Kerry B

Kerry B

Joined on Jan 31, 2012

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
On Nikon D4 overview article (860 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shockrr07: Maybe its just me, but why are we putting video on DSLr's ? For one the video isnt good at all and the sound is garbage, yeah it might be good if there was somehting you really wanted to get a video of, but why wouldnt you just take a picture instead ? I feel like its only going to make the cost of the camera more expensive for something that is obsolete. If i want to spend 6k+ on a camera thats going to shoot video then im going to buy a video camera, not a DSLR.

Please correct me if i am wrong. If the camera is recording video then the sensor is constantly working. Over the life time of the camera will this have more wear on the camera than just taking pictures ?

Finally, I am currently a nikon user and have been for a while. But does it seem like nikon is playing catchup with the MP ? I know nikon has amazing metereing and color realization but seeing as a shoot sports its would be nice to be able to crop a shot i wasnt perfectly framed on and not decrease my image qual as much.

DSLR's will all have video from now on out.

1. How much does it cost to put video into a camera? Nothing, because cameras already have the fastest processor the body and current state of tech will allow. R&D is basically the only thing that the money goes into, which is void if 100 people buy the camera

2. Option #2, for those who feel that they are paying for video: Manufacturer starts creating two different processors (increase mftg cost), to create one unit that sells at the base price with no video and another that sells for $100? more? This is not practical as it would decrease margin on both units resulting in less profitability.

3. While there are a few benefits to having a camcorder, most consumer to prosumer level audiences get more "bang for the buck" with a DSLR. Moreover, with increasing tech and processor speed, any deficits DSLRs have now is likely to become marginal in the near future.

Anyone agree?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 19:31 UTC
On Preview:canong1x (1044 comments in total)
In reply to:

1Daniel: In the old 35mm days, there were two really important things to get a good image...good film and a good lens. Many have assumed that this is all you need now in the digital camera world. Actually, there are now three things...a good sensor(which replaced the film), a good lens, and third is the image processor. Many are overlooking the fact this is the incredible digic 5 image processor. If you haven't used a camera with one yet, you can't compare. This is a total game changer in the camera industry. Digital cameras are computers. They need great image processors to make great photos.

I agree, after using the SX40 and s100. The Digic 5 allows the camera to do things that even beginners (or snapshot-takers) can appreciate. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison of low light shots with a digic 4 vs digic 5 on the same camera.

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: Part 1/2,
I first thought this endless (?) increase in pixel count was stupid.
But not has stupid as that for ultra-compact cameras...
In low light, Sony uses pixel-binning. If they combine, let's say three pixels into one, it is equivalent to a 6 mp sensor. I am not an expert, but I think it should give better results than a true 6mp sensor of the same size.
IMHO there is no reason why a big pixel should generate less noise than a small pixel ( I mean the electrical level of noise before amplification ).
The problem is that the small pixel will collect less light, leading to a lower s/n. By grouping three small pixels, assuming gap between adjacent pixels is negligeable, the group will collect as much light as the big pixel alone. BUT, the noise of the group of three pixels will be averaged, resulting in a smaller difference in the noise level between two adjacent groups of three small pixels than between two big pixels of the true 6mp sensor... And then the s/n should be better...

Very interested to see if the pixel-binning makes it any more effective. Waiting on DXO labs for that, unless I get to demo the unit soon.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 17:15 UTC
In reply to:

Cy Cheze: The WX-70 and WX-50 both have slower lenses than their predecessors. WX-1 through WX-10 offered F/2.4 at the wide end.

Now Sony offers only F/2.6. Slower aperture + more pixels = worse low light performance.

Compact low light performance was a key draw of the WX series, offsetting other liimitations. But the latest two surrender that advantage for the sake of [fill in the blank].

On a retail shelf, alas, it probably "pays" to boast more megapixels and more LCD "dots." I never once overheard any shoppers ask for a fast aperture. Any "sales associate" who tries to persuade a buyer that megapixels aren't the key to quality will earn skeptical sneers and drive away clients.

Over the past year, the retailer I work for has progressively made it's camera associates more knowledgeable about what gives better IQ (fast, high quality lens, large sensor).
As a matter of fact, across consumers (in the past six months) I have had many less "I thought more megapixels - the better" and more "I want something that performs well in low light."
There doesn't really need to be much debate, as most consumers are not willing to pay for an expensive OLED. This camera will at least fail in my market (which is one of the ten richest in the USA), where they can buy a much better Canon s100 for less money (with the option of buying an underwater case if necessary).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 17:13 UTC
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4