audiobomber

audiobomber

Lives in Canada Sudbury, ON, Canada
Joined on Jan 27, 2008

Comments

Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Consumer SLR Camera Roundup (2014) article (41 comments in total)

As a Pentax shooter, it is hard not to be cynical about these roundups.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 04:40 UTC as 7th comment

The photographer should have explained perspective to the apes when he handed over the camera. The wide angle closeups make them look silly.

Wikipedia should not hide behind the law. They are not subject to any one country's laws, so they should be guided by ethics. The photographer owns the photos. It was his camera, he brought the photos to the world, he owns them.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 00:03 UTC as 225th comment | 2 replies
On Ricoh announces Pentax K-3 Prestige Edition article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: ". . . and an 'exclusive' battery strap."

That should read "camera strap," I think.

This is a great camera, and a new color is okay (other makers do the same), but this package is no different from the silver version that also came with a grip and a unique strap. If this were bundled with their 20-40mm Limited lens and their FLU card, it would better deserve a Prestige moniker. Nonetheless, this camera at the opening price point is a very good photographic tool.

> Pentax has long bundled weatherproof bodies with its 18-55 non-weatherproof lens.

That was a decision by Pentax Americas. In other countries the 18-55 WR was offered as the kit lens. I don't think this is a current issue now that there's a DA 18-55 WR, DA L 18-135 WR and DA 18-135 WR.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

Todd Ka: The music is annoying.

I had to mute, the music was horrible.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2014 at 11:41 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: So how did an old timer explain to the apprentice photographer to account for the DOF difference when he change the sensor size from 8x10 to 4x5?
Well, I don't know but I'm pretty sure he did not start out "see, there is this thing called equivalent F-stop..."

G'day

"Exposure equivalent" would imply to me that you use f2.8, whether you are using 110, 135 or MF (same aperture, same shutter speed, same ASA, same exposure). That is not true equivalence as described in the DPR article.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 03:45 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sven44: It's refreshing to see more and more people on this thread "getting it", and fewer and fewer coming out with rubbish like "f2=f2=f2".

One last time:

Bob shoots with a Panalympus (2x 'crop factor') with a 28mm lens at f/1.8, 1/60s at ISO 400

AND HIS PICTURES ARE DAMN NEAR IDENTICAL TO

John's 'full frame' 35mm camera with a 56mm lens shot at f/3.6, 1/60s at ISO 1600.

Same FOV. Same DOF. Same brightness of image. Same noise even - notice how Bob's shot was at ISO 400, but his sensor is smaller so intrinsically noisier - meanwhile John cranked up to ISO 1600 because he used a slower aperture.

The difference then? Bob's camera, and especially his wide angle lenses, are smaller. Hurrah for Bob! But sadly, his lens is slower (it's labelled 1.8 but shoots just like f/3.6), while John's lens really does open up to 1.8 to give him more blurred backgrounds and cleaner images at ISO 400. Hurrah for John!

Take your pick, then take lots of pics! :-)

> 35mm camera with a 56mm lens shot at f/3.6, 1/60s at ISO 800.

Actually that would be ISO 1600 for equivalence (two stops difference)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 18:51 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: So how did an old timer explain to the apprentice photographer to account for the DOF difference when he change the sensor size from 8x10 to 4x5?
Well, I don't know but I'm pretty sure he did not start out "see, there is this thing called equivalent F-stop..."

G'day

I don't care what the old-timer said about MF. That was then, this is now. There are many sensor sizes now, and many lens choices to be made.

I have seen many posts from people confused about fast lenses on compact and bridge cams, trying to understand what f2.8 really means, and how it will impact their photos. Equivalence explains most everything when comparing between formats.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 18:42 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: So, I gather, a BSI sensor has about a stop advantage in sensitivity of the FSI sensor; should we ask BSI cameras to list the "equivalent F-stop" relative to non BSI as well as relative to FF? :)

Speak for yourself. Equivalent focal length and equivalent aperture are useful concepts. People need to be able to figure out how an FZ1000 compares to APS-C with 55-300mm lens, and understand how it will affect their photography.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 16:49 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: So f2 = f2 =f2 after all, only if you want to keep quality or DOF constant between formats it isn't (and why would you want to do that). it took hours or pouring over the Joseph james article and the three Petapixel videos on the subject but I finally came back full circle.

The total light stuff was an interesting revelation to me, the discussion on this and the thought process always gets bogged down in the mix of, number of pixels, pixel pitch sensor size and viewing conditions, the concept of total light captured. nicely sidesteps that argument to explain the bulk effects we see regardless of pixel size and number of pixels (almost) and is nicely illustrated in the graphics in this article)

>If I asked you to set the aperture to "F/4 equivalent", what would you do?

On my APS-C sensored cameras, I would set the aperture to f2.8 (not exact, but close enough). On my Pentax Q, I would tell you that no lens allows f/4 equivalent.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 13:39 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: So f2 = f2 =f2 after all, only if you want to keep quality or DOF constant between formats it isn't (and why would you want to do that). it took hours or pouring over the Joseph james article and the three Petapixel videos on the subject but I finally came back full circle.

The total light stuff was an interesting revelation to me, the discussion on this and the thought process always gets bogged down in the mix of, number of pixels, pixel pitch sensor size and viewing conditions, the concept of total light captured. nicely sidesteps that argument to explain the bulk effects we see regardless of pixel size and number of pixels (almost) and is nicely illustrated in the graphics in this article)

@mostlyboringphotog
I explained aperture and equivalent aperture for you on the previous page. Did you not my posts?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care?comment=2060049507

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 11:41 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

goblover: From the pictures alone, you can see why it's called equivalent: with the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO, the picture produced by the 4 cameras are similar in terms of brightness and field of view.
What's different is the noise and background blur.

Thank you DPR for doing the comparison. I hope some thick heads like Tony Northrup and his followers read this.

Clearly you don't understand equivalence. Tony Northrup's videos and this DPR article are in agreement.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 11:36 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: By Ember42 (3 hours ago)

When you use an equivalent focal length, the equivalent ratio changes. Aperture = 25mm. Focal length(F) = 50mm. f = F/A = 2.0. Now put in a 2.0 crop sensors, Equivalent focal length(Fe) = 100mm. Equivalent ratio fe = Fe/A = 4.0. Using f and Fe at the same time is fraudulent. If you are going to sell me a 100mm equivalent f/2.0 lens, the Aperture better be 50mm.
__________________________________________
I hope I'm not breaking forum rules for bringing up a post below but the post above to me is why this "equivalency" is a cure worse than the ailment.
So how many equivalent FL and F-stop does each lens have?

If a 100mm f/4 lens is designed for a camera with a 1" sensor, all of the above still holds. The only difference is that it will have a small barrel and front element diameter. Mounted on a larger sensored camera, the edges of the frame will receive no light, so there will heavy vignetting. The lens will have an effective focal length of 270mm and an effective aperture of 270/25 = f10.8.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 14:20 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: By Ember42 (3 hours ago)

When you use an equivalent focal length, the equivalent ratio changes. Aperture = 25mm. Focal length(F) = 50mm. f = F/A = 2.0. Now put in a 2.0 crop sensors, Equivalent focal length(Fe) = 100mm. Equivalent ratio fe = Fe/A = 4.0. Using f and Fe at the same time is fraudulent. If you are going to sell me a 100mm equivalent f/2.0 lens, the Aperture better be 50mm.
__________________________________________
I hope I'm not breaking forum rules for bringing up a post below but the post above to me is why this "equivalency" is a cure worse than the ailment.
So how many equivalent FL and F-stop does each lens have?

A lens has one true focal length and aperture value. For example, a 100mm lens with an f/4 aperture has a focal length of 100mm. The iris diameter will be 100/4 = 25mm. The lens will be labelled as 100mm f/4.

When the lens is mounted on a camera, the effective focal length will change according to the sensor crop. The iris opening will not change. These are the FF equivalent equations:

effective focal length in mm / iris opening in mm = aperture

If the lens is mounted on a FF camera: 100mm/25mm = f4

If the same lens is mounted on an m4/3 camera: 200mm effective/25mm = f8 effective aperture

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 14:01 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: So from now on, I really hope we don't see this stupid piece of marketing BS ever again.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/07/22/the-nikon-1-system-nikkor-32-1-2-lens-review/

"Sure the Olympus 45 1.8 is $400 but it is not a 32 1.2. Sure the Sony 50 1.8 is cheaper but it is also not a 32 1.2 lens. The only other lens that comes close to this focal length is the Voigtlander 35 1.2 and that is a $1400 full frame Leica M mount lens"

Looks like Steve Huff needs to read this article.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 12:17 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: Fujifilm's cheapest mirrorless body compares favorably, in some respects, with Canon's most expensive full frame? That's not the point of a review about depth of field equivalence, just an unintended observation. The real lesson here is that there's no substitute for a full frame camera with a very quick lens for posed portraits. At least, that's what we were supposed to learn.

From the samples, I am very impressed by the X-A1, especially when I remember that you can buy 12 to 15 for the price of a single EOS-1D X.

I am appalled by the Nikon 1 V3, which produces results that are more typical of a consumer point-and-shoot, while the Panasonic GH4 fails to impress for the price, although both the brand and the model line are more video centric. There's nothing wrong with the M43 format, it's just that still photographers are better served by Olympus than Panasonic.

Overall, I am convinced that the Fujifilm X-A1 is an almost inevitable purchase for general use.

Don't be sucked in by Fuji's ISO manipulation and raw noise reduction. Check the DPR XE-2 review for examples:
" There's every reason to believe some noise reduction is being conducted as part of the Raw saving or demosaicing process."

"However the X-E2's need for unusually long exposures explains much of the difference we see between it and the Sony NEX-6; in fact it's probably better compared to the performance of its peers set 1EV lower (i.e. ISO 400 on the Fujifilm compared to ISO 200 on its rivals)."

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 02:14 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: I guess that means that the myth: "F/1.2 is f/2.4 for DOF only but not for shutter speed" is dead?

Unfortunately, no, but this article should help.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 02:05 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: Thanks DPR. This article is overdue. Unfortunately some seem to be still clinging to f1.2=1.2=1.2.

To better understand equivalence, ignore ISO. ISO numbers are manipulated by manufacturers and worse, ISO obfuscates the differences in sensor performance. Noise matters, not ISO. ISO is an artificial and flawed construct.

If we were seeing SNR instead of ISO displayed in the LCD panel, there would be no equivalence debate, and cameras could be compared on an equal footing.

@Richard Butler.
You misunderstood me. I am not accusing DPR of getting it wrong. You have it right. I mean all the people here who read articles like this and still dismiss aperture equivalence, or try to limit aperture equivalence to DOF.

I do wish that DPR would find a better way to do noise comparisons other than ISO though, because the manufacturers have caught on and are manipulating the numbers. Why not keep shutter speed and aperture the same when comparing noise between cameras?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 19:47 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)

Thanks DPR. This article is overdue. Unfortunately some seem to be still clinging to f1.2=1.2=1.2.

To better understand equivalence, ignore ISO. ISO numbers are manipulated by manufacturers and worse, ISO obfuscates the differences in sensor performance. Noise matters, not ISO. ISO is an artificial and flawed construct.

If we were seeing SNR instead of ISO displayed in the LCD panel, there would be no equivalence debate, and cameras could be compared on an equal footing.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 14:19 UTC as 344th comment | 5 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)

I would have liked to see a comparison with a lower or mid-level DSLR and 18-135 and/or 18-250mm lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 20:13 UTC as 104th comment
On Sony a6000 Review preview (729 comments in total)
In reply to:

thecameraeye: The lack of a twin dial is a little disappointing.

You can't beat DSLR-style front and rear dials. OTOH, the EM-10 has them on a body this size, and everything was so scrunched up that I couldn't tolerate using it. Plus the a6000 has a real grip and the Oly doesn't.

> "DSLRs in this price range have just one dial"

The Pentax K-500 and K-50 have front and rear control dials in this price range (and a 100% coverage pentaprism).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 15:34 UTC
Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »