deep7

deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 520, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

smozes: Long reach is not important in the real world? It's a specialized camera exactly for this purpose. Comparing it with other fixed lens cameras with a normal range is beside the point.

That's like pointing out that superzooms are not that useful in the real world, so one should consider other cameras. A review of a camera like this should already take into account an interest in superzoom by the reader as a given. If the reviewer doesn't see the point, then maybe someone else would be better.

Well, it was a change of tack! Depends also what you mean by "a few mm" and where your starting point is. It's a very nebulous statement at best.

Anyway, the logic of giving up 200mm of telephoto for an extra stop of aperture is the same as saying that a 1.4X teleconverter is pointless. It's not.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 09:42 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: So where's the video proof?

That's amazing! It makes that sample video from the Sony A7, which made us go "wow" such a short time ago, seem dated. Though, to be fair, this Canon sensor is a one-trick pony.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 02:43 UTC
In reply to:

Nereo: Um... I'm beginning to think we need a new standard other than "ISO" to measure light sensitivity.

ISO came from the sensitivity of coated glass collodian plates (ISO ~1 !) Then came the films, and it was still easy to keep track that ISO 100 was 4x as sensitive as ISO 25. But now we've got cameras with ISO 102,400 and now 4 million?! Quick: how many stops between 1600 and 102,400?

Since camera sensitivities now exceed two orders of magnitude, why not have a sensitivity measurement that matches? e.g. ISO 100 = 1, 200 = 2, 400 = 3, 1600 = 4... each double the previous level in sensitivity.
This new camera exceeds "16" on our sensitivity scale!

One of my pet peeves is the near universal of the term "ISO". To follow on from the people above, in film days Americans had the ASA standard (American Standards Association) and Germans had the DIN system (the letters stand for something very similar in German). Something like twenty years ago, the International Standards Organisation (ISO) decided it was best to combine the two to give an ISO number. This would be something like 100/21, 400/27 and so on and it's what you still see in the small print on a pack of film.

Ironically, in the digital age, the DIN part of the number is ditched in common usage, leaving the ASA number but retaining the ISO name. Weird.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: I used to use Canon for many years, only thing that I am going to say which you all called: Perhaps Canon should focus on DYNAMIC Range, I hope they know the word or is it to foreign to them?

Read the text. It will serve you better than being a parrot.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 18:58 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

smozes: Long reach is not important in the real world? It's a specialized camera exactly for this purpose. Comparing it with other fixed lens cameras with a normal range is beside the point.

That's like pointing out that superzooms are not that useful in the real world, so one should consider other cameras. A review of a camera like this should already take into account an interest in superzoom by the reader as a given. If the reviewer doesn't see the point, then maybe someone else would be better.

Quoting Barney Britton: "I'm just saying it's not as big of a difference as you might think. As I say i this article, it's up to you to decide what matters more - greater reach, or a (meaningfully) brighter lens."

Not "think". Some of us know exactly what the difference is from experience.

We could rephrase: The extra stop of aperture is not as big a difference as you might think ... it's up to you to decide what matters more - (meaningfully) greater reach or a brighter lens.

I usually have a lot of respect for what Barney writes but he's lost in his own perspective here. There is a necessary compromise and you choose based on your actual needs, not what dpreview tells you you need.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 19:19 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That chart (and comment) in picture 3 is a bit misleading. You have the focal length on a logarithmic scale which makes the differences between the chosen cameras look minor. In fact, the Canon offers THREE times the focal length of the Sony and 50% more than the Panasonic, which is why I would instantly dismiss the Sony, think about the Panasonic but seriously consider the Canon.

Likewise, the vertical scale starts at f4 and makes the one/two stop aperture differences look much worse than they are.

Finally, for a bush/travel/general purpose camera, being able to have more depth of field is an advantage. People on this site constantly forget that. Yes, I know it's not trendy...

Rubbish. The physics is straightforward when you remove the sensor variation. You are nit-picking in a vacuum.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 19:10 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That chart (and comment) in picture 3 is a bit misleading. You have the focal length on a logarithmic scale which makes the differences between the chosen cameras look minor. In fact, the Canon offers THREE times the focal length of the Sony and 50% more than the Panasonic, which is why I would instantly dismiss the Sony, think about the Panasonic but seriously consider the Canon.

Likewise, the vertical scale starts at f4 and makes the one/two stop aperture differences look much worse than they are.

Finally, for a bush/travel/general purpose camera, being able to have more depth of field is an advantage. People on this site constantly forget that. Yes, I know it's not trendy...

So the Sony would be down to 133mm and the Panasonic 267mm as well? You can't cherry pick without facts!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 02:12 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: I can get a nice APS-C DSLR kit for so much money. Silly.

????

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 02:08 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

dark goob: Oh, Canon still makes cameras? Interesting, non-sexy contraption. I wonder who in their right mind will buy it. I guess Sony sold enough RX10 units that someone in Canon got their behind chewed out at a board-room meeting in Japan. And here is the uninspired result...

Are you going to come back here in a year's time and eat humble pie if you find the Canon outsold the Sony? I think it very likely that it will.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 21:00 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

sdh: The G3X zooms 50% farther than it's next direct competitor, the Pana FZ1000. I still can't wrap my head around how the author can minimize the G3X's extra reach. If I want tighter framing, I think it's always better to get it via lens reach than cropping, assuming I have the choice and assuming comparable sensors.

50% more lens reach is substantial. What am I missing here?

It does depend on what you tend to shoot though. People who want reach will often crop even at 600mm. For those people (I am one), the difference between 400mm and 600mm is huge. For others, the difference between f4 and f5.6 will be more important but you'd be stretching to call that huge.

It's just a matter of perspective, preferences and experience. However, sdh makes a valid point.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 20:57 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: I can get a nice APS-C DSLR kit for so much money. Silly.

With the same focal length range? Clever.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 20:51 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That chart (and comment) in picture 3 is a bit misleading. You have the focal length on a logarithmic scale which makes the differences between the chosen cameras look minor. In fact, the Canon offers THREE times the focal length of the Sony and 50% more than the Panasonic, which is why I would instantly dismiss the Sony, think about the Panasonic but seriously consider the Canon.

Likewise, the vertical scale starts at f4 and makes the one/two stop aperture differences look much worse than they are.

Finally, for a bush/travel/general purpose camera, being able to have more depth of field is an advantage. People on this site constantly forget that. Yes, I know it's not trendy...

Not forgetting that at all. One assumes, when comparing these things, that the distance is constant. Likewise, this is all theoretical and focus breathing is beyond that - though it is an interesting factor. There would have to be a LOT of breathing for the Canon to concede that advantage.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 20:49 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That chart (and comment) in picture 3 is a bit misleading. You have the focal length on a logarithmic scale which makes the differences between the chosen cameras look minor. In fact, the Canon offers THREE times the focal length of the Sony and 50% more than the Panasonic, which is why I would instantly dismiss the Sony, think about the Panasonic but seriously consider the Canon.

Likewise, the vertical scale starts at f4 and makes the one/two stop aperture differences look much worse than they are.

Finally, for a bush/travel/general purpose camera, being able to have more depth of field is an advantage. People on this site constantly forget that. Yes, I know it's not trendy...

If you think about it, there are lots of smoke and mirrors being used here. A more useful chart for the shallow depth of field fanatics would be to establish a benchmark (such as what a 50/1.4 lens would produce on a 35mm sensor, to take a de facto standard which has been around for decades) and then graph how depth of field compares to that standard at different focal lengths. That would remove all the ambiguity in this otherwise well-intentioned and interesting graphic.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 06:00 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That chart (and comment) in picture 3 is a bit misleading. You have the focal length on a logarithmic scale which makes the differences between the chosen cameras look minor. In fact, the Canon offers THREE times the focal length of the Sony and 50% more than the Panasonic, which is why I would instantly dismiss the Sony, think about the Panasonic but seriously consider the Canon.

Likewise, the vertical scale starts at f4 and makes the one/two stop aperture differences look much worse than they are.

Finally, for a bush/travel/general purpose camera, being able to have more depth of field is an advantage. People on this site constantly forget that. Yes, I know it's not trendy...

Taking this further, that chart is to show the effect of aperture in terms of depth of field, rather than its effect on shutter speed. The premise is that the lower the camera appears on the graph, the less depth of field you can achieve which is allegedly better.

That being the case, an "equivalent" focal length/aperture of approx 600mm and f16 provides a shallower depth of field than an "equivalent" focal length/aperture of approx 200mm and f8. The Canon, therefore, provides more depth of field control overall than either the Sony or Panasonic, in absolute terms.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 06:00 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Allen Yang: I hope Panasonic will upgrade the FZ1000 with a touchscreen and 600mm focal length.

You all knew what I meant. It is 50% of it's focal length shorter than the Canon. Simple maths.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 05:49 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That chart (and comment) in picture 3 is a bit misleading. You have the focal length on a logarithmic scale which makes the differences between the chosen cameras look minor. In fact, the Canon offers THREE times the focal length of the Sony and 50% more than the Panasonic, which is why I would instantly dismiss the Sony, think about the Panasonic but seriously consider the Canon.

Likewise, the vertical scale starts at f4 and makes the one/two stop aperture differences look much worse than they are.

Finally, for a bush/travel/general purpose camera, being able to have more depth of field is an advantage. People on this site constantly forget that. Yes, I know it's not trendy...

..which is one or two stops. It's how photography works. Imagine the size of the thing with f4 at the long end? No thanks.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 03:21 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

smozes: Long reach is not important in the real world? It's a specialized camera exactly for this purpose. Comparing it with other fixed lens cameras with a normal range is beside the point.

That's like pointing out that superzooms are not that useful in the real world, so one should consider other cameras. A review of a camera like this should already take into account an interest in superzoom by the reader as a given. If the reviewer doesn't see the point, then maybe someone else would be better.

You're losing this one Barney. Give up! THE point of the G3X is the fact it offers a longer lens than the so-called competition.

Your "statement of fact" is wrong too. The 600mm "leap" from 400mm is exactly what the numbers say. No more, no less, as there is no sensor pixel density or size issues to account for. It's a 50% increase in focal length.

The real fact is that many photographers have use for long focal lengths and every inch counts. Or mm. The problem with length is gear gets heavy or lenses get slow or sensors get tiny. This kind of length at f5.6 on a one inch sensor is a very strong selling point and I bet Canon sells truckloads, very likely more than the Sony RX10 you use as a comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 03:16 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

smozes: Long reach is not important in the real world? It's a specialized camera exactly for this purpose. Comparing it with other fixed lens cameras with a normal range is beside the point.

That's like pointing out that superzooms are not that useful in the real world, so one should consider other cameras. A review of a camera like this should already take into account an interest in superzoom by the reader as a given. If the reviewer doesn't see the point, then maybe someone else would be better.

You imply it under picture 3.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 22:13 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Allen Yang: I hope Panasonic will upgrade the FZ1000 with a touchscreen and 600mm focal length.

It's only a stop faster (according to your graph) but it's 50% shorter. I'd go for length.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 22:11 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (293 comments in total)

That chart (and comment) in picture 3 is a bit misleading. You have the focal length on a logarithmic scale which makes the differences between the chosen cameras look minor. In fact, the Canon offers THREE times the focal length of the Sony and 50% more than the Panasonic, which is why I would instantly dismiss the Sony, think about the Panasonic but seriously consider the Canon.

Likewise, the vertical scale starts at f4 and makes the one/two stop aperture differences look much worse than they are.

Finally, for a bush/travel/general purpose camera, being able to have more depth of field is an advantage. People on this site constantly forget that. Yes, I know it's not trendy...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 22:09 UTC as 50th comment | 10 replies
Total: 520, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »