Jylppy

Joined on Mar 1, 2012

Comments

Total: 139, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Looking Sharp: A focus stacking tutorial (179 comments in total)

This is something where Canon excels thanks to MagicLantern firmware. It has focus stacking inbuilt. No need to touch camera between the shots.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2016 at 08:38 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies

My concern is that Canon EOS M system is being profiled too "casual" to my needs. I am looking for a smaller second camera with semi-pro quality. Must have superb EVF and good selection of "bright", high-quality zooms. I would so much have an opportunity for occasional re-use of my Canon EF lenses, but maybe adapters will do it.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 08:06 UTC as 9th comment

Good news my loved camera brand is doing relatively OK on declining market. I also hope at least Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Pana and Olympus continue to survive have enough money to fund product development and innovations. Competition and choice is always good for a consumer. Every company grows lazy without competition.

And pls, give us a semi-pro mirrorless with superb EVF. M3 is not enough.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 06:50 UTC as 55th comment
In reply to:

Jylppy: Nice innovation from Canon! Haters, now you can hate again!

For example latency, resolution and DR problems of even the very best EVFs while enabling more information on VF vs. traditional OVF.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2016 at 13:16 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: with OLED tech getting so thin and transparent
it could easily be embedded into the primary prism (diagram: part#4)
pick a surface closest to the focusing mirror so one looks at the ExpSim LV
simultaneously as the optical image reflected onto the focusing screen

or:
combine focusing screen and OLED on same plane (close together): part3
and allow switchable VF:
1) optical only
2) ev only
3) both optical and ev
tri-modal ... as I suggested before ...

Canon already using a transparent flippable mirror, for its AF sensor, so it isn't entirely opaque like the old days

thereby eliminating EVF screen "hump" elsewhere (parts 6/7/9/10)

Are you certain there are production machines out there that can grow OLED on pentaprism surface?

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 13:31 UTC

Nice innovation from Canon! Haters, now you can hate again!

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 13:23 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Artpt: With a genuine lack of insight, what reasonable situations would an iso of >1 million be necessary?....

DespondD, that day might require some very genuine technologies since the camera would need to use single photon to guess contents of multiple pixels... But maybe someday a single photo is all what is needed to record a full-length 8K movie, maybe...

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 06:52 UTC
In reply to:

kaiser soze: Richard Butler: You fundamentally misunderstand many things. The true reason for variable ISO is to accommodate a range of light intensity. The ISO setting establishes the mathematical mapping from analog voltage reading at a sensor element to quantized binary numeric value. But you write this, which is all nonsense except for the first phrase of the first sentence: "A camera with a very low noise floor is able to capture a large amount of dynamic range, since it adds very little noise to the detail captured in the shadow regions of the image. This has an interesting implication: it minimizes the need to amplify the sensor's signal in order to keep it above that noise floor (which is what ISO amplification conventionally does). This provides an alternate way of working in situations that would traditionally demand higher ISO settings." You are confused at a very fundamental level, not just here, but most of your explanations are jabberwocky.

Kaizer, unfortunately for you, the misunderstanding is on your side. Please Google "ISO invariant sensor".

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 16:25 UTC
On article Affinity Photo coming to Windows (144 comments in total)

Please fix the very last link in the press release.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 04:54 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Worth the wait? A look inside the Pentax K-1 (649 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jylppy: The price is really low. When will Pentax sales cause price pressure on Canon & Nikon? I wish it would happen, but I doubt it to have material impact.

For me as business strategy professional it seems really hard for Pentax to enter a (declining) mature market without having hard, differentiating core assets. DSLR is a system market and there are limits how long a single great product can carry. So Pentax relies basically price competition. Due to the systemic nature of DSLR market, I doubt it will work. My guess is that after few years Ricoh will close the whole exercise. And would I want to be the consumer with Pentax gear then in my hands? No.

So sorry tech-freaks and CaNikon haters, sometimes there are other factors contributing success than just "features".

Don't get me wrong. All competition is good, especially for the consumer. It is just that Pentax needs to do awful lot of work to get its lens portfolio competitive. DSLRs are system products. While individual components are interesting, the whole system needs to be competitive. Having said that, I honestly wish all the best for Pentax. Competition is good and it keeps Canikon's prices in check.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 08:07 UTC
On article Worth the wait? A look inside the Pentax K-1 (649 comments in total)

The price is really low. When will Pentax sales cause price pressure on Canon & Nikon? I wish it would happen, but I doubt it to have material impact.

For me as business strategy professional it seems really hard for Pentax to enter a (declining) mature market without having hard, differentiating core assets. DSLR is a system market and there are limits how long a single great product can carry. So Pentax relies basically price competition. Due to the systemic nature of DSLR market, I doubt it will work. My guess is that after few years Ricoh will close the whole exercise. And would I want to be the consumer with Pentax gear then in my hands? No.

So sorry tech-freaks and CaNikon haters, sometimes there are other factors contributing success than just "features".

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 12:37 UTC as 32nd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

miksto: And after all the talk about light weight of Sony cameras (at the cost of poor battery life and poor ergonomics).
Looking at the example of most common general purpose 24-70mm lens it comes larger and heavier than corresponding Canon lens. Sony's 'light' camera will feel awkward with these lenses. Poor ergonomics.

Sony SEL2470GM: 886g, 87.6 x 136 mm
Canon 5175B002: 805g, 88.5 x 113 mm

According to DXO report Canon's can resolve 32 megapixels. We are yet to see Sony's optical resolution but so far Sony was poor on optical resolution front.

Mind it the Canon's is a 4 year old technology. Sony still struggling to beat it.

@miksto,

Please do not get into personal insults.

Sony G 90mm is a 1:1 capable MACRO lens. Zeiss and Sigma 85mm are NOT. So we are talking lenses of different category. Could it be more clear?

So please give Sony credit where they deserve it. But yes, that is just one lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

miksto: And after all the talk about light weight of Sony cameras (at the cost of poor battery life and poor ergonomics).
Looking at the example of most common general purpose 24-70mm lens it comes larger and heavier than corresponding Canon lens. Sony's 'light' camera will feel awkward with these lenses. Poor ergonomics.

Sony SEL2470GM: 886g, 87.6 x 136 mm
Canon 5175B002: 805g, 88.5 x 113 mm

According to DXO report Canon's can resolve 32 megapixels. We are yet to see Sony's optical resolution but so far Sony was poor on optical resolution front.

Mind it the Canon's is a 4 year old technology. Sony still struggling to beat it.

@miksto,
The Sony G 90mm macro has the best resolution among ~100mm macro lenses. It is near pointless to compare different focal lengths to each other.

But you clearly have a point, Canon has far larger (and often even more affordable) lens portfolio with several best-in-class lenses. Sony has one (the 90mm macro). Also, 3rd party lens makers still prioritize Canon and Nikon mounts over E-mount although E-mount support is improving.

Br, A Canon FF user with 10+ EF lenses

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 12:17 UTC
In reply to:

miksto: And after all the talk about light weight of Sony cameras (at the cost of poor battery life and poor ergonomics).
Looking at the example of most common general purpose 24-70mm lens it comes larger and heavier than corresponding Canon lens. Sony's 'light' camera will feel awkward with these lenses. Poor ergonomics.

Sony SEL2470GM: 886g, 87.6 x 136 mm
Canon 5175B002: 805g, 88.5 x 113 mm

According to DXO report Canon's can resolve 32 megapixels. We are yet to see Sony's optical resolution but so far Sony was poor on optical resolution front.

Mind it the Canon's is a 4 year old technology. Sony still struggling to beat it.

But at least Sony's new G 90mm macro beats competition. So definitely this G-series is something to watch after. I wait LensRentals test runs since they test multiple units and sample variance. Test results from "Golden Samples" does not too tell much.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF100mm-f-2.8L-Macro-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-VR-105mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D810__346_1009_1517_917_261_963

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Jylppy: 600mm/8f lens at $2500. How exciting...

It costs only 40% more than Canon equivalent (300L/4f IS + 2x extender) and it is 16% lighter. But it seems to be a great lens for m43, definitely.

But let's not indicate it is comparable to 600mm/4f lenses on FF, it is not. It is a 600mm/8f lens on FF terms.

removed

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2016 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

Jylppy: 600mm/8f lens at $2500. How exciting...

It costs only 40% more than Canon equivalent (300L/4f IS + 2x extender) and it is 16% lighter. But it seems to be a great lens for m43, definitely.

But let's not indicate it is comparable to 600mm/4f lenses on FF, it is not. It is a 600mm/8f lens on FF terms.

The point is that the new Oly 300mm/f4 is a likely a great 600mm/f8 lens in FF terms that are used as reference points what comes to focal lengths. I'm quite certain it is better than Canon 300mm/f4 L IS + 2x extender. But the optical characteristics are the same (FoV, DoF).

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2016 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)"

Totally misleading. DOF is true, but there is no need to expose with this lens two shutter speeds longer, as f/4 is always f/4 no matter you look at it. "Light gathering" is totally irrelevant, it is the amount of illumination on the sensor which is always the same with the same f-stop absolutely no matter which lens is used, which is the beauty of the relative f/X aperture system.

@Naveed, I would say that the reason for smaller sensors getting latest tech first is economical. The probability of defects on processed silicon is x% per Area. Therefore defect-free probability (i.e. production yield) is (1-x%) per area A. If the area is 4x like in case of FF vs m43, then the production yield is (1-x%)^4, which is far smaller number than (1-x%). In simple terms, sensor level yields diminish exponentially according to sensor size. And considering how DSLR/MLC volumes and high-end DSLR volumes especially are not that big then it becomes obvious that it takes very mature manufacturing process to economically produce large sensors.

Smartphone sensor lead the pack and smartphone imaging sensor business is multiple times (3-6x?) bigger business than DSRL/MILC sensor business due to vast volumes.

http://www.vision-systems.com/articles/2015/02/cmos-image-sensor-market-could-reach-16-billion-by-2020.html

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)"

Totally misleading. DOF is true, but there is no need to expose with this lens two shutter speeds longer, as f/4 is always f/4 no matter you look at it. "Light gathering" is totally irrelevant, it is the amount of illumination on the sensor which is always the same with the same f-stop absolutely no matter which lens is used, which is the beauty of the relative f/X aperture system.

@Naveed, apologies. I think I misread your post. I think you agree with the equivalence-article?

You are right about 4x being an approximate rule. It describes theoretical situation when sensor technology is equal. But Canon has so bad sensors that the difference is only 3x+ vs the best m43 systems. Sony sensors get closer to the theoretical limit.

In any case the difference in light gathering capabilities is far larger than the difference between sensor technology generations.

Mobile phones have the best sensor tech per pixel, but the advantage is nowhere near to compensate the vast difference in sensor sizes to any ILC system.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)"

Totally misleading. DOF is true, but there is no need to expose with this lens two shutter speeds longer, as f/4 is always f/4 no matter you look at it. "Light gathering" is totally irrelevant, it is the amount of illumination on the sensor which is always the same with the same f-stop absolutely no matter which lens is used, which is the beauty of the relative f/X aperture system.

Oh, Flat Earth Society hit again! Arkienkeli & Naveed, it does not matter what you like. Optics are rather exact field of science and not based on "likes" or voting among laymen. Pls just read the Equivalence article happens to be correct.

Arkienkeli, when you put 300mm/f4 FF lens in front of m43 camera, could you please tell us is the FOV the same as if the lens were attached on FF camera? Or would it happen to be that the lens becomes actually 600mm focal length/ FOV equivalent in FF system?

And once one parameter changes the rest will change too.

Read the Equivalence article.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 22:18 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)"

Totally misleading. DOF is true, but there is no need to expose with this lens two shutter speeds longer, as f/4 is always f/4 no matter you look at it. "Light gathering" is totally irrelevant, it is the amount of illumination on the sensor which is always the same with the same f-stop absolutely no matter which lens is used, which is the beauty of the relative f/X aperture system.

It is misleading to refer m43 lenses with their f-values as if they would be comparable to FF-systems f-values in terms of optical characteristics.

Within m43 system one can refer the lenses with their nominal f-values, but once comparisons are made to other systems, then it is correct to compare those on equal terms.

As an analogy, 1M Zimbabwe dollars are nowhere as valuable as 1M USD. Of course if you think so, I am happy trade my ZWD to your USD at 1/1 rate :-)

And pls read the Equivalence article. It is all there explained. Just accept it as a fact.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 19:42 UTC
Total: 139, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »