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: 106, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous3456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

RedMangrove: why does everyone want to call people with their camera?

Never mind, you're right.
I just looked at the images - apparently, the (only?) microphone is on the front. That would indeed make it uncomfortable to use as a phone. Now that I think about it, that microphone is probably optimized for movie-recording, so you'd need to hold the camera in front of you, like you would a radio [edit: I mean, walkie-talkie radio].
Yup, using this thing as a phone wouldn't work very well.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 17:09 UTC
In reply to:

RedMangrove: why does everyone want to call people with their camera?

> but it seems to me that the ergonomics of this camera (or pretty much any P&S camera) would be rather horrible when used as a phone
What ergonomics? Modern phones are just rectangular bricks with a screen, that you hold to your head to make calls. As a phone, this one looks like it would be quite comfortable to hold.
When used as a mini-tablet, as long as you hold it by the thick end, it should be okay too. I guess landscape could be a bit tricky...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

Prognathous: If I still need to carry my phone, then what's the point?

Non-Android P&S cameras are already capable as they are. Their main limitations don't have to do with the OS that powers them, but more with their typically limited hardware and physical attributes (small sensor, slow lens, small grip, small battery, small physical buttons).

Wake me up when a new P&S camera can actually replace *both* my current P&S and my current smartphone.

I wonder if it can be used as a handset with one of those GSM watches. Nikon specs don't mention bluetooth though, so it's probably out:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/26356/COOLPIX-S800c.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs

Edit: Never mind, according to Nikon Europe, there's Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR support, so it might be polssible to couple this as a handset with a dumb GSM device.
http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/digital-cameras/coolpix/style/coolpix-s800c

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 15:51 UTC
In reply to:

RedMangrove: why does everyone want to call people with their camera?

> We'll defer for another day the fact that the S800c doesn't have GSM or CMDA transceivers and can't actually make a phone call.

Skype? Google talk? VOIP?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 15:45 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: HUGE step in the right direction, but I wish it was 16 or 12mp for lower noise. I don't expect to print 20x30 from a point-n-shoot.

Nikon should do the same with their 1-series sensor.

Still waiting for the Canon S1X...

By JordanAT (3 hours ago)
> By measurably less, you mean "visibly finer grained", and by more dynamic range you mean "less" right?

Google "oversampling".

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: HUGE step in the right direction, but I wish it was 16 or 12mp for lower noise. I don't expect to print 20x30 from a point-n-shoot.

Nikon should do the same with their 1-series sensor.

Still waiting for the Canon S1X...

You do know that a 20mp shot downsized to 12MP has measurably less noise and more DR than a native 12MP, right?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 13:36 UTC
In reply to:

Deleted pending purge: To my sorrow, it's another Almost...
Imagine waterproofing that is working to the pressure of 1.2 bar, and how little it takes to make something really usable to divers (i.e. being able to resist pressures of 5 bar)! Taking photos within 12 meters depth is really frustrating if you want to do more than dive in apnea or just snorkle. There is no excuse for any manufacturer who wants their products to be interesting to outdoors people, for not yet being able to make a proper amphibious camera which would be at least as usable as ancient Nikonos, including Nikon who already has two excellent casings, - III and V - easily adaptable to digital technology...
And adding an underwater housing to an underwater camera is just as laughable as having extra Pet modes for Cats and Dogs. While having none for Parrots, for instance. The whole idea of an u/w camera is to finally get rid of the housing, which is just another piece of equipment one has to buy and take care of...

OldArrow: Well, you're right, you'd be able to shoot things up close. Still, in my experience, ragged cams are nearly useless in the low light. They focus badly if at all, the flash is weak and very close to the lens (so any kind of particles in the water will cause the infamous "globes"). Perhaps the TG-1 would be somewhat better because of the faster lens, but I just don't see a diver putting up with a chunk of gear that's as difficult to use as, say, my TS-1 in low light. (I don't dive myself, but got a lot of respect for the people who do).

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

Deleted pending purge: To my sorrow, it's another Almost...
Imagine waterproofing that is working to the pressure of 1.2 bar, and how little it takes to make something really usable to divers (i.e. being able to resist pressures of 5 bar)! Taking photos within 12 meters depth is really frustrating if you want to do more than dive in apnea or just snorkle. There is no excuse for any manufacturer who wants their products to be interesting to outdoors people, for not yet being able to make a proper amphibious camera which would be at least as usable as ancient Nikonos, including Nikon who already has two excellent casings, - III and V - easily adaptable to digital technology...
And adding an underwater housing to an underwater camera is just as laughable as having extra Pet modes for Cats and Dogs. While having none for Parrots, for instance. The whole idea of an u/w camera is to finally get rid of the housing, which is just another piece of equipment one has to buy and take care of...

kelpdiver:
" it's rated for 40ft, not 40m." right. I meant that TG-1 /won't handle/ 40m because of the lack of external flash.
"And yet, compacts still function at 130ft. The flash can be used to trigger a strobe using fiber optics,"
Don't know how you'd accomplish that. The compacts use pre-flashes to meter, and there's no way to override that metering. If the pre-flashes trigger the external flash, it will fire before the shot is taken. If that external flash is "digital" and can ignore the preflashes, it will massively overexpose the shot.

In my experience (above water), the built-in flash in these compacts is very good for fill light, and pretty poor for anything else.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 21:07 UTC
In reply to:

Cy Cheze: Tougher than Tough? The aperture is faster at wide and long ends than the competition. A stereo speaker? Not just a stereo mic? 1080 60p video? This would be the first Oly model to feature that. Interesting to see the picture tests.

Man! I'd absolutely /loooourve/ to see a picture test would show off the camera's stereo speaker to its full advantage!

Sorry, couldn't resist :)

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

jon404: I have an older Olympus SW-1030... a fine shockproof, waterproof little camera. This TG-1 looks like a substantial improvement... am looking forward to testing one once they hit the market. My big SW-1030 discovery -- in a pouring rain, or even a thick drizzle, don't use the flash! The light just reflects from a zillion little water droplets. I like low-light photography, and the TG-1's lens will be perfect for those rainy non-flash moments...

What's the sonnet?
"O Spring! If TG-1 arrives, can XZ-2 be far behind?"

In my own experience (Pentax WR33, then WR43, then Panasonic TS-1) that flash is very useful as fill light, but nearly useless as the main source of light. So it's "forced on" in good light, and "forced off" at all other scenarios, unless the moment is so good that I don't mind a "cardboard-cutout" type picture.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 15:09 UTC
In reply to:

Alpine78: I haven't seen good picture quality with rugged cameras yet. I'm afraid that this camera won't change that situation much. But let's see.

Rugged cams have to have compromises. They cannot have a protruding lens, and their electronics has to be lower-powered (the rugged bodies are difficult to keep cool).

On the other hand, they work in scenarios where nothing else would.

So as far as the image quality, you take what you get - it's either that, or no image at all.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

Louis_Dobson: Oh. No RAW? Back to looking for a cheap waterproof case for one of my MFT cameras then :-(

If your shooting style allows you to use an MFT camera in a housing, don't settle for a rugged cam. It would be too much of a drop in control and image quality.

I'm only interested in ragged cams because there's no way anything else would fit into the pocket of my PFD (or swimming trunks, for that matter).

A TG-1 sounds like a tremendous step up for a rugged cam (should be something like 3-4 stops improvement over my Panasonic TS-1), but it would be an even bigger downgrade compared to an MFT camera.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 14:56 UTC
In reply to:

OpticGlass: No RAW :( No good.

Nice that it has f2 and converter lenses.

But without raw it won't do.

HowaboutRAW: In other words, I was correct, and you haven't used a rugged cam. That explains why someone would start throwing around insults all of the sudden. It's the embarassment of being caught with your pants down.

Well, these things happen. Don't let it get to you.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Don't expect any compact camera with a smallish sensor to top a Canon S100, Panasonic LX5, or Olympus XZ-1.

What you see here is designed to be the cream of the underwater camera crop. Rather than compare it to high end enthusiast models, try comparing it to other underwater cameras.

This camera is a nice big step over the Olympus Tough 810.... at the exact same list price!

As far as their financial problems go, I think Olympus keeps demonstrating that their designers and engineers are a lot better at their jobs than their previous Board of Directors was.

Kirppu:
Like I said elsewhere, TG-1 doesn't have a way to control an external flash. I've never been below 3-4 meters deep, but my understanding is, it gets quite dark further down. You need a much more advanced rig to take pictures there.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

SynchroM: I think many on here are barking up the wrong tree. I'm interested in this as a replacement for action cameras like GoPros and Contours. Both of those have absolutely abysmal optics and sensors; this camera would be a massive upgrade to both.
So what it needs to compete with them is a wide-angle lens (got that), decent mounting options (a chest-mount seems ideal) and the ability to use it unsighted with gloves on. I know that Oly have previously made such mounts and they've also had a tap-triggered shoot/record function on other tough cams, though I've yet to see if that's actually workable.
Zoom is generally not needed for wearable cameras, though it makes it much more useful when you take it off to use it like a normal camera.
It's pointless comparing with higher-end cameras when they're useless in a practical sense. If I crashed at 60mph with a DSLR strapped to my chest I'd probably trash the camera and it would probably injure me, so small, neat, rugged wins.

This one doesn't have tap control, and doesn't let you shoot stills while shooting video. As a GoPro preplacement, it's probably too pricey, too.
I wear my TS-1 in a PFD pocket while whitewater kayaking. I guess, with a quick-release harness, it could pull double-duty. I wonder if the water-repellent lens coating would work as advertised (and for how long).

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

OpticGlass: No RAW :( No good.

Nice that it has f2 and converter lenses.

But without raw it won't do.

HowaboutRAW: [insults edited out now that I've cooled down]

Look, I've used both DSLRs and rugged cameras for many years.

If you're hoping to use RAW processing to get additional quality from those ragged cams, that's not going to work - the image quality is usually limited by the shooting style.

You won't beat the built-in image correction, too - the shots are much more processed (and the raw would be much dirtier) than what you're used to seing in enthusiast cameras.

You might be able to fix whilte balance a bit easier, and that's about it.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: They had to use the 1/2.3" sensor because you can't make a waterproof/durable camera that has a regular zoom lens that pops out when you turn it on. That's the #1 point of failure on camera. These need the internal periscopic zooming kind which limit the size.

But, it is basically a super rugged Nikon P310. Should be a great camera option for anyone doing outdoor activities.

Exactly. That Nokia Purview with a large sized sensor had to have a fixed f:2.4 lens and reliy on digital zoom. When zoomed in to 100mm equivalent, it uses 1/16 of its sensor area. This gives TG-1 something like 1 stop advantage over it at the tele end - and TG-1's optical stabilzation should give it much more of an edge.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Repeating OpticGlass,

And still no RAW, what are they thinking?

Nice that the lens is F/2 at the wide setting.

How about fewer megapixels, say 8 or 10?

I have a Panasonic TS-1. It's 12MP, but I have it permanently dialed down to 5MP. The way I shoot it, it makes no difference - just like RAW wouldn't.

The megapixel thing - if you take good NR software to a noisy 12MP image, then resize it to 8MP, you'd get a signigicantly cleaner image than a native 8MP sensor of the same size could give you. You'd get more detail and DR, too.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

OpticGlass: No RAW :( No good.

Nice that it has f2 and converter lenses.

But without raw it won't do.

There's no need for RAW in this type of camera. RAW is beneficial when you take care with your camera settings. No way to do that when you're shooting one-handed, using another hand to hold on to the cliff face (rope, paddle, slope, etc) for dear life.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 15:13 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Why is there no information about what video resolutions and frame rates it shoots in the specs page?

From Olympus America, "Features":

"Full HD Video with HDMI Output & Control
With the TG-1 iHS, you can shoot 1080p Full HD videos (1920x1080 pixels) at 60 frames per second at the touch of button, allowing for slow-motion playback. Thanks to iHS Technology, your videos will get the VIP treatment with excellent color reproduction and faster processing speeds, while Multi-Motion IS compensates for user movement creating smoother videos. [snip]

High-Speed Sequential Shooting
Shoot like a pro! With 10fps high-speed burst shooting, nail the perfect shot by taking a quick sequence of images at the touch of a button. Still afraid you’ll miss a moment? At 3MP, the frame rate increases to an astounding 60 shots per second. You’ll have so many great shots, you won’t be able to share just one!"

From Specs:
Movie Mode 1080P,720P,VGA

http://olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1621

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 15:10 UTC
Total: 106, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous3456Next ›Last »