JosephScha

JosephScha

Lives in United States Suffern, NY, United States
Works as a Software engineer
Joined on Apr 26, 2004
About me:

Former Pentax K1000 user, then Canon A70, then Panasonic FZ7 (an amazingly flexible camera), now Panasonic G10.

Comments

Total: 127, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Food! challenge (6 comments in total)

Amazing. I clicked "Enter" just to see if it would enforce maximum of 0, and it did! It said "...already reached the maximum limit". No wonder there are no entries, no one can possibly enter!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 03:05 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1743 comments in total)
In reply to:

JosephScha: I remember when "GreatBustard" posted a very similar (but longer) treatise on what he meant by equivalence in the u4/3 forum. The point was to make images that COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED - that means, same depth of field, same shutter speed, which means different ISOs to make up for the different f stops - which leads to smaller f stops and higher ISO on the larger sensor camera - which SHOULD (if all else is equal) give approximately the same noise. To the extent that isn't true, it tells us something about the sensors and lenses in use (as demonstrated in the article). I got it, I understood and still understand to this day.
And I almost never need that information. I have a 25mm f/1.2 lens for my u4/3 camera and yes that's equivalent in these terms to 50mm f/2.4 on FF but it makes me very happy. It is more often worthwhile to think of equivalent light intensity = equivalent shutter speed and f stop.

And I have to say: it is great to read that web site again. Still the clearest explanation of what "equivalence" means the way this article uses it, and a good explanation of why we bother to use that definition - to compare different formats at settings that do not favor one over the other. Anyone who didn't get the article should read the web page posted by Great Bustard above.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 03:13 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1743 comments in total)
In reply to:

JosephScha: I remember when "GreatBustard" posted a very similar (but longer) treatise on what he meant by equivalence in the u4/3 forum. The point was to make images that COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED - that means, same depth of field, same shutter speed, which means different ISOs to make up for the different f stops - which leads to smaller f stops and higher ISO on the larger sensor camera - which SHOULD (if all else is equal) give approximately the same noise. To the extent that isn't true, it tells us something about the sensors and lenses in use (as demonstrated in the article). I got it, I understood and still understand to this day.
And I almost never need that information. I have a 25mm f/1.2 lens for my u4/3 camera and yes that's equivalent in these terms to 50mm f/2.4 on FF but it makes me very happy. It is more often worthwhile to think of equivalent light intensity = equivalent shutter speed and f stop.

To quote your own web site, it says multiple times "..then the resulting photos will not merely be Equivalent, but be identical."

I used the word "indistinguishable" in the same sense you used the word "identical". I do realize that relies on some extra assumptions that are unlikely to be completely true.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 03:05 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1743 comments in total)

I remember when "GreatBustard" posted a very similar (but longer) treatise on what he meant by equivalence in the u4/3 forum. The point was to make images that COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED - that means, same depth of field, same shutter speed, which means different ISOs to make up for the different f stops - which leads to smaller f stops and higher ISO on the larger sensor camera - which SHOULD (if all else is equal) give approximately the same noise. To the extent that isn't true, it tells us something about the sensors and lenses in use (as demonstrated in the article). I got it, I understood and still understand to this day.
And I almost never need that information. I have a 25mm f/1.2 lens for my u4/3 camera and yes that's equivalent in these terms to 50mm f/2.4 on FF but it makes me very happy. It is more often worthwhile to think of equivalent light intensity = equivalent shutter speed and f stop.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 02:13 UTC as 126th comment | 3 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1743 comments in total)
In reply to:

Babka08: Equivalence of total light is moot because sensor quality, pixel density, etc have much more to do with "clean" images these days. You can certainly generalize that a full-frame camera will have less noise. But my Sony a850 had as much noise at iso1600 as my Sony RX100 (well, not quite, but...).
Your explanations of depth of focus are helpful, and the more basic understanding of sensor crop. But other than that, you just confuse and cloud the issues.

There are differences between different manufacturer's sensors, of course. But if those are minimal yes, in fact, I expect a 16MP APS-C sensor to give close to identical results to a 36MP FF sensor .. especially if you let me use depth-of-field equivalent f stops!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 02:05 UTC
On Pen Stands. challenge (2 comments in total)
In reply to:

Buzz Lightyear: Do you mean pen "holders" (something you place a ball point pen into)? ... or something else?

Let's hope so, otherwise it will be interesting to see nearly everyone get disqualified!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2014 at 04:52 UTC
On Sony SLT-A77 II First Impressions Review preview (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

srados: I hate electronic viewfinder.When I look into, my eye focus on the grid on the screen...from what the screen was made off. #1 reason that keeps me away from Sony.

With 1.2M element (I know, only 300,000 RGBW pixels) I think it is possible that you would not be able to focus on the grid on the screen. Your objection may be from seeing less resolute viewfinders.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2014 at 03:29 UTC
On Memories challenge (1 comment in total)

Impressive entries

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 11:14 UTC as 1st comment
On Center of the flower in the 1:1 aspect ratio: Macro shots challenge (1 comment in total)

Lovely but not 1:1 (square)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 02:45 UTC as 1st comment

It is interesting to think of what the portrait of Nelson Mandela might have looked like if the photographer had not stood his ground but agreed to have him sit in and sink into the "goomba" chair. Something to remember...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2014 at 03:02 UTC as 1st comment
On bokeh in the Large Aperture challenge (1 comment in total)

It could be the background, but this is disturbing bokeh

Direct link | Posted on Mar 29, 2014 at 17:10 UTC as 1st comment

samfan: Every bayer pattern sensor has 2 Green senson, 1 red and 1 blue in a four cell square. The patented sensor appears to have one green sensor that is double sized compared to the 1 red and 1 blue sensor, just like Bayer. The only difference is the addition of a "clear" sensor that is the same size as the green sensor. So, this will give them a bunch of extra luminance info, useful in dim scenes, and perhaps the color may be a bit worse. But let me rephrase your question, and ask it about Bayer: "What kind of color can a sensor produce with such tiny red and blue pixels and 1/2 the sensor covered just by green pixels produce?" Apparently, good enough. Let's see what Fuji can do with the extra "clear" pixel info.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2014 at 19:00 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On AP cuts ties with Pulitzer-winning photographer article (170 comments in total)

I think the AP's rule is just possibly excessively strict but completely reasonable. They want the original image, and THEY will decide what (if anything) to do to it. If the photographer felt the other video camera totally messed up the image, he should have cropped off the bottom, that's allowed. But that would probably also have ruined the image. Can't crop off the left to remove the video camera, it would remove part of the subject's head. I suspect that the photographer had these exact thoughts and thought "This picture is too good, too true, to have it messed up by that stupid video camera". While I am sympathetic, it is the AP that insists on seeing the original pixels. So, deciding to REMOVE the video camera broke their rules. That's that. The edited version should not have been submitted to the AP.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2014 at 18:36 UTC as 38th comment
On Cathedral Rock Sedona in the Natural Rock Formations challenge (1 comment in total)

I'd like to thank the 1 person who gave this 5 stars, even though I'm not sure that was deserved!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2013 at 04:03 UTC as 1st comment
On Manfrotto 190 Series Carbon Fiber Tripod Review article (72 comments in total)

I have an older - not carbon - 190X PRO B. It weighs more than the camera I mount on it. But it is a fantastic, flexible tripod. And: the plastic latch mechanism has adjustable tension and it comes adjusted, you don't have to push or pull hard enough to trouble the plastic. Nothing on this tripod has broken or disappointed me in any way in the several years since I bought it.
The ability to move the center pole to horizontal position, and point the camera straight down or close to it, has been a feature I didn't know I needed until I had it. It's come in handy on several occasions!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2013 at 20:17 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply

Aperture: ... Lowest value 16
Should that be "1.6" instead of "16"? If not, I'm confused. But then I'm confused by T1.6 instead of f/1.6

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2013 at 20:12 UTC as 9th comment | 6 replies
On Sunset in the beach VII challenge (1 comment in total)

It is hard for me to believe the number of heavily HDR'd looking unrealistic scenes that placed in the top 10. Is that what gets votes? No wonder I don't place high, I don't think I will change my style either.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2013 at 00:58 UTC as 1st comment
On P1010942_edited-1 in the Grand Canyon challenge (1 comment in total)

Even though it placed 47 out of 67, I'm still pleased because almost all the pictures in this contest were really good. I like #48 better than I like my own picture. The histogram above shows a large clump of votes in the 2 to 3.5 star range. But there is one 0.5 star vote. Really? Someone thinks this picture does not fit the challenge? Hard to believe.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2013 at 04:36 UTC as 1st comment

To Ken Johnes: re "and John Alli ,stop being a silly copycat , trying to sell photos of someone else´s artwork?you thought no one will notice? eh? ;-)"

In the 2010 ruling (at the link above) it says that Alli sought out a copyright holder and was informed by the architect of the memorial that they were the copyright holder. They lied. Alli paid them 10% of his profit from the image. Gaylord sued Alli, which made him aware of the true copyright holder ... but the decision does not follow up on what happened in that story. Point it, he didn't thing no one would notice, he did his best to follow the law.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2013 at 12:52 UTC as 87th comment | 1 reply
On Roodborstje aan het ontbijt in the Good taste of Bread ... challenge (1 comment in total)

Not entirely kidding: I think this shot deserves extra consideration for being shot with a Konica Minolta digital camera. That is nostalgic, I haven't seen that name in quite a while. Think about what that means in terms of proving that it's not a new, high MP, 11 stop dynamic range sensor that ensures a good photograph, rather it's the photographer's eye and skill.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2013 at 02:41 UTC as 1st comment
Total: 127, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »