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: 156, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: I'm in stitches. The first time a major player adopts a lightfield sensor (multiple photodiodes behind one microlens), it's not to achieve some pie-in-the-sky dream of a "focus-free" cameras, or the "solution to a non-problem" gimmick of "refocusing" images on a web site.

Nope, it's to improve focusing (more accuracy, greater AF area coverage) for plain-old, flat images that you can't "refocus".

I can picture the next steps: 4 photodiodes behind each microlens, for better performance on either horizontal or vertical detail, then 9 to cover a wider range of apertures and take the coverage up to 100% of the frame.

By Photato: "The gap between the diodes is not and wont be infinitesimal small so this new sensor with dual diodes will always have less sensitive area when compared to the standard one diode sensors."
A 5-10% reduction in sensitive area translates to about 1/10th of a stop reduction in sensitivity. Unless they reconfigure microlenses to compensate, in which case it will translate to zero reduction in sensitivity.
On the other hand, this construction could translate into a lot of leeway in highlight DR - if a highlight is not in perfect focus, it is unlikely to overwhelm both subsensors.
I don't think IQ will be a problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2013 at 15:45 UTC
In reply to:

Maverick_: This is as close to revolutionary as you can get. Canon just made M4/3 obsolete and I use a GH1.

The highest sensor resolution per mm is found in the cellphone sensors (10MB squeezed into 1/3" chip).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2013 at 19:12 UTC

Good to see major innovation in sensor tech!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2013 at 19:10 UTC as 30th comment
On Just posted: Olympus Tough TG-2 iHS Review preview (106 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: Can we burry this phrase. It's overused, apologetic, meaningless and a bit silly:

"Photo quality isn't fantastic on the TG-2, but it's more than good enough for purpose and target audience. "

Olympus claims that "the Olympus TG-2 iHS was designed with the serious photographer in mind. ". If the target audience is the serious photographer, I would think IQ would be a concern.

A serious photographer uses the camera that's appropriate for the assignment. If the conditions force the use of a rugged camera, the photographer will work with what he has.
A waterproof camera cannot have an extending lens, which is probably the biggest limitation in its optical design.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2013 at 22:11 UTC
On Just posted: Olympus Tough TG-2 iHS Review preview (106 comments in total)
In reply to:

arhmatic: The Olympus seems to better that other waterproofed cameras, but one thing is not clear to me...

The image quality is what you'd expect from a $150 camera. People say "it's allright, it's waterproofed..." and I agree with that, but... take a little more expensive camera, add $100 worth of waterproofing, maybe $150 --- can't be more than that, and you will end up with a much better camera... Some people would pay for it... I mean, what is the market for this camera? If you can afford a trip to Hawaii for snorkeling, I am sure paying a little more for a camera is not that much of a concern.

A half-decent waterproof case won't be under $200. And it will be much larger, because your "slightly more expensive" camera will have a lens that sticks out of the body by at least 2-3 inches.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2013 at 21:54 UTC
On Just posted: Olympus Tough TG-2 iHS Review preview (106 comments in total)

As far as I know, the TG-2 uses an iris type aperture to get to F:2.8, and an ND filter to get to F:8.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2013 at 21:14 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

peevee1: There is no even point to compare anything but TG-2 and WG-3 now. Get out of the bright sun and it crystal clear why - others cannot even do what a phone can do.

"Yeah, the useful range becomes something like 25-35 vs 25-100"
It's the useful range *for you* (and for me, because I like WA shots). But not everybody shoots this way. If you're taking pictures of kayakers going down a waterfall across a river, you're forced to shoot at the far end of the zoom, which means f:4.8 with any toughcam.
Same with video - for some people, video quality could be more important than UWA performance in low light. For them, a Panasonic TS-5 can outperform an Olympus TG-2 or a Pentax WG-3, despite a slower lens.
Everyone's usage is different. Olympus and Pentax have a wider "comfort envelope" of light due to a faster lens - but some users can be okay with a smaller envelope, as long as they get the results they want.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

jaygeephoto: No hot shoe. Nope. VLF or ULF radio slave sync pulse perhaps? Think outside the bathtub!

And no dishwashing attachment, either! What kind of a vacation camera could it be, if it can't even do the dishes?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 00:34 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: There is no even point to compare anything but TG-2 and WG-3 now. Get out of the bright sun and it crystal clear why - others cannot even do what a phone can do.

To be fair, If you take a lot of shots near the far end of the zoom, or shoot a lot of video, their advantages become a lot less clearcut.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 23:56 UTC
In reply to:

Hachu21: hello DPR,

I noticed that many frames have been taken with small apertures around f/8 or f/9.
I know that such small apertures noticeably reduce picture's sharpness with my S95.
Is this the case with the D20 and his different lens system? Maybe there's no diaphragm and only an ND filter?

Thanks in advance for giving additional details.

Regards from France,
Harold.

Your S95 has a larger sensor and a faster lens, so an iris aperture makes sense. The D20's widest aperture is f:3.9, but because of the smaller sensor, it is equivalent to setting your S95 to f/8 or so.
In other words, wide-open D20 is similar to S95 closed all the way down. If you tried closing it down any further, you'd get way too much diffraction.
So the camera has an ND filter, but no iris.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 19:58 UTC
In reply to:

Hachu21: hello DPR,

I noticed that many frames have been taken with small apertures around f/8 or f/9.
I know that such small apertures noticeably reduce picture's sharpness with my S95.
Is this the case with the D20 and his different lens system? Maybe there's no diaphragm and only an ND filter?

Thanks in advance for giving additional details.

Regards from France,
Harold.

If this was a true iris-type diaphragm, the images would've looked like F/64 - F/128 on 35mm. That's pinhole photography. F/8 means ND filter was enabled.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: About this camera: It seems the manufacturers think only divers enter the ocean. Don't they know that surfing, kiteboarders, fishing, and other water activities that demand high speed? For sports we need a dedicated shutter value at the very least.

Yes, yes, I realize there are "sports" modes, but the camera really doesn't have a clue as to when you're supposed to take a picture of a surfer in a certain position.

A good photographer can work around shutter lag by predicting and such. But without the ability to use shutter priority, it's all a gamble.

Why do manufacturers leave out manual modes?

I understand that with many point and shoots, manufacturers want customers to step up to the next level (enthusiast compacts, dslrs, etc.), but would it kill them to either add manual features to their waterproof cameras or at least make an enthusiast waterproof camera?

Water housings are fine, but how about something that is pocketable AND waterproof with manual controls?

Most of these cameras have small sensors, and the lenses are at or near diffraction limits. So instead of an iris type aperture, they have an ND filter.
This means you pretty much control the aperture by zooming, and the exposure by setting the ISO.
The only time this doesn't work, is when the camera prefers enabling the ND filter over reducing exposure, like my Olympus TG-1 does. They added an "A" mode in TG--2 - probably as a workaround :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 03:33 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: I do not follow the review priorities of this site. You spend time reviewing a camera like D20 and skip reviewing other much more important ones. This looks bad... almost "dodgy". Shape up a bit, please.

Doing a comparison review of the latest crop of the rugged waterproof cameras in the beginning of the summer? That's insane! What were they thinking!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 03:18 UTC
On New CompactFlash card to allow RAID-style 'mirroring' article (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

CyberAngel: So...if I have a Nikon D3, or D3X, or D3S, or a Canon EOS-1D X, 1D C
then I could have 2xCFx2
that is...both a back-up CF and a "RAID" CF
with quad pictures simultaneously
and
naturally two cameras to be REALLY safe with octa system setup
They could be on a same tripod side-by-side...
Maybe a duplicate tripod system and...
(but no back-up photographers with a similar setup, please {WTD} )

I wonder if this new CF will work on the old Nikon D3 series
or if it requires the latest and the greatest like Canon EOS-1D
(trolling)

Hey look, "Pay $5, protect yourself from fraud!" Let's pay $10, we'd be double protected! :D

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2013 at 21:05 UTC
On New CompactFlash card to allow RAID-style 'mirroring' article (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

franzel: Well, the whole point of Raid 1 is to write all data to two seperate harddrives at the same time - in case one failes, you have all data still availble on the second drive in the array .

Seperate is the key here, physically seperate with their own interface and controller .

RAID 1 is intended for systems that require zero downtime, like a financial transaction server in a major bank that has to be always up and running. A camera does not need zero downtime.

Oh, and RAID arrays still have to be backed up.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2013 at 15:50 UTC
On New CompactFlash card to allow RAID-style 'mirroring' article (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

dylanbarnhart: This is not a gimmic.

You have to remember this is not a magnetic device like hard drives, where the whole drive fails when the disk stops spinning. This is random access memory. If one partition fails, the other side still works.

Background: CF cards of all brands use NAND chips from companies like Samsung or Micron. For example, a 32GB card can use 8 chips, each of which is 4GB. These chips are separate and only connect to the ATA memory controller. If one dies the rest don't die with it.

There are some kinds of failures that could render the entire thing uselsess, like when RAID itself fails, or if the card is damaged physically. Far more common is the problem where some memory cells are corrupted, or that a single NAND chip fails. That's what this card can deal with.

"Perhaps you could explain why then when there is a problem with a card, some files are good on it (photos intact) and some files are corrupted"
No way to tell for certain, but a single bad sector would've corrupted a single file. And in all likelihood the controller would've known about three wire error, and reported it to the camera.
More likely, the filesystem got corrupted, and chunks of files got overwritten by the latter writes. RAID 1 is not aware of individual files, so you would've gotten two exact copies of each file, complete with corrupted chunks.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2013 at 15:21 UTC
On New CompactFlash card to allow RAID-style 'mirroring' article (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adrian Van: As the article says, if an image corrupts while writing on one side, it may not be corrupt on the other partition (in case of bad sectors on one side). As most cameras (still cameras mainly) have only one CF slot (or only one SD slot), except for the Canon XF100/300 pro video camera which has 2 CFs, this could be useful to some people. Many older cameras do not have both SD and CF slots, or 2 SD slots, and many mainstream APS-C cameras have only one card slot (except for the higher end ones).

The general consumer taking personal photos, may not care at all for this, but some event and journalist photographers and video guys, may want one if their camera does not have backup slots. How expensive is this card?

I wonder if they could put it into a mirrored SD or that too small to do so.
I think Sony is working on a dual mirror pro memory card like this as well on their line (mainly for video backup for pros) I have read.

Bad flash sectors are not the only cause of corrupted files, and not even a likely cause. Chances are, if an image is corrupted, its mirrored copy will be corrupted as well.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2013 at 02:56 UTC
On New CompactFlash card to allow RAID-style 'mirroring' article (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digitall: Gimmick for sure.

RAID certainly can be a gimmick if not used for its intended purposes. RAID 0 (striping) can double the data rate. RAID 1 (mirroring) guards against failures of individual drives drives. Sometimes RAID 1 redundancy causes lax backup practices - which is bad, because RAIDed data is still vulnerable to things like controller faults, accidental deletion, filesystem corruption, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2013 at 02:27 UTC
On New CompactFlash card to allow RAID-style 'mirroring' article (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

dylanbarnhart: This is not a gimmic.

You have to remember this is not a magnetic device like hard drives, where the whole drive fails when the disk stops spinning. This is random access memory. If one partition fails, the other side still works.

Background: CF cards of all brands use NAND chips from companies like Samsung or Micron. For example, a 32GB card can use 8 chips, each of which is 4GB. These chips are separate and only connect to the ATA memory controller. If one dies the rest don't die with it.

There are some kinds of failures that could render the entire thing uselsess, like when RAID itself fails, or if the card is damaged physically. Far more common is the problem where some memory cells are corrupted, or that a single NAND chip fails. That's what this card can deal with.

Unless, of course, the the on-card controller dies - doesn't matter if it's the RAID part, the USB or filesystem - related fault, the whole card still dies. I've never heard of a bad sector on a flash card.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2013 at 02:01 UTC
On Nokia rumors bring hope for new camera hardware post (26 comments in total)
In reply to:

BorisK1: Pelican Imaging's camera array is nothing like Lythro. If this technology is scalable (that is, if it's possible to build large camera arrays that cheaper than large sensors of comparable light-sensing area), it could lead to a completely new breed of cameras.

About the patent - why would a cellphone camera need an aperture? Closing it down will just lead to diffraction, smearing the image.

You might want to lookup diffraction limits for typical cellphone sensor sizes (1/3"), and typical lens apertures (f:3.5).
Nokia's Pureview is a *massive* exception.

Direct link | Posted on May 4, 2013 at 02:39 UTC
Total: 156, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »