malcolm82

malcolm82

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Sep 17, 2005

Comments

Total: 187, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fibonacci1618: I have used the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 on my O-MD for a year now & I can say that it is an astounding lens! It is sharp even at f/0.95. Many complain about the lack of v shallow depth of field at f/0.95 from the 17.5 compared to what it would be on a full-frame sensor, but I can tell you that this complaint is only one side to the coin.. bec it is more useful to me that the greater depth of field at f/0.95 is what I need in very low light situations where I'm not shooting portraits and DON'T want very shallow depth of field. This is simply not possible at f/0.95 on a full-frame camera where the depth of field is so razor thin that it is only really useful for portraits or special applications, & even then, I doubt many will shoot portraits at f/0.95 on FF. I have shot 1/3 & even 1/2 sec handheld photos in very very low light situations with the 17.5 & am astounded! And shooting video with a manual focus lens is a dream, esp in low light. I look forward to this new 42.5mm lens!

That is not an argument. What are you even talking about? I am guessing you are quite confused about anything to do with science or math.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2013 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

fibonacci1618: I have used the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 on my O-MD for a year now & I can say that it is an astounding lens! It is sharp even at f/0.95. Many complain about the lack of v shallow depth of field at f/0.95 from the 17.5 compared to what it would be on a full-frame sensor, but I can tell you that this complaint is only one side to the coin.. bec it is more useful to me that the greater depth of field at f/0.95 is what I need in very low light situations where I'm not shooting portraits and DON'T want very shallow depth of field. This is simply not possible at f/0.95 on a full-frame camera where the depth of field is so razor thin that it is only really useful for portraits or special applications, & even then, I doubt many will shoot portraits at f/0.95 on FF. I have shot 1/3 & even 1/2 sec handheld photos in very very low light situations with the 17.5 & am astounded! And shooting video with a manual focus lens is a dream, esp in low light. I look forward to this new 42.5mm lens!

So are your ISO 100 pictures all 64 times brighter than your ISO 6400 pictures?
In case you forgot this is what you said: "The same amount of light spread over 4 times the area means the picture will be 4 times darker, right?"

It should be obvious that the amount of light hitting the sensor per unit area has no relation to image brightness.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2013 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

fibonacci1618: I have used the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 on my O-MD for a year now & I can say that it is an astounding lens! It is sharp even at f/0.95. Many complain about the lack of v shallow depth of field at f/0.95 from the 17.5 compared to what it would be on a full-frame sensor, but I can tell you that this complaint is only one side to the coin.. bec it is more useful to me that the greater depth of field at f/0.95 is what I need in very low light situations where I'm not shooting portraits and DON'T want very shallow depth of field. This is simply not possible at f/0.95 on a full-frame camera where the depth of field is so razor thin that it is only really useful for portraits or special applications, & even then, I doubt many will shoot portraits at f/0.95 on FF. I have shot 1/3 & even 1/2 sec handheld photos in very very low light situations with the 17.5 & am astounded! And shooting video with a manual focus lens is a dream, esp in low light. I look forward to this new 42.5mm lens!

At the sensor there really is no such thing as image brightness, it is just a software interpretation. Right now we are still using ISO values so you would use a 4x higher iso value for the larger sensor and the relative exposure (what you might call brightness) will be the same for the different sensor sizes. Ultimately ISO control should disappear though and brightness will only be a software setting just like white balance.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2013 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

fibonacci1618: I have used the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 on my O-MD for a year now & I can say that it is an astounding lens! It is sharp even at f/0.95. Many complain about the lack of v shallow depth of field at f/0.95 from the 17.5 compared to what it would be on a full-frame sensor, but I can tell you that this complaint is only one side to the coin.. bec it is more useful to me that the greater depth of field at f/0.95 is what I need in very low light situations where I'm not shooting portraits and DON'T want very shallow depth of field. This is simply not possible at f/0.95 on a full-frame camera where the depth of field is so razor thin that it is only really useful for portraits or special applications, & even then, I doubt many will shoot portraits at f/0.95 on FF. I have shot 1/3 & even 1/2 sec handheld photos in very very low light situations with the 17.5 & am astounded! And shooting video with a manual focus lens is a dream, esp in low light. I look forward to this new 42.5mm lens!

i understand that f0.95 will send 4 times as much light to the same sensor area as f1.9 in a given amount of time but since the full frame sensor is 4 times larger it will receive the same total amount of light in the same time which is what matters. Sensor size and iso on their own say nothing about low light quality, what matters is aperture size (equivalent f) and equivalent iso (iso/sensor area). The only meaningful specifications of a lens are really the field of view and aperture size, wether the light that enters the aperture is focused on a 18x12mm sensor exposed for iso 100 or on a 18x12cm sensor exposed for iso 10000 does not really matter. The only difference is that on the 18x12cm sensor a simple very cheaply made 4 element lens will have vastly superior sharpness than a very expensive 8 element lens on the 18x12mm sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2013 at 22:32 UTC
In reply to:

fibonacci1618: I have used the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 on my O-MD for a year now & I can say that it is an astounding lens! It is sharp even at f/0.95. Many complain about the lack of v shallow depth of field at f/0.95 from the 17.5 compared to what it would be on a full-frame sensor, but I can tell you that this complaint is only one side to the coin.. bec it is more useful to me that the greater depth of field at f/0.95 is what I need in very low light situations where I'm not shooting portraits and DON'T want very shallow depth of field. This is simply not possible at f/0.95 on a full-frame camera where the depth of field is so razor thin that it is only really useful for portraits or special applications, & even then, I doubt many will shoot portraits at f/0.95 on FF. I have shot 1/3 & even 1/2 sec handheld photos in very very low light situations with the 17.5 & am astounded! And shooting video with a manual focus lens is a dream, esp in low light. I look forward to this new 42.5mm lens!

Well f0.95 on m43 is worse than f1.9 on full frame. Exposure and depth of field will be the same on both but a full frame lens of equal design and build quality and thus a similar price can be much sharper at equivalent aperture while a cheap full frame lens can match an expensive m43 lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2013 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

fibonacci1618: I have used the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 on my O-MD for a year now & I can say that it is an astounding lens! It is sharp even at f/0.95. Many complain about the lack of v shallow depth of field at f/0.95 from the 17.5 compared to what it would be on a full-frame sensor, but I can tell you that this complaint is only one side to the coin.. bec it is more useful to me that the greater depth of field at f/0.95 is what I need in very low light situations where I'm not shooting portraits and DON'T want very shallow depth of field. This is simply not possible at f/0.95 on a full-frame camera where the depth of field is so razor thin that it is only really useful for portraits or special applications, & even then, I doubt many will shoot portraits at f/0.95 on FF. I have shot 1/3 & even 1/2 sec handheld photos in very very low light situations with the 17.5 & am astounded! And shooting video with a manual focus lens is a dream, esp in low light. I look forward to this new 42.5mm lens!

You can simply shoot full frame at f1.9 to have the same depth of field and better sharpness with a cheaper lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2013 at 17:38 UTC
On Nokia rumors bring hope for new camera hardware post (26 comments in total)

The lenses shown are much too small and will be diffraction limited, they should be similar in size as normal high end smartphone camera's. 16 8x crop sensors with F/2 lenses would give exposure equivalent to full frame F/4, if they put two of those 16 camera arrays on both ends of a phone it will give F/2.8 equivalent exposure and better information for realistic 3D. Of course there will be some losses in efficiency compared to a single large sensor so it wont exactly match F/2.8 full frame exposure quality but it can potentially come very close.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2013 at 17:40 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

stoneinapond: "why does it look so choppy in pan?"

Possibly your computer video card can't keep up with the footage.

I sometimes have flying dreams. This was just like them. Amazing.

It is 24 fps so it will always be choppy.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2013 at 19:03 UTC
In reply to:

dorff: The A is not a system camera. There are quite a few other options that offer much better value for money. Why didn't Nikon just put in the 24MP sensor that they already have? The D3200 is way lower in price with many more parts and a better sensor. Go figure! My bet is 12 months from now, there will be heavy discounts on this thing. Buy early, and you will probably suffer buyer's remorse a while from now.

Why would removing the AA filter make this camera more expensive? It is not a feature it is just a new marketable trend of the controversial idea that this is better. The AA filter was added for a reason, they did not do it because it would make camera's cheaper to produce.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2013 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.

If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.

While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.

Well I would not consider this a trend just yet, I will when there are as many of these from different manufacturers as there currently are dslr's and other ILC's to replace the regular tiny sensor compacts. I do not know how likely this is but it might happen. The only thing a regular compact offers over a smartphone camera is the zoom, i think it is about time image quality takes over as the main selling point...
I just wonder how long it will take for the public to become educated since i believe consumer ignorance is the main obstacle to camera's like this becoming mainstream, after all people wont be able to tell that these will deliver higher image quality by checking the megapixel tag. :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2013 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.

If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.

While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.

The price of the viewfinder for this camera is actually higher than the price of the cheapest dslr kits which have an integrated pentamirror viewfinder and reflex mirror system on top of everything else in the camera body which is similar to what is in the nex camera's so apparently the viewfinder and mirror in a dslr is thrown in for free, clearly manufacturing cost has nothing to do with the pricing of this camera and its viewfinder.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2013 at 00:07 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.

If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.

While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.

There are many Canon and Nikon dslr's that are also priced much lower than this compact and it has been said many times that most people that buy these only ever use the kit lens so clearly they are not sold at a loss to later profit on the lenses.

Your point about it being more expensive because it is a niche product does have merit, but i wonder if it would really sell less than those affordable dslr's if they price it on a similar level?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 23:58 UTC
In reply to:

trungthu: "... This means it has only one photosite per output pixel, so won't offer the same color resolution as Canon's EOS C300 professional video camera, which has four capture pixels (a Red, Green, Blue, Green quartet) per output pixel... "

I don't know how it can record color information in only one photosite. While almost all others use three color filter in four pixels (RGBG).
Please help me. Thanks.

For this reason 7680x5120 sensors should become the standard to provide near optimal image quality for the new 3840x2160 ultra hd tv standard in the same way as the 3840x2160 sensor of the c300 provides near optimal full hd quality.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.

If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.

While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.

Look at the price of the nex3.
What reason do you see to double the price of this camera over that one? putting the little prime lens in a retractable barrel does not add $500, every cheap compact camera has such a retractable lens barrel.
I have been waiting a long time for a compact with aps-c or larger sensor and fixed focal length lens but this price is simply absurd.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 21:44 UTC
In reply to:

SunnyFlorida: Another pricing failure for nikon, why would anyone pay over $1k for a DX sensor compact and limit their choices to one lens when other DX interchangeable compact cameras like the Samsung NX210 or Sony Nex with can be had with a sinmilar lens for under $1k??

I agree it cannot be worth more than the nex 3 with kit lens.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 21:26 UTC
On Rumors of 128GB iPad prove true post (33 comments in total)

128GB flash is worth only $100. The lowest capacity version should be 64GB since 10% of the total price for the storage seems the sensible minimum for nearly everybody.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 20:00 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.

Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.

JensR and ppastoris also explained it is not about light intensity and yet you keep going on about it as if we are saying small format lenses have a reduced light intensity for the same F-number? Did you read what they are saying at all?

Equivalent focal length= focal length multiplied by crop factor
Equivalent F = F multiplied by crop factor
Equivalent iso = iso multiplied by crop factor squared

Did you read this:
"Would you rather use a Nikon 1 camera with the lens at F/1.2 exposing ISO 1600 than a full frame with lens at F/2.4 exposing ISO 6400? Guess which picture will be better?"

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 08:16 UTC
In reply to:

toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.

Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.

"You are cropping the lens which means you are losing light obviously... What do you think is happening to all that light not hitting the small sensor? It is not being put to very good use is it?"

Does it look like i was talking about a reduction in light intensity to you?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 07:58 UTC

This lens barrel is big enough to fit a 25/1 m43 lens. Do they think it looks more professional this big and will sell better for the price? Maybe they realized people will not want to pay this much for a 5 gram lens if it was too obvious so they built this massive barrel around it.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 07:24 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.

Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.

Why do so many people seem to think that the goal of low light image quality is to expose at the lowest possible ISO setting? Would you rather use a Nikon 1 camera with the lens at F/1.2 exposing ISO 1600 than a full frame with lens at F/2.4 exposing ISO 6400? Guess which picture will be better?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 07:00 UTC
Total: 187, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »