PIX 2015
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: 568, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 (316 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 52nd comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: Almost $1200 Canadian for a point and shoot. Eesh!

Well, yes. Also no! I have an EM1 and 12-40 which is excellent but I had to buy another lens which cost much more than $200 to get the reach of that Canon. Is that not the whole point of the G3X - to give a big focal length range in a smallish package?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 11:08 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

I won't criticise that. I've been known to "use" flare before now!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

I won't criticise that. I've been known to "use" flare before now!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
On RS_Sigma24-35_1C3A7860-24mm-F2 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

I won't criticise that. I've been known to "use" flare before now!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

I won't criticise that. I've been known to "use" flare before now!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Good resolving power here but that jellyfish lens flare would be very hard to deal with. Nice test pic for that.

I won't criticise that. I've been known to "use" flare before now!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Thanks. That is interesting. You managed to recover useful detail in the sky and in the rocks in the middle but those leaves have still clipped abruptly. Looks like fewer chromatic aberrations too.

A camera like this comes very close to being genuinely useful to me (viewfinder issues aside). When one inch sensors mature a little more, they may prove the ideal compromise. Meanwhile, m4/3 is doing sterling service.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:57 UTC
On photo in sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Thanks. That is interesting. You managed to recover useful detail in the sky and in the rocks in the middle but those leaves have still clipped abruptly. Looks like fewer chromatic aberrations too.

A camera like this comes very close to being genuinely useful to me (viewfinder issues aside). When one inch sensors mature a little more, they may prove the ideal compromise. Meanwhile, m4/3 is doing sterling service.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:57 UTC
On bb_ISO125_f5.6_IMG_0089 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looking at the leaves on the left, it seems Canon has the same problem with this sensor that Sony does - very harsh clipping of highlights. Lens seems nice though.

Thanks. That is interesting. You managed to recover useful detail in the sky and in the rocks in the middle but those leaves have still clipped abruptly. Looks like fewer chromatic aberrations too.

A camera like this comes very close to being genuinely useful to me (viewfinder issues aside). When one inch sensors mature a little more, they may prove the ideal compromise. Meanwhile, m4/3 is doing sterling service.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 03:57 UTC
Total: 568, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »