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: 554, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »

I sure wish someone would ask Canon about the 3x movie digital zoom mode from the 70D being in or out of the 7D2. I was really hoping they would expand that to smooth continuous zoom from 1x to 3x, but it appears they went the other way and got rid of it entirely.

It would also be nice to know if it reads the whole sensor or still line skips in video mode.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 12:41 UTC as 8th comment
On Photokina 2014: Canon stand report article (69 comments in total)

Look under the tables and behind the signs. Canon seems to have lost the 100-400L replacement.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 13:26 UTC as 24th comment
On Photokina 2014: Canon stand report article (69 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 (90 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 22nd 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
Total: 554, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »