noirdesir

Lives in Switzerland Switzerland
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Nov 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 558, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (789 comments in total)
In reply to:

JapanAntoine: Very impressive how small they managed to design this camera!
I wonder if they haven't done a bit too much though, especially on the mount design as it makes it super close to the sensor... but hey, with leaf-shutter lenses and all these nice ideas, I won't complain!
Can't wait to see one next to a Pentax 645Z :-D

The closer, the merrier. A shorter flange distance adds no constraint on lenses to be less telecentric. It adds the option to be less telecentric but not a requirement.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 12:13 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (789 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lassoni: But what if the lenses were little bit slower, just so they could also be lighter? I'm not saying pancake small, but small enough to be comparable to smallest FF lenses maybe? Have big sensor, but let retard the optics in terms of speed a little bit so they package doesn't end up being heavy, and you have body + 2-3 primes weighting under 2 kilos.

Speed in lenses had always meant shutter speed for a given IQ (aka noise) level. Since the same ISO value doesn't mean the same amount of noise on MF as on FF, the same f-stop doesn't mean the same lens 'speed' either. Otherwise the Pentax LX-7 would be the king of the hill when it comes to low light performance for zoom lenses.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 15:53 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (789 comments in total)
In reply to:

D135ima: Mixed feelings. Not just about this thing. and about all 33*44. Even after pentax dumping, Even after Sony CMOS incoming in this world it stil has unfavorable combination of price / functionality / speed comparing to the 2000-3500$ SLRs in particular D810

Costs for a silicon wafer just aren't decreasing very fast. The last wafer size increase (from 200 to 300 mm) started in 2000 and reduced costs by about 30 to the 40%. That's the kind of price reduction curve you can expect for production costs of large sensors. Larger sales volumes help in spreading development costs, that's what you see with Pentax. But sales volumes can only go so far at $5000+ prices.

On top of that, lens costs per kg of glass also aren't decreasing a lot if at all.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 15:47 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gary Eickmeier: The event will be at 1400 CET and 0500 PST? What is CET? What would that be in, say, PDT or EDT? Aren't they on Daylight Time in the Pacific zone?

Gary Eickmeier

CET = Central European Time, the time zone most of Western Europe is on.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 04:23 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)

Photorumors just posted the first images including the first two lenses and their specs: http://photorumors.com/2016/06/21/the-new-hasselblad-x1d-medium-format-mirrorless-camera-leaked-online/

Body: $9000
Lenses: $2300 & $2700 (45 mm f/3.5 & 90 mm f/3.2)

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 16:13 UTC as 19th comment | 6 replies
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sunshine4784: Hope it is a mirrorless medium format camera. But the price should be lower than Pentax 645Z. More than 10,000 is meaningless for mirrorless MF.

Who is suggesting that Hasselblad will be charging more for their mirrorless MF camera than for their MF DSLRs?

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 14:57 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sunshine4784: Hope it is a mirrorless medium format camera. But the price should be lower than Pentax 645Z. More than 10,000 is meaningless for mirrorless MF.

A Pentax MF mirrorless should be cheaper (to manufacture) than a Pentax MF DSLR. Same is true for Hasselblad. What doesn't follow is that a Hasselblad MF mirrorless should be cheaper than a Pentax MF DSLR as long as current Hasselblad DSLRs cost about 3x what Pentax MF DSLRs cost.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 14:21 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

lucinio: The first medium format digital mirrorless ? Maybe not to much bigger and too much more expensive than Leica SL ?

First AF MF mirrorless, first EVF MF mirrorless, first MF mirrorless where you don't have to manually cock the shutter between releases, first MF mirrorless without cables sprouting from the camera. Or to summarise, first modern MF mirrorless.

I think AF and liveview is what really distinguishes the category of cameras that coined the term mirrorless from the cameras that existed before them. The Phase One A series only have one of these two defining features. How the focussing is achieved and how the image is framed has served to define camera categories for a long time (besides other classifying features like interchangeable lenses and film/sensor size).

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

grock: Honestly, what would truly be a "game changer" at this point? Would it be physically possible (and practical) to build a camera that can use lenses from multiple manufacturers? Or would it be too bulky/expensive/impractical from a business standpoint? Because I would love to be able to buy a camera body that isn't determined by all the lenses I already own.

Look at Leica's adaptors to use Hasselblad and Contax 645 lenses with AF on their Leica S (achieved by having a crop MF sensor that allows a smaller mirrorbox than 6x4.5 MF SLRs and thus creates space for an adaptor). Hasselblad can do the same (and even use Leica S lenses).

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 23:06 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

EthanP99: Its a medium format mirrorless.

Since the 50 MP sensor is a crop-sensor (in terms of 6x4.5 MF), offering both mean offering two camera systems a la Sony A7 & A6300 with two lens lines. I don't see that, creating two lens lines (even if for telephoto lenses the MF FF lenses can double as MF crop lenses) is more than Hasselblad can pull off. Look at Leica, their two-format mirrorless strategy (T and SL) has resulted in very few lenses for either system.

And price-wise, the 100 MP version would be too expensive to generate a lot of sales.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 23:01 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

eilivk: A real game changer? Could only be a large format mirrorless. Something like RX 1,
and how large would that be?

Photorumors reports it will compatible with existing Hasselblad MF lenses, that rules out a fixed-lens camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

jl_smith: Too many tools in these DPR comments, it's sad. Why must everyone always equate any other format to FF? Who cares? If the shooter wants to shoot FF, then they'll shoot FF. If they want m43, they'll shoot that. Same for APS-C.

These equivalence dorks don't seem to realize there are a ton of benefits and drawbacks to *any* system, and every shooter is an individual and will rank these pros and cons differently.

Instead of realizing this and maybe, just maybe contributing something useful to the conversation, they echo the same crud they do in every...other...story that isn't whatever their chosen format is.

I have shot m43 for 8+ years now, and I have also shot Nikon FF for the same time period. But before, eg, spending $1400 on the 42.5 mm f/1.2 lens, I wonder whether the Nikon 85 mm f/1.8 for $500 (or the Tamron 85 mm f/1.8 VC for $750) isn't a better deal.

Size-wise, mirrorless vs DSLR is a clear advantage of the former. But combine a Sony A7 with a Zeiss Batis, the size difference is much smaller, with the Sony having a stop less noise in low light (comparing f/1.2 & 1.4 lenses on m43 with f/1.8 & 2 on FF) and two stops less noise at base ISO.

However, if you stick with f/1.7, f/1.8 & f/2 primes on m43, you get small overall packages that aren't available with FF. Adding one or two f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses to your m43 set very likely also makes your overall system size to come out clearly ahead compared to FF. But a m43 system consisting only of f/1.2 primes likely isn't cheaper or smaller than a FF (mirrorless) system with f/2 & f/2.8 primes.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

jl_smith: Too many tools in these DPR comments, it's sad. Why must everyone always equate any other format to FF? Who cares? If the shooter wants to shoot FF, then they'll shoot FF. If they want m43, they'll shoot that. Same for APS-C.

These equivalence dorks don't seem to realize there are a ton of benefits and drawbacks to *any* system, and every shooter is an individual and will rank these pros and cons differently.

Instead of realizing this and maybe, just maybe contributing something useful to the conversation, they echo the same crud they do in every...other...story that isn't whatever their chosen format is.

The flip side of ISO 400 on m43 being about equal to ISO 1600 on FF is showing that noise at ISO 400 increases in a fairly smooth fashion as you decrease sensor size:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_1=olympus_penf&attr13_2=sony_a6300&attr13_3=nikon_d750&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=400&attr16_1=400&attr16_2=400&attr16_3=400&attr126_1=normal&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&attr171_2=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.06878260323046949&y=0.4924083769633508

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:29 UTC
In reply to:

jl_smith: Too many tools in these DPR comments, it's sad. Why must everyone always equate any other format to FF? Who cares? If the shooter wants to shoot FF, then they'll shoot FF. If they want m43, they'll shoot that. Same for APS-C.

These equivalence dorks don't seem to realize there are a ton of benefits and drawbacks to *any* system, and every shooter is an individual and will rank these pros and cons differently.

Instead of realizing this and maybe, just maybe contributing something useful to the conversation, they echo the same crud they do in every...other...story that isn't whatever their chosen format is.

"When I want the light gathering ability of f/1.4", eg, shooting at f/1.4, 1/60 s, ISO 400 (on m43). To get the same DOF with FF, one would need f/2.8, 1/60 s, ISO 1600.

Now, since ISO 400 on m43 has about the same noise as ISO 1600 on FF, this isn't a situation where m43 has an advantage, it's pretty much a draw and overall size, weight and cost of either system would be the relevant factor in deciding which is better:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr13_1=olympus_penf&attr13_2=sony_a6300&attr13_3=nikon_d750&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=400&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=1600&attr126_1=normal&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&attr171_2=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.06878260323046949&y=0.4924083769633508

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:29 UTC
On article Raw capture coming to iPhone in iOS 10? (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

DFPanno: For those with existing phones I reccomend PureShot. It will generate a "dRAW" file.
"The term “developed RAW”—dRAW—is used to describe a TIFF image that has had no in-app post-processing applied and, critically, no JPEG compression at any stage."

http://jag.gr/pureshot/

Apps like 645 Pro get the equivalent of a linear DNG (maybe not exactly but very close) from the OS. There might already been a log tone curve applied and some things like lens corrections.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 22:31 UTC
On article Raw capture coming to iPhone in iOS 10? (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Welcome to 2013, Apple.

Maybe I just don't travel in the right circles but in the comments to this article we only have posts complaining about Apple users and no posts of Apple users making the statements that are source of the complaints. Almost some kind of pro-active complaining.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 22:25 UTC
On article Raw capture coming to iPhone in iOS 10? (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

joe_leads: RAW processing in iOS is not new. With the lightning SD-card adapter you can load RAW files from your camera onto your iPhone oder iPad and edit it e.g. in the Photos app.

This doesn't mean that the iPhone will not shot RAW in iOS 10, but it's not a hint, too. We'll see.

Here is precise wording from their developer documentation:
"Core Image can decode RAW images produced by several third-party cameras as well as images produced by the iSight camera of supported iOS devices."

https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/content/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewIniOS/Articles/iOS10.html

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 17:59 UTC
On article Raw capture coming to iPhone in iOS 10? (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Welcome to 2013, Apple.

Funny, I hear way more complaints that Apple users will be claiming that Apple re-invented the wheel than I hear actual Apple users making that claim. Unless you count Apple users being excited that they now can edit raw files in the Photos as equalling that Apple re-invented the wheel on this.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 17:09 UTC
On article Raw capture coming to iPhone in iOS 10? (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

joe_leads: RAW processing in iOS is not new. With the lightning SD-card adapter you can load RAW files from your camera onto your iPhone oder iPad and edit it e.g. in the Photos app.

This doesn't mean that the iPhone will not shot RAW in iOS 10, but it's not a hint, too. We'll see.

When you import raw files from your camera into your iOS device, the built-in Photos app will only work on the JPEG file embedded in the raw file (the raw file will be uploaded to the iCloud Photo Library and sync back to Photos on the Mac and the latter then can use the raw file). Easy to test by setting your camera to B&W and see how the imported image looks in Photos on iOS.

Third-party apps can edit/convert raw files but then third-party apps can use any file type they want. What is specific for raw files is that raw files imported into an iOS device into the Photos app can be read by third-party apps.

Photos on iOS being able (a) to import raw files, (b) work with their embedded JPEGs, (c) upload them to iCloud Photo Library and (d) allow third-party apps access to those raw files stored in Photos on iOS is the extent of raw support on iOS today.

RAW photo editing being mentioned on that slide means that the OS and/or its bundled applications can edit raw files.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Tied for the fastest, I guess?

Was it an SLR or a mirrorless/rangefinder lens?

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
Total: 558, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »