EvilTed: Underexposure and High ISO leads to more noise.Awesome.Thanks for enlightening us :)
What triangle? ISO is not part of exposure. Exposure is aperture and shutter speed only. ISO is a post processing step.
High ISO by itself doesn't lead to more noise. Underexposure does. The use of high ISO means that you uderexposing the sensor. Do you understand the difference?
panos_m: It seems that I will need a new operating system (64bit) also. As I read somewhere there is no 32bit version anymore :( True?
That's good news. Thanks. I suppose a clean install will be needed but that'is not a big problem. Thanks again.
I think also that the win 10 64bit free upgrade will be possible from 64bit win7 only and not from 32bit win 7, right?
@kevin_r: I didn't know that. I will wait then.Thanks :)
I know but I can not afford anything new now. Unfortunately :)
It seems that I will need a new operating system (64bit) also. As I read somewhere there is no 32bit version anymore :( True?
armanius: I'm enjoying my LX100. Unless I'm missing an option somewhere, the auto-ISO implementation is horrible. Camera refuses to go past ISO 1600 even when the shutter speed has dropped to 1/8" at full zoom (when in aperture priority).
I don't have the camera but I am interested in it. In the manual (p.137) says that you can set the Auto-ISO upper limit (contrary to what dpreview says at the Auto-ISO section of the review on page 5). Where is it set in your camera?
falconeyes: 18 hours ago, David Jacobowitz made an argument that this article should cite work which helped evolve the concept of equivalence (or how I call it, the equivalence theoreme).
To this end, I observed that the concept was missing in internet discussions dated 2007, Jan 11. At that time, Daniel Buck in http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/544062/ described the Brenizer method on the Fred Miranda forum (actually before Ryan Brenizer "invented" it; he did not). The effect is easily understood using equivalence (stitching effectively creates a larger sensor). Yet, the fredmiranda discussion fails to recognize this relation and does a poor job explaining the effect or compute its effective aperture.
Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that the equivalence theoreme was discovered after 2007 January. Moreover, this is a nice example how useful the equivalence theoreme actually is ...
Check this thread from 2006:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/21454287
Mark Forman: It seems possible that the use of the Metabones adaptor might be skewing the back focus slightly. The 5D3 appears to be slightly sharper across the board.Is it possible to repeat this test using native lenses?In my personal experience with adaptors it is almost always a slight tradeoff in this respect.
"This test was initially conducted using native lenses, but because of obvious exposure differences - despite matched apertures/exposures"
If at the same exposure settings (F number, Shutter speed) the sensors saturate at a different point you should choose different ISO to match the saturation point or you should normalize the "exposure" in the raw converter. The strict ISO number doesn't play crucial role (even for this comparison). That is at least how I think when I shoot.
Thanks for the test :)
Don Karner: Why do we mess up photos on purpose?
Is is called style? Or what?
Because it (messing with photos) subtract realism. And realism kills abstraction. And abstraction is one of the most important ingredients of art. By using a modern low-noise, super crisp camera with faithful color reproduction is difficult to overcome reality and come a step closer to abstraction.That is the reason for the revival of old techniques. Convenience.
Thank you MET!!!!
There is something wrong with that EM5 graph. It is almost a match with the Ideal 4/3 graph. This isn't happening for any other sensor size. Bill Claff's excellent page needs data from another current top m4/3s performer (EM1, GH4) for reference IMO. Anyone willing to contribute?
X-T1 is where it should be. On par with the best APS-C sensors:http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D7100,X-T1
Tourlentes photographs remind me Robert Adams' "Summer Nights".
At last something interesting. Thanks :). The photographs are good without the need to know that there is a prison somewhere. But maybe the photographer is a little insecure about his pictures (which IMO are good) and try to add some value by revealing his motive? Anyway thanks again.
undergrounddigga: Funny that, every other company is trying to emulate Oly's design of the OMD .. whilst Oly users wish they had a mirrorless (PEN) camera with the viewfinder in the corner :)(or perhaps people would want both type of cameras).
I'm not a fuji user, but from a design point I much prefer X100 or X-E than this.X100 with its dual viewfinder is just stunning, only if they released a 50mm (FF equivalent) F1.4 with speedy autofocus ..
@Zvonimir Tosic. Dear fellow forum member. Excuse me but I really don't have the time to start a meaningless conversation.
A warm welcome to the new Fuji camera! It is looking very nice :)
It' s not Olympus design. It is how cameras designed and looked for decades.
yabokkie: very like GX1, marketed as a high end with compromised features. don't know if it has same capacity for deep price plunge as GX1.
If you want to be successful in bashing a camera you have to say something that is believable, something near the reality but a little uncertain or something that can be difficult to prove. Saying that GX7 has compromised features won't work. Try harder.