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: 222, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1172 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marksphoto: that's a thin body, I had to wonder... This isn't a true medium format camera, make no mistake, my 5dmk2 will make the same image quality and I don't know whose images will look better at a pixel peeping level...

True medium format is 60mm x 45mm, I think Hassy should be 60mm x 60mm so they keep true to their marketing values. So what do we have instead.... a 44x33mm sensor; how does that compare in size to 36x24mm that most of us already have?

So I made a sensor comparison chart here: https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipNF1V4qJeB95tYIwYlkryp6nNMFXT2BU9isJgCq

Judging that this sensor is not that much bigger than the 35mm full frame sensor we could really get away with the same or better results by just adding any sigma art lens with a fast apperture of 1.4 and call it a day!

Only one slight problem, mate...

"Sign in with your Google Account"

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

nimrod1212: "while they only draw 100 watts they deliver dimmable output of more than 400 watts" You can't get more energy out than you put in. I can only assume this is meant to be interpreted as "...more than 400 watts of tungsten-equivalent luminance.", which is somewhat vague in any case, depending on the particular incandescent bulb. I agree with TwoMetreBill. Not all manufacturers quote output in lumens, but they really should abide by such a universal standard as these newer technologies develop.

Amen to that.

Using language like that is misleading in the least. After all, efficiency of tungsten lamps vary greatly: a 5 watt lamp efficiency is typically 5 lumens/watt (25 lumens total) while a 100 watt lamp can be upto 18 lumens/watt (1800 lumens total). So, even a tungsten lamp can have close to four times the efficiency of another tungsten lamp!

I suspect they're using using weasel speak instead of facts because the light power of their lamps (as measured in lumens) isn't very good. If it was, they'd be giving us the number.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 05:08 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 Pixel Shift Resolution: Updated Field Test (209 comments in total)
In reply to:

VisualFX: Pixel shift is just a mid-technology kludge, until higher resolutions image sensors become more affordable and mainstream. I would never rely on it, even for supposedly "static" scenes, since there is always some amount of movement in landscape scenes. What is needed is more dense sensors.

Left eye: I'm afraid I have to disagree about the inevitability of Bayer sensor moire artifacts.

When we, in time, have sensors that have such an amount of pixels that images always are diffraction limited, moire will be a thing from the past. For Full Frame, the limit seems to be around 100 megapixels, and today we are already at half of that. Give it a few more years, and moire will be a thing of the past with Bayer sensors.

Don't get me wrong. Now is now, and I fully agree that Pixel Shift is a wonderful technology that I wish was at my disposal today (I shoot an almost 10 years old Canon FF camera). Still, we all know that Pixel Shift is feasible only with static scenes. When, in a few years, 100 MP or so FF sensor are available, that will solve the problem once and for all. Meanwhile, and potentially for a good number of years to come, Pentax will give its users the best APS-C quality possible, beating most if not all FF cameras when the scenery remains static enough!

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2016 at 16:26 UTC
In reply to:

dansclic: Who cares about this ? People paying more than 6000 dollars are not buying sigma lenses I guess ? I wouldn't anyway. Professional photographers do not want to create problems for themselves, So better stick to genuine lenses that will never cause any problem.

... or a Canon 50mm lens that has even nearly the image quality of Sigma's 50/1.4 Art.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 06:03 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: 2x TC on 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 gives 800mm @ f11.2, if this qualifies as bringing 1219 to a system, I might as well stack five 2x TCs on a Canon 1200mm and and bring 8,246,337,208,320mm to the EF system, on a crop body.

qwerty: for that you'd need thirty-two stacked 2x TCs (1200*2^32*1.6 ~= 8.24*10^12).

With five stacked 2x TCs you'd end up with 1200mm*2^5 = 38400mm f/180, which would be equivalent to 61440mm when used on a 1.6x crop body.

Warning: if really pixel-peeping, you might notice some slight diffraction softening.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 07:13 UTC
In reply to:

The Squire: Only 1080p? At least it's "spectacular 1080p"!

BartET:
I'll take your bet. As we live in different countries (I assume), let's choose a common subject: The Moon. The one who gets the better picture without any extra optics, wins.

So, how much was your monthly salary and how are you going to pay? Or are you just trolling?

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: f6.6? I guess it's good for outdoors in the afternoon.

phototransformations: you are of course absolutely right. But take into account that what you are answering to must be a feeble attempt at trolling. Nobody could be so clueless.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 14:14 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: f6.6? I guess it's good for outdoors in the afternoon.

f/6.6 on a crop factor 5.6 system will have similar diffraction as a Full Frame lens stopped down to f/37, so regardless of whether the optics are good or not, image quality will by necessity be limited. Then again, what choice is there if you need a superzoom in such a small form factor?

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 05:50 UTC

DPR writes:
"It also brings a modest increase in resolution because you're sampling luminance (green) information at every pixel position and not effectively blurring it by borrowing it from surrounding pixels."

Luminance is _not_ green. Green is green. Luminance is a weighted sum of red, green, and blue. Remove the incorrect and confusing "(green)" qualifier and you're golden.

Btw, if you want to compare high-resolution images, why is the Nikon D810 in the default resolution comparison instead of the higher resolution Canon 5DS R?

Link | Posted on May 5, 2016 at 22:04 UTC as 125th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Assessing skintones by taking a photo of a photo is a bit like a broken pencil - pointless.

The spectral features of a 4-colour print (under artificial light) are vastly different from the spectral densities of real skin. Hence, the results may be quite different.

Real-world example:
- If I take a photo of hot coals with my Canon S90 with white balance set to Incandescent, IR leakage will make the coals appear purple, even close to blue.
- If I take the same photo with my Canon 5D Mark II, the coals are red as they should because this camera has a proper IR filter.
- If I print the 5D2 photo on paper, take a photo of this photo with my S90, then upload it to the web for all to see, it will give a completely incorrect impression of the S90's colour capabilities.

Fair enough, Rishi.

By the way, speaking of colour of light...

Wouldn't it be _really_ interesting if there was a way to take a photo of a continuous spectrum, starting from deep UV through visible light right into deep IR territory? That would show some significant colour production differences, particularly with small sensor cameras, including camera phones. My experience is that some of them have proper IR filters, but most of them don't, which affects e.g. skin tones under incandescent light.

So, how about getting a continuous-spectrum light source plus an appropriately big prism, then adding the output of such a system to the standard test image suite? That way you'd get the separate frequency responses of the R, B and B filter elements: how much do they bleed to each other, and what colours are difficult to represent accurately. Might be pretty interesting...

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 21:37 UTC

Assessing skintones by taking a photo of a photo is a bit like a broken pencil - pointless.

The spectral features of a 4-colour print (under artificial light) are vastly different from the spectral densities of real skin. Hence, the results may be quite different.

Real-world example:
- If I take a photo of hot coals with my Canon S90 with white balance set to Incandescent, IR leakage will make the coals appear purple, even close to blue.
- If I take the same photo with my Canon 5D Mark II, the coals are red as they should because this camera has a proper IR filter.
- If I print the 5D2 photo on paper, take a photo of this photo with my S90, then upload it to the web for all to see, it will give a completely incorrect impression of the S90's colour capabilities.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 16:45 UTC as 106th comment | 4 replies
On article The Canon that can: Canon EOS 80D Review (680 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 (689 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
Total: 222, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »