Henrik Herranen

Lives in Finland Tampere, Finland
Works as a Digital Signal Processing Software Engineer, MSc
Joined on Oct 6, 2005
About me:

Plan: To baldly shoot what everyone has shot before.

Comments

Total: 192, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article The Canon that can: Canon EOS 80D Review (581 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zerixos: Its nice to see that they stept-up there game. I think it once-again adds something to there line up since the 50D (the 60D and 70D where more like a 50Ds and 50DII in my opinion) and make it a great allround camera. I'm just a little sad not to support 4K video. Anyone saying you don't need 4K is right, for now. But knowing you want it in the (near) future is gonna make this a quick aging camera.

1080p that keeps consistently in focus without hunting or breathing looks better than 4k that is out of focus or constantly jumping and pumping.

So yeah, it's not 4k, but it's consistently good 1080p.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

emfor: So consequently the 80D review on DPR will have to compare its DR with a seven years old Sony or Nikon :))

Richard,

joking aside, although I understand and appreciate your point, I think the point of the complainers is that you compared an excellent DSLR from 2009 with the best mirrorless has to offer today, in 2016 (Nikon 1 doesn't count because sensor size). Yes, the frame rates match, but to many the comparison feels unfair. It can feel a little like saying the new iPhone has developed greatly by comparing it to a 7-year old Nokia Symbian phone just because their cameras happened to have the same number of megapixels.

Yes, mirrorless has progressed. But not comparing state-of-the-art mirrorless to state-of-the-art DSLR makes it feel like you _want_ to give mirrorless an advantage - even though I am quite certain that wasn't your intention.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: ....and this image is a perfect example of why I sold all my DSLR gear and switched to mirrorless. Ridiculously big setup.

EthanP99:
The Voigtländer is also slow (f/5.6) and not a zoom. At least in the "DLSR fool" world it's a bit of a non-news that you can make a slow prime smaller than a faster zoom. In the troll world these things can of course be conveniently forgotten.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 06:53 UTC
In reply to:

billslatteryjr: What a useful tool. Thank you dpreview for being on top of this.

bmw:
That wouldn't be fair to other manufacturers. As Roger Cicala has pointed out in his blog articles, adapted lenses never work as well as native ones. The adapters are never perfect (two lens mounts have more tolerances than one), and the thickness of the glass in front of the sensor (which is different with different brands) have an effect on how lenses should be designed for optimum performance.

All in all, using a XYZ lens adapted to all other brand cameras would favour XYZ cameras.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

mais51: Most focus problems are lens + camera body related that is why camera has fine tune feature built-in so how adjusting a lens independent of the specific body would fix that problem at all. The USB solution could only fix whichever problem exits with the lens. Could someone more knowledgeable in this field please explain

mais51
You have not really understood how this works, have you?
:
The lens is NOT adjusted indepent of the body. You tune it for YOUR camera body, using the docking station, and after tuning it works as well as it can with YOUR camera body. True, it cannot be optimized to work optimally with multiple camera bodies, but for most users this is not a problem in the slightest.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 08:43 UTC
In reply to:

mick232: the old firmware must have been pretty bad then and did by far not exploit the hardware capabilities

So, in your opinion they should just have left it as it is and not continued developing the firmware?

Sheesh, you guys are unbelievable. Sigma offers new firmware that may have required thousands of man-hours to develop, tune and test, to get even more out of their very good zoom, and all you can do is bitch and moan.

You must be the guy I read about at notalwaysright.com. In the real world, when we get a free update to an already good product, we get happy, NOT angry. But you, you somehow feel entitled to pour crap over everyone and everything, just for the sake of it.

For your information: developing software that takes the last 10% out of a given piece of hardware is hard, really hard. It's not like the 10% worse-performing version was bad, but you need to be _really_ good to take the final step. That's always true, but particularly with low-level programming that is required for such an embedded and complex electro-mechanical product as a lens is.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 08:39 UTC
In reply to:

Doctor Manhattan: >allowing users to optimize [...] vibration compensation

So I have to become an expert on vibration compensation too, now, and buy and learn how to use a dock? What is wrong with a switch on the side to change VR modes whenever I want?

Call me old fashioned, but I preferred it when the manufacturer didn't make me pay extra to do their job for them.

So you think it was better before when, if your camera-lens combination would require calibration, you sent them to factory calibration?

You know, nothing has been taken off. If you don't want to calibrate and adjust, then don't. Situation is as it always was. But, for those who are willing to take that extra step, this is nice to have.

Bu I guess complaining just for the sake of it is more fun than thinking.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: Extremely limited range of compatible lenses. I wish they'd add some zooms since primes are much easier to adjust in-camera.

Of course the lens selection is small in the beginning. Expect that to change over the coming years.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 14:00 UTC
On article Newly enthused: hands on with the Canon EOS 80D (706 comments in total)
In reply to:

jpeghorror: Still no dedicated AF-assist lamp? Tell me I'm hallucinating.

Rishi:
A red beam would be ok, but an infrared beam would not help at all. At least not unless the camera was aware of the infrared focusing properties of every single lens that might be used with it and perform automatic compensation.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 10:32 UTC
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: This is easy:
If you thought a Bayer matrix did bad things to your quantum efficiency by throwing out over 50% of the light, how about leaving 95-99.9% of the light in your pinhole mask? While this system may have its applications, it surely isn't going to replace even the most humble camera phone module. This is a hard constraint no amount of signal processing or other cleverness can overcome.

Another thing is that as much as I appreciate the videos, and even though their nominal resolution were 512x512 pixels, they contain 100 pixels of real resolution at most in either direction, and even that is marred with noise.

All in all, very interesting, but at the moment this looks like a solution looking for its problem.

hjulenissen: yes, they claim they have more holes than some previous pinhole cameras. However, they make no claims against lens-based systems in that sentence.

In other words: a hundred small holes would be two orders of magnitude better than one small hole, but still several orders of magnitude worse than a bigger-holed lens-based system.

Actually, on the top of the same page 2 of the document you quoted you can see an image that shows how little information the sensor receives. No wonder the reconstruction in the last column is lacking.

Let me stress that I don't claim this system is useless. It may well have some industrial application in the future, and I have the deepest repect for people trying to invent new things. But one thing is sure: this thing isn't going to put the photography world on fire.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 14:56 UTC

This is easy:
If you thought a Bayer matrix did bad things to your quantum efficiency by throwing out over 50% of the light, how about leaving 95-99.9% of the light in your pinhole mask? While this system may have its applications, it surely isn't going to replace even the most humble camera phone module. This is a hard constraint no amount of signal processing or other cleverness can overcome.

Another thing is that as much as I appreciate the videos, and even though their nominal resolution were 512x512 pixels, they contain 100 pixels of real resolution at most in either direction, and even that is marred with noise.

All in all, very interesting, but at the moment this looks like a solution looking for its problem.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 07:45 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
On article Key features explained: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

RPJG: Does anyone know why the AF module only covers "only" a relatively small part of the frame? Would it be prohibitively expensive to implement a larger module? Presumably bird/sports/etc photographers would appreciate the ability to track objects outside that central part of the frame.

On a related note, if every pixel is split into two separate photodiodes, does anyone know why "only" 80% of the frame is available for focus using DP AF?

Rishi, yes, I think you made perfect sense.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 23:19 UTC
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (623 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: 4K video with an OVF ? I would much prefer a high resolution 2.3-4.4 mp EVF. but this looks like the best DSLR for video so far.

KAllen: how you would shoot 4K video with a "real image in the viewfinder" using this camera is beyond me. Can't be done.

kangoo1707: The OVF can give you black in video mode, and not much else.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 14:49 UTC
On article Key features explained: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

RPJG: Does anyone know why the AF module only covers "only" a relatively small part of the frame? Would it be prohibitively expensive to implement a larger module? Presumably bird/sports/etc photographers would appreciate the ability to track objects outside that central part of the frame.

On a related note, if every pixel is split into two separate photodiodes, does anyone know why "only" 80% of the frame is available for focus using DP AF?

Focusing using the corners may not be accurate because of lens aberrations, so they have probably disabled the remaining 20% on purpose.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 13:01 UTC

Hello DPReview gang,
it would perhaps be a good idea to mention right away in the first sentence or in the subject line that this is an interchangeable lens camera. I follow this site regularly, but there are so many similarly looking cameras that for me this being an ILC was far from clear until I read much further.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 07:05 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EOS 20D Review (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobFoster: The main thing I want from camera performance is to not notice it, and the Canon EOS 20D passed that test. It shot when I wanted to shoot, focused when I wanted something sharp, and let me look through images quickly when it was time for a break. With the 20D, I never had to waste time and miss shots waiting for the camera.

"let me look through images quickly when it was time for a break"

No, that's not the 20D. Scrolling through images was painfully slow like on the 300D/350D. This was corrected with Canon's next enthusiastic models, the legendary 5D, and the soon-to-follow 30D. Thay had larger screens and MUCH faster image playback (in the order of 3x-5x faster).

Why do I know it? "I was there, at the dawn of the third age of mankind..."

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 21:39 UTC

Wow.

Just wow.

Not for me, but still...
Respect!
Impressive!
Wow!

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 01:09 UTC as 76th comment | 1 reply

Good article.

Nevertheless, let me remind you as great as the Sony RX100 IV is, it is over 40% heavier and almost 40% larger by volume than Canon's G9 X. So, if you look for a really small camera with 1" sensor, you should at least consider the Canon.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2015 at 11:42 UTC as 61st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

brazzy: Oh, nice to see someone reminded that there's a country named China out there... ^^
This Casio has been very popular among second generation's rich Chinese girls. Given such a demand, no wonder that price got that high.
Congratulations to Casio for the marketing. If people could open more their eyes, there are plenty of chances like this.

While I'm totally against the selfie culture, I have nothing but the highest respect for Casio for finding this intriguing niche. This is marketing genius.

The goal for a limited company is not to be a benefactor for the humankind but to gain profit to the shareholders. Regardless of what I personally think of this product, Casio is clearly doing something very right.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 09:02 UTC
On article Inching forward? Canon PowerShot G5 X review posted (422 comments in total)
In reply to:

Catalin Stavaru: I actually think that the more interesting camera (outside this enthusiast forum) from the Canon 1" sensor offerings is the G9X. It has only 80% of the volume of the *original* Sony RX100, and 70% or less of the volume of the recent RX100 versions. There is no point in making a large, sophisticated camera with small sensor, unless reading these forums too much. A large camera is a waste without la large sensor.

Right on, Catalin!

I am inkling for a successor to my good old Canon S110 which some time ago replaced my S90. Bigger alternatives have little interest to me: if I can't fit it into my jacket pocket easily, I may just as well take my 5DII with me. After all, no P&S can touch what that camera can do with a 50/1.4 or 135/2.

However, an S110-sized option with a triple-size sensor, _that_ is interesting. I have considered both the S90 and S110 as fixed focal length cameras in low light and as zoom cameras in better light. This philosophy has worked well in the past, and applying it to the G9X is unlikely to disappoint. Plus, because of its size, the camera doesn't look imposing in the slightest.

Plus, to finish this rant: anyone complaining of the lens aperture at the long end and not taking into account the G9X's truly pocketable size: enjoy your bigger camera.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2015 at 22:07 UTC
Total: 192, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »