Erik Magnuson

Erik Magnuson

Lives in United States Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Has a website at http://www.pbase.com/maderik
Joined on Dec 29, 2000
About me:

This is what I'd like to appear on my public 'posters (sic)
profile.'

Comments

Total: 184, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2128 comments in total)
In reply to:

chris96326: Focus Peaking (apparently m4/3 lenses only??)
Better Grip and button spacing
Phase Focus (apparently legacy 4/3 lenses only)
More buttons (but in a different arrangement, why?)
Keeping the tilt screen -- no lousy swivel, selfies are for amatuers

Looks like a market winner and a great evolution camera on paper. Sample images on this sight are nothing to write home about. I will sit this one out and wait for the GX-7 to ship.

I am more interested in the new lens to compete with Panny's 12-35mm.

The PDAF is used with u4/3 lenses for continuous AF focus tracking.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 14:52 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2128 comments in total)
In reply to:

Harry S: As a motorsport shooter the continuous AF has me very interested, a big expensive leap to pre-order without a good idea of how in practice it will work for fast moving subjects though.

"if you're a Four Thirds lens owner and you're expecting full DSLR performance, you're going to be disappointed" doesn't sound like very good to me. If it can't do single focus fast with old 4/3 lenses, tracking AF is not going to be magically better.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 13:42 UTC
On Did Sigma design the Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm F1.8? news story (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhinkey: It's one thing to design the optics, another completely to design the mechanical and electrical components and figure out how to get it manufactured to the price point and quality level that is desired.

Sigma has likely had the capability to design excellent optics for years, but the mechanical/electrical design & manufacturing may be on Oly's side of things.

I think a lot of companies are capable of stellar optical designs, but getting them to be made small enough, cheap enough, reliable enough can be a skill that perhaps only a few have.

Um, you do know what Sigma's main business is - making lenses. It's just as likely Sigma designed all of optics/mechanics/electronics -- they are a member of the consortium. Sigma might even manufacture this lens for Olympus (all Sigma lenses are made in Japan.) This is not the first OEM u4/3 prime that Sigma has been rumored to have done.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2013 at 17:59 UTC
On Sony A3000 preview (678 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: Hey Sony, can you do a NEX 3 with this cheap EVF?

Because he wants the NEX6 form-factor at a NEX3 price?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Stern: Re: 3) the current design of the EFS-1 was extremely difficult to produce. Specifically, it took hundreds of engineering hours to produce one unit with a success rate of about one unit in three working;

We were hand-building the prototypes without the final mass production tooling and it was slow (I don't know where hundred of engineering hours comes from!) and we had a low yield. This was of concern to me, but mostly from the perspective of MP schedule and ramp.

Anyone who has been involved in real mass production knows that assembly cycle time and yield go through a steep, early learning curve. There were no fundamental issues with our assembly process, which was a lot simpler than DSLRs of the time.

The "hundred of hours" is a quote from the lawsuit. But just ask Microsoft about early Xbox ramp up and yield issues.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2013 at 00:41 UTC

Possibly the most technical write up:
http://www.edn.com/design/sensors/4338303/Electronic-film-focuses-on-low-power-high-image-quality

Major limitations included other than those already discussed.
- could not use a shutter speed slower than 1/15th It doesn't mention if there were limits on sequential shooting.
- used sound of mirror up for activation - could not be used for RF cameras and not reliable with manual wind noise.
- could not use DX coding - some cameras assume DX read means advance film when back closed.

If SF had been able to ship, would they have survived? The tricky part would have been how well it would have worked in customer hands (I.e. defect and return rate) and surviving the cash-flow killer of the Osboune effect (I,e., who will buy the current product if its known a supposedly better one was on the way.)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2013 at 00:19 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

cknapp61: The article states..."the lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO, White Balance or any other image setting, and the need to indicate a crop in the viewfinder if anything less than a full frame sensor is used, are all difficult to get around"..

Really, in 2013? One could not design the device to accept NFC inputs from a smartphone to adjust ISO,WB etc., and use the smartphone as a "review screen" via wi-fi? As for indicating crop factors, easy fix, since many of our film cameras have removable focus screens like the Nikon F1, etc.

It is a curse being smart and good looking, unfortunately, I am mostly broke financially...as MeaLoaf says..."Two outta three ain't bad....".

A outline turns your center-weighted meter into pure averaging. Even worse, the meter is influenced by light outside of the image area. Either way your big viewfinder is now effectively much smaller and less accurate.

A Retina would be poor choice for such an implementation. Masking the VF would be difficult and unless you have a big-C, it's already tiny and dim. Putting a bright, shiny digital sensor near a lens that's not coated to handle those reflections is also problematic. At least the Retina's count down interlock means you can handle buffer limits reasonably. For the number of times you'd actually use it, simply shooting film and having it scanned is a digital option you still have.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

fhe: QV-10 cannot possibly have been the first consumer digital camera. My dad had a roundish one with a name like Sony? IOS (impossible to google nowadays) which stored data on 2.5" disks. It must have been at least a couple of years before 1995.

Still Video Cameras (like the Canon ION) recorded images as video scan lines similar to a paused tape - technically not digital.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

nunatak: It's still a good idea for those folk who enjoy the novelty of shooting classic film gear. It presents them with another opportunity to rant why film is much better.

The bigger question is why stuff newer generation technology into a decades old product — unless it's strictly for show?

Most important would be a "ready for next shot" light (on DSLRs, implemented as a buffer count.) There would be no automatic interlock as you get when you hit the end of a roll of film and taking shots that were never recorded would be pretty annoying.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

Ferling: While I can understand the negative comments with some users in regards to digital today. In 2000, there was still a huge film user base, and this would have been viewed as a novel, "endless film" toy and seen some sales. I would have loved to try this out and keep the T90, T70 and FTBn going. I have a lot of FD glass that could use some new life, and would most likely get one just for that reason.

It was never for the FTb class camera, only for those newer cameras that supported full communicating data backs. If you don't have any way to coordinate the shutter and the sensor, then you end up with hacks that compromise quality or handling. For example, to control noise you need to reset/clear the sensor just before the exposure starts.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

CharlesGordon: I like the idea of being able to stuff this into the smaller cameras that were far more common in the film days. Although, in the past couple years there seems to be an awakening that some of us just want the bigger sensor, not the bigger body.

Film was flat in both XA and Rollei. The main reason they could be so small was that the lenses could be small because film still works with large angle off-axis rays.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

cknapp61: The article states..."the lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO, White Balance or any other image setting, and the need to indicate a crop in the viewfinder if anything less than a full frame sensor is used, are all difficult to get around"..

Really, in 2013? One could not design the device to accept NFC inputs from a smartphone to adjust ISO,WB etc., and use the smartphone as a "review screen" via wi-fi? As for indicating crop factors, easy fix, since many of our film cameras have removable focus screens like the Nikon F1, etc.

It is a curse being smart and good looking, unfortunately, I am mostly broke financially...as MeaLoaf says..."Two outta three ain't bad....".

One, your NFC has to work through the metal camera back and it will add regulatory compliance costs. Two, you run into volume vs. price vs. development cost issues put integrate NFC.. Three, mask the screen more than just a little and metering (which works off the screen) will be way off. If it were easy, it might have been done.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

rsf3127: putting the sensor and a battery inside a filma camera is not that difficult.
I would also manage to attatch a cellphone to the back of the camera and make it a LCD linked wirelessly or wiredly to the digital back.
Then I coud switch iso, wb and all the stuff on the lcd screen.

It's not difficult -- for a small, low performance sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 18:32 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1333 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sviz: Since this is basically a 40MP sensor, I don't understand why Canon didn't make it output a 40MP image, instead of combining the information from pairs of photosites and output a 20MP image. Can someone explain me?

Because the sub-pixels are under the same microlens and the same color filter. Also since the pixels are split in half, subpixels are no longer square requiring extra interpolation to get a normal image. There is no point in 40MP from this sensor because the amount of extra spatial information (i.e. detail) would negligible.

Posted on Aug 17, 2013 at 17:19 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1333 comments in total)
In reply to:

Christoph Stephan: "why bother with the bulk of an SLR?" Simply, framing with the screen at arms length
1. negates any advantage image stabilisation may offer, and this gets even worse with huge telephoto lenses like te EF 100-400mm L IS
2. is still a pain in bright light making composition - the essence of creative photography - guesswork
3. Optical finders consume less battery power than screens and EVF. Battery empty - no photos.

For me the EOS M and other viewfinderless garbage will always be a cup which I will let pass by, give me an SLR with decent OVF anytime.

It doesn't help your argument to mistate things: only if you are rather far-sighted w/o corrective lenses do you need to hold & frame with a rear LCD at arms length. You can brace you elbows against your body. Holding a camera incorrectly is not a negative on the camera -- plenty of people don't hold SLRs correctly.

Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 18:10 UTC
On Epic fail? 70-200s of all makes among least reliable lenses news story (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

Erik Magnuson: This is mostly a "duh". 21 elements in 16 groups (Nikon) or 23 elements in 19 groups (Canon) means these are some of the most complex lenses in common use.

If any element or group gets knocked out of whack, you have an optical issue - just look at all of the adjustment points on these lenses. If the element groups that move are large/heavy, that adds stress. BTW, 24-70mm zooms that move like you suggest are also high on the failure list.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

Neeneko: I am kinda saddened at people taking so much glee in a product failing. Lytro at least took a chance and did something different rather then the 'go faster stripes' that DSLR manufacturers have been putting out lately.

I suspect the problem is less that it did not appeal to professionals, and more it was not a good status symbol for 'prosumers', too many of whom seemed to have an emotional stake in the technology not catching on.

I doubt professionals cared too much one way or the other. They are generally too busy actually getting work done.

Because even at the beginning, the hype far exceeded the reality. Creating images that are interesting with multiple focal planes is difficult - even more so with the limitations of this device which required a lot of relative depth difference. It just did not match how or what people shoot. Perhaps if they'd made it more "selfie" friendly then they might have had something. A viewer could then refocus on the photo-bomber or detritus in the background. Each selfie would have become a defacto scavenger hunt!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

Artak Hambarian: Rallyfan mention something very interesting. Why Lytro does not advertise the capability of creating a one shot stacked focus pictures? That is an amazing feature. It may be realised both in camera and via post processing. One shot means that you have perfect set of pictures to focus stack.

Probably because a shot with everything in focus looks a lot like any small sensor camera stopped down to f/8 and resized down to Lytro dimensions. Refocusability is at least unique - pan focus at low resolution is not.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 15:23 UTC
On Epic fail? 70-200s of all makes among least reliable lenses news story (151 comments in total)

This is mostly a "duh". 21 elements in 16 groups (Nikon) or 23 elements in 19 groups (Canon) means these are some of the most complex lenses in common use.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 12:41 UTC as 67th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Jim: The Nikon V1/J1 series doesn't pass the test of obviousness. Interchangable lenses with a small sensor just don't go well together. If you're going to change lenses you might as well have a larger sensor without much of a penalty in size. This camera, like the Pentax Q7, just makes no sense. When the price point is factored in, it just lame. It's almost as if Nikon didn't do any target marketing before releasing this product line.

"are extremely popular" - I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 16:38 UTC
Total: 184, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »