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: 512, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Photokina 2014: Canon stand report article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: The Canon SX60 HS really shot down the bird - the focal length covers more than a usual amateur telescope...and with a 1/2.3" sensor size...i'm asking myself, which kind of ppl buying 50x, now 65x zoom bridgecams with very small & inferior sensor? jesus...

My first telescope (a small one) was 1,900mm and f/15. My current one is 2,800mm and f/10. Neither one could zoom out to 21mm. My new one, using attachments, can be 2,000mm and f/7 or 560mm and f/2.

An SX50 or 60 hyperzoom is a very flexible camera and can produce usable images in darker conditions due to usable ISO 1600, raw, and impressively powerful stabilization. In good light, the range means you can shoot all the way to the diffraction limit of a lens its size - an impressive achievement that no DSLR and lens combination can match wide open without a huge stack of teleconverters.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 13:24 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Astrophotography article (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "3m Coudé Refractor"

It would be news to me if such an instrument existed. I think this is a reflector, not a refractor.

Oh...most scopes are specified by aperture, and 3m sounded like well beyond the biggest one ever built.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2014 at 20:06 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Astrophotography article (44 comments in total)

"3m Coudé Refractor"

It would be news to me if such an instrument existed. I think this is a reflector, not a refractor.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2014 at 12:48 UTC as 17th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

peevee1: Who would pay $400 for this POS when you can pick up FZ70 for $270 for ages?
Canon asks a lot for just a brand.

Than the SX50 to which it was compared in the link I gave you.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Who would pay $400 for this POS when you can pick up FZ70 for $270 for ages?
Canon asks a lot for just a brand.

Even the raw from the Panasonic looks to be about 3 stops worse.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Who would pay $400 for this POS when you can pick up FZ70 for $270 for ages?
Canon asks a lot for just a brand.

Looks like the FZ70 is as bad as ever:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ70_FZ72/noise.shtml

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ70_FZ72/RAW_noise.shtml

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Who would pay $400 for this POS when you can pick up FZ70 for $270 for ages?
Canon asks a lot for just a brand.

Still waiting to see some.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: This Canon has an F3.4 to F6.0 24–1008 mm lens. They might as well have just included a fixed focal length 24mm F3.4 lens because that is about the only focal length and aperture that is remotely close to useful on this camera.

Uh...you ever take a shot of an airplane at cruise altitude with a camera phone, and be able to see the windows of the plane?

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/SX50__1762.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 13:53 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: This Canon has an F3.4 to F6.0 24–1008 mm lens. They might as well have just included a fixed focal length 24mm F3.4 lens because that is about the only focal length and aperture that is remotely close to useful on this camera.

I tested my SX50 against a Canon 100-400L with 1.4x teleconverter on an SLR and the SX50's lens, at the long end, wide open, is impressively sharp and just about a match for the L-zoom at its optimal f-stop.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 13:50 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: This Canon has an F3.4 to F6.0 24–1008 mm lens. They might as well have just included a fixed focal length 24mm F3.4 lens because that is about the only focal length and aperture that is remotely close to useful on this camera.

Wrong.

I've taken shots of high-speed subjects at f/6.5 on my SX50IS, at 1200mm-equivalent, and cropped them to 2400mm-equivalent.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 13:45 UTC
In reply to:

gunkan: I really love -and used- bridge cameras! SX50, FZ200, the beasty Fuji X-S1 but i think they are all doomed because of m4/3. I got now an E-PL5 with 28-300mm equivalent lens and is so small and powerfull that i can't even think about going back to bridge cameras like this or RX10 or FZ1000.

At least in Spain, the Canon SX510 was a real bestseller. So, there is a lot of market/profit for these cameras.

Fuji... why did you make so expensive and so bad IQ camera like S1????

Well, such a deal is not available to all. The system you have costs 2.5 - 4 times as much as these cameras, and thus is not competitive with them.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

gunkan: I really love -and used- bridge cameras! SX50, FZ200, the beasty Fuji X-S1 but i think they are all doomed because of m4/3. I got now an E-PL5 with 28-300mm equivalent lens and is so small and powerfull that i can't even think about going back to bridge cameras like this or RX10 or FZ1000.

At least in Spain, the Canon SX510 was a real bestseller. So, there is a lot of market/profit for these cameras.

Fuji... why did you make so expensive and so bad IQ camera like S1????

Must have been used, or Olympus is undercutting their own customers - by almost half.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Who would pay $400 for this POS when you can pick up FZ70 for $270 for ages?
Canon asks a lot for just a brand.

If Panasonic would EVER figure out how to process their own raw data, their compact cameras would get more interesting.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

gunkan: I really love -and used- bridge cameras! SX50, FZ200, the beasty Fuji X-S1 but i think they are all doomed because of m4/3. I got now an E-PL5 with 28-300mm equivalent lens and is so small and powerfull that i can't even think about going back to bridge cameras like this or RX10 or FZ1000.

At least in Spain, the Canon SX510 was a real bestseller. So, there is a lot of market/profit for these cameras.

Fuji... why did you make so expensive and so bad IQ camera like S1????

Do you really think an E-PL5+14-150, at $1,048 (current B&H prices) competes against these cameras?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 12:32 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)

2,3,8,11,12 - what is attractive about the over processed over contrasy over vignetted over saturated look? It's repulsive to me.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 04:01 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I suspect the label "Diffraction Correction" exaggerates the effectiveness of this feature. No amount of processing can magically recreate actual subject detail that was lost to diffraction as the light passed through the aperture. It might be able to simulate what appears to be genuine subject detail, but it won't be accurate.

For example, assuming that all other variables affecting resolution are up to the task... If diffraction at a given f-Number is just bad enough to prevent you from discerning the date "2014" on the face of a coin lying on a table several meters from a camera equipped with a normal FL lens when viewing at 100%, "Diffraction Correction" isn't going to reconstruct that data from thin air when the data never got past the aperture in the first place.

You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear.

Heh...I was going to tell him that I just divided a specific number by itself and got 1. What was my number?

:)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I suspect the label "Diffraction Correction" exaggerates the effectiveness of this feature. No amount of processing can magically recreate actual subject detail that was lost to diffraction as the light passed through the aperture. It might be able to simulate what appears to be genuine subject detail, but it won't be accurate.

For example, assuming that all other variables affecting resolution are up to the task... If diffraction at a given f-Number is just bad enough to prevent you from discerning the date "2014" on the face of a coin lying on a table several meters from a camera equipped with a normal FL lens when viewing at 100%, "Diffraction Correction" isn't going to reconstruct that data from thin air when the data never got past the aperture in the first place.

You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear.

The reason you can't run it backwards is because information is lost in the forwards direction - it isn't just "scrambled".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I suspect the label "Diffraction Correction" exaggerates the effectiveness of this feature. No amount of processing can magically recreate actual subject detail that was lost to diffraction as the light passed through the aperture. It might be able to simulate what appears to be genuine subject detail, but it won't be accurate.

For example, assuming that all other variables affecting resolution are up to the task... If diffraction at a given f-Number is just bad enough to prevent you from discerning the date "2014" on the face of a coin lying on a table several meters from a camera equipped with a normal FL lens when viewing at 100%, "Diffraction Correction" isn't going to reconstruct that data from thin air when the data never got past the aperture in the first place.

You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear.

Distortion correction doesn't violate any fundamental laws of physics. Diffraction "correction" does. It's most likely just sharpening.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 13:13 UTC
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

ipecaca: Great pics. Retarded comments.
I wonder if all those nature "protectors" have any idea how many habitats are destoyed to provide the fuel for electricity they use to write those silly coments about just one bird. Wake up, the trace gases from your car kill (yes, not just virtually disturbs) dozens of animals every year, highways interrupt migration rutes. Every time you put a new pack of a4 paper in a printer a tree is cut somewhere.
You can't afford to be so naive. Fight real problems, let the people have some fun

"You know, there's a reason for existence of national parks. It is to preserve those few natural habitats that are left relatively untouched and protect the wildlife within."

Better not drive your car to one, then. And certainly you shouldn't enter one on a bike or on foot. All those people around are making paths and trails and ruining the area for the wildlife. Oh, and make sure you don't let the clattering of your shutters scare the wildlife. That's another thing that should be banned - photography.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 13:09 UTC
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

webber15: To pierre the idiot,,,yes people eat chickens for dinner,,but your comments show your lack of brain resolving capacity,,so let me get this straight,,just because we eat chickens nd turkeys its OK to harass a wild bird?? I am a birder and I know and understand bird behavior,,the eagle would not investigate this drone,they are nervous birds by nature and only chase their own kind to get them out of their territory,,I do not believe the photographers argument,,,as I said in Europe harrasing raptors would be law breaking,,I hope its a one off incident the like of which does not happen again,,,to add anyone who thinks its acceptable is an idiot...

You are wrong. I've had a Eagle fly within 2 meters of my slope soaring R/C aircraft, and stay there through maneuvers for more than 30 seconds.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 11:34 UTC
Total: 512, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »