PIX 2015
Michael Long

Michael Long

Lives in United States Boulder, CO, United States
Joined on Oct 27, 2000
About me:

Canon 1D, 1Ds, SD10, G7, 16-35/2.8, 24/1.4, 28-70/2.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 IS,
300/2.8, 1.4EX, 550EX, 420EX, 220EX

Comments

Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Gasman66: Personally, I don't really care whether there's a mirror or not. But I have no intention of re-learning photography to accommodate the micro 4/3 format. If Canon make a 5D mirrorless that has a full frame sensor and accepts full frame lenses, I'd certainly consider it.

I had no idea learning a slightly different DOF curve meant that one had to "relearn" photography. Aperture, exposure, ISO, shutter speed, composition... OMG, you're right. EVERYTHING needs to be tossed out the window!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 22:25 UTC

As long as you're listening to your customer's voices...

a7000 = a6000 + 24mp high-ISO APS-C sensor. 5-axis in-body stabilization, silent-shutter mode.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 14:08 UTC as 105th comment | 2 replies

Was exited to see this, but then realized that it had a single focal length.

WTF? I mean, if you're going to address the major shortcomings of a smartphone's camera, then you need a zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:44 UTC as 94th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: Lol anything they can think of regardless if it already exists or not must be patented. iPatent =D

Why make your life miserable Apple? Just create a phone camera with larger sensor, optical zoom, 16-24MP and call it a day.

"... it's [sic] likely to pat you because you defend it."

Nor will the great droid pat your little bottom for attacking the iSheep. (grin)

Now that that's out of the way, you're right that it's the same effect, but wrong in that it's accomplished by different mechanisms, and as such, patentable.

By your illogic, there'd be just one "plane" patent, since swapping out metal and jet engines for cloth, wood, and propellers doesn't matter. The thing is still, obviously, a plane...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

digiart: I may be wrong but it looks like Apple is yet again copying other companies technology...

"...and figured out a slightly different method to produce the same thing."

Slightly different, as in using the already moving OIS system instead of adding additional actuators to move the sensor itself?

Funny, that strikes me as being a little more than "slightly" different...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:17 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: Lol anything they can think of regardless if it already exists or not must be patented. iPatent =D

Why make your life miserable Apple? Just create a phone camera with larger sensor, optical zoom, 16-24MP and call it a day.

It's a different method of accomplishing the task, so no, it didn't "already exist". See below.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:09 UTC

If one were to actually read the patent, you could would see that it claims to increase resolution by using the optical image stabilization system to move the image across a fixed sensor.

As opposed to similar systems on other cameras, which typically use additional actuators to move the sensor itself. And I see it as a typical Apple refinement, using the existing moving part (OIS) to accomplish the task instead of adding additional moving parts. Elegant.

So while the basic effect is the same, the mechanism by which that effect is accomplished is completely different. And as such, worthy of a patent.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:03 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
On Sony FE 28mm F2 samples gallery posted article (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tilted Plane: I own this. Huge (!) distortion, corrected well in jpgs. Focuses fast and quiet. Not especially small for an f/2, but light. No image stabilization. In all, very sharp and therefore competent but nothing to write home about for this price. I'm keeping it, but not with particular joy.

No OIS? Seems like a good match for the A7MII in that case.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2015 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

quatpat: Well, a full frame lens is a full frame lens, no matter what body you put behind... This said, it seems like a lot fo people are mislead by the relation body to lens size, which make these lenses in the photos look bigger than they really are.

Some of the commenters here below seem to forget how small the A7 bodies are, which is why they think that the lenses are huge in relation to them.

"Sensors require telecentric lenses, and such lenses for full frame can be neither compact nor short."

Ah. That explains the 16mm and 20mm pancake lenses for E-Mount, as well as the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. Oh, and the Voigtlander 40mm f/2.8.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 18:09 UTC

"Intended as a 'carry everywhere' zoom for a7-series owners the FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS would seem most at home on the a7 or new a7 II. "

At f/3.5-6.3, it would seem most at home on the A7s where the high-ISO capabilities can compensate somewhat for the slow lens.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 18:02 UTC as 42nd comment
In reply to:

Siobhan A: Alas, APS-C and small size are no longer top priorities.
I am still waiting for a nice traditional portrait lens. Maybe 2016.

The 50/1.8 on the APS-C is a 75 and it's relatively inexpensive. They do need a 70mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 though.

The 18-105/4 G isn't too bad portrait-wise if you back off and use 105 (157eq).

Also, the 90mm f/2.8 could have potential.(135 eq)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 22:03 UTC
On Sony issues firmware 1.10 for Alpha 7 II article (59 comments in total)

Really, really hope Sony adds that 5-axis stabilization system to the a6000M2.

(And, as long as I'm wishing, a silent electronic shutter and some of that A7s high-IOS magic.)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 00:08 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

And I'd prefer to see FF all but disappear. Advances in sensor technology mean that the advantages of FF over APS-C are decreasing year after year. The sensor in my Sony A6000 outperforms the one in my old Canon 1Ds, in a system that's smaller, lighter, and easier to carry.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 05:19 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: So much for sleep eh Richard? :)

I say its about time camera companies take risk and start building more enthusiast friendly cameras. I'd still like to see more risk and more niche's filled.

And maybe one of them will be bold enough to finally make a digital film cartridge we can use for our film cameras.

Carl

Doesn't make much sense, really. A digital camera is more computer than camera these days, and the sensor is just the tip of the iceberg. Improvements in power, processor design, process design, ISP technology, bus technology, storage technology, and more mean that, like computers, it does little good to simply drop in a new sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 02:41 UTC

The camera in the new iPhone 6 / 6 Plus rivals (if not bests) most small sensor P&S cameras, and we're just in year 7 of the smartphone era.

IOW, smartphone cameras are only going to get better and as such they're going to cramp the P&S market more and more and more.

Factor in the APS-C class mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras taking out high-end DSLR sales, and it doesn't take much to see that camera companies are competing to offer their wares to an ever shrinking market.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 02:38 UTC as 89th comment | 2 replies
On Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? article (163 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: A smartphone taking good pictures is certainly interesting for many users, but long battery life is much more important IMHO. Using (huge ?) computational power to correct or not lens defects implies a trade-off between lens simplicity/robustness and battery life...

Today's "huge" computational power is tomorrow's 64-bit multiple core accelerated processor.

One also has to consider that for the few (or even dozens) of pictures people take with their phones, a few extra milliseconds of processing power per images is insignificant. You'll "waste" far more power firing up the radios and sending a couple of selected images up to Facebook.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2013 at 00:47 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyefuse: This tech should be implemented for video use. So that you could easily make the perfectly smooth and exact spot on focus pulls - in the post process! That would be truly revolutionary. No need to worry about pumping auto focus, low light focusing problems and moving subjects in all kinds of action, low contrast and messy scenes. Whoa, that would rock!

It should.. and will... eventually. The relatively minor nit is capturing 10x a normal HD frame's data, processing it, and moving it... for each and every frame.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 20:02 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

D1N0: The way it is now, the Lytro is a gadget. Nice to have when you want to spend the money. I wonder if you could get the same effect with a hdr-like technique. Hfr (high focus range) a number of consecutive shots which are then merged into one interactive image, or into one image which is in focus over the entire range. (A fly's eye in the foreground an mount Fuji in the background).

@HowaboutRAW: Moving object? Sure. No problem. You want to capture 10X the data PER FRAME in order to do so?

We barely have the tech to capture 4K. You want to try 40K???

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:56 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

robogobo: I said it from the beginning: this is at best a solution in search of a problem, and at worst a complex gimmick. No matter what research is pointed my way, I still don't see what's so revolutionary about the tech. I've been told I need a phd to understand it. Good luck selling that. In the end it still looks like a bunch of simultaneous exposures at different focus points. Big deal. I think the best they can hope for is that somebody buys their IP and they can break even on the clearance sale.

They compare it to Polaroid. I'm afraid not. Polaroid was a high quality mainstay in the beginning. Only later did they cheapen the process and release junky cameras. Lytro is starting off with junk, and they don't even have a niche to fill. Maybe they can compare to Holgas or Dianas.

@Cy Cheze: You might go on Flckr and note just how many photos come from traditional camera makers vs computer and electronics companies...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:54 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZAnton: Why didn't you make the ISO tests studio pictures and samples?

@falconeyes : It's ALL interpolated, but it might well be higher than you think. Part of the process corrects for lens distortions, chroma, and other aberrations, all at the same time.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:51 UTC
Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »