Douglas F Watt

Douglas F Watt

Lives in United States Boston, United States
Works as a Neuropsychologist
Joined on May 15, 2008

Comments

Total: 33, showing: 21 – 33
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

plasnu: Better dynamic range than 5d3?

you guys are kidding right? Not made by Sony? Who made it then? Because Nikon doesn't make sensors. They advertize (generously) that the sensor was 'designed' by Nikon - that's a far cry from being fabricated by Nikon. How many sensors has Nikon actually fabricated? I'd wager zero.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 04:37 UTC
In reply to:

plasnu: Better dynamic range than 5d3?

You Nikon fans are just this side of delusional. Sony made that sensor, no question. Nikon hasn't actually MADE a sensor ever. They might offer some design parameters to Sony, that's it. Sensor manufacturing is a huge technical undertaking, Nikon has no track record at all, no established competence in this. Come on guys, being a fan is one thing, being in total denial is something else. Given Nikon's great capacities for press releases, if they had gone into the sensor business, you'd have heard about it. Endlessly. They might design the microlenses, give those specs to Sony, and get what they want.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 02:36 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: Sony Sensor Densities:

SLT-A57 = ~212.7 pixels/mm (lower APS-C model) = ~16.7Mp
NEX-5N = ~213.1 pixels/mm (lower APS-C model) = ~16.5Mp
NEX-7/SLT-A77 = ~259.7 pixels/mm (higher APS-C model) = ~24.7Mp

Nikon Sensor Densities (from Sony):
D3200 = ~262.8 pixels/mm (lower APS-C model) = ~24.7Mp
D800 = ~206.7 pixels/mm (lower FF model) = ~36.8Mp
D4 = ~138.9 pixels/mm (higher FF model) = ~16.6Mp

Samsung Sensor Densities:
NX-20/NX-210 = ~242.0 pixels/mm (high-end APS-C model) = ~21.6Mp

sits just slightly better (lower density; larger pixel) than NEX-7/SLT-A77
but not as low density as NEX-5N, so overall NX IQ could exceed either NEX/SLT models if Samsung has made pixel sensor progress.

So, Howaboutraw, you're kidding right? You believe that Nikon has the chip expertize to create both the new 36MP FF and the 24MP APS-C sensor, instead of buying those (modified to their specs perhaps) from Sony? With all the evidence that Nikon loves Sony sensors (D3x, D7000 among many others), they decided to invest (without it making a ripple in the technology ocean and without any major hiring away from competition) the ~ 2 billion it takes to create sensors from scratch and with no real prior manufacturing experience? Check out http://www.chipworks.com/media/wpmu/uploads/blogs.dir/4/files/2011/01/IMX071_diemrk.jpg. I suppose that the Sony A99 sensor (36MP by all accounts) is just coincidence (w/ the D800)?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

Red123: I'm a newbie but I do know a little about shooting. I've literally spent the last two days weighing up my camera options with the measly budget I have available and was going to get a D5100 next week. Could someone pls give me some unbiased advice on whether I should go for the D3200 with the 24mp or still go for a D5100. Will be using to take urban, street, graffiti photos, so manual settings are cool but I also need to be able to shoot quick, crisp photos many of which will be edited in Photoshop for final use. I do understand that my own ability with the camera is also important to end results. Thanks.

I would wait for the 3200. Although you may be sacrificing a bit of low light performance, sensor evolution continues to move the goalposts on this one. A 24 megapixel sensor in the APS C format now gives roughly the low light performance of a 16 megapixel sensor from three years ago. I suspect that the low light performance of this is going to be slightly better than the Sony A 77/65 and perhaps slightly better even than the NEX 7. in addition to sensor evolution there is also software evolution – for example even though the Nikon D3X has significantly better raw files at high ISO then say the Sony A77/65, its JPEGs at high ISO are not better. Between software evolution and sensor evolution, all of the people complaining on this website about the megapixel race are missing something.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

Douglas F Watt: agree strongly with TalkingTechy on the zoom in and out functionality. Amazed that this wasn't fixed in the latest firmware re-write. Even the early firmware on the A55/33 had this feature. Don't get why it was left out??

Anyone with any thoughts about the flash exposure issues being rectified in 1.05?

Hi Maddrew

yes, I am still seeing that problem too. Using Sony's older 42 flash system, but if I crank down ISO to 100-200 it seems to get it right. Wierd. Surprised that this wasn't fixed.

Also surprised that they didn't do more with the default JPEG definitions. I have found however that if I set high ISO NR to max, and sharpening to max also, I get the best and cleanest high ISO shots. Someone at Sony is too enamored of the 'smooth' look it seems to me.

With all its high ISO troubles, this is still a remarkable camera. Only one stop noise wise behind the Nikon D3x, and about 2 stops behind the new Canon 5D MIII. Not bad for 1/3 the price of the new Canon and Nikon FF (1/8th the price of the older D3x).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2012 at 15:39 UTC

agree strongly with TalkingTechy on the zoom in and out functionality. Amazed that this wasn't fixed in the latest firmware re-write. Even the early firmware on the A55/33 had this feature. Don't get why it was left out??

Anyone with any thoughts about the flash exposure issues being rectified in 1.05?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2012 at 00:21 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies

Definitely more responsive under 1.05 firmware, esp. the auto preview, which is now almost instantaneous. Shutdown is much faster, and now you can feel the anti-dust routines, which previously weren't being activated consistently, if at all, under 1.04. Not sure about the complaints posted here about control functions being slow, at least on the A65, where they already seemed pretty snappy. Will be curious if the other big firmware bugaboo, occasionally poor flash control, has been improved. Anyone have any insights on that one?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2012 at 03:28 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Douglas F Watt: Let's see - 250 comments about a price increase? Too many people have too much time on their hands. And why can't software folks running blogs create a digital HTML 'whining filter'?? It really doesn't make sense to me - you are talking about a few hundred dollars matched against at least $8,000-10,000 for camera body and lenses? Come on guys. Whine about something more important . . .

Obviously, you are one of the whiners.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2012 at 17:37 UTC

Let's see - 250 comments about a price increase? Too many people have too much time on their hands. And why can't software folks running blogs create a digital HTML 'whining filter'?? It really doesn't make sense to me - you are talking about a few hundred dollars matched against at least $8,000-10,000 for camera body and lenses? Come on guys. Whine about something more important . . .

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2012 at 13:43 UTC as 36th comment | 5 replies
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 test samples article (458 comments in total)

Clearly the best m4/3 sensor performance ever, and better in low light than Nikon D7000, Canon TS3i, Sony A65, and even the Pentax K-5. However, let's not get too carried away, as this is just the latest manifestation of the REAL story in DP, namely, sensor and (to a lesser extent) software evolution to improve low light performance. Systems have been, in that regard, leapfrogging each other for years, and although this is an impressive jump (one of the bigger ones for sure), someone will jump over this sensor's low light performance. Keep in mind that the Sony A65 is probably better in low light than the full frame Sony A900 (admittedly neither is a low light phenom). In 10 years, if one extrapolates from current trends, one might predict we will have APS-C sensors in the 36+ megapixel range with at least decent to good low light resolution in the 3200-6400 ISO range.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2012 at 15:23 UTC as 38th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

gordon lafleur: Good grief, how long can Zeiss rely on their name to sell their clunky, overpriced, and often inferior products to gullible amateurs. Tests comparing their lenses to the Canon and Nikon counterparts show that these lenses do not live up to their hype.

To Viggo - Good job cherry-picking your data. That particular lens is easily the softest lens in the Carl Zeiss group, particularly wide open. I personally believe that it's a bit of an embarrassment to Zeiss again particularly wide open. Are you comparing a stopped down Canon to a wide-open Zeiss? Whatever happened to the idea of a level playing field?

How about a more representative lens such as the 35mm F2 lens. http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1145/cat/98.
The problem I have here relates more to your categorical statements/dismissive tone. I can find Canon lenses including in the L group that are not particularly sharp for their high price. Does that suggest that all Canon lenses suck? Or are overpriced? Probably not.

As someone once said, life is mostly about the shades of gray we actually live in as opposed to the black and the white we prefer and believe that we see clearly. if you are happy in your black and white world, then go for it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2012 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

Rubenski: Sigma 8-16: poor man's super wide angle (couldn't resist).

Agree that the Sigma 8-16 is a fine lens, esp for the $ and sharpness is pretty good for a zoom. Lots of shooting options out wide with this lens.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2012 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

gordon lafleur: Good grief, how long can Zeiss rely on their name to sell their clunky, overpriced, and often inferior products to gullible amateurs. Tests comparing their lenses to the Canon and Nikon counterparts show that these lenses do not live up to their hype.

What "tests" are you talking about that reveal that CZ optics are inferior to the (non-overpriced?) Nikon and Canon lens? Your personal tests I assume? Because SLR gear's tests (including of the new Sony 16-50 2.8 (non-CZ, non-G lens) suggests otherwise. Give me ONE objective measurement site of lens gear that supports your Canikon fanboy position. One.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2012 at 18:02 UTC
Total: 33, showing: 21 – 33
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »