mosc

mosc

Joined on Aug 9, 2012

Comments

Total: 432, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I can't believe it took this long to get close to this. Chip yield is proportional to chip area. Smaller sensors willl have better yield (read: MUCH cheaper) per unit area. Combining smaller chips into a larger composite image sensor is hardly new tech. Especially with the processing power of today's (and tomorrow's) smartphones that seems relatively easy. Also, making a series of lenses for each array minimizes total lens dimensions.

It is good to see them adding in the variable focal information though. This could remove the need to focus entirely further improving usability. Just have 16 sensors fire off at the same time through their tiny lenses, stitch it together focusing down the info and you can make a pretty damn good 4mp image I'd bet... without focusing or taking up more than a cubic inch.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 15:10 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Technology will eventually replace the photographer. You'll just say to your smart camera-drone "go and take some street photos, switch to Vivian Maier mode, film stock sim Kodachrome".

Four hours later when your Smart Camera-drone is returning and 5Gs its pictures to your head set and Facebook page, you grin and say to yourself "I'm a pretty good photographer".

Will it be fun then?

Maybe then you can actually look at things with your eye instead of through a viewfinder without fearing you'll miss something? I would long for that day.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 15:02 UTC
In reply to:

grasscatcher: If they are aiming for a broad-daylight superzoom, why not go with a 1/4" sensor and boost magnification to 2400mm. Then they could claim to be the first 100x optical zoom P&S bridge...

quit giving them ideas...

You know in the early days of digital cameras they often advertised equivalent focal length including some measure of "digital zoom". Saying 100x superzoom is as easy as making a 25x one and saying your 4x digital zoom is adequate enough to be in the specs. After all, you can still get an 1152x864 picture out of a 16mp sensor with a 4x zoom. Instagram even allow something that big?

At 2400mm, the SX520 sensor gives 1935x1451 resolution. They could totally stamp that.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Please don't buy these cameras. This only encourages Canon to build more terrible products.

The SX1 I have in my closet looks pretty stacked in comparison. The LCD tilts, has f2.8 at 28mm, faster shutter, twice the burst speed, and it matches 1080P video for $0 compared to buying a $400 replacement. Zerg2905, how about any used superzoom made by nearly any manufacturer in the past 5 years? You can buy a mint condition SX1 for <$100. Is 560mm not enough for you? 10mp just not enough detail from a 1/2.33" sensor? Really hate that fractional extra mass of a pivoting screen? I just picked that one out because it came out !!!IN 2008!!! and I couldn't think of anything older with 1080P. My point is just that if you don't already have a superzoom with these specs you haven't bought one in a very long time and if you don't own a superzoom and want one with these specs, you should probably look on craigslist not amazon.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 14:33 UTC

UHD cell phone screens need some more pixels for video chat apparently?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 18:47 UTC as 2nd comment
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Kersey Photography: This camera makes m43 pricing look like a bargain.

Oh, got it. Straight up trolling. Sorry, I thought for a second you actually wanted to make a point rather than laugh at people who do.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 14:25 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: "In terms of noise, the FZ1000 produces clean images up to ISO 800. You start to see some detail loss at ISO 1600 and 3200, but you'll only notice when viewing photos at or near 100% magnification."

It's quite a stretch of reality. The noise and heavy noise reduction is already visible at the base ISO in jpegs. The high ISOs look poor even at the screen size. Boost some contrast, clarity, saturation (default look is quite weak), pull some shadows and even the base ISO becomes barely usable even at screen sizes.

I think 1/2.33" sensors are perfectly usable full resolution at base ISO let alone this. It has some ISO room. It's not a huge sensor but criticizing it's base ISO noise is... a little much.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 14:05 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Geekapoo: When looking for a 24/7 carry camera, I initially tried the Canon S100, which I sold to purchase an Olympus XZ-1. Neither camera gave me the type of performance I wanted. Was only when I purchased a Sony RX100 that I felt I was were I wanted to be re image quality...a compromise versus my APC and m43 cameras but much better than the standard P+S. Would have purchased a Sony RX10, but felt I had most of the range covered with my Olympus OMD EM5 with the f2.8 12-40 (Oly) and 35-100 (Panny) and going to 200mm was not where I wanted to be.

I see the FZ1000 as transformative, in the same way the RX100 (and the RX10)...but at a focal range up to 400mm and more with lower MP images/cropping. Much better than the $$$ and weight (the latter being more of a critical issue to me) to do something similar with a m43, APC or FF. I'll stongly assume be happy overall, given my experiences to date with cameras (unless Panny pulls a Fuji-like x10 disaster by capturing blobs LOL).

RX10 is so much brigther at 200mm than the FZ1000 that you are not doing it justice without also factoring in that the RX10 can crop more and get away with it. Equivalent aperture tells us that's about a tossup all way to 300mm. Really the FZ1000's tele advantage is strictly 300-400mm and for that it's slower from basically 28mm to 200mm. If you use a lot of variable focal lenghs other than 25mm and 400mm, you are better off with the RX10's lens. To me, the FZ1000 has more bells and whistles than the RX10 but as far as which lens is better, it's the RX10.

I'd still buy the FZ1000 over the RX10. It's cheaper and does 4K video. RX10 is pretty hard to argue with at $999 though.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 13:09 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Kersey Photography: This camera makes m43 pricing look like a bargain.

I did find this:
http://www.amazon.com/OM-D-E-M10-Double-Zoom-DZKIT-SLV/dp/B00I2KPLZY/

Which has a viewfinder and covers 28mm - 300mm. Not exactly 25-400 but close. It's also more expensive and the FZ1000 will surely drop in price before it goes off the market while I can't imagine that combo getting much cheaper in the next year. Is there a real optical advantage to that package over this 1" superzoom? Well, the 1" is a stop faster which really helps make up for the crop difference. 4/3rds sensors aren't huge themselves. I'd say it's pretty comparable.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 13:02 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Kersey Photography: This camera makes m43 pricing look like a bargain.

There aren't many 4/3rds lenses that cover 25-400. Olympus has a 18-180 10x zoom, but in 4/3rds terms this lens is 12.5 to 200, 16x. The wide ends of these are completely different. I'm not one to be satisfied with 36mm at the wide end. So then you're already out $500 and you need ANOTHER lens that covers something wider... and you can't find one for $400. And we still haven't actually found a body yet. No, this is very competitive with 4/3rds pricing. 4/3rds glass is not cheap.

And what's the cheapest current model 4/3rds body that has a viewfinder anyway? The $700 om10? This is a $900 body with a lens 4/3rds can't match in a single package that has a viewfinder.

And all that's pretending like 4K video isn't a selling point on this camera. If it is, there is no equivalently priced competition, not even close.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 12:55 UTC
On LG launches G3 Beat with Laser AF post (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: Right - because the main problem my smartphone camera has is missing focus.

Lars, Richard, can you go one step further on that explanation? I understand why a 1/2.33" sensor with a 100mm equivalent lens has to do some hunting but some of these phone sensors are super wide (like 24mm) and super tiny (like 1/3.0"). It seems like they don't need to care much about focal point because their depth of field is so huge to begin with. Focusing 10 feet away f2.4 1/3.0" 24mm I get a depth of field covering approximately 1 foot from the camera to infinity. Did I do my math wrong? Unless the subject is super close (like within a foot), why does the thing even bother focusing?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 18:18 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1849 comments in total)
In reply to:

EduardoKleinFichtner: Why do not put the 'equivalence' in reviews?????

It's really a lens graph, not a camera graph.Of course you knew that.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 12:38 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1849 comments in total)

Here's another truth people like to spit out that's only half true:

Exposure depends on f-stop, not aperture size (or equivalent aperture f-stop). True, BUT:

Exposure capability varies with sensor size. ISO ranges vary with sensor size. Sensitivity varies with sensor size. Because of THESE, the question of:

"How much light does my light meter need to read in order to get this camera to reasonably expose this shot?"

Depends on aperture diameter (or equivalent f-stop), NOT the lens f-stop alone.

Exposure is a means to an end. And that end is more about light gathering than anything else. The size of the aperture matters more than the format at which it's focusing that light down on.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 13:54 UTC as 41st comment
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1849 comments in total)
In reply to:

EduardoKleinFichtner: Why do not put the 'equivalence' in reviews?????

Those graphs help immensely. It's also the only place I know of to really see how quickly these variable aperture lenses fall off.

A particular thank you for making the focal length a logarithmic scale.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 13:46 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1849 comments in total)
In reply to:

Weide: The Text contains significant Errors. Of course the total amount of light is in fact the same at 50mm/f2 MFT and 100mm/f2 FF, because the distance from the image plane to the lens plane is now different (otherwise the image would be out of focus). Therefore, the term f-stop was introduced!! With the same aperture number, regardless of the focal length gets the same amount of light to the Sensor(section).

Sorry for my bad english

*cough* 4 times *cough*

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 13:44 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

vroger1: OK- I "feel" it's coming- a Lumix super-duper zoom- let's say 24 through 1000 mm + together with a 2.8 aperture throughout the range and a larger sensor than the fz200 which has given me (as I have said in the past) so much pleasure.

To vroger1's point, if you change design more thoroughly, there are different optical tricks you can do to get apparent aperture down in lens design without increasing the largest aperture dimension. A mirror lens, for example. Or a cassegrain.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 16:57 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

vroger1: OK- I "feel" it's coming- a Lumix super-duper zoom- let's say 24 through 1000 mm + together with a 2.8 aperture throughout the range and a larger sensor than the fz200 which has given me (as I have said in the past) so much pleasure.

well it's pretty clear f31 equiv for these sensors is already diffraction limited. Equivalent aperture is more important here for understanding diffraction because it relates to the physical aperture size. If we hold to the f22 number that's thrown around in regards to consumer lens diffraction and you limit yourself to a reasonable aperture size for hold of say 50mm, that's a range of 1100mm at an aperture of f4 for a 1/2.33" sensor. In other words, I don't think 1000mm f2.8 is doable but 1000mm f4 should be doable, and should not be diffraction limited.

It would be a pretty large bridge camera though and it's image quality wouldn't be that impressive with just a 1/2.33" sensor... but it wouldn't have much competition at the usable 1000mm point.

FZ1000 cropped to 1000mm (2.5x crop) is similar to that dimension wise except with only 3.2mp of resolution compared to a 16mp 1/2.33"

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 14:54 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: Here's a "real" example of equivalent aperture and it's purpose for those who are having trouble. This camera calls itself 1248mm at the telephoto end, but how physically large is the aperture? If it's a full frame, we can use the f5.6 quoted and we get a physical aperture size of 1248/5.6 = 222.9 mm. Of course this camera doesn't have an aperture anywhere near that size (that's almost 9 inches, as wide as a car tire). If you want to know it's aperture size, you can use the equivalent aperture. Equivalent aperture is aperture times crop, or 5.6x5.6 in this case. A diffraction happy f31. This is a "real" number though because now we know how big the physical aperture of this camera is. It's 1248/31, or 40mm.

well forgive the odd analogy I just think it helps visualize how big the aperture is to get f5.6 equivalent at that absurdly long a focal distance.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 13:27 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: Here's a "real" example of equivalent aperture and it's purpose for those who are having trouble. This camera calls itself 1248mm at the telephoto end, but how physically large is the aperture? If it's a full frame, we can use the f5.6 quoted and we get a physical aperture size of 1248/5.6 = 222.9 mm. Of course this camera doesn't have an aperture anywhere near that size (that's almost 9 inches, as wide as a car tire). If you want to know it's aperture size, you can use the equivalent aperture. Equivalent aperture is aperture times crop, or 5.6x5.6 in this case. A diffraction happy f31. This is a "real" number though because now we know how big the physical aperture of this camera is. It's 1248/31, or 40mm.

9" tire width is fairly average these days. More than your typical economy car, less than a sports car or larger truck/suv.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 12:53 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)

Here's a "real" example of equivalent aperture and it's purpose for those who are having trouble. This camera calls itself 1248mm at the telephoto end, but how physically large is the aperture? If it's a full frame, we can use the f5.6 quoted and we get a physical aperture size of 1248/5.6 = 222.9 mm. Of course this camera doesn't have an aperture anywhere near that size (that's almost 9 inches, as wide as a car tire). If you want to know it's aperture size, you can use the equivalent aperture. Equivalent aperture is aperture times crop, or 5.6x5.6 in this case. A diffraction happy f31. This is a "real" number though because now we know how big the physical aperture of this camera is. It's 1248/31, or 40mm.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 12:46 UTC as 33rd comment | 4 replies
Total: 432, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »