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: 399, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: That the dynamic range is lower at base ISO than some other cameras is a given (though it is actually still higher than many others).

To me, since this really is a low light camera, it is the dynamic range AT high ISOs where the camera stands out.
How did the DR test against (any) other cameras at ISO 12800 or 25600? (normal ISOs for me with the A7s).

One other thing I didn't see mentioned but may have missed....the versions of the camera. Its seems you can have a NTSC only version or one that is both PAL AND NTSC.

EDIT the original A7 review still has a few errors. IE the camera does have continuous AF in speed priority mode (unlike this a7s) and the buffer is not unlimited (or at least not limited to the card size) for jpegs but does have about the same limit with an 8GB card as it does for a 64gb card.

...cont'd

Yet that point fails! You show results from pushing exposure a huge amount, resulting in both cameras producing results which are acceptable for small prints but neither of which are acceptable for any critical use (e.g. A2 print, magazine page, anything for a paying client). Plus, you've had to use a much bigger file and spend more time and resources downscaling it to make the 36 MP sensor match the 12.

Finally, the HDR shot from a Nikon 810 you posted recently (same sensor as A7r), roughly comparable to the HDR sunset posted in this review, shows a level of blotchiness in the skies which is visible even when the image is downsized a lot. The shadow murkiness and noise are pretty horrible. The pushed A7S file is much, much cleaner, hence my comment it is a forgiving sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 02:51 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: That the dynamic range is lower at base ISO than some other cameras is a given (though it is actually still higher than many others).

To me, since this really is a low light camera, it is the dynamic range AT high ISOs where the camera stands out.
How did the DR test against (any) other cameras at ISO 12800 or 25600? (normal ISOs for me with the A7s).

One other thing I didn't see mentioned but may have missed....the versions of the camera. Its seems you can have a NTSC only version or one that is both PAL AND NTSC.

EDIT the original A7 review still has a few errors. IE the camera does have continuous AF in speed priority mode (unlike this a7s) and the buffer is not unlimited (or at least not limited to the card size) for jpegs but does have about the same limit with an 8GB card as it does for a 64gb card.

...cont'd

For one thing, you say "- I spelled out that the clouds above the sun were just short of clipping, & that 1/3 EV higher exposure clipped the clouds" but you don't show us and we don't know how much the highlight exposure changed between shots. We don't know how highlight recovery affects the different colours, because you don't say (which is very important - for example, the Canon 60D I once had is not renowned for having a high dynamic range, yet it had an uncanny ability to recover blown blue in skies). We know nothing about highlight recovery from your "review" at all. Even if I hunt through your hidden information to find the exposure parameters, I don't know what the "correct" exposure for the scene was or where on the tone curve you really exposed. It's not objective, because it's been CONTRIVED to prove a point.

read on...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 02:50 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: That the dynamic range is lower at base ISO than some other cameras is a given (though it is actually still higher than many others).

To me, since this really is a low light camera, it is the dynamic range AT high ISOs where the camera stands out.
How did the DR test against (any) other cameras at ISO 12800 or 25600? (normal ISOs for me with the A7s).

One other thing I didn't see mentioned but may have missed....the versions of the camera. Its seems you can have a NTSC only version or one that is both PAL AND NTSC.

EDIT the original A7 review still has a few errors. IE the camera does have continuous AF in speed priority mode (unlike this a7s) and the buffer is not unlimited (or at least not limited to the card size) for jpegs but does have about the same limit with an 8GB card as it does for a 64gb card.

Rishi, thanks, you did clarify a little but ..... I thought about this a bit at work today and I am quite annoyed!

For a start, dpreview have, for a very long time, provided a dynamic range page. Yes, there are problems with that as it is based on jpg processing but the ability to see how things change in different modes gave a good pointer, especially as we could see the "wedge" and how it exposed. Now that has been replaced by contrived (yes, I'll use that word again and explain why shortly) "tests" trying to push a point which does not inform us clearly about the camera being tested. The test does not actually give any number for dynamic range.

Read on...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 02:50 UTC
On 05-ISO250-DSC00631.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)

Is the model's hair blue near her fingers or is that bad colour fringing? Either way this is a classic example of a photo which would be vastly improved by stopping down the lens!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 19:37 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: That the dynamic range is lower at base ISO than some other cameras is a given (though it is actually still higher than many others).

To me, since this really is a low light camera, it is the dynamic range AT high ISOs where the camera stands out.
How did the DR test against (any) other cameras at ISO 12800 or 25600? (normal ISOs for me with the A7s).

One other thing I didn't see mentioned but may have missed....the versions of the camera. Its seems you can have a NTSC only version or one that is both PAL AND NTSC.

EDIT the original A7 review still has a few errors. IE the camera does have continuous AF in speed priority mode (unlike this a7s) and the buffer is not unlimited (or at least not limited to the card size) for jpegs but does have about the same limit with an 8GB card as it does for a 64gb card.

(It would have helped to have shown highlight clipping in the scenes as well as a cherry-picked piece of shadow and then provided exposure info too.)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 19:14 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: That the dynamic range is lower at base ISO than some other cameras is a given (though it is actually still higher than many others).

To me, since this really is a low light camera, it is the dynamic range AT high ISOs where the camera stands out.
How did the DR test against (any) other cameras at ISO 12800 or 25600? (normal ISOs for me with the A7s).

One other thing I didn't see mentioned but may have missed....the versions of the camera. Its seems you can have a NTSC only version or one that is both PAL AND NTSC.

EDIT the original A7 review still has a few errors. IE the camera does have continuous AF in speed priority mode (unlike this a7s) and the buffer is not unlimited (or at least not limited to the card size) for jpegs but does have about the same limit with an 8GB card as it does for a 64gb card.

I found the dynamic range "tests" here highly contrived and not helpful, apart from the example image of the sunset which was pushed hard and showed the sensor to be hugely forgiving!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 18:57 UTC
On 15-0216 SeattleSunsetFromArizona photo in Rishi Sanyal's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

CA fixed easily!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:55 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On 44 24mm-Rishi-02-F5.6 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (16 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: A great, dramatic shot which shows the lens is easily sharp enough. However, there is strong colour fringing on the edge of the buildings and something weird going on around the crests of the mountains. Plus the sensor isn't really up for that much pushing but so what, the image is very striking anyway.

Hi Rishi,

I deleted the copy I downloaded so can't be exact but I'm pretty sure it's the lateral CA you mention that I noticed, mainly along vertical sides of buildings nearer the edges. Not at all unusual for modern lenses and, if I have this right, some manufacturers allow software to correct this rather than upping the size and cost of the lens.

I can't remember ever seeing so many comments on one of your sample photos! I think it is a great example of what this particular lens can achieve but also a documentary on what the expectations of the enthusiastic digital photographer have become.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:47 UTC
On 44 24mm-Rishi-02-F5.6 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (16 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: A great, dramatic shot which shows the lens is easily sharp enough. However, there is strong colour fringing on the edge of the buildings and something weird going on around the crests of the mountains. Plus the sensor isn't really up for that much pushing but so what, the image is very striking anyway.

Sorry, I didn't check the previous one. The files are a bit big to casually open up all of them!

So what about the colour fringing? Was it predictable enough to fix with a preset?

As to the sensor quality, I guess it's subjective as to what's acceptable and, as usual, you wouldn't notice the blotchiness in a print at all. Yes, it is incredible how much pushing the modern sensor can take!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 19:39 UTC
On 44 24mm-Rishi-02-F5.6 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (16 comments in total)

A great, dramatic shot which shows the lens is easily sharp enough. However, there is strong colour fringing on the edge of the buildings and something weird going on around the crests of the mountains. Plus the sensor isn't really up for that much pushing but so what, the image is very striking anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 20:27 UTC as 1st comment | 9 replies
On 13 Dan_2895_16mm_f18 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Wow, that is complicated lens flare. Has the tiny aperture made that worse?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 20:14 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

deep7: It looks almost too simple. An interesting concept. I hope it does well as it gives us more options in the market.

Or touch screen?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 19:53 UTC

It looks almost too simple. An interesting concept. I hope it does well as it gives us more options in the market.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 20:04 UTC as 143rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: The 300mm equivalence thing:
The sensors of cameras sport 7360 horizontal pixels in the 36mp FF and 4600 pixels in the 16mp sensor of the Olympus.
The linear resolution of a FF camera with a 36mp sensor is approx. 1.59x that of the Olympus 16mp m4/3rds sensor with lenses producing the equivalent (300mm for the Olympus/150mm for the 36mm FF) angle of view. With a single focal length (300mm for both) the linear resolution of the Olympus is then 1.25x that of the 36mp Nikon. If you employ the "40mp mode" on the Olympus (which is roughly equal to 30mp compared to a 36mp FF, given the samples we've seen with equivalent angle of view lenses) the resolution of the Olympus is then 2.35x that of the 36mp camera with the same focal length lens attached to both cameras.
The above ignores the format differences (3:2 FF versus 4:3 for the m4/3rds) and the inherent "apparent" sharpness improvements seen in FF cameras.

Awesome!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The 300mm equivalence thing:
The sensors of cameras sport 7360 horizontal pixels in the 36mp FF and 4600 pixels in the 16mp sensor of the Olympus.
The linear resolution of a FF camera with a 36mp sensor is approx. 1.59x that of the Olympus 16mp m4/3rds sensor with lenses producing the equivalent (300mm for the Olympus/150mm for the 36mm FF) angle of view. With a single focal length (300mm for both) the linear resolution of the Olympus is then 1.25x that of the 36mp Nikon. If you employ the "40mp mode" on the Olympus (which is roughly equal to 30mp compared to a 36mp FF, given the samples we've seen with equivalent angle of view lenses) the resolution of the Olympus is then 2.35x that of the 36mp camera with the same focal length lens attached to both cameras.
The above ignores the format differences (3:2 FF versus 4:3 for the m4/3rds) and the inherent "apparent" sharpness improvements seen in FF cameras.

Read it again. You're not getting it. But I'll leave you to it because I don't think you want to and it's not important to me whether you get it or not. No worries.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 03:57 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The 300mm equivalence thing:
The sensors of cameras sport 7360 horizontal pixels in the 36mp FF and 4600 pixels in the 16mp sensor of the Olympus.
The linear resolution of a FF camera with a 36mp sensor is approx. 1.59x that of the Olympus 16mp m4/3rds sensor with lenses producing the equivalent (300mm for the Olympus/150mm for the 36mm FF) angle of view. With a single focal length (300mm for both) the linear resolution of the Olympus is then 1.25x that of the 36mp Nikon. If you employ the "40mp mode" on the Olympus (which is roughly equal to 30mp compared to a 36mp FF, given the samples we've seen with equivalent angle of view lenses) the resolution of the Olympus is then 2.35x that of the 36mp camera with the same focal length lens attached to both cameras.
The above ignores the format differences (3:2 FF versus 4:3 for the m4/3rds) and the inherent "apparent" sharpness improvements seen in FF cameras.

"And if that was not an f/8 equivalent lens, maybe you did not have to carry a tripod in the first place.

"And no mirror slap to worry about at all!"

Only a shutter shock."

What?? It's an f4 lens which has the ADVANTAGE of better depth of field at a given aperture (you'd know if you shot long!). Two stops quicker shutter at a given depth of field.

And no shutter shock - Olympus have that sorted.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 17:58 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The 300mm equivalence thing:
The sensors of cameras sport 7360 horizontal pixels in the 36mp FF and 4600 pixels in the 16mp sensor of the Olympus.
The linear resolution of a FF camera with a 36mp sensor is approx. 1.59x that of the Olympus 16mp m4/3rds sensor with lenses producing the equivalent (300mm for the Olympus/150mm for the 36mm FF) angle of view. With a single focal length (300mm for both) the linear resolution of the Olympus is then 1.25x that of the 36mp Nikon. If you employ the "40mp mode" on the Olympus (which is roughly equal to 30mp compared to a 36mp FF, given the samples we've seen with equivalent angle of view lenses) the resolution of the Olympus is then 2.35x that of the 36mp camera with the same focal length lens attached to both cameras.
The above ignores the format differences (3:2 FF versus 4:3 for the m4/3rds) and the inherent "apparent" sharpness improvements seen in FF cameras.

Well, if you have a situation where that combo works, the tripod doesn't need to be as heavy as with a larger camera and you don't need a remote release either as Oly have a very clever shutter delay function which eliminates shutter shock. And no mirror slap to worry about at all! It's no big deal, the one caveat is the subject doesn't move for one second. Soon, that will be one sixtieth of a second. For moving subjects, you still have normal resolution, which is totally adequate for nearly every use anyway. You're not forced to use high res...

I think RichRMA was more making a point that effective reach is a product of pixel count and equivalent focal length together and was using 300mm as an example. I just pointed out his assertion that the bigger sensor produced higher apparent sharpness wasn't quite right in this case.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The 300mm equivalence thing:
The sensors of cameras sport 7360 horizontal pixels in the 36mp FF and 4600 pixels in the 16mp sensor of the Olympus.
The linear resolution of a FF camera with a 36mp sensor is approx. 1.59x that of the Olympus 16mp m4/3rds sensor with lenses producing the equivalent (300mm for the Olympus/150mm for the 36mm FF) angle of view. With a single focal length (300mm for both) the linear resolution of the Olympus is then 1.25x that of the 36mp Nikon. If you employ the "40mp mode" on the Olympus (which is roughly equal to 30mp compared to a 36mp FF, given the samples we've seen with equivalent angle of view lenses) the resolution of the Olympus is then 2.35x that of the 36mp camera with the same focal length lens attached to both cameras.
The above ignores the format differences (3:2 FF versus 4:3 for the m4/3rds) and the inherent "apparent" sharpness improvements seen in FF cameras.

The EM5II was considerably better. Not necessarily any more detail per se but the colour was FAR less problematic. Therefore better pixel detail overall.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 23:56 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The 300mm equivalence thing:
The sensors of cameras sport 7360 horizontal pixels in the 36mp FF and 4600 pixels in the 16mp sensor of the Olympus.
The linear resolution of a FF camera with a 36mp sensor is approx. 1.59x that of the Olympus 16mp m4/3rds sensor with lenses producing the equivalent (300mm for the Olympus/150mm for the 36mm FF) angle of view. With a single focal length (300mm for both) the linear resolution of the Olympus is then 1.25x that of the 36mp Nikon. If you employ the "40mp mode" on the Olympus (which is roughly equal to 30mp compared to a 36mp FF, given the samples we've seen with equivalent angle of view lenses) the resolution of the Olympus is then 2.35x that of the 36mp camera with the same focal length lens attached to both cameras.
The above ignores the format differences (3:2 FF versus 4:3 for the m4/3rds) and the inherent "apparent" sharpness improvements seen in FF cameras.

Don't forget that "apparent" sharpness works the other way when the hi-res mode is used. Refer to dpreview's preview of the EM5II test chart comparison with a 36MP 35mm camera to see how much.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 19:51 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

oscarvdvelde: It is only 1.5 times the resolution of the 5DS. Explain the drama?

He's not far off in linear resolution. 1.5x1.5x53MP=113.175. Maths is close...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 17:25 UTC
Total: 399, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »