forpetessake

forpetessake

Lives in United States Transylvania, United States
Works as a exorcist
Joined on Oct 3, 2011
About me:

I don't reply to private messages.

Comments

Total: 541, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (453 comments in total)
In reply to:

ravi532: I expected that people will start moaning about this "small" sensor than one compared to current industry " standard " 1 inch sensor. This craze for size of sensor is reminding me of good old days of megapixel war incidentally started by sony...If sensor is so important then nikon D3000 TO D7000 must take same quality picture but it is not...most people buy without knowing what the sensor does just buy because it is larger in size..difference between {x20 and rx100 ii} is marginal during on-street morning and evening shoots...only at night rx100 ii performance stands out...eventually its for people who are nocturnal..for day light to me x20 performs better/equal to rx100 ii..[ I used both of them] and undoubtedly colors of fuji is unparalleled
camera is much more than sensor.. For god sake there is something called aperture...fuji[2- 2.8] is way better than its competitor rx100 II..
But yes without OVF the charm and retro feel is certainly missing.. overall to me its good one..

People with small sensors moan again. What's new.

"aperture...fuji[2- 2.8] is way better than its competitor rx100 II."

And how did you conclude that? Here is a hint. DPR review has a plot showing that the equivalent aperture of RX100ii (never mind RX100iii) is better in most of the range, and that's the most important part of the range as well.

In this time and age releasing such a big body with such a small sensor is a shame.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 17:32 UTC
On DSCF5694 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Red flowers look very poorly, but it's likely the sensor and not the lens.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2014 at 18:06 UTC as 1st comment
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)

Here is how anybody can experiment with the equivalence by himself. You can do it with any camera.

Select a few lenses with different FLs, or a zoom (preferably with const aperture) and shoot the same subject at the same distance at different crop factors keeping the same FOV adjusting the lens settings to the equivalent values. Keep the shutter speed constant, let the ISO float. At the end you should see almost identical pictures. That's the equivalence in action.

Some caveats: 1) not all sensors are ISO-less, so there might be variations due to different ISOs selected for equivalent settings; 2) lenses (and zooms) might differ optically at various FLs; 3) all lenses have some light loss, so equivalent F-stops might not correspond to the equal total light; 4) don't crop too much or pixelation becomes visible... In other words, all those imperfections that exist in practice, which we tend to overlook in the discussions, effect the equivalence in the same way.

Happy experimenting!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 19:04 UTC as 54th comment
In reply to:

Charlie boots: Ultimately it will be the software that counts. Spreadsheets and word processors drove the sales of the first PC's. Visicalc, Lotus123, Excel, Word etc. today hardware is becoming a commodity and thus again the sales will go to those with the best software and ecosystem. If all things are then equal it will come down to price and consumer mindshare. Samsung is still lacking on the software side.

"Microsoft gave a huge boost to Apple by releasing the unstable Vista."

That's a complete bull. Except for a few foibles at the very beginning, which is common to any new software, there was nothing unstable or wrong about Vista. Many people didn't want to upgrade to Vista simply because they were very satisfied with the XP and they didn't want the upgrade headaches (drivers, software installation, compatibility, etc.). I had several Vista computers for at least 3 years before getting the new ones with Win7, I know from my experience there isn't any significant differences between the two OS-es. I still have one Vista computer connected to a large screen TV which works admirably as a MM center.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

Charlie boots: Ultimately it will be the software that counts. Spreadsheets and word processors drove the sales of the first PC's. Visicalc, Lotus123, Excel, Word etc. today hardware is becoming a commodity and thus again the sales will go to those with the best software and ecosystem. If all things are then equal it will come down to price and consumer mindshare. Samsung is still lacking on the software side.

Software counts, but what is that software? Probably 50% of software used on the cell phones is a web browser, some 20% is email, some 5% is google navigation and map services, another 5% is photo-video. And to MS dismay nobody seems to be interested in the Office applications on the phone. All phones today can do all those basic tasks very well, there is no real differentiation between them.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 18:13 UTC

Next time you go to the zoo, throw your camera to the monkeys. Maybe you'll end up with something interesting and not the boring photos usually posted in the forums.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 00:13 UTC as 467th comment
In reply to:

William Faulkner: Did the Photographer give the Monkey any food? If so maybe he can claim that the monkey was in fact acting as his employee since he "paid" it.

Work For Hire rules would then kick in.

The photographer actually can be charged with endangering animal due to neglect. It's fortunate the monkey decided to take pictures instead of eating the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

neil holmes: Well the Monkey took the camera without permission....charge him!

The photographer owns the camera, the card....the monkey could be regarded as the employee.

In any event the photos exist only because the photographer was responsible for ALL but pushing the button.

The Photographer owns the copyright in my opinion.

Had he trained (lawfully) the monkey to take selfies then he could have had some credible copyright claim. As it stands, the forces of nature took the pictures without the camera owner input (even against the owner wishes). It's clearly not copyright-able, and the only reason why we have this argument is because the camera owner decided he could get some money from the Wikimedia. He didn't make any copyright claims before that realization.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 23:09 UTC

More power to the monkeys. The more free material, not encumbered with the copyrights and patents, available the better it is for the society at large.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 23:02 UTC as 481st comment | 1 reply
On 08-ISO125-DSC00041.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Yuck, such a noisy and soft image.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 00:47 UTC as 1st comment
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (754 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: If you want a superzoom, just get any lightweight Nikon/Canon DSLR and attach an 18-200 zoom to it and it will be ahead of this Panasonic in every way. Or if you want a mirrorless camera, get a Sony A6000 with 18-200 zoom, or Samsung with 18-200, or Olympus with 14-150.
Only those who are interested in half baked 4k video may find this camera interesting.

He also missed this article he's responding to, because right at the top there is a chart showing the equivalent f-stops of the Panasonic lens somewhere between f/8 and f/11.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 19:06 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (754 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Could everyone stop calling these cameras “Point and Shoot” cameras. This camera is capable of being used as a point and shoot but it is not limited to only that functionality like the category name suggests. Even professional cameras have a full auto mode like this camera does.

This is a Compact Mirrorless Fixed Lens Super Zoom camera. Nothing more. Nothing Less.

Probably people call it P&S because the image quality, and slow lens are typical for P&S. In many respects it reminds the film era P&S superzooms.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 19:18 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (754 comments in total)

If you want a superzoom, just get any lightweight Nikon/Canon DSLR and attach an 18-200 zoom to it and it will be ahead of this Panasonic in every way. Or if you want a mirrorless camera, get a Sony A6000 with 18-200 zoom, or Samsung with 18-200, or Olympus with 14-150.
Only those who are interested in half baked 4k video may find this camera interesting.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 19:14 UTC as 144th comment | 11 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (754 comments in total)

"In terms of noise, the FZ1000 produces clean images up to ISO 800. You start to see some detail loss at ISO 1600 and 3200, but you'll only notice when viewing photos at or near 100% magnification."

It's quite a stretch of reality. The noise and heavy noise reduction is already visible at the base ISO in jpegs. The high ISOs look poor even at the screen size. Boost some contrast, clarity, saturation (default look is quite weak), pull some shadows and even the base ISO becomes barely usable even at screen sizes.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 05:28 UTC as 199th comment | 4 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: One thing this article doesn't mention is that as sensor tech improves, your lenses are basically getting faster. Today's gutter standard f2.8 lenses can outshine the f/0.95 lenses of yesteryear because you couldn't push film beyond ASA 800 much (aside from being very expensive). When people complain some new 50/1.8 lens isn't "fast" it is actually a whole lot faster than a 50/1.4 lens from just 5-10 years ago because of digital improvements on the sensor. A "slow" FF kit lens (f/3.5-5.6 usually) producing indoor nighttime ambient light shots would simply be unthinkable 5 years ago.

@Death89: Equivalence is about lenses and has nothing to do with the sensor (other then area). You don't calculate equivalent lenses just because a new sensor is more efficient. You calculate equivalent lenses when the sensor size changes.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 17:25 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)

After the detailed article about the lens equivalence one could expect DPR would stop writing "24-1248mm equivalent F2.8-5.6 zoom lens", but here we go again. I guess the advertising dollars are more important than truth.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 02:13 UTC as 72nd comment | 10 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

lumigraphics: Sorry but you guys botched a bunch of this. :sigh:

"Total light" is completely unimportant. Yes, there is less light hitting a smaller sensor, but it doesn't matter because its a smaller total area. Light PER SENSEL is the same.

And lenses don't matter at all. Given a frame-filling grey card (as an example) a 50mm f/4 and 100mm f/4 will give exactly the same 18% grey image on any sensor size. If lenses didn't work that way, you couldn't have external light meters.

Larger digital formats aren't less noisy because they are larger so they collect more light, its because they can have a lower sensel density. In the film days, it was because you didn't have to enlarge so much with a bigger negative.

smdh...and I'm only on page 2.

@GB: Richard Clark's measurements also confirm that read noise density depends very little on pixel density (pixel pitch), unless pixels become very small: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#DENSITY

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 23:12 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

lumigraphics: Sorry but you guys botched a bunch of this. :sigh:

"Total light" is completely unimportant. Yes, there is less light hitting a smaller sensor, but it doesn't matter because its a smaller total area. Light PER SENSEL is the same.

And lenses don't matter at all. Given a frame-filling grey card (as an example) a 50mm f/4 and 100mm f/4 will give exactly the same 18% grey image on any sensor size. If lenses didn't work that way, you couldn't have external light meters.

Larger digital formats aren't less noisy because they are larger so they collect more light, its because they can have a lower sensel density. In the film days, it was because you didn't have to enlarge so much with a bigger negative.

smdh...and I'm only on page 2.

@GB: I'm confused where you are going now. I assumed your comment was about 6 and 24mp sensors of the same size. And I simply mentioned that read noise doesn't depend on the pixel count, only on the area, so both 6 and 24mp sensors will have a similar read noise per unit area, though different noise per pixel.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 00:20 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

lumigraphics: Sorry but you guys botched a bunch of this. :sigh:

"Total light" is completely unimportant. Yes, there is less light hitting a smaller sensor, but it doesn't matter because its a smaller total area. Light PER SENSEL is the same.

And lenses don't matter at all. Given a frame-filling grey card (as an example) a 50mm f/4 and 100mm f/4 will give exactly the same 18% grey image on any sensor size. If lenses didn't work that way, you couldn't have external light meters.

Larger digital formats aren't less noisy because they are larger so they collect more light, its because they can have a lower sensel density. In the film days, it was because you didn't have to enlarge so much with a bigger negative.

smdh...and I'm only on page 2.

@GB: "Let's consider a 6 MP sensor and 24 MP sensor where each pixel has the same read noise (say 3 e-)"

But the 'per pixel' read noise is not going to be the same. All things being equal the smaller the pixel the lower the noise power (smaller area of pn-junctions and volume). If you cut that 1 large pixel to the 4 smaller ones, the noise per that area will stay the same (disregarding the defects and losses introduced by such cutting).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 19:43 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

lumigraphics: Sorry but you guys botched a bunch of this. :sigh:

"Total light" is completely unimportant. Yes, there is less light hitting a smaller sensor, but it doesn't matter because its a smaller total area. Light PER SENSEL is the same.

And lenses don't matter at all. Given a frame-filling grey card (as an example) a 50mm f/4 and 100mm f/4 will give exactly the same 18% grey image on any sensor size. If lenses didn't work that way, you couldn't have external light meters.

Larger digital formats aren't less noisy because they are larger so they collect more light, its because they can have a lower sensel density. In the film days, it was because you didn't have to enlarge so much with a bigger negative.

smdh...and I'm only on page 2.

@Great Bustard "So, if two systems have the same read noise per pixel, then the system with more pixels will be more noisy if the same total amount of light falls on their respective sensors."

There are many sources that contribute to the read noise (http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~wilambm/pap/2011/K10147_C011.pdf) in semiconductors, but none of them depend on the pixel count (or pixel size). You can broadly divide them into dependent on total area of pn-junctions and total volume. As a first approximation you can consider the read noise as a linear function of the inverse crop factor: O(1/crop).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 18:23 UTC
Total: 541, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »