 |
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Lives in
AK, United States
Works as a
software developer
Has a website at
http://www.mineralien-verkauf.de
Joined on
Jun 24, 2002
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Their measurements are so badly screwed - the 100mm f/2 USM lens better than the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM - there is something fishy going on here, and it stinks mighty badly!
I can only see one reason in their published data: They seem to take all aperture settings into account which a lens offers - and at f/22 (the maximum the 100mm f/2 can close it's aperture to) the diffraction of the sensor isn't as bad as on the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM where the lens can close to f/32.
So these guys basically are morons who have no clue what they do and should be barred from further producing this overload of measurement garbage! Please DPreview - do yourself a favor and drop them from your portfolio of partners, you're better off without them!
Spectro: the image to the left looks like a canon, the one to the right looks like a nikon...oop wrong topic.
I am all for getting the highest DR like film. We can add contrast to and saturation if we wanted in post production. Just give us the most raw data possible. Engineers keep it up. Rambus is those guys that I remember suing other memory makers on ram.
Film has less DR than current sensors!
The problem is the newly granted right to sublicense without compensation to you. You (dpreview that is) should compare the license agreements again, the previous rights are necessary to operate a service like Instagram, the new ones go far beyond what is necessary. If I were a DPreview regular previously using Instagram I'd scramble to pull all my content of their site. Fast!
I can't wait for the day when the wretched, unstable and misleading WISIWIG mode get's binned. The voting war malarchy doesn't help either and the lack of ability to contact the moderators and the lack of feedback from them doesn't make the situation any better! Please return sanity to the forum by binning the whole mess!
Karl Gnter Wnsch: DNG is a seriously flawed concept - to try to press several hardware dependant formats like the different RAW file formats into a common mould is a complete misconception.
It was always lossy (even when it wasn't meant to be) and with every evolution step it got closer to the encompassed RAW formats - thus replacing several disjunct, well specified standards with a absolutely messy jumble of parts that DNG has become over time.
@Henry M. Hertz,
try to read the specification with regard to black level storage and evaluation. The first evolution steps mandated the removal of the covered rows of the sensor data an replacing them with a single calculated black level value. So converting your files to DNG would have lost you the status data about the column variances - leading to excessive banding which you only could tackle with stronger noise reduction instead of the proper solution of using the covered sensor cells as reference.
It now may contain this data but previously it didn't - if you converted the DNG with the old converter you have botched your RAW files.
dbateman: This is good. I do hope more cameras come with DNG. I only know of Pentax now that has DNG. It would be great if all cameras had the choice of DNG. Then you don't have to upgrade your adobe software so often :)
DNG is one unholy mess of things - it has no place whatsoever in a camera!
DNG is a seriously flawed concept - to try to press several hardware dependant formats like the different RAW file formats into a common mould is a complete misconception.
It was always lossy (even when it wasn't meant to be) and with every evolution step it got closer to the encompassed RAW formats - thus replacing several disjunct, well specified standards with a absolutely messy jumble of parts that DNG has become over time.
Jogger: How about DXO sensor measurements as well.. e.g. instead of factory default jpgs for testing dynamic range.
@Simon, sorry to hear that you are selling out. DPreview previously was the benchmark for independent reviews. By tying in with the DxO lot I feel that the independence is lost - because DxO Tests are nothing more than a marketing vehicle for their software products. I have yet to see a single test by them that is not marred by extensive and exhaustive procedural mistakes and flaws that make them complete and utterly irrelevant for real life photography.
For what it's worth - I wouldn't bother with DxO results, their testing procedures are so far off any reality that these values serve no one - as often as they contradict reality they should really refrain from publishing anything. Anyone trusting their data is IMHO up a creek without a paddle...
GPW: All of Manfrotto equipment is overpriced. I am in the process of replacing my Manfrotto tripod, monopod and heads with the much better and cheaper Induro brand. I own the Induro AT413 tripod and it kicks Manfrottos butt in terms of build,stability and price.
@GPW, I agree. I tossed my Manfrotto gear into the metal recycling bin because I couldn't bring myself to lie enough to be able to resell it. So I took quite a hefty loss but switching to a combination of Novoflex, Feisol and Berlebach tripods and heads did make a heck of a difference. Recent Manfrotto products not only are too expensive, in parts they are far worse than previous models.
IMHO the reason for their products to go backwards is to protect the premium brand in their parent company lineup - Gitzo...
The fixed length of the legs make setting up that wannabee tripod (it's none by my book) impossible on terrain that's not perfectly flat. Even the slightest angle of the ground would make me fear for the stability of the rig... Why do you give this a rating of 4 stars when really it deserves one at maximum? Because as far as tripods are concerned you're probably better off without - at least then you won't have to deal with the rig toppling and destroying your gear in the process...
bradleyg5: Pardon my French, but what a piece of junk. 11 point AF with only a centre cross point? They trying to make sure this thing doesn't compete with the 5dII or what? Why does a digital rebel get more cross points.
Everybody and his dog wanted built in Wifi and GPS - which is what you got, so something else had to give. You don't get anything for free...
twenty200: I own an A77. Until you've shot your style of photography with an A77 or A99, you simply have no idea how much of a positive impact this kind of viewfinder will have. The first time I went out shooting with my A77, I couldn't stop saying "Wow." Not because I was dazzled by the technology. I was wowed by the immense usability. An EVF gives you so much more control over the camera than you've ever known before. It's a lot like the leap from film to digital all over again in that it's even more instant feedback. I can't justify buying an A99, but if I could, I'd have already done it. I'm not a Sony guy, but I'm definitely sticking with Sony unless somebody else creates an even better EVF. For me, it's the killer feature I can't do without. I thought it would be a gimmick. It turned out to be the most photographer friendly feature I could have ever imagined.
What do you do when the subject moves and you want to pan with it? Do you use a crosshair finder in the flash hot shoe or do you simply refrain from shooting such subjects? I tried and the EVF is a royal pain in the proverbial... It sucks big time, there hasn't been a worse invention since the spanish inquisition. It doesn't show half as much of the dynamic range of the scene which means that you can't really judge the scene at all!
Karl Gnter Wnsch: RIP Minolta/Sony... I have had the displeasure of experiencing the EVF of current SLT - they are gruesome. "Sony's 2.3M dot OLED viewfinder is a pleasure to work with..." is something I can not confirm, they are a pain under most circumstances (literally as they disturb the light adaptation of the viewfinder eye which leads to headaches for many) and plain unusable under normal daylight conditions if you happen to have to wear glasses...
@ieR: So you need to be photographing a face - what about an animal oder a butterfly - they look nice in backlit situations? Sorry, but the EVF malarchy is and always will be a second class toy!
Karl Gnter Wnsch: RIP Minolta/Sony... I have had the displeasure of experiencing the EVF of current SLT - they are gruesome. "Sony's 2.3M dot OLED viewfinder is a pleasure to work with..." is something I can not confirm, they are a pain under most circumstances (literally as they disturb the light adaptation of the viewfinder eye which leads to headaches for many) and plain unusable under normal daylight conditions if you happen to have to wear glasses...
@AmaturFotografer:
Yes, the OVF shows more DR than the camera can capture but with experience you know how to judge the scene - or when to mitigate that problem by using for example a flash gun.
The EVF lack of information OTOH can't be compensated by any amount of experience because it doesn't show the relevant information. Take a portrait shot in a backlit situation - you wont even see your subjects face in the EVF, so you have no chance to judge when to take the shot!
Karl Gnter Wnsch: RIP Minolta/Sony... I have had the displeasure of experiencing the EVF of current SLT - they are gruesome. "Sony's 2.3M dot OLED viewfinder is a pleasure to work with..." is something I can not confirm, they are a pain under most circumstances (literally as they disturb the light adaptation of the viewfinder eye which leads to headaches for many) and plain unusable under normal daylight conditions if you happen to have to wear glasses...
@phutyle: Have you ever tried to compose an image at daylight with the EVF? I bet you didn't because the highlights blow out, the shadows block up - you can't tell if your subject is surrounded by clutter or a decent backdrop because the wretched EVF can't show more than 4 maybe 5 stops of dynamic range whereas the camera captures 10-14 stops in optimal circumstances. This makes it unusable in the best of circumstances. With glasses this is even worse because then the EVF is prone to be too dark to see anything, even in the meager dynamic range it can show!
Putting the same unmodified focusing system from a crop camera into a full frame body is plain silly. Sorry, but with that minute frame coverage you have no chance but to focus and recompose each and every shot!
RIP Minolta/Sony... I have had the displeasure of experiencing the EVF of current SLT - they are gruesome. "Sony's 2.3M dot OLED viewfinder is a pleasure to work with..." is something I can not confirm, they are a pain under most circumstances (literally as they disturb the light adaptation of the viewfinder eye which leads to headaches for many) and plain unusable under normal daylight conditions if you happen to have to wear glasses...
Karl Gnter Wnsch: Another epic fail on the sensor side. Again - just like the SCCD's introduced ages ago - the resulting images show abundant artifacts because of Fujis choice of a different sensor layout. Previously the sensor cells were hexagonal and orientated mainly diagonally - trading off resolution for tighter packing and requiring an rotational interpolation.
Now they are sacrificing color fidelity on the altar of luminance resolution. Sorry but this concept doesn't pass muster for me! The traditional demosaicing algorithms are well researched and can deliver exceptional results. The Fuji concept is not free from moiree though they claim it to be better - which it may well be but the tradeoff to not have well defined color edges ruins this whole concept for me.
@Raist3d: You might not want to see it but look at what for example happens to foliage - even in the highly praised in camera JPEG I find this kind of smudging intolerable. I have had two Fuji SCCD cameras and the same story is happening again - they produce a "revolutionary" sensor design which has serious drawbacks for little or no benefit...
Another epic fail on the sensor side. Again - just like the SCCD's introduced ages ago - the resulting images show abundant artifacts because of Fujis choice of a different sensor layout. Previously the sensor cells were hexagonal and orientated mainly diagonally - trading off resolution for tighter packing and requiring an rotational interpolation.
Now they are sacrificing color fidelity on the altar of luminance resolution. Sorry but this concept doesn't pass muster for me! The traditional demosaicing algorithms are well researched and can deliver exceptional results. The Fuji concept is not free from moiree though they claim it to be better - which it may well be but the tradeoff to not have well defined color edges ruins this whole concept for me.