MichaelEchos

MichaelEchos

Joined on Feb 23, 2012

Comments

Total: 109, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ezradja: More expensive than 50mm 1,8. Nikon always like that, overrated overpriced product LOL

Not when the apertures are also decreased. This lens should be 3 times cheaper.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2012 at 06:11 UTC
In reply to:

photogalleryonline: T2.9 is that like F1.4 or f2.8 or f4, does anyone have a chart for comparing T stop to F stop?

Most likely 2.8 in terms of depth of field.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2012 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

gl2k: Now see. Samsung manages to make the latest Android version run on their newest product. Nikon couldn't. (Nikon Coolpix S800c = Android 2.3)

But ... while the idea of a modern strongly internet connected camera is nice in some way it competes with all the smartphones out there. I'm afraid it will loose that competition.

If the next generation allows call just like smart phones, while making it thinner, it could appeal to many people. Having a control ring and an extra function button works well too. If they could extend the grip to the thickness of the lens (which increases the size of the battery too), then it would be much more usable. There doesn't seem to be a way to insert a neck/hand strap either. Increase the aperture/sensor size, decrease the zoom range.

But there's nothing much we could complain. It is currently the best phone+camera hybrid in the market.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 08:57 UTC

I had this idea maybe half or three quarters of a year ago, and as I was thinking, I ruled out the possibility of it. I started finding flaws (which I can't remember) in it, and decided it would not be possible. And yet, it appeared!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2012 at 01:34 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

mapgraphs: The story of the comments sections:

"Example: 14-35 f/2 ($2300, 2lbs) vs Canon 24-105 f/4 ($950, 1.5lbs); 35-100 f/2 ($2500, 3.6 lbs) vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1200, 1.7 lbs)."

Lets compare an f2 lens to an f4 lens and claim parity of value.

Everyone who uses SHG or HG glass and undersands what it is, raise your hands.

And I'm sorry to say, it seems like the Olympus equivalent isn't as sharp as the full frame lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2012 at 16:58 UTC
In reply to:

mapgraphs: The story of the comments sections:

"Example: 14-35 f/2 ($2300, 2lbs) vs Canon 24-105 f/4 ($950, 1.5lbs); 35-100 f/2 ($2500, 3.6 lbs) vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1200, 1.7 lbs)."

Lets compare an f2 lens to an f4 lens and claim parity of value.

Everyone who uses SHG or HG glass and undersands what it is, raise your hands.

Just look at this example, when compared to full frame with f/2 lens, M43 has 1/4 the sensor size but the f/2 optics capture 4 (2x2) times the density of light and therefore, low light ability is the same. Whatchu talking bout'?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2012 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

mapgraphs: The story of the comments sections:

"Example: 14-35 f/2 ($2300, 2lbs) vs Canon 24-105 f/4 ($950, 1.5lbs); 35-100 f/2 ($2500, 3.6 lbs) vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1200, 1.7 lbs)."

Lets compare an f2 lens to an f4 lens and claim parity of value.

Everyone who uses SHG or HG glass and undersands what it is, raise your hands.

Light gathering? Lol. A f/4 on full frame cameras have the same low light performance as a f/2 on M43.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2012 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

Promit: If you think that the Oly 12-35 f/2 should weigh and cost the same as a full frame 24-70 f/4 because the depth of field is the same, you don't even deserve to own a camera.

It's supposed to be the same. Not only the depth of field is the same, even the low light performance should be the same given the sensors have similar technological advancement.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2012 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

SUPERHOKIE: Why couldn't they have used a wider lens?? a 90mm lens as the only lens?? that doesn't make too much sense, unless they want to do a stitch panorama of the martian landscape

I read it wrongly. It is 17 2 MP cameras. Not 17.2 MP cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2012 at 07:29 UTC
In reply to:

Rob: The 2.5 BILLION dollar project uses cameras sporting a whole 2 megapixes? Oh, the image is murky because the camera's removable dust cover is apparently coated with dust blown onto the camera during the rover's terminal descent. I guess they didn't take into account Mars might have some dust. That's 2,500 million dollars. Dang, if that Nikon 800 didn't have that focus issue....

Dude... That camera is for macro shots. There is another 17MP camera on board.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2012 at 06:38 UTC
In reply to:

SUPERHOKIE: Why couldn't they have used a wider lens?? a 90mm lens as the only lens?? that doesn't make too much sense, unless they want to do a stitch panorama of the martian landscape

There is another 17.2 MP camera on board. This 90mm lens is for capturing photos of minerals.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2012 at 06:36 UTC
On Reuters showcases EOS-1D X multiple exposure modes article (226 comments in total)

Nikon D5100 can do this without the help of processing.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2012 at 05:30 UTC as 38th comment | 2 replies
On Review: Nokia 808 PureView article (354 comments in total)

Oversampling technology is not new...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 06:08 UTC as 110th comment | 3 replies
On Review: Nokia 808 PureView article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Suicide: I wonder, does this pixel over-sampling trick has any affect on bokeh, when comparing 38MP and 3MP same close up shots?
Pureview technology is meant to look for sharpest (best) pixels in the over-sampling process, so how it behaves in the blurred parts of the picture?

Nope. None at all, no difference.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 06:03 UTC
On Updated: our Canon EOS M hands-on preview article (162 comments in total)

This is totally like NEX, but with much lousier sensor and much worse lens/accesory selection.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 07:00 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

bluevellet: lol

So now they only reason to buy an EOS-M over NEX or M43 is brand loyalty.

No, I'm seeing that NEX, though not really good, is still better than Canon EOS-M. Canon has just started its first step. The immature line just can't compete with the NEX. The NEX is more complete than EOS-M, though not really good. Control wise, I don't see this camera being better than the NEX.

Another great advantage of the NEX is the sensor. It's seriously just for brand loyalty.

And for those talking bout' wanting Canon lenses to autofocus, I don't see a real reason for an adapter for the lenses. The Canon lenses aren't miracle lenses and Oly, Sony and Pany lenses aren't shitty.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 15:06 UTC
On Sigma UK launches Olympics-themed photo competition article (36 comments in total)

I almost thought that Sigma was collab-ing with Olympus when I saw the title.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 15:00 UTC as 11th comment
On Aperture135 photo in Timmbits's photo gallery (10 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dimitri Khoz: Problem with this chart is
that f-values in the cameras do not change continuously
they do it in the steps different for different products.

For example,
for RX100 there is f1.8 at 28 mm, f2.0 at 29mm, f2.8 at 34mm.
for G1X there is the same f2.8 all the way from 28-34mm.

In fulll frame DoF equivalents
28mm f4.9 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of RX100
29mm f5.4 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of G1X
34mm f7.6 vs f5.2 = G1X wins hands down
and not in the 36mm point as shown by the chart

(based on the DPReview tests
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/3
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/7
)

This chart should be corrected from scratch
to incorporate the reality,
becase in the current version it misrepresents the data.

Also, the design of the lens and the length of the lens also determines the amount of Bokeh. It's really hard to determine the amount of Bokeh by pure focal length, fstop and sensor size.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 09:24 UTC
On Aperture135 photo in Timmbits's photo gallery (10 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dimitri Khoz: Problem with this chart is
that f-values in the cameras do not change continuously
they do it in the steps different for different products.

For example,
for RX100 there is f1.8 at 28 mm, f2.0 at 29mm, f2.8 at 34mm.
for G1X there is the same f2.8 all the way from 28-34mm.

In fulll frame DoF equivalents
28mm f4.9 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of RX100
29mm f5.4 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of G1X
34mm f7.6 vs f5.2 = G1X wins hands down
and not in the 36mm point as shown by the chart

(based on the DPReview tests
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/3
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/7
)

This chart should be corrected from scratch
to incorporate the reality,
becase in the current version it misrepresents the data.

Another problem is that the real equivalent fstop is hard to be determined, but shouldn't be too big of a problem.

Eg. some manufacturers tend to understate the crop factor, and some overstate the f/stop.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 09:21 UTC
On Aperture135 photo in Timmbits's photo gallery (10 comments in total)

There's another problem with this chart. Bokeh isn't depth of field, the longer the focal length, the greater the bokeh. The determining factor for bokeh is the size of the out of focus circle, not the amount of depth of field.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 09:18 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies
Total: 109, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »