Lives in Spain Castellgalí, Spain
Works as a lightning research
Joined on Apr 29, 2006


Total: 60, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1998 comments in total)
In reply to:

gianstam: About total light.
So, I have a question to DPReview?
Do the Sony and Nikon FF cameras produce different noise at pixel level when used at different formats for the same sceen?

My point of view: the sensor does not behave as a whole.
The electric signal from each photosite is not affected by the the total light.
Sensor is not a sun light collector (larger surface, more electric power).
Image (and noise and DR) is produced by pixels. Same tecnology and size pixels produce the same results.
So the advandage of the larger sensor appears not because of the more light but because of the more (same sized) pixels or because of the larger pixels (for the same Megapixel sensors).

Very informative article by the way.

veroman - this is because you can allow your pixels to be larger for the same resolution or have more of them (higher resolution, less magnification per pixel) without shrinking them.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 22:15 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1998 comments in total)

Sensors don't read out the total amount of light. They read individual pixels. If the light per square mm is equal (same f-stop) and the pixels are the same size and quality, the same gain will be applied. For the smaller sensor this however results in fewer megapixel image, effectively a direct crop of the larger sensor, in which any noise is identical but more magnified in the smaller sensor.
But typically the smaller sensor will have a similar megapixel count (final magnification), reached by a larger pixel density. The light per square mm is then divided over more pixels in the small sensor case, resulting in fewer photons per pixel. In order to produce the same RGB values for the same exposure (shutter and aperture) the gain needs to be increased which leads to more visible noise and loss of highlight range. The ISO value relates simply scene lighting, exposure and RGB result, so the small sensor in this example has more gain applied for any given ISO.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 21:14 UTC as 262nd comment
On Fujifilm teases upcoming SLR-style X system camera article (921 comments in total)

Fujifilm is doing interesting things, but when you need four lenses and a camera replacing your current setup of another brand (e.g wide zoom, fast standard prime, macro, telezoom) you'll need at least 4000 euros. This makes it more attractive to just update the body of your current full frame setup.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2014 at 19:57 UTC as 112th comment
On Fujifilm X-A1 real-world and test scene samples article (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

jenbenn: Hm if a look at the green felt in the test scene the disadvantages of the x-trans sensor in the x-m1 and x-e2 compared to the x-a1 becomes very obvious. Both JPGS and RAWs of the x-e2 and the x-m1 are much softer compared to the corresponding files from the x-a1. So far I thought that the x-trans softness was a raw converter problem. From the test scene it appears however that even Fuji hasn't found a proper way to process the x-trans data for their in-camera jpgs!

Fuji as much as I love your cameras, please, drop that stupid xtrans colour filter array.In reality images created from bayer sensors (which include an anti alising filter) are much sharper. The noise advantage often attributed to x-trans is not real as it comes at the expense of softer files. Sorry but the same can be achieved with a proper raw converter and some noise reduction.

There are other comparisons which clearly show X-Trans to have the edge. But DPReview uses Adobe Camera RAW whose X-Trans conversions are still not as good as some other converters.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2014 at 00:32 UTC
On Sony Alpha A7 / A7R preview (2381 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: I would like one with the 16mp sensor from the D4/Df; 36mp is way overkill for this type of camera. For studio work or landscape work, the portability isnt really that important.. just get a D800/e.

Camera shake is measured in degrees of viewing angle. Say you shoot a scene of 50° with three cameras, 36 MP, 24 MP and 6 MP. Your camera shake may be 0.05°, that's about 1/10th of the moon's apparent diameter. That is 1/1000th of the view. Your 6 MP camera makes photos of 3000 pixels wide, the 24 MP camera 6000 pixels wide, the 36 MP 7348 pixels wide. You will see the shake in all cameras at 100% actual pixels (3, 6 and 7.3 pixels wide). But if the final magnification of the image is the equal, e.g. A4 print viewed at equal distances, you won't see any difference. The other side of the coin is that you won't have any advantage over that 6 MP camera if you allow such vibrations.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2013 at 17:24 UTC
On What just happened?! Looking back on last week article (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

Branko Collin: It felt like there was an invisible trade show going on. Did you call the manufacturers to ask them "why now"?

Canon remained so silent. October 23-24 for a major Canon announcement?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2013 at 19:43 UTC

"In the end, Hasselblad, with this new initiative, is hoping to attract a larger, younger audience to its range of cameras, says Peter Stig-Nielsen, Hasselblad's director of professional camera products."
- http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2206781/hasselblad-were-not-robbing-people-off-with-lunar-camera

Except that the younger audience does not have this kind of money and even if they had it, full frame makes more sense.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2013 at 21:19 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Cane: One would think Canon would just buy out Magic lantern, or their engineers, and put this stuff into their camera's to begin with? I know, crazy thought to make a product to max out it's abilities, when someone else can just take your product and make it better for you. That doesn't make you look foolish, does it?

Canon could buy out or sue MagicLantern, followed by keeping everything the same (read: their profit)

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2013 at 19:25 UTC

Fortunately for us they brought a decent camera and a tripod instead of a mobile phone.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2013 at 01:37 UTC as 56th comment
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

TWIZEEL: I can't understand a people who says it is cheating. That is Visual Art, not a sport competition, not a court evidence. Artists (photographer) could use any mean to transfer his impression to audience. Only we can arguing is about technics itself.

well, as a stormchaser, I like to see a scene as it was. And a good photographer can get such scene, if he persists. Not like oh, I got this supercell with ugly powerlines here and last summer a nice farm with boring blue sky, let's merge it and voilà the shot of my life. How proud could someone be of that...

That being said, if your job depends on selling a shot with those characteristics of two separate scenes then go for it. Just don't pretend to others that it's real.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 03:19 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

akophoto: I teach the same method all the time. Have done for last three years.
Adding a sky is cheating in my eyes as the scene never existed.
The correct use for this method is for blending bracketed exposures when the cameras dynamic range cannot expose a whole scene. For example a sunrise.

depends if you use Photoshop for photographic tweaks, versus artistic cheats.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 03:13 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Efner: Every Image is manipulated!
Be it film or digital!
In fact what your eyes take in is manipulated before it reaches your brain.
So my feeling is:The image as you the viewer sees it IS the end product.

not everybody sees an image as being an image. Most of us appreciate the contents of the image as if it is the real thing.

Just because we never see a direct translation of the real world doesn't mean we should start to fool others actively. Your argument is too often used as an excuse for altering the interpretation (not just mildly the esthetic) of the image.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 03:10 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vignes: I'm sure those who wants to buy, may already have decent cameras but i think we should hold on for awhile and see how the price settles...Sony products price do come down pretty quickly.

For the GOLD award, clearly shows that Dpreview people are human beings too - with feelings. They're gut feelings told them that this camera deserves a GOLD award.

it's because they did not have to pay for it!
It may be a great camera for what it is, but a price $1000 less seems more fitting for its capabilities, even in comparison with full frame DSLRs.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 18:58 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)

I find it a little ironic the camera is rated so highly. You pay $2800 and you get a camera of which you cannot change lenses, you get contrast AF only, 3 fps, no optical through the lens viewfinder, while image quality is at the same level as offered by other current full frame cameras. Even a D600 or EOS 6D at $1000 less offer more functionality than this, even if you would glue a pancake lens permanently to it.

Yes, it is smaller. That's only one point and may be important to some style of shooting. Similar use cameras should simply be compared by image quality, size/weight, lens selection, AF performance, fps, etc, and price. The RX-1 seems to offer great image quality, but at very high cost and some compromises...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 18:43 UTC as 63rd comment | 8 replies

Will the review cover the effectiveness of the autofocus system and its options? It seems the numbers do not look so exciting, but first users report it works well.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2013 at 23:19 UTC as 44th comment
On Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Preview preview (127 comments in total)

Canon's own page about the EF24-70mm f/4 L IS USM writes:

"The EF24-70mm f/4L IS USM has a close focusing distance of 0.38m (in macro mode) at all focal lengths."

"The lens’ new macro function optimises the placement of lens groups for macro photography, allowing shooting at a maximum magnification of 0.7x and down to a close focusing distance of just 0.38m (throughout the zoom range) from subjects. "

"Closest focussing distance (m) 0.38(Macro)
Maximum magnification (x) 0.7(at macro)"

See: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/lenses_ef_24_70mm_f_4L_is_usm.do?utm_source=newsalert-december-1-2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsalert

Either they made the same mistake many times or they want to stress that macro mode has a good working distance. Who is right?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2012 at 17:19 UTC as 10th comment
On Canon EOS 6D sample images added to hands-on preview article (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

Managarm: Whoa, the JPG engine is horrible again. Still all about heavy noise reduction and overdone sharpening for getting "nice" looking images? All those bushes and grass reduced to one green textureless blob at ISO 200 - why? That's completely unnecessary, I bet the sensor doesn't need this mistreatment.
One really has to wonder if the target audience of such a nice camera per se wants picture output in cellphone quality.
No noise at ISO 6400? Great, and no details either. I can't imagine a single situation where I want to take an image of such low quality.
Edge performance of the 24-70 II L also is quite underwhelming, even for a lens half it's price. Anyway, don't have to buy that as long as Canon has some of it's very nice prime lenses.

At least bring out some RAWs with decent optics in front of the camera and we will for sure see the image quality that was expected. But this overprocessed JPG mess is not even worth discussing.

At least for stills we can shoot RAW. Unfortunately, the DIGIC also processes HD video, good if you hate noise, not good if you like to see crisp details....

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2012 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

The A-Team: I don't think this makes any sense as a kit with the 6D. That's a "budget full-frame" so it makes sense to pair it with a "budget" kit lens. Something like an improved 24-85 IS (non-L) would make more sense, or even just the 28-135mm IS. But still nice to see Canon keep releasing new lenses. But where is that new 50mm 1.4 that everyone is asking for? Put IS in it and you'll have a VERY popular lens.

Prediction: Canon releases the 50mm f/1.4 IS and many people will complain: 1) "$995?! too damn expensive!" 2) "why a f/1.4 lens needs IS anyway? It just makes it more expensive!"

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2012 at 10:58 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel from Bavaria: No need to upgrade from a 24-105mm lens. ok.

The price is just ridicolous, also for the f2 35mm. I can get a Zeiss 2.0 35 ZE for that money...
Canon, that's not the way to rise market shares, that's the best way to loose them.
In the head of somebody who thinks about his first FF-DSLR:"Hmm, should I buy the Canon 6d with 24-70 IS for 3.500 Euro, or should I go for the Nikon D600 with 24-85 for 2300 Euro?" --- yeah, that's a tough decision.


You could argue exactly the reverse for the Zeiss 35/2. At such high price it does not even offer AF and IS compared to the Canon!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2012 at 10:50 UTC
In reply to:

kewlguy: Why is the 24-70/4 IS much more expensive than 24-105/4 IS? The new zoom better be as good as the best primes! But then it's still f/4...

Because it adds 70% of the functionality of the 100L macro :)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2012 at 10:46 UTC
Total: 60, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »