom Finder Kit. I suppose I could shoot stills with it too, I've just never found the need.

That's one trick you'll never be able to do with a mirrorless camera. It's not like you can easily add a mirror and prism.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 02:50 UTC as 87th comment | 4 replies

Glad I didn't wait for the rumored 24-70/2.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 08:05 UTC as 128th comment
In reply to:

Lee Jay: So, by "ONE" they mean "ONE trick pony"?

Only works on ONE platform.
Only has ONE focal length.
Only uses ONE source of light (ambient).

It doesn't have a flash, it has an LED, which is a very poor substitute for a real Xenon flash. It's weak, has lousy color rendition, and won't freeze motion.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 15:13 UTC

So, by "ONE" they mean "ONE trick pony"?

Only works on ONE platform.
Only has ONE focal length.
Only uses ONE source of light (ambient).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 14:53 UTC as 122nd comment | 3 replies
On Samsung Galaxy S6 / S6 Edge camera review post (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

Market XP: At this price point , Can they Be a good Alternative for DSLR camera ?

Not even close.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 12:56 UTC
On Samsung Galaxy S6 / S6 Edge camera review post (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I have an S3, and looking at upgrade possibilities, frankly, the S5 interests me far more than the S6. The S5 is waterproof to the point of being submersible, has a replaceable battery and accepts a micro SD card, is a slightly more pocketable shape (slightly thicker with more curved back corners), and it's $250 cheaper as well.

The S6 doesn't have IOS. That's an Apple thing.

Maybe you meant OS, as in optical stabilization. Doesn't matter to me since I carry a dedicated camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 12:55 UTC
On Samsung Galaxy S6 / S6 Edge camera review post (98 comments in total)

One thing I never seem to see in reviews is performance in macro. The only thing I've found really useful in a cell phone camera is using it as a magnifying glass with a magnifier app. My current phone does pretty well with that, but I'd be interested to see how newer cameras do in comparison, but no one ever seems to test this functionality.

The way the app I use works is you can put it at 1:1 camera to screen pixels, and then push it as close to MFD as possible with the LED light on. That gives pretty decent magnification.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 01:57 UTC as 15th comment
On Samsung Galaxy S6 / S6 Edge camera review post (98 comments in total)

I have an S3, and looking at upgrade possibilities, frankly, the S5 interests me far more than the S6. The S5 is waterproof to the point of being submersible, has a replaceable battery and accepts a micro SD card, is a slightly more pocketable shape (slightly thicker with more curved back corners), and it's $250 cheaper as well.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 01:50 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies
On Samsung Galaxy S6 / S6 Edge camera review post (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

dwill23: optical zoom.

I just read a bunch of comments comparing this to compacts, and larger cameras. The fact is, phones are still no where near compacts. Phones are just convenient, you now don't have to take a camera for snap shots.

I was at the beach with my GF and saw people taking pics of friends with the lighthouse way off in the background. With fixed, wide angle phones, the lighthouse is a tiny dot. It actually pushes it farther away.

With a $150 point and shoot, 20x optical zoom, I back way up and zoom in. Presto! The lighthouse is HUGE in the background. Mount Rushmore, last year, same camera. People taking pics and the president's faces are smaller than their friend's eyeballs. I back up, zoom in, and the heads are larger than my friend's. This is very dramatic and impossible with any camera phone.

NYC, Battery Park, back up, get statue of liberty HUGE in background. Not a tiny speck like everyone else shooting pics.

Optical zoom will set you apart. Carry one.

I do that in every pair of pants I own, including the jeans I'm wearing right now. Keys and knife in right front, Galaxy and Elph in left front. No problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 01:37 UTC
On Samsung Galaxy S6 / S6 Edge camera review post (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

dwill23: optical zoom.

I just read a bunch of comments comparing this to compacts, and larger cameras. The fact is, phones are still no where near compacts. Phones are just convenient, you now don't have to take a camera for snap shots.

I was at the beach with my GF and saw people taking pics of friends with the lighthouse way off in the background. With fixed, wide angle phones, the lighthouse is a tiny dot. It actually pushes it farther away.

With a $150 point and shoot, 20x optical zoom, I back way up and zoom in. Presto! The lighthouse is HUGE in the background. Mount Rushmore, last year, same camera. People taking pics and the president's faces are smaller than their friend's eyeballs. I back up, zoom in, and the heads are larger than my friend's. This is very dramatic and impossible with any camera phone.

NYC, Battery Park, back up, get statue of liberty HUGE in background. Not a tiny speck like everyone else shooting pics.

Optical zoom will set you apart. Carry one.

"But you wouldn't carry a dedicated camera with you everyday, that's not practical."

I carry a dedicated camera with my every single day. If I don't have my camera, I don't have my phone either, probably because I'm in the water. My little tiny compact fits in the same pocket as my smartphone, and wipes the floor with it photographically.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 01:26 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: There are many root problems with this approach:

- File sizes and the resulting processing time
- Video compression and likely no raw mode
- Videos are often shot with slow shutter speeds to make for smooth video
- Slow video shutter speed often results in motion blur as seen in the first image
- Little or no ability to use fill-light
- What little fill a video light can provide pales compared to what a flash can do
- Can't use a flash to freeze motion
- Even 30fps is often too slow to catch the moment. Anticipating a single shot can be more reliable.
- Stuck using an EVF

I've taken stills from video before, but the situations in which it is a useful thing to do are extremely rare.

That's *exactly* what many people are suggesting. I've read repeatedly how 4k video will eliminate the shooting of stills, not least from the CEO of RED.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2015 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

DigitalWalnut: I shoot with RED cameras regularly, which can do something similar (using the HDRx feature to record a second RAW track with shorter shutter speeds, from which you can extract stills), and I've found its usefulness to be fairly limited. Unless you're shooting a thoroughly choreographed scene with marks for your actors and an AC pulling focus, video/cinema work is usually done at slower apertures for the sake of having a greater depth of field (since you have to keep things in focus continually, not just for a frame or two). When your lighting or ND filters are attuned to the shutter speeds you'll be using for video, that puts even further constraints on the potential for good-looking stills from the same camera. I guess there might some situations when you absolutely have to have photos and stills from the same event and can't stop recording to whip out a DSLR/mirrorless/whatever, but I can't imagine it comes up too often.

Richard, until your comment, I didn't get that this was a special mode. 4k photo mode just meant a way of extracting 4k stills from video to me. I see now that the article does say it's really different, but I didn't get that the first time through since "4k" just meant "video" to me.

This makes it a burst mode like many cameras have. For example, my pocket camera shoots 3.4fps, but can shoot in a lower-resolution mode at 10fps for a time. I think some cameras have had revolving buffers to shoot as high as 60fps in these burst modes. I think calling it "4k photo mode" is confusing compared to calling it sometime similar to what it's always been called - a burst mode or similar, not to be confused with a continuous shooting mode or a video mode.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: There are many root problems with this approach:

- File sizes and the resulting processing time
- Video compression and likely no raw mode
- Videos are often shot with slow shutter speeds to make for smooth video
- Slow video shutter speed often results in motion blur as seen in the first image
- Little or no ability to use fill-light
- What little fill a video light can provide pales compared to what a flash can do
- Can't use a flash to freeze motion
- Even 30fps is often too slow to catch the moment. Anticipating a single shot can be more reliable.
- Stuck using an EVF

I've taken stills from video before, but the situations in which it is a useful thing to do are extremely rare.

I'm not saying it wasn't intentional, I'm saying you usually can't make a good still from a good video (because the shutter speed will be too slow for the still) or a good video from good stills settings (because the shutter speed will be too fast for smooth video).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 19:25 UTC

There are many root problems with this approach:

- File sizes and the resulting processing time
- Video compression and likely no raw mode
- Videos are often shot with slow shutter speeds to make for smooth video
- Slow video shutter speed often results in motion blur as seen in the first image
- Little or no ability to use fill-light
- What little fill a video light can provide pales compared to what a flash can do
- Can't use a flash to freeze motion
- Even 30fps is often too slow to catch the moment. Anticipating a single shot can be more reliable.
- Stuck using an EVF

I've taken stills from video before, but the situations in which it is a useful thing to do are extremely rare.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 19:11 UTC as 22nd comment | 7 replies
Total: 628, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »