PIX 2015
Henrik Herranen

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: 166, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

BorisK1: Part of the problem is the intended use. In most common scenarios, if the image is purely for the web, a dedicated camera is overkill.

If you're making a 400x320 thumbnail, a $2000 lens will not do any better than a $20 software-corrected chunk of plexiglass. And it will be heavy and clunky.

BorisK1: Quite the opposite. The smaller the resulting image is, the better pictures taken with shallow depth-of-field optics look.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 15:46 UTC
On The new Canon 35L II will be a thing of beauty article (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

loewena: 35 mm portraits are fine if you like bulby noses and small ears

Ioewena: did you even look at the photos used as examples in the article? I see no problems with bulby noses and small ears.

Rishi: Thanks, a good article.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 15:41 UTC
On The new Canon 35L II will be a thing of beauty article (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEmrys: Only one lens and you would choose the Canon 35 L? Deeply disconcerting as there are at least 10 better 35mm options out there.

TheEmrys, now list the ones that are f/1.4 and can be used with AF on, let's say, the Canon 5D Mark III.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

MustyMarie: Will they ever have a STM L lens ??

Hope not.

I am a huge anti-fan of the fly-by-wire "manual" focus on Canon's STM lenses (as opposed to proper USM). Also, if the only STM lens I own, the 40/2.8, is any indication, STM is also slow.

As for the 35/1.4L II: Looking good, looking excellent...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 05:36 UTC
On Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review article (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: First item in the Key Features list of page 1:
"16MP BSI-CMOS sensor"

Why not:
"16MP xxx inch BSI-CMOS sensor"

Sensor size matters.

If you think anything said by page 3 does not need to be in the Key Features list, then that list is completely unnecessary.

In the real world, the Key Features list is supposed to give a basic idea of what the camera is, followed by the multi-page review that elaborates on features and findings. This is something the Key Features list doesn't do. And it would be so easy to correct.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 11:27 UTC
On Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review article (240 comments in total)

First item in the Key Features list of page 1:
"16MP BSI-CMOS sensor"

Why not:
"16MP xxx inch BSI-CMOS sensor"

Sensor size matters.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 06:56 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
On Opinion - Erez Marom: Whatever it Doesn't Take article (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

ElviraGrey: The horrible and sad irony here is that he uses Iceland of all places to illustrate the principle that we shouldn't have to go to hard to reach locations to get good landscape photos.

I agree with a previous comment about this article exuding false modesty from every crevice. It comes across as shameless self advertisement more than anything else. ugh

I call bullsheet on MustyMarie.

A short googling tells me that Ottawa's record cold is --36.1°C from February 1943. That's such a long way from -63°C it's not even funny. Plainly, such temperatures don't exist outside of Antarctica and perhaps some parts of Siberia.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Dear Damien Demolder,
is there a good reason why you don't revise this article and remove the following incorrect statement: "for the specification it is a good deal more compact than a similar lens for a full-frame or even APS-C system".

It is not. In the Full Frame world there are lenses like the EF24mm f/1.4 which both perform significantly better, and have much shallower DoF + much higher total light transmission than this lens.

(Before the I-don't-understand-equivalence-so-you-must-be-an-idiot-brigade trolls in, let me just remind you that because FF has 4 times the sensor area of m43, then the noise over image area, given similar sensor technologies, are similar when FF uses ISO 400 and m43 ISO 100. ISO is just a number without any real, physical dependence. When equivalent aperture (e.g. f/1.9 vs f/0.95) and ISO (e.g. ISO 1600 vs ISO 400) is used, then noise over image area, DoF, exposure time (or in a word: everything) is equivalent.)

PS.
I wouldn't be writing this if the author of the article wouldn't have made an incorrect comparison between m43 and FF lenses. If you want to avoid this kind of discussion, write of m43 lenses on their own merit, and don't INCORRECTLY compare them to lenses of different sensor systems.

Actually, don't even CORRECTLY compare them, because even that will cause lots of miscorrections and unnecessary arguments.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2015 at 19:03 UTC

Dear Damien Demolder,
is there a good reason why you don't revise this article and remove the following incorrect statement: "for the specification it is a good deal more compact than a similar lens for a full-frame or even APS-C system".

It is not. In the Full Frame world there are lenses like the EF24mm f/1.4 which both perform significantly better, and have much shallower DoF + much higher total light transmission than this lens.

(Before the I-don't-understand-equivalence-so-you-must-be-an-idiot-brigade trolls in, let me just remind you that because FF has 4 times the sensor area of m43, then the noise over image area, given similar sensor technologies, are similar when FF uses ISO 400 and m43 ISO 100. ISO is just a number without any real, physical dependence. When equivalent aperture (e.g. f/1.9 vs f/0.95) and ISO (e.g. ISO 1600 vs ISO 400) is used, then noise over image area, DoF, exposure time (or in a word: everything) is equivalent.)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2015 at 19:00 UTC as 15th comment | 11 replies

"The lens is neither especially small nor light, though for the specification it is a good deal more compact than a similar lens for a full-frame or even APS-C system."

Hmmh... 10.5mm f/0.95 lets in as much total light and has the same DoF as a FF 21mm f/1.9 lens. Canon's EF 24/1.4L II is both lighter and shorter, and lets in more than double the amount of total light. So what are the "similar lenses" that is won by this lens being "a good deal more compact"?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Voigtlander isn't a useful lens. But I do believe that this article begins with an incorrect statement.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2015 at 12:29 UTC as 31st comment | 32 replies
On Lytro ILLUM and Desktop software get major updates article (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

Everlast66: The price checking thingy top right reads:
"Buy on Amazon.com From $1,111.11"

Ha ha, yeah right, as if someone would pay $1.1k for this thing ;p

random78: It's not. The numbers come from thin air, or rather software blurring.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 08:34 UTC
On Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test article (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Once again:
Why is sensor size not in the "Key specifications" list? You cannot expect your readers to remember these things by heart for every camera - I certainly don't.
Plus, honestly, if sensor size isn't a key specification, then what is?

Otherwise, an interesting read. Still, I don't think the "shallow DoF" argument works for MF anymore, with the sensors only slightly larger than FF, and with so many FF ultra-large aperture lenses (f/1.2 to f/1.4) available.

Yes, slightly larger.

At least the lenses used for this test don't have particularly impressive shallow DoF properties (crop factor of 0.78 used for calculations):

- 45mm f/2.8, equivalent to 35mm f/2.2 FF lens
- 80mm f/2.8, equivalent to 62mm f/2.2 FF lens
- 120mm f/4 macro, equivalent to 94mm f/3.1 FF macro lens

With us having 35mm f/1.4, 50 and 85 mm f/1.2, and 100mm f/2.8 lenses, the DoF advantage seems to quite definitively be in the FF camp. There certainly are advantages to MF (nicely presented in the article), but I don't think DoF is one of them.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 08:29 UTC
On Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test article (146 comments in total)

Once again:
Why is sensor size not in the "Key specifications" list? You cannot expect your readers to remember these things by heart for every camera - I certainly don't.
Plus, honestly, if sensor size isn't a key specification, then what is?

Otherwise, an interesting read. Still, I don't think the "shallow DoF" argument works for MF anymore, with the sensors only slightly larger than FF, and with so many FF ultra-large aperture lenses (f/1.2 to f/1.4) available.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 07:40 UTC as 19th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

acidic: My 24mm 1.4 can also do 35mm 1.4, and everything in between. It's called Crop Tool.

But your image is still not similar to an image taken with a 35/1.4. It will have similar DoF as a picture taken with a 35/2, and of course you lose over half of your pixels when cropping (24/35)^2 = 0.47 = 47% of pixels left.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 09:08 UTC
On 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup article (170 comments in total)

Dear DPreview,

why isn't sensor size at (or close to) the top of the "Specs Compared" table on Page 1? What is it that makes you unwilling of putting sensor size as a key parameter in your tables, be it a camera or mobile phone comparison?

Please?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 22:00 UTC as 51st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Zeisschen: APS-C upgrade for M43 cameras for 650 bucks?

Androole, I'm afraid you are confused.

1) The Canon 1Ds series is FF, not APS-H.
2) The Canon 1D series without the 's' is APS-H.
3) The crop factor with the 0.64 Speedbooster is 1.28, while the crop factor of Canon's APS-H cameras has been 1.26-1.29, so they are the same.
4) "difference by area is 1.23 stops for FF -> M4/3"; what? FF sensor area (864 mm²) is around 3.8 times that of M43 (225 mm²). If you want to convert that to "stops", that would be log(864/225)/log(2) = 1.94.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 9, 2015 at 08:00 UTC
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Papi61: Nowadays lots of videographers buy DSLR's and mirrorless cameras for video. Canon and Nikon are deliberately ignoring this and their camera sales are going south accordingly.

I'm a Nikon shooter and I would have loved to buy a D7200 with 4K video. Instead I bought a Samsung NX1. To my surprise, it bested my D5300 and even D750 (except for high ISO on the latter) even as a still camera. If Samsung keeps releasing bodies like this and adds a sufficient number of lenses to become competitive with Canon/Nikon, I seriously doubt I will stay in the Nikon camp in the future.

Papi61:
Canon ignoring videographers? Don't they have the best video AF system ever?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 17:44 UTC
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (573 comments in total)
In reply to:

naththo: Much better than Canon 7D MKII for the dynamic range and less shadow noise. But AF seems a concern though is a let down due to critical problem in review. Still that beats Canon again and again without stopping.

Even though I respect and quite agree with the notion that cameras with OVF's have and will always have AF issues, and even though EVF's have become better and faster over time, in my opinion it would still be worth mentioning that OVF's are really, REALLY fast. After all, they literally work at the speed of light!

Summary: if you are going to gripe a lot about inherent negative characteristics of OVF cameras, it would be only fair to give some credit for the equally inherent benefits. OVFs are not there _just_ because traditional camera companies are visionless and greedy.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 17:40 UTC
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Why the heck is 1080p mentioned prominently as a "feature" a couple times early in the review? At this point, when even cell phones are starting to record 4K, 1080p is no longer a "feature" in a high-end camera. It's a liability.

And for a lot of people, that 1080p "feature" will remove a camera like this from their consideration.

Q: "So what are the compelling arguments *against* giving a 2015 state-of-the-art, semi-pro, $1200 DSLR 4K capability?"

A: How about Canon 70d's unparalleled focusing capability with its dual-pixel CMOS AF? While 70d's video quality is not the best, your shots are very much in-focus. And, in my opinion, In-focus video trumps out-of-focus video any time (you said you make home videos, so I assume you don't have a professional focus puller alongside you).

(I know, this has little to do with the Nikon D7200. But it _is_ an answer to the question.)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 17:25 UTC
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Page 13: "The ISO 100 shot pushed by 5EV is essentially indistinguishable from the native ISO 3200 shot, even down to the darkest tones in the image."

What?
They are not even remotely indistinguishable. ISO100+5EV is purple and ISO3200 is gray. It's not even close!

Don't get me wrong. I really respect the concept of ISO invariance and that DPreview has chosen to make it a Big Thing. In time, it will force my camera maker of choice, Canon, to improve. Still, if you give zero attention to obviously different colour, then what we are eventually going to get is that no-one will care about colour anymore. We'll get even weaker colour filter arrays, missing IR filters, etc.

Suggestion:
How about making sensor spectral response a part of the standard things to test? That way we'd, with time, end up with better colour accuracy. While I respect high-ISO capability, I think it has been "good enough" since Canon's 5D2. All this while colour fidelity, which used to be pretty good, has suffered.

Richard: Thank you for your answer. Obviously such a colour test should be done at least in the RAW image domain, and perhaps additionally with a low-key JPEG engine mode, too.

Dr_Jon: I've also been noticed those rumours, and would very much like to know the truth.

As said, I think all modern cameras have "good enough" high-ISO performance. However, we have very little scientifically tested and presented information about colour fidelity. Spectral response curves of some common cameras would go a long way in mitigating that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 10:42 UTC
Total: 166, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »