wetsleet

wetsleet

Joined on May 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 512, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (683 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: Another spectacular product from Nikon that is incapable of replacing my D300, nor my K-5 II, which I ended up purchasing.
Is Nikon suggesting that I should eventually replace my K-5 II with K-3?
That's fine by me, but I don't know how Nikon can profit from it.

fair enough

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 07:14 UTC
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (683 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aur: I'll never undererstand the argument some ppl use about weather sealing. Afaik, none of the DX lenses have weather sealing, only FX lenses have it. Are people really putting $2000 lenses on a crop sensor?

If you want weather sealing, you should be looking at Pentax, they have $200-$1000 lenses with weather sealing. Nikon only has weather sealing in their most expensive lenses, and even on those, Nikon seems very reluctant to tell users how much they can withstand, the info is really hard to find. Pentax has no problem telling it's users which lenses are fully weather proof and they even show it off in promotional videos.

Ppl take these cameras on safaris and then complain about dust on their pictures with Nikons, yes..because none of the DX lenses are weather sealed, so your body being weather sealed is completely irrelevant.

I'd love to know where you get info *from Nikon* about weather sealing on lenses. I've looked, they just don't mention it. Maybe I missed it?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 22:59 UTC
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (683 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: Another spectacular product from Nikon that is incapable of replacing my D300, nor my K-5 II, which I ended up purchasing.
Is Nikon suggesting that I should eventually replace my K-5 II with K-3?
That's fine by me, but I don't know how Nikon can profit from it.

"you probably favor the Pentax or you need the extra reach a crop camera gives you."
Um, that "extra reach" through cropping is equally available on FF bodies. In fact, I'm not sure why all the D400 die-hards don't just get a D750 [pro build quality, layout, features, image (no, that can't be it?)] and stick their stable of DX lenses on it.
After all, the D750 weighs less than the D300, and is near enough the identical size. What's to gripe about?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

tonywong: Not ripping into Mr. Burrard-Lucas but I guess everyone will want their share of the drone photos before it gets commonplace and/or regulated. Since he spent a year in the area he likely exercised due diligence and caution regarding the welfare of his subjects but other photographers may not.

I am conflicted about the use of drone photography in wildlife photos. In the crush to get the closest and newest photos and perspectives that no one else has gotten yet, will the animals now be surrounded by a cloud of flying drones and wheeled remote buggies during an animal encounter?

It is bad enough to see multiple rows of jeeps surrounding a lion hunt in eastern Africa, but now everyone will have to contend with photoshopping out the remote cameras popping in and out of their photos.

I think that there may have to be a policy once these devices become commonplace and common courtesy is forgotten, and the animals will be constantly harassed by these devices.

"It is bad enough to see multiple rows of jeeps surrounding a lion hunt in eastern Africa"

It's not pretty, but it keeps the lions alive.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

otto k: Regarding multiple shots without tripod: apparently samsung is able to read full 28MP sensor in NX1 240 times a second. It might be DR limited, we don't know yet, but if sensors are able to complete full scan in 1/1000s in few years time it would make multishot usable without tripod. For 8 exposures one would need to hold still for 1/125s which is quite manageable even on tele lens with OIS already. It could also bring CMOS sensors closer to dropping mechanical shutter altogether.

otto, I was asking is it possible smultaneously to engage OIS and 40MP mode? The sensor shift would have to add together the movements required for both functions. So at the same time as executing its 8-point circuit to achieve the 40MP image, the sensor would need to overlay the compensatory movements required for OIS. It might be possible but it is far from self-evident, and the issue is not addressed in the article.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 21:53 UTC
In reply to:

otto k: Regarding multiple shots without tripod: apparently samsung is able to read full 28MP sensor in NX1 240 times a second. It might be DR limited, we don't know yet, but if sensors are able to complete full scan in 1/1000s in few years time it would make multishot usable without tripod. For 8 exposures one would need to hold still for 1/125s which is quite manageable even on tele lens with OIS already. It could also bring CMOS sensors closer to dropping mechanical shutter altogether.

Will it be possible to combine in-body OIS and simultaneously execute this sensor shift pixel multiplier?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 20:54 UTC
On Nikon announces Coolpix AW130 and S33 rugged compacts article (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cane: Are companies just going to keep churning out the same small sensor in this genre? Either you suffer marginal image quality or you buy an big and expensive case for a good camera. The in between is a vast wasteland.

They did, they called it the Nikon 1 AW1

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 14:24 UTC
On Nikon announces Coolpix AW130 and S33 rugged compacts article (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cane: Are companies just going to keep churning out the same small sensor in this genre? Either you suffer marginal image quality or you buy an big and expensive case for a good camera. The in between is a vast wasteland.

Since the zoom lens has to be constrained within the camera housing, I guess that imposes limits on the size of lens, hence on the size of sensor.
Maybe a bigger lens housing protrusion would be acceptable?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 07:54 UTC
In reply to:

sybersitizen: This new version appears to do its intended work very well, but...

Why does the program, like so many new Windows programs, have to LOOK like a Tinkertoy app running on a Windows phone? There's not a hint of the visual richness and dimensionality that Windows 7 on a REAL COMPUTER so easily provides. All we get is a dreary, gray, flat rectangle. Who declared total lack of esthetics (AKA the Win 8 experience) to be a good thing? Even the Start Menu icon is dull.

Why am I not presented with a drag-and-drop interface until AFTER I load up at least one file from the Windows Explorer interface? What's the point of that?

Why do we have to look at advertisements and panos made by other people every time the program is started?

These things might seem trivial on one level, but they truly diminish the value of what ought to be a visual showcase and something that's fun to use. Despite the functional enhancements, I'm actually considering going back to version 1.4.4.

+1 on the flat thing. I will never understand why flat and featureless Metro/Material design is now preferred over a richer 3D UI. So little for the eye to hang on to. Usually compounded by light grey 10-point text on an eye-watering expanse of shimmering white background (except DPR :) )

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 07:46 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2302 comments in total)
In reply to:

viking79: Looks like they are going for possible 645D and other medium format audience.

Nice cameras, sensor/processor upgrade to 5DIII? Too bad about the price, a 50 MP sensor doesn't really cost any more to make than a 20 MP sensor. I suppose they can justify it being the highest resolution, but I never thought MP alone should up the price of a product.

Sony did this with the A7R and A7S as well, ask dramatically more for the same camera because of different sensor. They did a good job of modeling Canon's business plan :)

since when did cost of production affect sale price? Only in the UK's Ministry of Defence procurement. But not in a free market.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 22:07 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2302 comments in total)
In reply to:

tabloid: Pity its not mirrorless.

yeah - they could remove the viewfinder too...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 22:05 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1882 comments in total)
In reply to:

theprehistorian: @Rishi - did you check to see if the flare banding was any different after fine tuning the AF? Presumably the adjustment had the effect of lowering the AF module...

"Presumably the adjustment had the effect of lowering the AF module.."
I would assume the AF fine-tune adjustment is a programmable offset in the focussing algorithms, not a physical offset of the AF module.
Edit - I see Rishi types faster than me!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 09:48 UTC
In reply to:

ealvarez: I just tried multiple number of entries of serial numbers and found

equal or greater than 8802634 are not affected

equal or greater than 3026254 are unaffected

I found Serial number beginning with 8XXXXXX are for cameras that being sold in asia and 3XXXXXX for USA and maybe Europe. I'm just guessing but

Try for yourself

is there supposed to be an "equal to or less than" in there somewhere?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 17:47 UTC
On Real-world samples: Sony Alpha 7 II in Kauai article (227 comments in total)
In reply to:

neo_nights: Let's face it: sensor technology has got to a point where you simply CAN'T decide between cameras based on image quality alone. Unless you pixel peep (which is expected from a gear forum, I know), a picture *well taken* with a Canon 1000D and a Sony A7 is negligible for most people's eyes.

So, while those galleries (by 'galleries' I mean: from all the recent cameras that have been posted on DPR) are nice to give SOME idea about a camera, it can't be the decisive factor.

Too true. The first thing I look for is the size of the viewfinder. Then comes handling and ease/accuracy of focus.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

Sammy Yousef: "Better" or "just as good" depend entirely on what you're shooting. Under the right conditions and in the right presentation media the phone will do nicely next to a much more expensive DSLR. If you're buying a DSLR purely to take medium wide angle photos in bright even light only to post them on social media then you may well be wasting your time.

This accessibility is fantastic. It allows people to play with framing and composition without an additional financial outlay. It means where 10 years ago you'd normally be caught out because you didn't have your camera with you, you MIGHT just have something suitable sitting in your pocket to capture that shot.

If that moment you're capturing involves long zoom action sports, wildlife, astrophotography, architecture, extreme low light etc. your phone won't cut it and your current DSLR might not be enough. You might be able to capture something complimentary that would suit your phone. (Crowd watching sports for example).

""Better" or "just as good" depend entirely on what you're shooting."
Agreed. Often, in close quarter social situations, whereas taking pictures on a mobile is just part of the scene and unremarkable for that, brandishing a DSLR marks you out as "a photographer" (or even "the" photographer), and changes the scene you are trying to capture.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 08:13 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1414 comments in total)
In reply to:

wetsleet: I'd like to know, comapring say FF with MFT and APSC, what differences in size and weight would result if all the photographic parameters were kept as near identical as possible.

The oft-overlooked parameter for me would be equivalent aperture - i.e. each format would need a lens offering equivalent DOF (as well as angle of view, zoom range, etc), hence the smaller formats would need faster lenses.

I suspect that the apparent size/weight advantage of the smaller formats would be considerably reduced in this case .

Of course in this scenario, smaller formats having faster lenses, would give them other IQ advantages and disadvantages.

And what about the cost of such lenses - would they end up just as expensive as FF lenses?

In short, is the trade-off between the different formats really a trade of DOF control versus size-weight-cost?

At the same ISO you are correct. I am not talking about at the same ISO. I am talking about at the same DOF.
So, around we go again, IF you are interested in understanding the impact of different formats when taking essentially the equivalent photograph...(equivalent DOF, shutter speed, AOV, subject distance, etc)... oh, I give up, you are going to bang on about taking pictures at the same ISO, which may be a great discussion, but a different one, hence futile to try to reconcile.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 17:29 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1414 comments in total)
In reply to:

wetsleet: I'd like to know, comapring say FF with MFT and APSC, what differences in size and weight would result if all the photographic parameters were kept as near identical as possible.

The oft-overlooked parameter for me would be equivalent aperture - i.e. each format would need a lens offering equivalent DOF (as well as angle of view, zoom range, etc), hence the smaller formats would need faster lenses.

I suspect that the apparent size/weight advantage of the smaller formats would be considerably reduced in this case .

Of course in this scenario, smaller formats having faster lenses, would give them other IQ advantages and disadvantages.

And what about the cost of such lenses - would they end up just as expensive as FF lenses?

In short, is the trade-off between the different formats really a trade of DOF control versus size-weight-cost?

The question I have been considering is, if you alter the size of the sensor, and keep all the other photographic variables equivalent (equivalent focal length and aperture, same shutter speed) so as to take essentially the same picture on each camera, what gives? The answer is, ISO gives.

If you are shooting at a wider aperture on the smaller format (which is the case I am considering in order to achive the same DOF...), for the same shutter speed, for the same exposure, you *will* be using a lower ISO. I am not considering any other constraints. Obviously if you do put other constraints in, such as assuming both cameras are limited to the same base ISO, then you are considering a different question.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 21:30 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1414 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anastigmat: Lenses. Part of the often repeated "advantage" of an APS-C camera is the longer "reach" of the crop sensor. It means you can use a 400mm lens and get the equivalent of a 600mm. but when APS-C fantatics buy odd focal length lenses like a 35mm macro to mimic the working distance (or lack thereof) of a 50mm macro on a FF, or when they buy a 50-135mm zoom to mimic a 75-200mm zoom on a FF, then they instantly threw that advantage away. To add insult to injury these APS-C lenses are way more expensive than their FF equivalents. In fact, a person can buy a FF, a 50mm macro, and a 70-200mm zoom and he would have spent less money than someone who bought an APS-C camera, a 35mm macro and a 50-135mm zoom.

Not only does the APS-C buyer not have an advantage in reach unless he uses FF telephotos, he also have a disadvantage at the wide angle end. In sum, it is another myth that the APS-C sensor has an advantage over the FF sensor for the consumer but the myth lives on.

Thanks HFLM, I think you have answered the questions I was asking - what happens to the size/weight advantage of APSC under conditions of photographic equivalence (i.e. equivalent angle of view and DOF etc). I have long suspected that the advantage is down to sacrificing DOF, which you can just as easily achieve on a FF camera by buying slower lenses (eg Nikon do 70-200mm as both f2.8 and f4 versions).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 14:13 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1414 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: Full-frame sensors are not good for macro and wild life, because of restricted DOF and reach. Their main advantage is portraiture, because of small DOF and better high ISO performance. Furtheremore if you use full-frame for macro you have to increase f upto 16-20 instead of 10-16 in crop sensor cameras. Smaller apertures mean higher diffraction and softness in high f values. I dont advise full frame cameras for macro and birding. It is good only for wedding photography. In near future multi-layer sensors like human retina will be available and ISO performance will not differ between full-frame and crop sensor cameras. I wont move to full-frame because I mainly shoot macro, and portraits with Nikon D300 and D3200 are perfect with good light.

Every FF sensor contains an APSC area witihin, of course, so you can always crop the images yourself on a FF camera, you don't have to use an APSC camera just to get those DOF effects. On a D800 that still gives you a 15Mp image. That used to be considered enough.

As regards using FF for macro and needing to increase the f-stop, I think that it is the physical size of the entry pupil which affects diffraction. At equivalent DOF and equivalent focal length you will have changed the f-stop in the same ratio as the actual focal lengths, which leaves the size of the entry pupil unchanged.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 10:26 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1414 comments in total)
In reply to:

wetsleet: I'd like to know, comapring say FF with MFT and APSC, what differences in size and weight would result if all the photographic parameters were kept as near identical as possible.

The oft-overlooked parameter for me would be equivalent aperture - i.e. each format would need a lens offering equivalent DOF (as well as angle of view, zoom range, etc), hence the smaller formats would need faster lenses.

I suspect that the apparent size/weight advantage of the smaller formats would be considerably reduced in this case .

Of course in this scenario, smaller formats having faster lenses, would give them other IQ advantages and disadvantages.

And what about the cost of such lenses - would they end up just as expensive as FF lenses?

In short, is the trade-off between the different formats really a trade of DOF control versus size-weight-cost?

@PerL
Obviously I have failed to communicate effectively. My argument is this:
1) A FF camera with say 105mm f2.8, portrait distance. Get the same subject distance, angle of view and DOF on a smaller format.
2) 1 above necessitates a LARGER aperture on the smaller format (if only they would make such lenses, which they don't)
3) 2 above mandates a LOWER ISO on the smaller format than on the larger
4) 3 above IMPROVES the IQ on the smaller format

Finally, my questions - How big/heavy would such a set up be? Would there be much left of the smaller format's size/weight advantage? Would there be much left of the larger formats IQ advantage?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 09:54 UTC
Total: 512, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »