Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 441, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article UPDATED: CP+ 2016: shooting the Pentax K-1 in Yokohama (377 comments in total)

"Shooting the Pentax K-1" sounds like rather a bizarre fairground attraction - makes a change from tin ducks or clay pipes, I suppose!

Personally, I "shoot" _with_ my cameras! ;-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 10:05 UTC as 23rd comment
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

1.00/3:2 (1.0 diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio)

4/3rds, with a diagonal of about 21.65mm, would be:

0.50/4:3 (0.5 diagonal, 4:3 aspect)

Brian

Olf, if have you actually READ my post above, you'll see that I understand that. Which is why, in my suggestion, the aspect ratio should be included in the sensor description.

To repeat: I want to know TWO things about a sensor. (1) what is the diagonal relative to some standard (eg 135/35mm) so I know how it relates to fields of view relative to lens focal lengths and (2) what is the aspect ratio, so I know what in which format my images will be recorded.

1.0/3:2 tells me everything about so-called "full-frame"
0.5/4:3 tells me everything about so-called "four-thirds"

so guess what this would be?

2.0/1:1

Simples: classic Hassleblad 6cm square

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 12:14 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

1.00/3:2 (1.0 diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio)

4/3rds, with a diagonal of about 21.65mm, would be:

0.50/4:3 (0.5 diagonal, 4:3 aspect)

Brian

Mark 100: the reason I am talking about diagonal, and NOT area, is that it directly relates to lens specifications. A 50mm lens on a 43mm diagonal is thought of as "standard", and gives the same angle of view as a 25mm lens on a 22mm diagonal sensor (such as 4/3rds). Simply, lens focal length divided by diagonal of sensor size gives you all you need to know to understand the relationship of lens and sensor size.

The same would not be true if you used areas of sensors as your index. And with the current mishmash of names, it's pure guesswork at best, and smoke and mirrors at worst!

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 00:13 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

1.00/3:2 (1.0 diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio)

4/3rds, with a diagonal of about 21.65mm, would be:

0.50/4:3 (0.5 diagonal, 4:3 aspect)

Brian

Olf, you misunderstand: this is nothing to do with "stops". It's to do with angle of view, so that when presented with (say) a 24mm lens, you know whether, on a given camera, it will be wide-angle (eg, on 135), ultra-wide (on 6x6cm), standard (on 4/3rds) or telephoto (on an iPhone sensor).

My suggestion, relating to field diagonal, gives you a direct mathematical index with which to grade your lens.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 00:10 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

1.00/3:2 (1.0 diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio)

4/3rds, with a diagonal of about 21.65mm, would be:

0.50/4:3 (0.5 diagonal, 4:3 aspect)

Brian

Olf, of course aspect ratio is relevant. The same lens, put on two different cameras, one with (say) a square sensor that touches the edge of the image circle, and another with (say) a 19:6 sensor which touches the edge of the image circle - both, therefore, with the same diagonal measurement - will give very different amounts of image data. Indeed, the "slitty" formats throw away a lot of what could have been captured by the lens, using the squarer formats.

Indeed, a 30.6mm square format would fit in the image circle of an unmasked 135-format lens: same diagonal as regular 135 (24x36), but returning considerably more image data (8.3% more area). Yet without quoting aspect ratio, both would have the same (diagonal) "crop factor".

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 10:43 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)

Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

1.00/3:2 (1.0 diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio)

4/3rds, with a diagonal of about 21.65mm, would be:

0.50/4:3 (0.5 diagonal, 4:3 aspect)

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 13:46 UTC as 14th comment | 13 replies
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)

Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a "1 inch" sensor? I know it is anything _but_ 25.4mm diagonal.

PLEASE can we start coming up with a STANDARD way of measuring sensor sizes that does NOT keep harking back to ancient vacuum tubes?

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 18:58 UTC as 89th comment | 40 replies

It's a shame that Panasonic persist in putting their anti-shake technology into the lens ("Power O.I.S.") while Olympus put theirs into the camera (5-way sensor movement), because this adds a level of incompatibility and/or loss of functionality between cameras and lenses from these two manufacturers, who otherwise share the same lens mount.

Does anyone know how "Power O.I.S." actually works? Some early stabilisation systems used a physical, spinning gyroscope ring couple to a spring-mounted lens element (for example, my old Sony Mavica) - you could actually hear it spinning up when you engaged anti-shake.

What is Panasonic's mechanism?

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 09:59 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies

Subscription = Bye Bye

... oh, and I don't fancy having the first folder on any of my devices wiped clean by a "CC Update", thank you very much.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 16:09 UTC as 7th comment
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review (993 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: If I was starting out from scratch and looking for my first DSLR, this would rate very highly in my estimations. Congratulations to Ricoh/Pentax for producing a wonderful, traditionally-inspired modern DSLR.

Brian

Indeed Tim - and as DPReview has already said, this is, in many ways, what the Nikon df _should_ have been!

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 12:25 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review (993 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: If I was starting out from scratch and looking for my first DSLR, this would rate very highly in my estimations. Congratulations to Ricoh/Pentax for producing a wonderful, traditionally-inspired modern DSLR.

Brian

Ecopix, I totally accept that "If I was starting out from scratch" is hypothetical, but that's my point. THIS could have been the camera I would have chosen as my first, had I been born 40 years later than I actually was.

My first SLR (as was common back then) was a Zenit E. My first high-quality camera, and which I still have, in full working order, is an Olympus OM-1n.

And had 1976 been 2016, most likely my OM-1n would have been a Pentax K-1.

Of course, Olympus now runs in my blood, so what I actually have and use day to day, loving every cubic millimetre of its being, is an Olympus OM-D E-M1. Not an SLR, but a gorgeous mirrorless SLR-style camera.

Apart from the (lack of) mirror box and physical pentaprism, my current Oly and the Pentax share a great deal in common, like the 5-way sensor shift anti-shake, articulated screen, and classic styling.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 09:18 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review (993 comments in total)

If I was starting out from scratch and looking for my first DSLR, this would rate very highly in my estimations. Congratulations to Ricoh/Pentax for producing a wonderful, traditionally-inspired modern DSLR.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 23:03 UTC as 62nd comment | 8 replies

THIS bit worries me, A LOT:

"This system uses the latest super-resolution technology, which captures four images of the same scene by shifting the image sensor by a single pixel for each image, then synthesizes them into a single composite image."

Surely that is going to introduce horrible colour artifacts on any moving object, especially at slower shutter speeds?

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 10:54 UTC as 17th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

MeganV: I miss the days when Adobe's attention hadn't shifted wholesale to free mobile junk apps subsidized by my monthly CC rent.

And I miss the days when "updates" to the desktop software didn't remove features to make them look / feel / work more like mobile junk apps. I know, I know, I still haven't gotten over the "new Coke" Lightroom "import experience" or the attempted removal of Photoshop's Save For Web.

I get it, I know, Adobe, Apple, et al. that my photographic universe is supposed to start with iPhone and end with Instagram. That I'm a complete oldster luddite troll if I persist with a real camera, retouching with desktop Photoshop, and printing my work.

ephipi - looks like DVDs of CS6 are indeed in short (or non-existent) supply. Shame, I thought one of the links I found a couple of days ago had physical discs for sale. Turns out it electronic download only.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

MeganV: I miss the days when Adobe's attention hadn't shifted wholesale to free mobile junk apps subsidized by my monthly CC rent.

And I miss the days when "updates" to the desktop software didn't remove features to make them look / feel / work more like mobile junk apps. I know, I know, I still haven't gotten over the "new Coke" Lightroom "import experience" or the attempted removal of Photoshop's Save For Web.

I get it, I know, Adobe, Apple, et al. that my photographic universe is supposed to start with iPhone and end with Instagram. That I'm a complete oldster luddite troll if I persist with a real camera, retouching with desktop Photoshop, and printing my work.

Ephipi, trust me: CS6 arrived on DVDs - both my PC/Windows version and my Mac version. And there are still legitimate, original copies out there available for order from reputable companies, if that is what you want. "CC" (which would have been CS7) is the first version to tie you to the cloud.

MeganV, yes, "future support" is a small thing: CS6 just works. And very well. The ONLY thing I can imagine wanting, is RAW support from some hitherto unknown camera I might one day buy - but as someone who is only 18 months into his current Olympus system camera, I can put that day off for at least another 7-8 years. And even then, I have the option of using Mac RAW processing or the RAW converter software that would come with such a camera.

In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and both Photoshop CS6, and even the much older Photoshop 7, which I use on my older computers, works perfectly.

Sorry Adobe, you stay in the Cloud. From where I am, I see nothing but Blue Skies.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 09:27 UTC
In reply to:

MeganV: I miss the days when Adobe's attention hadn't shifted wholesale to free mobile junk apps subsidized by my monthly CC rent.

And I miss the days when "updates" to the desktop software didn't remove features to make them look / feel / work more like mobile junk apps. I know, I know, I still haven't gotten over the "new Coke" Lightroom "import experience" or the attempted removal of Photoshop's Save For Web.

I get it, I know, Adobe, Apple, et al. that my photographic universe is supposed to start with iPhone and end with Instagram. That I'm a complete oldster luddite troll if I persist with a real camera, retouching with desktop Photoshop, and printing my work.

I don't miss the days - I simply choose to stick with Photoshop CS6! All I miss is future support.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Curious how, with smaller-than-35mm sensors, every focal length is usually quoted with its "35mm equivalent" length alongside, but with larger-than-35mm, this is not the case. No-one has ever said of a Hasselblad 70mm lens, "50,mm equivalent". Nor should they!

So why is this always done for smaller-frame cameras?

Brian

On this subject, my MAJOR bugbear is the continued use of ancient, meaningless descriptions for most sensor sizes. What the heck IS the size of a 1/1.7" sensor in millimetres?

Surely the time has come to describe ALL sensors in a standard way, indicating their size and aspect ratio concisely. A "35mm full frame" sensor is actually 24*36mm, giving it a 3:2 aspect ratio. Diagonally, it is about 43.25mm. The one thing it isn't, is "35mm", and by definition, ALL cameras are "full frame" for the size of sensor they contain.

So my OM-D E-M1's "4/3" sensor is 17.3*13mm, 21.6mm in diameter, and 4:3 aspect ratio. Why not call it, "21.6(4:3)", and your regular "full frame" camera, "43.2(3:2)". The 1/1.7" (7.6*5.7mm) sensor would be "9.4(4:3)" and so on.

From descriptions like this, anyone can work out the "effective" focal length of any given lens on any given sensor, without having to refer to a look-up table.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 11:24 UTC

Curious how, with smaller-than-35mm sensors, every focal length is usually quoted with its "35mm equivalent" length alongside, but with larger-than-35mm, this is not the case. No-one has ever said of a Hasselblad 70mm lens, "50,mm equivalent". Nor should they!

So why is this always done for smaller-frame cameras?

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 01:14 UTC as 18th comment | 12 replies

As a happy GoPro 3 Black owner, here is what would tempt me to upgrade:

1) A global shutter, to avoid distortions in fast moving and rotating objects, and kill the "jello" effect

2) Longer battery life, so a whole day's shooting could be accomplished without having to open the waterproof casing

3) Option for a rectlinear, wide angle lens (say 20/24mm 135 equivalent) rather than the current 170-degree fish-eye

4) Better sound quality while remaining waterproof

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 12:20 UTC as 4th comment
Total: 441, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »