Dr_Jon

Dr_Jon

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jul 2, 2011

Comments

Total: 508, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On X-Transformed? Fujifilm X30 Review article (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

naththo: Fuji X-A1 shows much more details than the Fuji X100T in JPEG. Also same story goes to RAW. So it shows that X-Tran sensor is still struggle to be in compete with conventional CMOS sensor unfortunately. Thats why most camera manufacturer prefer to stick with conventional CMOS sensor nowaday.

These were my favourite series of posts on issues with X-Trans Raw files (from the developer of the iridient Raw processing tool for Macs). Note the version of Adobe X-Trans demosaicing he's playing with is the current one...
http://chromasoft.blogspot.it/2013/03/lightroom-44rc-and-capture-one-versus-x.html

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2015 at 16:40 UTC
On X-Transformed? Fujifilm X30 Review article (234 comments in total)

One thing I never get about the Fujis is why when I look into the lenses I see so many reflections, it's like they don't understand the concept of lens coatings at all... The Xx0 series is particularly bad for this. (At the other end of the Spectrum I have an AP telescope the front end of which is a black hole in any lighting conditions, so it can be done.)

On the X30 I think it's a 1" sensor away from being a very cool piece of kit...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 16:24 UTC as 41st comment
On X-Transformed? Fujifilm X30 Review article (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

naththo: Fuji X-A1 shows much more details than the Fuji X100T in JPEG. Also same story goes to RAW. So it shows that X-Tran sensor is still struggle to be in compete with conventional CMOS sensor unfortunately. Thats why most camera manufacturer prefer to stick with conventional CMOS sensor nowaday.

As darngooddesign implied the key thing to do with an X-Trans sensor is to carefully select your Raw processing tool... and it not to be an Adobe one...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 16:21 UTC
In reply to:

Jan Madsen: I purchased the previous version. A good idea, but unfortunately a completely useless system. Far too many bugs, and when I eventually got a measurement / AF correction it was often way off for large aperture lenses - where it really counts. For F/2 and smaller apertures it works ok, for f/1.2 the results fluctuates, and for the Canon 50mm f/1.0 it is almost impossible to get anything meaningful out of the system.

Now if only Reikan would offer support, and correct the numerous bugs, fine, but this company has offered the worst support I have ever encountered with a commercial product - that is none. You can create a support case, and then - nothing. No answer for months. Only way to get any kind of reply from them is to plaster their Facebook wall with notes about the poor service - that worked twice, but then silence again. Unless Reikan has made a dramatic change of attitude towards the customers I would say use other options. Sadly.

Yes, though only a fairly short version, plus there was an outlier and I don't remember if that was a true one or something I did (but I'll assume the former). I'll happily send it to you if you can point me at an e-mail address that does attachments (the private messages here seem not to).

I was mostly working on the Micro-focus adjusting, so did 10 of them (plus some other lenses) and only ran the consistency test once and for a small-ish sample (10).

There is of course an argument that the graphs in the AF adjustment give very similar information. I'll add some of those too.

I'm really happy with the AF on the 85 II BTW, it's plenty fast provided you only want to go a single-digit of metres/yards from the last AF distance, which is mostly what I want (MFD to infinity isn't quick though, way too many steps to allow for the small DoF when wide-open). My only complaint, other than it being 1Kg of glass, is purple on just o-o-f high-contrast edges (i.e. black-white).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 00:34 UTC
In reply to:

Jan Madsen: I purchased the previous version. A good idea, but unfortunately a completely useless system. Far too many bugs, and when I eventually got a measurement / AF correction it was often way off for large aperture lenses - where it really counts. For F/2 and smaller apertures it works ok, for f/1.2 the results fluctuates, and for the Canon 50mm f/1.0 it is almost impossible to get anything meaningful out of the system.

Now if only Reikan would offer support, and correct the numerous bugs, fine, but this company has offered the worst support I have ever encountered with a commercial product - that is none. You can create a support case, and then - nothing. No answer for months. Only way to get any kind of reply from them is to plaster their Facebook wall with notes about the poor service - that worked twice, but then silence again. Unless Reikan has made a dramatic change of attitude towards the customers I would say use other options. Sadly.

I calibrated my 85/1.2 II okay on version 1.7.0.247, although I was quite careful about the setup. It was pretty impressive how much stuff I had to collect before I started, as a result of which I did quite a bit of testing (I count 11 reports just on the 85) and the results seemed reasonably consistent.

I haven't used their support, it all went pretty well.

It is a bit trickier on a zoom, as you have to work out a compromise value (or just pick a focal length to optimise).

BTW Rishi it can also test AF consistency automatically.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 20:29 UTC

Panasonic, who use the sane sensors as Olympus, had to go to a lot of trouble in the GH3/GH4 to get the heat out of the sensor during 4k recording. If you're whizzing the sensor around doing in-body stabilisation you really can't do anything much with the heat it produces. I suspect this is a big part of the lack of 4k.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 10:35 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

arra: Canon on Canon body = sharp from edge to egde and low noise. Canon lens on Sony A7R body = poor edge to edge sharpness and low of noise even @iso100.

Hang on, a Canon FF with the the same lens as a Sony FF would capture the same amount of light and so have the same amount of shot noise. At low ISO you'd get more read noise, but whether you see that (in the dark parts of the image) is just down to how little light there is (but presumably you'd crank the ISO as it goes down) and if you pull up the shadows (which I assume you wouldn't in lens test shots).
I did like the whole lens adding noise thing though, someone should start making low-noise lenses... but probably not put a return address on the box...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 10:18 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2097 comments in total)
In reply to:

Average User: Richard:
I think this is useful from this point of view: When deciding what camera to purchase, it's important to realize that the larger sensor receives more light at the same actual f stop. So an aps-c camera with an F 1.8 lens is not getting the same total light as a full frame camera with the same F rating.

One issue has been bothering me, however. I can see where using a lens designed for full frame, and used with a crop sensor would be delivering less light to the crop sensor. But a lens designed for an aps--c camera would be bending the light to deliver it all to the aps-c sensor, so that if the lens diameter was the same, light to the aps-c sensor would actually be more intense, but total light could be close to equivalent.
Why is this wrong?

You can test this by using a Metabones SpeedBooster that does exactly that. It takes all the light from a lens designed for a larger sensor and squeezes it onto a smaller sensor, giving a gain in the effective f-stop (usually 0.71x).
http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 10:04 UTC
On Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 article (532 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Place your bets when this camera will be on sale for $250. I take Oct-Nov. before black Friday

We get a lot of Black Friday sales in the U.K., plus no turkeys are harmed in the day's build-up...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 17:27 UTC

I think I really want/need one for some of teh stuff I do, so I guess the 14mm f2.8 II will get traded in (plus the 10-22 I don't use any more), but it is pretty hard getting over it costing 3-4x what the 8-15 does and that's a most excellent lens.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 11:53 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

Rooru S: quick question no.1
is it an APS-C only lens or has the ability to cover a fullframe circle?
quick question no.2
how was the AF speed?

You need to add in the crop factor and compare it with a 450mm f2.8 to see the size advantage over a FF lens with the same FoV. A 300 f2.8 still needs an entrance pupil of over 100mm and to be almost 300mm long. (For example the reason my m43 24-70 equivalent f2.8 lens is smaller than a C/N 24-70 is the m43 lens is actually 12-35mm.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 11:07 UTC

The weight seems better than their previous efforts. I love my ThinkTank Retrospective Pinestone bags as they don't look like camera bags, but they are quite heavy so I use them less these days. Then again they do look cheap and cheerful (while presumably being neither) so I'll pass...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2015 at 19:00 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "Users of the 5DS and 5DS R have much higher, stricter standards. So we set the ISO cap in accordance with what we felt that they would demand and require. "

Stupid. Cost yourself a sale with me.

People with higher demands can cap it themselves.

Same pixel size as 7DII, sensor 1 1/3 stops bigger. Should have been at least 25,600, if not 51,200.

Niala2 - I hope I understand you, apologies if I'm getting the wrong end of it. I think suggesting it's reasonable to have "legitimate disgust" with a company that makes cameras and sells a lot of them to people who are happy with them is going too far, but that's just my opinion. People can be unhappy with a max ISO of 12,800 but I doubt the target users will care. Especially as the 5Ds isn't intended as a general-purpose camera (that'll be the 5D4). The 12,800 limit doesn't strike me personally as that harsh. For example I basically never shoot over 3200. If you want 25,600 you need to be very noise tolerant (and low DR tolerant, nothing's hitting 10 stops) or choose one of two cameras designed just for that (and still have noise, or lots or noise reduction, and 8-9 stops of DR).

Then again if I had to list all the comments here I think weren't phrased all that well I'd need them to multiply the allowed char count in a post by 100, or more.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2015 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "Users of the 5DS and 5DS R have much higher, stricter standards. So we set the ISO cap in accordance with what we felt that they would demand and require. "

Stupid. Cost yourself a sale with me.

People with higher demands can cap it themselves.

Same pixel size as 7DII, sensor 1 1/3 stops bigger. Should have been at least 25,600, if not 51,200.

Niala2 - Sorry are you saying the Trolls are pro or anti Canon? Also paid by someone? Frankly there's enough people throwing enough mud in this comments section that there's no need for any fake people, the real ones are depressing enough.
Zdman - I always thought of a number of the Sony sensors as pretty ISO-less.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 11:19 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: “So rather than looking at our competitor’s mirrorless cameras and regarding them as a threat, within Canon, our team who’s working on mirrorless should view the DSLR team as a threat. They should view the high-end compact cameras team as a threat. The threats that our mirrorless cameras team face aren’t from other companies, they’re from other divisions within our company.”

This says it all. We knew it all along but they finally admitted it. All of their departments fear each other more than they fear the real competition. They can’t get anything done because they are all working against each other instead of with each other.

If you want to know what is coming up in 9 or 18 months you can get an pretty good view by asking what other parts of the company are developing, for the competition you can just guess.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 11:08 UTC
In reply to:

D1N0: They have a "We are Canon" attitude. So you don't have a decent mirrorless line? We are Canon! So you still suck at high ISO? "We are Canon!" When we make it, they will Buy.

The 5DIII is very old, a 5DIV is expected later this year, at least use the (still not that new) 6D for comparisons. (I have no interest in looking up the result of that though, I'll let others play.)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 10:53 UTC
In reply to:

drjs: "However I get the feeling that users in the US don’t really take a liking to small cameras. That’s just my sense. "

Really? I like my A7 just fine thank you. I just didn't like what Canon had to offer in that segment. To think I was a loyal customer with Canon for over 30 years.

Total Mirrorless sales in the USA were about 500k cameras for the last year. That's a pretty small market with a lot of players fighting for market share. I still think maybe they should have sold it in some way but I don't get a vote.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 10:50 UTC
In reply to:

dynaxx: "There's nothing in particular that we learned from Nikon or Sony" - the arrogance of the number one camera seller - sounds just the same as the "soon to fail" Louis Van Haal

It's a good point that the comment on learning from other companies was just about the high resolution sensors, so it's a shame it's getting generalised for people's point-scoring games. Oh wait, it's an Internet discussion ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 10:30 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan Brady: You STILL didn't ask (or at least didn't publish that you asked) about on-sensor ADC. You guys have asked them about DR in the past and when looking at the sensor, and ONLY the sensor, Canon keeps up. It's the off-sensor ADC that introduces all the noise and destroys the DR. So... why are you not asking about this VERY SIMPLE idea?

It would be very nice if someone did ask that - but maybe they did and it was one of the off-the-record responses? It is odd it never seems to come up.
Barney/Rishi if you ever make it to London do let me buy you a drink! (Actually that's a real offer if you do make it over here.)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 10:28 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: For 23 years, I consulted globally in the field of competitive intelligence (no, not corporate espionage). My clients included divisions of companies like Canon, Sony and... Kodak. Not everyone (even at a firm like Sony) accepted the idea that they needed to pay attention to competitors, but the ones that did were more successful than the ones that didn't.

A company that wants its internal teams to compete with each other rather than encouraging them to compete with the outside world is making a significant mistake. If Canon really thinks there's nothing to learn from Nikon or Sony, it's reached an intellectual dead end.

They's get in trouble with the Stock Exchanges if they started putting out information that might be investor relevant in an interview.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 10:24 UTC
Total: 508, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »