oscarvdvelde

oscarvdvelde

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

Comments

Total: 108, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: In the studio scene, the images from the GR make the others look like they are out of focus, especially offcenter. Just look how soft the faces look from Fuji and Leica, RAW ISO 200. A lot of false color from Ricoh, though. And those high ISO's from Fuji are so clean but lack detail. Surely aren't they cooked?

Fuji RAF files are not cooked. It's Adobe doing the cooking. Just use a different raw converter and you will find better detail and presence of chroma noise in X-Trans than shown in those test images.

By the way, noise should be compared for equal amount of light (shutter and aperture). It's mostly okay in this test, but DPreview should make sure this is the case. Shorter exposures create more noise even if the camera QE is 100% and no circuit noise is produced.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:03 UTC

The raw high ISO noise does not look very favorable in the comparison, e.g. compared to Fuji X-A2.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 22:47 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

vscd: Did Fuji really save RAWs uncompressed in the "past"? This sounds quite strange to me...

Do we talk about something like a normal CR2 Format? The LZW Algorith should be known now for some time. No offense, really a question.

I hope that the X-T1 can get a lossless compression option, or else Fuji could release a compression utility to reclaim disk space.

The compression may affect the writing time to the card. It may slow things down if the processor is slow or speed things up when the card is slow, or it's a draw.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 19:04 UTC
On article Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo (365 comments in total)
In reply to:

Christof21: No question about the lack of IBIS... Would be interesting to know what Fuji answers.

A good interview should ask the relevant questions, we don't learn anything from this kind of interview

It would have been also interested to have a question about the organic sensor but again, not a single question about it.

A bit uninteresting. These are the typical questions and we know what Fuji answers to these questions.

I used OIS at 18mm in the XF 18-135mm and it helped getting sharp shots after sunset at 0.5 sec f/8 ISO 1600 (equivalent to EV 3 at ISO 100). Longer than that gets tricky.
With a 16mm F1.4 lens with OIS you could stay at ISO 200 at F1.4 and use 1/4 sec. It has its uses.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 12:45 UTC
On article Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo (365 comments in total)
In reply to:

Christof21: No question about the lack of IBIS... Would be interesting to know what Fuji answers.

A good interview should ask the relevant questions, we don't learn anything from this kind of interview

It would have been also interested to have a question about the organic sensor but again, not a single question about it.

A bit uninteresting. These are the typical questions and we know what Fuji answers to these questions.

Sony offers stabilization both in lenses and sensors, so this does not need to be mutually exclusive.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 00:33 UTC
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: I'd be interested to see how many of these they sell. It's not the typical Fuji users lens.

You may be right in the sense that nobody who already used such lenses on other camera systems could have moved to Fuji and do the same type of shooting. Well, now they can.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

ravikiran532: Enough of comparisons with FF lens or 4/3 lens...I don't know why such comments come when any manufacturer releases a new lens...
If canon releases a tele lens...people start complaining ...how big that lens is ..Mirrorless is future..
If 4/3 releases a tele lens...size is too big...DSLR is king..

Of all three if you dont want to compromise for low light..then APSC is the right option.. High end fuji will always be lighter than high end APSC canon..

For comparision sake
7d mark II with 100 -400 --- 900g + 1.6 == 2.5kg
fujifilm Xt1 with 100 -400 -- 450g + 1.4 == 1.8kg
GH4 + 100 with 100-400 (ts slower too 4 - 6.3) -- 600g + 1 == 1.6kg
I hope people will stop making "size" comments instead welcome the move by the manufacturer by introducing a great lens..to make their lens family complete..comment later after seeing sample images

Full frame equivalence needs to take into account the field of view. Regarding aperture in this type of lens, minimizing exposure time is a lot more important than increasing background blur which is already far greater than with a 50mm F1.4 lens. Then, Fujifilm vs. Sony/Nikon/Canon, Tamron:

400mm F5.6 = 608 mm F5.6, weight 1.4 kg, 10x21 cm
400mm F5.6 with 1.4x TC = 560mm F8, weight 1.7 kg, 10x21 cm
600mm F6.3, weight 1.9 kg, 11x26 cm

So there isn't any advantage with full frame here, only for APS-C DSLRs, with heavier bodies but also generally better autofocus.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 13:05 UTC
On article FAA officially launches drone registration system (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

rowlandw: Registration required for drones but not for guns? Just sayin'.

It might not take long before someone makes his personal gunship, remotely operated from a secure base. Terrorism 2.0...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2015 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

NAwlins Contrarian: Am I alone in thinking that a 4-element, 4-group lens is likely to have mediocre performance, especially wide-open? That's what it says for the 90mm. The others are not more than 6-elements in 6 groups (35 and 50mm) and 5 elements in 5 groups (75mm). As examples, the new, inexpensive ($110) Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM has 6 elements in 5 groups, and the Tamron 35mm f/2.8 VC has 10 elements in 9 groups. I am having a really hard time figuring out why anyone would want to pay $480 to $660 (especially instead of legacy lenses) for not-too-fast, manual-focus-only prime lenses that aren't likely to perform well until stopped down.

Well, these HandeVision lenses do not sound half as bad then as the Meyer Optik Trimagon f/2.6 95mm, hoping to sell 3 elements for €1699 by means of hazy sample shots.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 02:23 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (551 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera?

(USA) Because you're a hipster, and hipsters go out of their way to buy obscure / unpopular products. :-)

Then I was hipster before it became cool, carrying around a Bronica S2a everywhere in 2002-2005.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2015 at 22:30 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (551 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZJ24: I'm all for meaningless banter - hey it makes the internet go round, right? - but there's an irony here - 99% of the world no longer cares about any camera that doesn't have a smart phone included with it.

Mirrorless, DSLR, rangefinder, M4/3, APS-C, FF, MF, digital, film etc. They're all cameras designed to create art, earn income, record memories, paint with light, give life some meaning.

Argue all you want, but guys the discussion really has little relevance to the pursuit of photography. People have tools, people have toys, fundamentally they are trying to achieve the same thing. capture a few decisive moments.

The Mirrorless vs DSLR "contest" (as distinct from this article, which I think is a good informative and objective one) is a great example of "majoring in minor things".

are you allowed in with an actual camera? If not, they'll get better images than us.
Same thing under the Eiffel tower at night if you arrive with DSLR and tripod.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2015 at 22:19 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (551 comments in total)
In reply to:

BFHunt: I sold all of my DSLR gear and went whole hog into m43 a little over a year ago. I have no regrets, but I did stumble across one big short-coming of mirrorless (well, specifically EVF) that I rarely see mentioned. I was trying to shoot the recent "blood moon" with a big (and slow) telephoto. This required a multi-second exposure to maintain a decent ISO. The problem was composition and focussing. The EVF was black. Completely black. If I had an OVF I could easily have seen it. But the EVF, sampling at a 1/60th of a second, was completely devoid of any light. I ended up taking a bunch of shots, tweaking my tripod until I got the moon centered. As regards focussing, again, it was a bit of trial and error. Luckily the blood moon lasted for a good half hour so I got a decent shot. Knowing what I know now I would start setting up half an hour early (using the un-eclipsed moon).

Am I missing something or is shooting in extremely low light a major weakness of EVF?

I could not use the optical viewfinder of my 5D to focus on stars, but with my Fuji X-T1 I actually can...
That said, it helps to have a lens with known manual focus infinity positions.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2015 at 13:06 UTC
In reply to:

dbm305: With a brand new format? Could that mean sensor size?

"Never one to imitate other makes" so it can't exactly be full frame.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 22:22 UTC

Why? Just offer the 645 for the price of a Canon 5Ds / Nikon D810 / Sony a7 II and Pentax can take some of their market share.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 22:16 UTC as 87th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: Equivalency
1. Angle of view changes (narrows) the smaller the sensor you have, with a given lens.
2. DOF changes, it gets deeper with a smaller sensor.
3. Exposure, does NOT change with sensor size, for the last time.
If the camera is at 100 ISO, and you shoot at f/5.6 and the exposure calls for 1/125th of a second, it will be THE SAME exposure on FF, APS or m4/3rds. You do NOT need to shoot at f/4.0 with the APS and f/2.8 with the m4/3rds.

yes that is true, but then we are no longer comparing the same scene. If pixels are magnified equally, then the FF has a larger image of the same scene on screen or as print. If image is magnified equally, the FF has more DPI and a finer look to the noise.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2015 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Equivalency
1. Angle of view changes (narrows) the smaller the sensor you have, with a given lens.
2. DOF changes, it gets deeper with a smaller sensor.
3. Exposure, does NOT change with sensor size, for the last time.
If the camera is at 100 ISO, and you shoot at f/5.6 and the exposure calls for 1/125th of a second, it will be THE SAME exposure on FF, APS or m4/3rds. You do NOT need to shoot at f/4.0 with the APS and f/2.8 with the m4/3rds.

Two sensors with same megapixels, one APS-C and one full frame. Equivalent lenses at a given f-stop. The FF lens gets more light in but spreads it also over an equivalently larger surface, so the exposure per sq mm is the same. However, as we look as equal megapixels, the APS-C sensor divides this light flux over more pixels, which then need more amplification than the FF to get the same image exposure. In the case of equal pixel density, exposure and gain are the same, but the FF sensor will have 1.5x the pixels, in both directions, without losing the light. Displayed at a given size the FF needs less magnification and reveals less noise.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2015 at 21:04 UTC
In reply to:

Joachim Gerstl: Great! Now add 16/2, 23/2 and 56/2.

70mm F2 OIS macro for me please ;)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 21:58 UTC

Is it weather sealed?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 16:07 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

mgrum: Let's get it all out of the way:

What - manual focus only? It's 2015!
Way overpriced compared to X.
Who wants a 28mm f/1.4? It should be 24mm or 35mm.
90mm filter thread? Where am I going to find a cheap UV to ruin the image quality with?
It's far too big and heavy, wont go in pocket when I'm street-luging.
It wont make you a better photographer!

Oh, I thought this part of your satirical post was in fact the first complaint :D

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

mgrum: Let's get it all out of the way:

What - manual focus only? It's 2015!
Way overpriced compared to X.
Who wants a 28mm f/1.4? It should be 24mm or 35mm.
90mm filter thread? Where am I going to find a cheap UV to ruin the image quality with?
It's far too big and heavy, wont go in pocket when I'm street-luging.
It wont make you a better photographer!

"Who wants a 28mm f/1.4? It should be 24mm or 35mm."

You are arguing against artistic choice. 28mm is a wide natural looking focal length. It is very versatile. What you prefer depends on your own history with each angle of view, and how it fits between the lenses you already own. Why 35mm? To me it should be 28mm or 40mm. Why 50mm?!?! It should be 40mm or 75mm! Why stay at 21mm? It should be 18mm! Why 85mm or 135mm? The perfect tele should be 100mm :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 16:24 UTC
Total: 108, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »