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: 225, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Ricoh WG-5 GPS updates rugged series article (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

PentaxNick: Still no WiFi built in hence no remote shooting. In 2015! TG3 it is then.

TG-3 has been hard to find (out of stock or discontinued) since last November. Rumor sites have been talking about TG-4, but it hasn't happened so far.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 16:29 UTC
On Ricoh WG-5 GPS updates rugged series article (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neez: But does it shoot RAW, that's what people really want.

It doesn't. Probably because it's a very small "people".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 16:11 UTC
On Ricoh WG-5 GPS updates rugged series article (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

BorisK1: Here's what I want to know: Supposedly, ragged cams (along with enthusiasts' and superzooms) are the only types of cameras not affected by cellphones. The manufacturers are - supposedly - focusing on the ragged cams like never before.

Why, then, all the recently released tough cams are hardly updated from previous versions? A new body color here, a new "creative mode" there, an updated logo don't really show "focus".

With the possible exception of enthusiast compacts, raw *is* insignificant for a fixed-lens camera from marketing standpoint. A typical raw shooter owns (and uses) a camera with an interchangeable-lens. A typical super zoom or tough cam user shoots jpegs.

Sure, there are exceptions, but not enough of them to sell enough cameras and to offset the phone calls of frustrated users who accidentally switched to raw, and now their camera is dog-slow and outputs huge files that you can't put on Facebook, which means they probably have a virus or something.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 16:08 UTC
On Nikon announces Coolpix AW130 and S33 rugged compacts article (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cane: Are companies just going to keep churning out the same small sensor in this genre? Either you suffer marginal image quality or you buy an big and expensive case for a good camera. The in between is a vast wasteland.

There were significant breakthroughs in the lens design and miniaturization in recent years. Just look at the Panasonic LX-100 or Sony RX100III. There's probably no way to fit a 1" sensor into a folded-light-path tough cam, but a 2/3" or 1/1.7" with a reasonably fast lens might be doable.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 15:36 UTC
On Ricoh WG-5 GPS updates rugged series article (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

BorisK1: Here's what I want to know: Supposedly, ragged cams (along with enthusiasts' and superzooms) are the only types of cameras not affected by cellphones. The manufacturers are - supposedly - focusing on the ragged cams like never before.

Why, then, all the recently released tough cams are hardly updated from previous versions? A new body color here, a new "creative mode" there, an updated logo don't really show "focus".

Okay, if you want to nitpick, I was referring to *fixed-lens* cameras.

But definitely not just "basic jpeg only", as you put it. An ability (or inability) to record raw files is an insignificant tick mark in the long list of specs, that neither makes not breaks a camera.

The importance of the ability to record raw is somewhere between a built-in flash and an extra stop of aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 15:19 UTC
On Nikon announces Coolpix AW130 and S33 rugged compacts article (31 comments in total)

Looks like all rugged cam updates/refreshes are very conservative - by all manufacturers. New body colors, new scene modes, New version number, and that's it. Oh wait, did the 133 add a mini-grip? Well, that puts Nikon ahead of everybody else... I guess.

What's strange, is that the rugged cams(together with enthusiast and super zooms) are the only fixed-lens cameras whose sales were not affected by the ubiquitous smartphone. It's expect to see a bit more effort than this.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 13:43 UTC as 10th comment
On Ricoh WG-5 GPS updates rugged series article (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

BorisK1: Here's what I want to know: Supposedly, ragged cams (along with enthusiasts' and superzooms) are the only types of cameras not affected by cellphones. The manufacturers are - supposedly - focusing on the ragged cams like never before.

Why, then, all the recently released tough cams are hardly updated from previous versions? A new body color here, a new "creative mode" there, an updated logo don't really show "focus".

What figures? About the dropping sales of low cost p&s cameras largely due to ride acceptance of cellphones? Sorry, don't have any specific links - buy if you search, that's what you'll find.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
On Ricoh WG-5 GPS updates rugged series article (43 comments in total)

Here's what I want to know: Supposedly, ragged cams (along with enthusiasts' and superzooms) are the only types of cameras not affected by cellphones. The manufacturers are - supposedly - focusing on the ragged cams like never before.

Why, then, all the recently released tough cams are hardly updated from previous versions? A new body color here, a new "creative mode" there, an updated logo don't really show "focus".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 01:12 UTC as 9th comment | 16 replies
On Fujifilm announces new rugged and long zoom compacts article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: What is the focal ratio range for the underwater camera? Having a fast lens for underwater photography is paramount.

Imaging-resource says it's f/3.9 - f/4.9. Consistently slow throughout the entire zoom range. But hey, who needs aperture when you have Wi-Fi? :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2015 at 19:25 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anadrol: Well after 22 years of use a replacement should happen one day or the other...
the thing is that ironically we need it less than before when we had 56K connections !

I'm afraid ijpeg is about as easy to replace as the QWERTY keyboard layout (which, if I recall correctly, was designed primarily to reduce the jamming of the mechanical typewriters).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 02:44 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

Usee: Sorry, but within the comparison tool it wipes away the pattern in the green area around the Nike logo on the shirt of the left player - even at the "Large" setting...

OK, it reduces the file size noticably, but I would have liked a comparison with JPEG 2000 and also different jpeg compressions...

...I see only examples of "noise reduction" with a heavy loss on detail.

They should at least improve the comparison tool, or maybe also, the format...
...b.t.w. which is the reason why JPEG 2000 isn't used that much?

"That shouldn't be a problem nowadays, shouldn't it?"

Just as much of a problem now as it was then. Sure, the camera CPUs are faster, but the files are larger.

I wouldn't mind an ability to fit twice as many images on my flash card, but not at the price of halving both the battery life and the burst mode rate.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 02:33 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

Usee: Sorry, but within the comparison tool it wipes away the pattern in the green area around the Nike logo on the shirt of the left player - even at the "Large" setting...

OK, it reduces the file size noticably, but I would have liked a comparison with JPEG 2000 and also different jpeg compressions...

...I see only examples of "noise reduction" with a heavy loss on detail.

They should at least improve the comparison tool, or maybe also, the format...
...b.t.w. which is the reason why JPEG 2000 isn't used that much?

The biggest technical problem with jpeg2000 was that it took a lot more CPU cycles to generate than to view.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 01:12 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ken Rocket: how many shades of gray does it have? I want more than 256.

14 bit means16,384 levels of grey. Should be enough for casual use.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 01:00 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.

@falconeyse: No problem. It looked like a copy-paste error, I just wanted to figure out which of the two of us you were addressing.

@HowaboutRAW: Not sure what you mean by "weakness" of audio amplification with transistors - it's about as common as sliced bread.

I take it, by "truly digital imaging sensor" you mean putting a single photon counter into every pixel. Yes, that *is* a long ways off.
Today's single photon counters are the size of a compact camera, and cost many times more. It will be a while before they figure out how to cram one into each pixel.
http://www.excelitas.com/Pages/Product/Single-Photon-Counting-Modules-SPCM.aspx

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 15:34 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.

"Um, I thought transistors step discretely, unlike vacuum tubes"
No, that is not the case. A transistor can be fully "open" or fully "closed", but gradually increasing the driving voltage causes its resistance to decrease in a smooth curve, not as an abrupt tradition.

If not for this smooth response curve, it would have been impossible to use transistors in amplifiers.

You should be able to confirm this with a quick Google search, or a wiki article.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 03:50 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.

Transistors are the basic building blocks of electronics. One can use transistors to build both analog circuits (like amplifiers) and digital circuits (like logic gates). But a transistor, by itself, is analog, and its response is a smooth curve.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 01:02 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.

HowaboutRAW:
> "The photo receptors on sensors are transistors"
No, photodetectors are not transistors. The two are fundamentally different. Photodetectors generate electricity when hit by photons. Transistors change resistance when hit by electrons.
Photodetectors have linear responses, transistors don't (look at their response curves in Google images).

However, both photodetectors and transistors are analog devices. Their response curves are smooth, not stepped.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 21:44 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.

falconeyes:
You put my name on top of HowaboutRAW's text. Why?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 19:45 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.

HowaboutRAW:
Sorry, I mistyped, I meant ADC, not DAC.

Yes, photons hitting a sensor are discrete events, but sensors *function* as analog devices. There is no counter that would get incremented every time a photon hits it. There's no way to walk through each atom within a sensor element and total up their electrons' energy levels.

Just as they did when were first invented, sensor elements accumulate electric charge, which is then transferred to the edge of the chip, amplified, and then measured by an ADC converter. That charge is proportional to the number of photons that hit the sensor, but there's no way ADC could measure it with enough precision to count individual electrons.

Sure, a sensor is not a solar sell - but an individual sensing element is very similar to one.

"All raws are cooked a bit by the processor" - I must have missed the day this became common knowledge. Could you post a link?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 17:21 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.

HowaboutRAW: The only way a processor could affect raw DR is by being "quiet" electrically and cold (meaning literally, temperature-wise) while the image data is being captured and DAC-converted.
Well, unless we consider "cooked RAW" - with some NR applied before JPEG conversion - but I thought FF cameras didn't do that, as a rule?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 16:18 UTC
Total: 225, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »