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: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2097 comments in total)
In reply to:

Macx: 1) When considering equivalence (i.e. DoF, diffraction and total light/shot noise) sensor plays second fiddle to the lens: Given the same FoV and the same physical (virtual) aperture, you'll get the same image characteristics, no matter if you're shooting an image on your phone or on your medium format digital back. The thing that is holding your phone back in performance is for most intents and purposes the tiny lens and not the tiny sensor.

2) The difference in DoF and shot noise between different formats only come to play at the extreme ends of the exposure gamut: Bluntly, on a bright day, shooting for a wide depth of field your phone will give you roughly the same performance as your dslr. Only when the phone is out of its comfort zone the difference becomes apparent. Cameras using 1", 4:3 or APS-format sensors are a few stops shy of the comfort zone of current FF cameras. If you're not actually using those stops there is little to distinguish it.

Macx: Color depth refers to the number of bits per color. In terms of sensor characteristics, it's basically DR of individual color channels. MF sensors have significantly narrower DR than FF sensors. Which is why the highest usable ISO settings are so much higher at FF.

Canon shooter: The thing is, *base ISO* is not equivalent for different sensor sizes. It's calibrated to get the same brightness for identical exposures.
At the same exposure parameters (ISO, shutter duration, and f-number), a 4/3 sensor gets a quarter of photons that a FF sensor does. To get the same brightness, 4/3 camera has to pay with 2 extra stops of noise.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 18:55 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2097 comments in total)
In reply to:

mgrum: The bottom line that everyone always misses when the whole equivalence thing comes up is this:

*** It all depends on what lenses are actually available ***

A 24mm f/1.4 full frame lens is equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 lens for micro four thirds. But no-one makes one so there is no equivalent to the 24mm in the real world. Likewise Hasselblad's claims of medium format offering shallower depth of field due to the larger sensor is nonsense, as the required lenses simply don't exist.

"A 24mm f/1.4 full frame lens is equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 lens for micro four thirds. But no-one makes one so there is no equivalent to the 24mm in the real world"
- They make a focal reducer for micro four thirds that converts a 24mm f:1.4 into a 12mm f:0.7 with a m4/3 mount. Look up "Speed Booster", by Metabones.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 18:41 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2097 comments in total)
In reply to:

Macx: 1) When considering equivalence (i.e. DoF, diffraction and total light/shot noise) sensor plays second fiddle to the lens: Given the same FoV and the same physical (virtual) aperture, you'll get the same image characteristics, no matter if you're shooting an image on your phone or on your medium format digital back. The thing that is holding your phone back in performance is for most intents and purposes the tiny lens and not the tiny sensor.

2) The difference in DoF and shot noise between different formats only come to play at the extreme ends of the exposure gamut: Bluntly, on a bright day, shooting for a wide depth of field your phone will give you roughly the same performance as your dslr. Only when the phone is out of its comfort zone the difference becomes apparent. Cameras using 1", 4:3 or APS-format sensors are a few stops shy of the comfort zone of current FF cameras. If you're not actually using those stops there is little to distinguish it.

The problem with medium format cameras is the tiny sales volume. This means there's not a lot of money in sensor development, so their sensors are always generations behind the mainstream, and usually developed for different applications than photography, and aren't really optimized for picture taking.
As far as I know, the only real advantage of MF is in resolution, and even that is dwindling. They lag behind full frame, and even some APS/C sensors, in DR and noise.
Also, MF sensors' dimensions are smaller the original sizes of MF film. The "cheapest" ones are something like 1.25 of an FF sensor. To get twice the area of FF, you need to be in $40000 territory.
Finally, MF lenses are slow. On FF, f:1.4 is mainstream, f:1.2 is normal, f:1.0 is rare, but available. On MF, f:2.8 is rare, f:2.0 is nonexistent.
I'd say, aside from the resolution, there's very little advantage in MF, aside from mystique, prestige, and tradition.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 18:18 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2097 comments in total)
In reply to:

GeraldW: A nicely done article!!! Kudos!

Something that occurred to me is the fact that all four cameras had very closely, the same pixel count. Meaning that the surface area of each photo site was smaller as sensor size decreased. Since the light intensity is the same for all four lenses when at f/1.2, that means the larger sensors have many more photons striking each photo site - so the "total light" concept works pretty well. However, if the pixel count is not similar, then shouldn't we see differences based on the relative sizes of each photo site? To me, it argues for fewer and fewer MP as the sensor size decreases, in order to maintain a larger surface area on each photo site. That should improve the signal to noise ratio at each photo site, shouldn't it?

Jerry

A "signal to noise ratio at each photo site" only matters if you are examining the sensor output at 100%. On the other hand, if you're comparing final images of a fixed size (for example, 13x19 prints), the rules change. In that case, higher pixel pitch improves resolution, DR, *and* noise characteristics of the resulting image.
The best results come from oversampling - when the sensor's pixel count is several times larger than the resolution of the final image.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 18:03 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2097 comments in total)
In reply to:

Macx: 1) When considering equivalence (i.e. DoF, diffraction and total light/shot noise) sensor plays second fiddle to the lens: Given the same FoV and the same physical (virtual) aperture, you'll get the same image characteristics, no matter if you're shooting an image on your phone or on your medium format digital back. The thing that is holding your phone back in performance is for most intents and purposes the tiny lens and not the tiny sensor.

2) The difference in DoF and shot noise between different formats only come to play at the extreme ends of the exposure gamut: Bluntly, on a bright day, shooting for a wide depth of field your phone will give you roughly the same performance as your dslr. Only when the phone is out of its comfort zone the difference becomes apparent. Cameras using 1", 4:3 or APS-format sensors are a few stops shy of the comfort zone of current FF cameras. If you're not actually using those stops there is little to distinguish it.

Camera's "comfort zone" is not just about light levels. Large sensors generally have more DR, which makes a big difference in high-contrast scenes.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 17:51 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

sderdiarian: And the value winner is...the Pentax WG3. Same lens and other specs as the re-badged WG4, but sells for $249 on Amazon. Look no further.

Agreed. The faster lens makes a huge difference in usability.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 15:28 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

jeffharris: With such small sensors, If manufacturers would keep the megapixels LOWER the image quality could be much better! 10MP or below is perfectly good for cameras like theses.

I have Olympus TG1 and an earlier Tough camera (TC130?)

Increasing megapixels actually *increases* the IQ of the final image. A large-MP image delivers high resolution, though with noise and shallow DR.
Then, if you like, you can use a combination of NR and downsiampling to obtain a smaller image with less noise and deeper DR - the same IQ you would've gotten from a lower-MP sensor, but with more resolution.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 02:56 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

sderdiarian: And the value winner is...the Pentax WG3. Same lens and other specs as the re-badged WG4, but sells for $249 on Amazon. Look no further.

Mike, IIRC, Sony tough cams have touchscreens, which don't work when wet.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 01:20 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

Downsizing images with good software on a powerful PC will improve iQ by about the same margin.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 23:14 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

to Mike FL:
Mike, nothing stops you from reducing the resolution in postprocessing. Or setting the camera to shoot in lower resolution (I often do so).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:49 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

duplicate post - deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:45 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

Sorry, don't know if it's my browser or DPreview software. First it seemed like my "Post" button got stuck, then I got seven identical posts.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post - deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post - deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post - deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post -deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post- deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

The "tough cams" are true marvels of miniaturization. Those lenses are in there sideways, with mirrors or prisms bending the light like a periscope, just so the lenses could fit into the box.
Larger sensors will not just mean slightly larger bodies. To get an optical path 50% wider (that's a 1 stop improvement), they'd need either a body that's 50% thicker, or to drop the whole concept of "periscope" optics and return to a protruding lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

Summerhill: I want a waterproof camera to take kayaking, etc. I may drop it in the water,but won't be diving with it. I would like to have the highest quality pictures I can get in a compact...that can be dropped in the water.

Are there other cameras that I should consider?

What kind of kayaking? If it's open ocean or whitewater (and if you want to shoot without pulling off the sprayskirt), rugged cams are by far the most convenient, because they'd fit into a small PFD pocket. (I'd recommend Olympus for battery life and fast responses, or Panasonic TS-5 if video is a priority).

If it's lakes or calm rivers, or if you're okay with pulling the sprayskirt each time you need to take a picture, I'd go for a Sony RX 100 II or III in a waterproof case, or a Nikon AW.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 15:40 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marvol: As mentioned below, pity you didn't (couldn't, maybe) include the Nikon 1 system waterproof version.
Would have been great for two reasons:
1) does the larger sensor REALLY blow the rest out of the water (no pun intended) quality wise?
2) is the extra money worth spending for those that want a better all-round and more flexible underwater/rugged system?

@Marvol: "Rubbish" - nice of you to publish your real name!

Mr Rubbish, try to put that AW1 into a PFD/wetsuit/swimsuit pocket, attach it to a lanyard, or clip it to a harness. *Then* try doing something, you know, active. *While* taking pictures.

Even if you, mr. Rubbish, could fit it somewhere on your esteemed person, see how long it survives any real activity.

Or perhaps, mr. Rubbish, you could compare the outside dimensions of the two cameras without leaving the comfort of your favorite recycle bin:

Nikon AW 1, with 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 lens (leaving a generous 10 mm for the mount):
114 x 72 x 82 mm (4.47 x 2.81 x 3.23″)
Olympus TG-3:
112 x 66 x 31 mm (4.41 x 2.6 x 1.22″)

To summarize:
http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS375x375~products/nikon_aw1/shots/472e6c08b2144ef0b6b2f1c259a464de.png
*This*, mr. Rubbish, is *not* a rugged cam.

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS375x375~products/oly_tg3/shots/ed6755c107ef481083bffebb8f891558.png
*This* is a rugged cam.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 04:21 UTC
Total: 225, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »