Bart Hickman

Bart Hickman

Lives in United States Cedar Mill USA, OR, United States
Joined on Apr 17, 2005

Comments

Total: 97, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (604 comments in total)

Wow. Built in wireless flash control and big boost in AF performance (hopefully). My two biggest complaints of the NEX 6. Only downer is the lower res EVF. Maybe that was needed to hit the relatively low price point.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 04:19 UTC as 161st comment
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

TurboElephant: "The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 offers more bells and whistles, but you're limited to its fixed zoom lens and smaller (albeit not that much smaller) sensor."

1" sensor = 116 mm2
43 sensor = 225 mm2

So GM1's 43 sensor s almost twice as big as the RX100, I wouldn't call that "not much smaller" ;)

If you do area, then the ratios are
APS-C/m43 = 1.64 (0.72EV)
m43/1" = 1.94 (0.95EV)
You're doing some rounding off in favor of m43. Or maybe you're comparing to Canon APS-C.

This assumes you let your sensor dictate the aspect ratio of your shots. This is why I mentioned that the 1.333 aspect ratio of m43 muddies things a bit. For me personally, it's a non-optimal proportion which I almost never use so for me m43 only really has a useful area of 200mm2 which is 0.9EV less than APS-C.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2013 at 03:56 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

TurboElephant: "The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 offers more bells and whistles, but you're limited to its fixed zoom lens and smaller (albeit not that much smaller) sensor."

1" sensor = 116 mm2
43 sensor = 225 mm2

So GM1's 43 sensor s almost twice as big as the RX100, I wouldn't call that "not much smaller" ;)

Rikyxxx, the crop factors are 1.5, 2, and 2.7. 2/1.5 = 1.333. 2.7/2 = 1.35. To relative to APS-C, m43 is a crop factor of 1.333. And relative to m43, 1" is a 1.35 crop factor.

In my particular case, I almost never use an aspect ratio of 1.33 because I find it conflicts with most of my compositions. So the m43 is really even worse off for me because I'd always be cropping off the long sides to get my comp to look good. More critically is wide-angle lenses lose about 1mm for me because of this.

Of course for portraits, I prefer a more square aspect ratio, but then low light performance, dynamic range, and wide FOV are never an issue for portraits.

Many people like to shoot to fit particular frame sizes w/o any matting which means 1.33 aspect ratio is just what they want and for them, m43 looks a bit more favorable.

But no matter how you slice it, the RX100 is going to come out looking pretty good in this comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2013 at 03:21 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

manmachine242: There is something wrong with "equivalent aperture" comparison.

Q7 has 1/1.7'' type sensor, multiplier is 4.55.

2.8 x 4.55 = 12.74 (and not f/17 as chart shows)

All low-end zooms will bow upward in that graph (probably the high end ones will too.), but they will not be far enough from linear to change the overall assessment. In fact, the data you showed still gives the edge to the RX100 even if the Pany were linear, which I doubt it will be.

My point is, the chart is very useful to someone trying to weigh cost/benefit between the two kits. Filling the intermediate data won't change the comparison much. It makes it clear that, in this case, you need to not hyper-focus on the sensor size so much.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 15:22 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

TurboElephant: "The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 offers more bells and whistles, but you're limited to its fixed zoom lens and smaller (albeit not that much smaller) sensor."

1" sensor = 116 mm2
43 sensor = 225 mm2

So GM1's 43 sensor s almost twice as big as the RX100, I wouldn't call that "not much smaller" ;)

What cracks me up is the m43 users always saying how the difference between m43 and APS-C is negligible, but then turn around and say 1" is way smaller than m43. The ratios between them are the same (although the comparison is somewhat obscured by the m43 1.33 aspect ratio.)

Anyway, as the equivalent aperture chart shows, the Sony RX100 lens more than makes up for the smaller sensor so it still has better low light gathering ability than the GM1 with that 12-32 lens.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 05:45 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

manmachine242: There is something wrong with "equivalent aperture" comparison.

Q7 has 1/1.7'' type sensor, multiplier is 4.55.

2.8 x 4.55 = 12.74 (and not f/17 as chart shows)

It's an incredibly informative chart. The aperture diameter of the 12-32 is the same as a 28mm/F7 FF lens at the wide end and a 64mm/F11 lens at the long end. It also shows (somewhat embarrassingly for Panasonic) that the Sony RX100 lens gives it better low light performance than the 12-32 Pany kit.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 05:38 UTC
On Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? news story (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bart Hickman: A blurry lens causes irretrievable damage to the information that was gathered. This loss manifests itself as a bunch of noise in the corrected image. All this software does is let me trade off between sharpness and noise--but the overall SNR is unaffected. The lens in this article looks like it causes at least a couple stops of damage to the image judging by how noisy the corrected image is. There's no free lunch.

I can see cutting corners on CA or geometric distortion since fixing those doesn't really change the noise levels. But sharpness is not something to cut corners on IMO.

You might as well boost ISO and stop the lens down--same diff.

You only know the transfer function of the image itself. But the sensor noise gets added after the lens, so it gets boosted by the de-convolution. In other words, the lens damages the dynamic range (or SNR) of the image irretrievably. Obviously if you have large image details or details with large contrast (black-to-white transitions), then the deconvolution make them more visible (along with the noise). But finer details or lower contrast details (e.g.., textures) are blurred below the noise floor and the deconvolution does nothing to recover them.

Vadims, if item (b) is true (which it clearly is not for the example in the article), then I'd argue you might as well stop the lens down and achieve optical sharpness in the first place. The result will be about the same and you avoid power hungry post-processing (and the cheap lens can probably be even cheaper without the larger aperture setting.)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 04:18 UTC
On Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? news story (162 comments in total)

A blurry lens causes irretrievable damage to the information that was gathered. This loss manifests itself as a bunch of noise in the corrected image. All this software does is let me trade off between sharpness and noise--but the overall SNR is unaffected. The lens in this article looks like it causes at least a couple stops of damage to the image judging by how noisy the corrected image is. There's no free lunch.

I can see cutting corners on CA or geometric distortion since fixing those doesn't really change the noise levels. But sharpness is not something to cut corners on IMO.

You might as well boost ISO and stop the lens down--same diff.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 00:53 UTC as 47th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

justmeMN: Sony admits that what people really want is a DSLR, an interesting way to design and market a mirrorless camera.

Sony is making actual DSLR cameras (or at least they were until recently.) I suppose the salient difference with the A3000 is the price point.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: If everyone thought margins were thin before. Wait a couple of months when everyone else has to drastically cut their prices to keep up with Sony.

We were talking about camera bodies. The difference in lens sizes between m43 and APS-C is negligible as far as material cost or tolerances are concerned (APS-C is slightly more material, m43 needs slightly tighter tolerances.) PS cameras with comparable features aren't that much cheaper and they don't have to deal with a detaching lens mount interface. Cheaper cameras don't have as many buttons, hotshoe, focus rings, and other interconnects.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: If everyone thought margins were thin before. Wait a couple of months when everyone else has to drastically cut their prices to keep up with Sony.

How do you know this? Making things small is difficult and expensive--this is a disadvantage of the smaller form factor. Certainly Panasonic and Olympus' reported profits don't suggest they're making much money.

Chasing Sony on price won't be helpful if, as is suggested in the article, customers expect the camera to be chunky-looking like a DSLR. That is, assuming Sony's gambit is correct.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 04:18 UTC
In reply to:

crsantin: Very clever Sony, very very clever. 20 megapixel APS-C with a lens for...$400???That's the initial price too, not the deeply discounted price that comes along at the end of the product's life. The DSLR goes mirrorless. Goodbye micro four thirds, it was nice knowing you.

m4/3 is safe as long as Panasonic and Olympus can make money doing it. So far they aren't making money and neither is Sony. But Sony is doing something to try to change that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 04:12 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: So it has the size disadvantage of a DSLR, and the lack of fast PDAF for a mirrorless...
can't people just get a grip?

PeterTom, there is no "mirrorless" market segment. There is a low-end-DSLR-body-style market which is what the A3000 appears to be targeting. By the way, making the camera bigger and deeper is a significant contributor to the low cost (it's expensive to meticulously pack a bunch of stuff into a compact body while dealing with noise and power issues.)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 19:47 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: Any speculation about the price of the Olympus OM-D after this Sony?

Note: I own an OM-D, with the Panaleica 25mm.

Seems like a different market. I have a hard time believing the Rebel/A3000 market is interested in the OMD (any more than those same people were interested in the NEX-6/7). Those people are currently overwhelmingly buying Rebels or low end Nikons.

So I would say Oly would not change the price of the OMD that much because it probably wouldn't boost their sales very much. But I'm no expert.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 06:16 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: So it has the size disadvantage of a DSLR, and the lack of fast PDAF for a mirrorless...
can't people just get a grip?

qwertyasdf, people want what they want. Can't fault Sony for trying to give them what they want. Besides, I think it's an excellent strategic move. Assuming it performs, it'll serve as a gateway camera to the NEX system.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

SemperAugustus: Canon nailed it with the SL1. If small is important while having good IQ, the SL1 has no competition.

daddyo, At ISO200, things aren't interesting because there's plenty of light in either case. No point in even having an F/2.8 lens in that case. As the light levels drop, you'll be pushing that ISO higher to keep the shutter speed you need. If your camera's sensor is larger, you'll feel able to increase ISO more which means you could've gotten away with a larger F-number. I'd have no issue with having to buy F/2.8 lenses on m43 if Pany didn't charge such a premium for them (seems to kill the whole point of the smaller sensor IMO.)

We do agree about one thing though--the Canon SL1 doesn't materially narrow the size advantage of m43 versus APS-C DSLRs.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: Apart from selling chunky equipment to amateurs, there is no other use for APS-C, but this is then the cash cow. Masses think bigger is better, so manufacturers obey. IMHO m43 is and will remain by far the best system in all respects. Having a considerable legacy of lenses, a FF Nikon sits on the other end. But if I started today, I would stick to m43. Aptina right above says sensor size is what matters and the trend is for larger. Until the new generation of sensors and the destructive gale of processors arrive and turn big sensors and lenses redundant...

Dimitris, if the pixel densities are the same, then the m4/3 has no geometry advantage at telephoto and it's at a disadvantage at wide angle. I also consider the aspect ratio of m43 a handicap since I'd typically have to crop to 3:2 to make the composition look right. It's too bad Pany stopped make the multi-aspect ratio sensors IMO.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 14:46 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: Honestly, there's nothing really 'wrong' with the Nikon 1 system other than the image quality just can't match larger sensors like m4/3....and that's the people looking at these type of cameras....people buying Sony NEX, Micro 4/3 systems, etc. If the image quality was there, it would sell much better.

I'm not seeing the design problem here. Are you saying it's harder to design lenses (I assume you only mean wide angle) for m4/3 because of the longer flange distance? The m4/3 lenses seem to score fairly well in sharpness--maybe not so good in vignetting. NEX certainly shows no evidence of being better IMO--so far.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 04:38 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: Apart from selling chunky equipment to amateurs, there is no other use for APS-C, but this is then the cash cow. Masses think bigger is better, so manufacturers obey. IMHO m43 is and will remain by far the best system in all respects. Having a considerable legacy of lenses, a FF Nikon sits on the other end. But if I started today, I would stick to m43. Aptina right above says sensor size is what matters and the trend is for larger. Until the new generation of sensors and the destructive gale of processors arrive and turn big sensors and lenses redundant...

In terms of system sizes and such, the difference in APS-C and m43 isn't going to be that significant. This'll be especially true if, in the end, the APS-C systems end up with pixel densities comparable to the m43 system. Telephoto lenses would be the same size (because you can crop just as much on APS-C) and wide angle lenses would be about the same size.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 00:55 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: Honestly, there's nothing really 'wrong' with the Nikon 1 system other than the image quality just can't match larger sensors like m4/3....and that's the people looking at these type of cameras....people buying Sony NEX, Micro 4/3 systems, etc. If the image quality was there, it would sell much better.

Yabokkie, what's wrong with the mount design that would impact camera sales? Are you saying m4/3 and NX are also "wrongly" designed?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 00:51 UTC
Total: 97, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »