BorisK1

BorisK1

Lives in United States West Bloomfield, MI, United States
Works as a Software engineer
Joined on May 7, 2004
About me:

Equipment:
Bodies: Olympus E-3, E300
Lenses: 11-22mm / 50mm / 14-45mm / 40-150mm (rev. I)
FL-36 flash
4:3/OM adapter
OM bodies: OM 4Ti, OM 4
OM lenses: 28mm 3.5 / 50mm 1.8 / 135mm 3.5
T32 flash
Pentax Optio 43wr (pretty much dead now)

Comments

Total: 158, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tobias1234: Last year I tried the Olympus TG-2 which was one of the 2013 recommendations. I was really shocked about the bad image quality compared to any other camera (e.g. S95, TZ10, RX100, FZ38, some mFT-Bodies) I have used before.
The lens of the TG-2 is fast, but it's so soft that open wide is unusable. The JPEG engine was also one of the bad ones.

I can not agree to the 2013 and this new 2014 comparison, because there is one really important feature which is a must for UW photography: RAW support. Without RAW the pictures will have heavy false colours and the UW programs will lead brownish or blueish color casts - depending on the distance to the subject.

After my bad experiences with the compact UW cameras, I tried a RX100 in a cheap housing (Meikon). The quality differences to the candidates is so big, that I can't understand what cameras like a TG-2/TG-3 are good for.

Even a cheap Canon S95 in a cheap Meikon housing (my backup) is lightyears away from UW cameras like a TG-2/TG-3.

(part 2)
" The JPEG engine was also one of the bad ones.

I can not agree to the 2013 and this new 2014 comparison, because there is one really important feature which is a must for UW photography: RAW support."

They are *comparisons*. None of the cameras support raw, and the comparison clearly says so. What, exactly, do you not agree with?

" Without RAW the pictures will have heavy false colours and the UW programs will lead brownish or blueish color casts"

Only if you don't know what you're doing. RAW processing can be a very useful tool, but too many people use it as a crutch to compensate for their own lack of thinking.

" - depending on the distance to the subject."
*Color cast* depends on the distance to the subject? Hmm.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:28 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tobias1234: Last year I tried the Olympus TG-2 which was one of the 2013 recommendations. I was really shocked about the bad image quality compared to any other camera (e.g. S95, TZ10, RX100, FZ38, some mFT-Bodies) I have used before.
The lens of the TG-2 is fast, but it's so soft that open wide is unusable. The JPEG engine was also one of the bad ones.

I can not agree to the 2013 and this new 2014 comparison, because there is one really important feature which is a must for UW photography: RAW support. Without RAW the pictures will have heavy false colours and the UW programs will lead brownish or blueish color casts - depending on the distance to the subject.

After my bad experiences with the compact UW cameras, I tried a RX100 in a cheap housing (Meikon). The quality differences to the candidates is so big, that I can't understand what cameras like a TG-2/TG-3 are good for.

Even a cheap Canon S95 in a cheap Meikon housing (my backup) is lightyears away from UW cameras like a TG-2/TG-3.

"Last year I tried the Olympus TG-2 which was one of the 2013 recommendations. I was really shocked about the bad image quality compared to any other camera (e.g. S95, TZ10, RX100, FZ38, some mFT-Bodies) I have used before."

How about "other camera in its class"? As far as I know, RX100's image quality deteriorates if you step on it.

"The lens of the TG-2 is fast, but it's so soft that open wide is unusable."
There's just one iris step in TG-1/2/3. Below that, "stepping down" really means engaging the 3-stop ND filter.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:27 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shellblower: Absolutely agree. I am really wondering why the camera developers are not able to get something like a Canon S120 in a waterproof case. Why do not add Wifi in combination with a water sealed charging cable and nobody needs to stress seals of the battery and card doors anymore. End-User-Life could be so easy.

The image quality of the outdoors compacts seems to be a class of it own for no known reason. Even today's smartphones deliver better IQ in moste of the situations. Strange.

"I am really wondering why the camera developers are not able to get something like a Canon S120 in a waterproof case."
Because of the lens. The S120 has a lens that extends out of the case by a couple of inches when the camera is on. The rugged cams use optics with periscope-type folded light paths to keep the lens inside the camera body, which severely limits the lens parameters, and hence, the image quality.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:01 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay Williams: What's a 1.5"-type sensor? That's a bizarre bit of writing.

Still, I enjoyed and appreciated the review.

Um, I think I see the problem now.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 21:14 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

cs hauser: The review spends a lot of time comparing the Canon G1X-II to the Sony RX100-II. But it's unfortunate that the reviewers were so pre-occupied with Dynamic Range and Noise comparisons... that they've essentially ignored basic image quality. I'm talkiing about the advantages of having a physically larger lens and a physically larger sensor to render superior pixel-level sharpness.

Even when the cameras are normalized to the same image size, the Canon G1X-IIlooks far superior to the Sony RX100-II. This fact is plain to anyone who spends 30 seconds looking at the RAW studio comparisons at print sizes.

The review concludes that the G1X-II and RX-100 II have similar levels of image quality. But that's only true in terms of Dynamic Range (and by extension, noise). In terms of sharpness, the G1X-II is in a different league altogether.

DR and noise are *the* advantages a larger sensor is supposed to have. Well, maybe resolution, too - but RX100 has an edge there as well.

Don't know about an edge in "sharpness". Most cameras I know let you adjust that.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 21:11 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay Williams: What's a 1.5"-type sensor? That's a bizarre bit of writing.

Still, I enjoyed and appreciated the review.

What else do you call a 18.7x14mm sensor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 21:03 UTC
In reply to:

BorisK1: The table says 26mm equivalent FL, while the text says 28mm. That's a pretty big difference in WA coverage.

Going by 1" sensor 2.72 crop factor, 9.58mm * 2.72 = 26.0mm. That's what I'm rooting for, then :)

Looks like the article has been changed to 26mm - while the new rumors say 24mm :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

BorisK1: The table says 26mm equivalent FL, while the text says 28mm. That's a pretty big difference in WA coverage.

Going by 1" sensor 2.72 crop factor, 9.58mm * 2.72 = 26.0mm. That's what I'm rooting for, then :)

Ah, I missed that part. Thank you!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 21:10 UTC
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Can we agree that a sensor should ideally respond to all wavelengths of light in the same way?
If we accept they do not, the camera's software must ensure that results from it do.
Therefore manufacturers need to produce machines that respond to colours as our eyes do, and it is up to them to achieve this, not us to remedy their failures and refusals to do so.
This is the only software correction needed.
Imagine each file had embedded in it a grey card, and that this grey card duplicated exactly the grey card used to calibrate the sensor.
You could download the file and click on its tiny grey card to get exactly the right colour balance
It would only work if the camera's software had already ensured that the sensors response to colour closely matched our eyesight.
And that there was no black from the sensor, or added in software. There is no black in nature-its our invention

"Imagine each file had embedded in it a grey card, and that this grey card duplicated exactly the grey card used to calibrate the sensor."
Except, you'd need a different grey card image for different types of light. One card for sunlight, another for clowdy, shade, tungsten, fluorescent... Maybe a way to shoot a reference image yourself... Sounds familiar?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 21:07 UTC
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (53 comments in total)

Not sure how this technique could work. Maybe somebody with knowledge can chime in and explain?

If I understand it right, the "calibration" is supposed to remove the color inaccuracies introduced by the camera.

To do that, they photograph a color target at the scene, and then use that image to build a "profile" for the camera.

Problem is, the colors they're recording are affected *both* by the camera color response *and* by the color of the ambient light.

In short, how would they separate the color shifts introduced by the camera (which they want to fix) from the color shifts introduced by the ambient light (which they want to keep)?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 20:41 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

The table says 26mm equivalent FL, while the text says 28mm. That's a pretty big difference in WA coverage.

Going by 1" sensor 2.72 crop factor, 9.58mm * 2.72 = 26.0mm. That's what I'm rooting for, then :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 20:04 UTC as 35th comment | 6 replies
On Drone films SpaceX rocket launch and landing article (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So - what is that rocket doing?

Lifting a little and then landing?

When is that capability useful?

It's the question of what happens to the rocket (actually, to the rocket's first stage) after it detaches. The choises are pretty limited - smash into the ground (wasteful), splash-down into the water and either drown (wasteful) or get recovered by specialized ships (expensive and risky).
A safe landing of fully-intact vehicle is a pretty big money saver.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 15:08 UTC
On Revamped camera and lens feature search now live! article (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

BorisK1: Looks very nice! A couple of long-time niggles: The 25mm focal length and the 2/3 sensor size are both missing from selections. Is it a conspiracy against FujiFilm compacts?

A-ha, I knew it!!!

Thanks a lot for the reply :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2014 at 18:02 UTC
On Revamped camera and lens feature search now live! article (31 comments in total)

Looks very nice! A couple of long-time niggles: The 25mm focal length and the 2/3 sensor size are both missing from selections. Is it a conspiracy against FujiFilm compacts?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2014 at 13:02 UTC as 16th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Markas: "With a faster capture rate of 1.5 frames per second, you can keep on shooting without missing an opportunity."

Straight from their website. This is so funny. I know its a 50MP, but comon, no more highlight of camera?

I dare say most peoople who were "used to hold their breath for 2 seconds before a large format camera" were born in 1800s and have been holding their breath for much, much longer than 2 seconds. Motion blur is not a problem with them, but the skin tones are a different story...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 16:05 UTC
On Swimming with the Nikon 1 AW1 article (199 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennajenna: Biggest problem with the nikon frankly is the lack of wide angle lenses. The best it can do is 27mm. The olympus tg2 is 25mm BUT with an adapter it can get as wide as ~ 21mm. That is massive as a field of view advantage (over 20%) compared to the nikon's 27mm max - and the real world of underwater video or photos... you want a wide vista of your experience. Also the tg2 aperture of 2.0 lets in twice the light of nikon so it can take lower iso shots.

HowaboutRAW: RAW output is an insignificant feature for a toughcam. A tick in a spec table to satisfy the 0.0001% of the buyers that might want it.
You're the one making things up here.

The 2-3 stop advantage of an image stabilized lens can be measured. The advantage of ISO 400 on a 2/3 sensor over ISO 3200 on a 1" sensor can be measured as well.

Your "Huge IQ advantage" of shooting RAW cannot be measured.

Oh, and if you try actually *reading* my post, you'll see that I compared *both* ends of the zoom. On the far end, the AW-1's 74mm f:5.7 lens has a 1.5 stop advantage in light-gathering over the TG-1's 100mm f:4.9 - but when you take into account the (at least) 2 stops improvement of IS, the TG-1 actually gathers *more* light at the far end of the zoom than the AW-1 with the kit zoom.

Yes, the AW-1 has an IQ advantage over the TG-1 when you put it on a tripod and change lenses as you go. In a real-life "tough" scenario? Not so much.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2013 at 16:19 UTC
On Swimming with the Nikon 1 AW1 article (199 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennajenna: Biggest problem with the nikon frankly is the lack of wide angle lenses. The best it can do is 27mm. The olympus tg2 is 25mm BUT with an adapter it can get as wide as ~ 21mm. That is massive as a field of view advantage (over 20%) compared to the nikon's 27mm max - and the real world of underwater video or photos... you want a wide vista of your experience. Also the tg2 aperture of 2.0 lets in twice the light of nikon so it can take lower iso shots.

In the scenarios that call for tough cam usage, the choice is often between poor IQ and no picture at all.
And if you have to shoot the AW at two stops higher equivalent ISO (about 4 stops nominal) too compensate for the slow, non-stabilized lens, you won't get much of an IQ advantage over the TG1/2.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2013 at 13:10 UTC
On Swimming with the Nikon 1 AW1 article (199 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennajenna: Biggest problem with the nikon frankly is the lack of wide angle lenses. The best it can do is 27mm. The olympus tg2 is 25mm BUT with an adapter it can get as wide as ~ 21mm. That is massive as a field of view advantage (over 20%) compared to the nikon's 27mm max - and the real world of underwater video or photos... you want a wide vista of your experience. Also the tg2 aperture of 2.0 lets in twice the light of nikon so it can take lower iso shots.

It's not just the wide angle. TG-1/2 has advantages in reach, size, weight, and battery life. This is especially true in scenarios that make it difficult or impossible to change lenses and batteries on the AW1

The wide end of the 11-27.5mm zoom is equivalent to f:9.5, which is just half a stop light-gathering advantage over TG-1's (equivalent) F:11. The far end of the zoom has more of an advantage - 1.5 stops - but has much shorter reach. In low light, TG-1/2's optical stabilization means that it actually can gather more light (for the same scene) than the Nikon's zoom would.

Oh, and unlike the Nikon's, TG-1/2's UWA and telephoto add-on lenses can be installed and removed underwater.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2013 at 20:03 UTC
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1396 comments in total)
In reply to:

Radilo Breitlack: I' rather have a digital insert in place of the classic film holder & bobbin to replace the 35 mm film cartridges in my old 35mm SLR;

That would be difficult to use (at the very least, you'd need to open your camera every time you needed to change ISO or check the remaining shots or battery status), and it wouldn't be full frame. TTL flash metering that measured the light reflected off the film won't work off a sensor. Finally, the insert would be *very* expensive, because it's missing so many modern features, that very few people would buy it.
By "features" I mean things like histogram display, custom white balance, zoom-in-focusing, just to name a few...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 16:02 UTC
On Nikon 1 AW1 preview (587 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: anyone notice even with the 10 mm lens weight 470 gram twice as heavy as TG-2. with zoom weight 530 gram also the terrible 220 shot battery life. can't be put in shirt pocket

The $370 230 gram tiny TG-2 is not obslete at all

With its small body and 25mm wide end, TG-2 is *the* serious camera of the two. And its meter and WB systems are good enough that it doesn't need the crutch of RAW processing.
Wake me up when Nikon comes up with a camera that can fit into a PFD pocket, and has decent wide angle. IS wouldn't hurt, either. *Then* I'll ask if it has a decent jpeg processor, and if not, if there's the RAW option

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2013 at 23:10 UTC
Total: 158, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »