HowaboutRAW

HowaboutRAW

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 10275, showing: 1521 – 1540
« First‹ Previous7576777879Next ›Last »
In reply to:

AKH: Sounds like marketing fluff to me. The last 3 iterations of the OMD has about the same sensor IQ and now they try to stuff the cameras with all kinds of gimmicks.

And T3 I agree, but AF was pretty bad for some years.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 03:28 UTC
In reply to:

PinPoint: Olympus is now officially Soccer Mom camera

Not.

It's pretty hard to shoot a soccer match with this moving sensor.

Maybe the S1, but it's more expensive than a basic DSLR kit from Nikon, Canon or Pentax, as are the Panasonic FZ1000 and the Sony RX10.

And soccer moms not photographing matches will get something much cheaper.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 03:15 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.
So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.

Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.

Rich,

The EM1 uses a Panasonic sensor I believe, though yes there are plenty of Sony sensors in wide use.

However Sony does NOT build the Pentax in body sensor stabilizer.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: "Sensor manufacturers have concentrated mostly on providing high ISO settings that are not often used, he said, and had neglected low settings in their favor, but Olympus hopes this will change very soon."

As QEs go up, it gets harder to have a big enough place to dump all that charge. The problem as I see it is sensors trying to use the same integration time for all pixels. For example, why not have a bright pixel sampled multiple times, and then averaged (digitally), during an exposure long enough to get detail in the dark pixels? I've been doing a better variant of this in my research: http://aggregate.org/DIT/ei20140205.pdf

Prof:

My guess is that DXO Prime looks at say 30 pixels and looks for one or two that stand out, isolates those and then averages them with the rest of the 30 or so, then moves on to another overlapping 30 pixels and repeats until the whole image has been averaged in small parts.

If that's what you're calling a "noise model" okay, but to me it's just discrete averaging applied very carefully to the entire raw.

There results' look backs up my guess.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 02:59 UTC
In reply to:

Kwick1: I'm loving the innovation, but the one thing that keeps me from going back to the Olympus (and M43 system) is the high ISO performance. As long as I have a usable ISO 12,800, I'm good.

ThePhilips:

The Nikon D3S is usable at ISO 12,800.

That came out in late 2009, more than 4 years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 02:53 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: "Sensor manufacturers have concentrated mostly on providing high ISO settings that are not often used, he said".

'high ISO settings that are not often used"? What a BS!

People do not use High ISOs b/c they are NOT useable!

If a 1/7" sensor has the same high ISO performance as current FF sensor, I'll buy Pentax Q system camera for traveling light.

If higher ISO is useable, he can use 1/16,000 shutter mode to make his 40MP thing workable.

No?

Right, except the Pentax Q system doesn't have several fast lenses.

So yes, an Olympus EMX with the high ISO performance of the Nikon Df would be huge draw, and the higher ISOs would allow for more/faster trickery with the moving sensor mega pixel multiplication method.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

Kwick1: I'm loving the innovation, but the one thing that keeps me from going back to the Olympus (and M43 system) is the high ISO performance. As long as I have a usable ISO 12,800, I'm good.

Perhaps in 3 years, with say an EM3, say using a BSI Panasonic sensor.

The current EM1 can be shot at ISO 6400, raw, and with a very good lens.

So maybe even later this year with an EM2.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 00:14 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: So... Don't buy the MKII cause something better is coming soon...
I see...

So, that's been true of digital cameras for a while.

And still a 2006 DSLR is an excellent still camera at ISO 800 and below.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 22:46 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: "Sensor manufacturers have concentrated mostly on providing high ISO settings that are not often used, he said, and had neglected low settings in their favor, but Olympus hopes this will change very soon."

As QEs go up, it gets harder to have a big enough place to dump all that charge. The problem as I see it is sensors trying to use the same integration time for all pixels. For example, why not have a bright pixel sampled multiple times, and then averaged (digitally), during an exposure long enough to get detail in the dark pixels? I've been doing a better variant of this in my research: http://aggregate.org/DIT/ei20140205.pdf

Prof:

I think then we are talking about different averaging proceeses.

NoiseNinja also does something similar to DXO-9/10 Prime, and NoiseNinja also takes forever to extract raws and clean up noise.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 22:20 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: Sensor manufacturers have concentrated mostly on providing high ISO settings that are not often used, he said, and had neglected low settings in their favor, but Olympus hopes this will change very soon.

Exactly. Do we really need 156,000 ISO.

Bhima78:

That's way beyond ISO 6400, proving that those who make claims about high ISO digital shooting oft don't know the subject real well.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: "Sensor manufacturers have concentrated mostly on providing high ISO settings that are not often used, he said, and had neglected low settings in their favor, but Olympus hopes this will change very soon."

As QEs go up, it gets harder to have a big enough place to dump all that charge. The problem as I see it is sensors trying to use the same integration time for all pixels. For example, why not have a bright pixel sampled multiple times, and then averaged (digitally), during an exposure long enough to get detail in the dark pixels? I've been doing a better variant of this in my research: http://aggregate.org/DIT/ei20140205.pdf

Okay, but doesn't that processing--the averaging--take time.

Clearly DXO-9 started using averaging for the Prime raw extraction. It helps but takes on the order of 2 minutes a file for say a 16MP sensor--and that's with a fast computer.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: Sensor manufacturers have concentrated mostly on providing high ISO settings that are not often used, he said, and had neglected low settings in their favor, but Olympus hopes this will change very soon.

Exactly. Do we really need 156,000 ISO.

"need" no, appreciate yes.

A noise free, shooting raw, at ISO 25000 4/3s sensor is sort of needed if Olympus wants to interest serious Nikon users. (And that means that 100,000 would be usable.)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 21:02 UTC
On Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 Review preview (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

2eyesee: How does a camera with a "poor lens" still get 70%? 80% can be enough to earn a camera a Gold award.

Seriously Samsung, why bother? Putting Android on a crap camera still leaves you with a crap camera.

I'm not sure why the reviewer even compares it to smartphone cameras, as it's not a phone.

Bet it can run VoIP software. That makes it a phone--a mobile phone usable in WiFi zones.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

User0802126383: I'va had Nikon cameras for over 40 years. I choose Canon as my preferred small camera for years upgrading regurlarly with the mew generations as they came. The last one I bought was the s95 and I have to say it was a let down: to slow, to slippery, no viewfinder. I always follow what's coming, have watched and been tempted by the models offered by Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Fuji, after all having used and owned 12+ small digital cameras i know what I'm looking for. I almost bought the FUJI X, the Panasonic GM. Well I just got a SONY a6000 (as a smaller body vs. DSLR) and am just thrilled. As a long time slr user I won't buy a camera without a viewfinder. Too bad for Canon and Nikon I was tired of waiting.

T3,

There are individual decent lenses in that APSC system.

But not many.

So unlike Fuji and Samsung, and the m4/3s systems.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 14:27 UTC
On Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 Review preview (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

smokinman88: I hope Samsung gets more serious about turning an Android device into decent take with you everywhere camera/phone like the Panasonic CM1. These 1/2.3 inch sensors are a joke.

smokinman88:

Well have you used the CM1?

Samsung does have a not tiny APSC camera body running Android already--shoots raw, takes interchangeable NX series lenses. APSC is a bigger sensor than that in the Panasonic.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 23:02 UTC
In reply to:

Charlie boots: If there are black dots in the tripod sockets then obviously Nikon knew about this before it was noticed by customers but they kept quiet until they had to do something. They should have been upfront and issued a notice and recall as soon as this was discovered. Once again Nikon does not inspire confidence in its new products. The result will be that people will hold off buying new products until the bugs have been ironed out.

Too many mistakes made in the past few years with high end expensive cameras without Nikon quickly taking responsibility.

Dave1:

Canon DSLRs have this problem too. Did you not get that point in the article?

Are you proposing Pentax instead?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 19:40 UTC

Markintosh,

I guess I'd not realized that Canon had worked out the AF issues.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 04:24 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

dwill23: MISSED THE MARK ON THIS STORY

This author is not in the board rooms, does not know the strategy behind Canon's decision to not come out with the same lenses it already has in a smaller version to mount on the EOSM. Sure, the mount did take some of the portability away, but it allowed me to save $5000 by using what I already had.

He states the adapter is hard to find? Two are available on BH $60, & $100. Both in stock. Use the internet before you write these 'stories'.

I agree with so many other people that Canon knows the US market can afford both a large SLR and small mirrorless, so why make a mirrorless as good as an SLR? Thus no EOS M in US.

Yes, it sucks, but it makes perfect sense. This article was a waste of time to read.

The failure of the EOS M (v1) was due to THIS SITE killing it before it hit shelves with stories like this. The AF was shockingly slow, but would almost always focus perfectly accurately.

Give it a chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, the 22mm is awesome.

Markintosh,

I guess I'd not realized that Canon had worked out the AF issues.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 04:14 UTC
In reply to:

Anastigmat: The USA has a different culture than the Japanese. Japan is a small crowded country. Its roads are narrow, and the cars have to be small. The USA is a big country, and people prefer to buy big cars, big SUVs and big trucks over smaller vehicles. The same mentality also exists when it comes to cameras. Most enthusiasts and pros prefer the large bodies of a EOS 1 series or equally large Nikon F-F6 and D1-D4 bodies. They tend to avoid compact cameras like the Nikon FG and EM, not just because they are entry level but also because they are viewed as too fragile. That difference has also affected mirrorless camera sales. In Japan, the mirrorless cameras are a hot seller because people appreciate compact things that take up less space in their tiny apartments. In the USA, the tiny size of the mirrorles is actually a marketing disadvantage. That may be why Canon is not bringing the M3 to the USA. It simply won't sell as well here as in Japan.

Olymore:

Interesting, I'd not realized it was more than 20 years ago that fraud.

Sony would be advised to learn some camera lens engineering skills from Olympus. (No, not an original point.)

I'd sure consider buying the EM1 MarkII if it's a significantly better high ISO still camera.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 23:33 UTC
In reply to:

Markintosh: The author probably never had and used EOS-M:) This is the main mistake to look on this small camera as on closed-circle eco-system. This is not Oly, Panasonic, Sony or Fuji — companies who dedicate their entire production to mirrorless cameras and lenses. Stop looking on four native M lenses — with adapter you have access to a tons of fantastic Canon glass and third party lenses. If you need small speedy camera — you have SL1 with real viewfinder and all advantages of DSLR in very compact package. EOS-M is great little camera with amazing IQ and ability ti use same lenses as my 5D. M3 is fantastic improvement of original M, and it's a shame it will not be available in retailers in NA. But there is always online shopping:)))

Also, very nice to see so many comments on such a "bad" product, and so much attention from other brands advocates.

N,

Right, I agree that the second link is confirmation of the point.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 22:18 UTC
Total: 10275, showing: 1521 – 1540
« First‹ Previous7576777879Next ›Last »