igor_s

igor_s

Lives in Ukraine Ukraine
Joined on May 2, 2006

Comments

Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: After reading the article:
a) Sony is (definitely) good;
b) Canon is (definitely) bad;
c) Nikon is (somewhat) irrelevant (well, except for that 3D tracking that has the purpose to make Canon look even worse);
d) Ad-hoc market analysts are giving a (generous) helping hand.

If there is a way to gain brand equity (quickly), this article should be a case study in Harvard Business Review.

@Lassoni: Agree. But I would add that technically they offer a little as far as we are speaking about bodies. No top high ISO performance, no top burst or AF speed, no IBIS... Good old style for crazy money. You could attach a Leica lens to another camera and have the same IQ and optionally more.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2015 at 17:56 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: After reading the article:
a) Sony is (definitely) good;
b) Canon is (definitely) bad;
c) Nikon is (somewhat) irrelevant (well, except for that 3D tracking that has the purpose to make Canon look even worse);
d) Ad-hoc market analysts are giving a (generous) helping hand.

If there is a way to gain brand equity (quickly), this article should be a case study in Harvard Business Review.

Sure Leica do not want to compete with Canon:).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2015 at 08:54 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: After reading the article:
a) Sony is (definitely) good;
b) Canon is (definitely) bad;
c) Nikon is (somewhat) irrelevant (well, except for that 3D tracking that has the purpose to make Canon look even worse);
d) Ad-hoc market analysts are giving a (generous) helping hand.

If there is a way to gain brand equity (quickly), this article should be a case study in Harvard Business Review.

@The Silver Nemesis: I just said that e.g. the A7rII is more versatile than the Leicas (availability of zooms and IBIS). Leica is very good in the lens department, that's it. Their bodies are very expensive IMO without any reason except the brand name. We saw what happened to Hasselblad with a similar strategy:).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 17:58 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

hypo: Call me old-fashioned but I can't be doing with the phrase "backside illuminated".

Try as I might it only brings up totally inappropriate imagery.

Am I the only one who has this problem?

Rather, this design is logically normal, while the old one was "backside illuminated". Let the manufacturers call it whatever they want, it's their marketing.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 16:33 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: After reading the article:
a) Sony is (definitely) good;
b) Canon is (definitely) bad;
c) Nikon is (somewhat) irrelevant (well, except for that 3D tracking that has the purpose to make Canon look even worse);
d) Ad-hoc market analysts are giving a (generous) helping hand.

If there is a way to gain brand equity (quickly), this article should be a case study in Harvard Business Review.

@Zeisschen: how can be Leica superior and in the same time uncomparable like Mozart and Beethoven?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 14:56 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: After reading the article:
a) Sony is (definitely) good;
b) Canon is (definitely) bad;
c) Nikon is (somewhat) irrelevant (well, except for that 3D tracking that has the purpose to make Canon look even worse);
d) Ad-hoc market analysts are giving a (generous) helping hand.

If there is a way to gain brand equity (quickly), this article should be a case study in Harvard Business Review.

@Silver Nemesis: depends on what you call "worse". With a *modern* camera you can get the same IQ as with a Leica but it offers a lot of advantages, e.g. use with zooms, faster hybrid AF and IBIS for any lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 13:18 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

igor_s: I was always sure that the PDAF with third-party lenses was just a matter or marketing. Bravo to Sony for doing this as it will impact the sales of own Sony and Zeiss cameras.

The only global thing I can think of in this area is Z-shift sensor AF that would allow for AF with with fully manual lenses.

A 5 mm shift will cover the entire focusing length range of 35 mm and shorter lenses. For longer lenses, you will need roughly (and therefore quickly) set focus through the EVF or display (or distance scale) and then engage the z-shift AF. You can:
- see the whole frame all time (no magnification required)
- save time
- get reliable focus with manual lenses even if your sight is not perfect.
IMO that is a lot.

As to the camera thickness, the A-mount bodies are much thickier than E-mount ones yet they are acceptable for users. The A99 is 78 mm thick while the A7RII is 60 mm (with IBIS, w/o z-shift).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 12:42 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

igor_s: I was always sure that the PDAF with third-party lenses was just a matter or marketing. Bravo to Sony for doing this as it will impact the sales of own Sony and Zeiss cameras.

The only global thing I can think of in this area is Z-shift sensor AF that would allow for AF with with fully manual lenses.

I was speaking about the SENSOR shift for AF with MANUAL lenses. Well, may be not over the whole range of focusing distances but after the distance had been roughly set manually. In that case, 5 mm Z-shift would be quite enough.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 10:30 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

Average User: Size of lenses doesn't really detract from the A7 series...especially the A7r for the reason that there are high quality 1.8 primes like the F1.8 55 and the F2 28 that are quite small...admittedly the fast zooms are going to be much bigger, but with the number of pixels, zoom gets to be less important because there are sufficient pixels to crop and still get really good images.
It's also a little dumb to say that because you have to carry a big lens for a particular purpose, you should always have to carry it and you should also always have to carry a big camera body. There are things my D750 does better, but as a light versitile camera for scenery type uses night and day, the A7r has been awesome and the A7RII will be even better.

Zoom is still important. To get 2x crop, you need 4x more pixels. Moreover, for cropping you need exceptional image resolution and consequently very best lenses and not any motion blur. Bottom line: 42 Mpix, 36 Mpix or 50 Mpix are roughly the same.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 19:22 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)

In my preceding post, "Sony and Zeiss lenses", of course

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 17:14 UTC as 81st comment
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1033 comments in total)

I was always sure that the PDAF with third-party lenses was just a matter or marketing. Bravo to Sony for doing this as it will impact the sales of own Sony and Zeiss cameras.

The only global thing I can think of in this area is Z-shift sensor AF that would allow for AF with with fully manual lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 16:55 UTC as 82nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

igor_s: Two points:
1. In your Raw DR: Exposure Latitude & ISO-invariance tests - what would happen at ISO 6400 MINUS 1 EV ar @12800 minus 2 EV (before clipping at that areas of course)?

2. Canon cameras generally showed greater DR that competition at medium ISOs which also should be considered.

According to DxOMark, the D750 has greater DR by about 0.3 EV at ISO above 1,000 and about equal DR at lower ISOs. However I agree that the photographic DR is more relevant to the real-life protography.

BTW the Bill Claff's data also show that the 6D and the A7R are nearly on par in the midrange ISO, the A7 is below the 6D by about 0.5 stop and the A7S is higher. The comparison of the D750 and D7200 is different to the DxOMark's, though.
One more thing: could those zigzags on the A7S curve mean that the RAWs are cooked? Looks like that for e.g. Fuji X-Pro1 where it is the case.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2015 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

igor_s: Two points:
1. In your Raw DR: Exposure Latitude & ISO-invariance tests - what would happen at ISO 6400 MINUS 1 EV ar @12800 minus 2 EV (before clipping at that areas of course)?

2. Canon cameras generally showed greater DR that competition at medium ISOs which also should be considered.

(continued)
Note that we are speaking about the normalized in the straightforward way values. Jim Kasson showed that the noise level decreases not in the smooth theoretical manner when downsizing the images, so in the real life downsizing the 36 MP A7R image to 20 MP might not bring a substantial benefit. Unless you use a sophisticated algorithms that many customers may have not ever heard about or do not have the required software. In that case the A7R would lose a full stop to the 6D at ISO 6,400. Of course the A7R offers higher resolution.
===
Well, the A7s is best, I missed it.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2015 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

igor_s: Two points:
1. In your Raw DR: Exposure Latitude & ISO-invariance tests - what would happen at ISO 6400 MINUS 1 EV ar @12800 minus 2 EV (before clipping at that areas of course)?

2. Canon cameras generally showed greater DR that competition at medium ISOs which also should be considered.

Well according to DxOMark data the difference between the A7 and 6D is close to 1eV at ISO 6400. And even the best Sony's A7R is a little below the 6D at that ISO. Just to be fair. Will see you data though.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2015 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

igor_s: Two points:
1. In your Raw DR: Exposure Latitude & ISO-invariance tests - what would happen at ISO 6400 MINUS 1 EV ar @12800 minus 2 EV (before clipping at that areas of course)?

2. Canon cameras generally showed greater DR that competition at medium ISOs which also should be considered.

Update to my test results.
a) There was an exposure compensation -1/3 eV (my mistake). However, I think it should not matter considering the range of ISO variation.
b) Nearly ISOlessness was observed only on mid- and darker tones. On brighter tones there was more noise at higher ISOs. However, at ISO 12800 -2EV it was nowhere as much noise as it would be at ISO 51200. At worst, like at ISO 6400 with normal exposure.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2015 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

igor_s: Two points:
1. In your Raw DR: Exposure Latitude & ISO-invariance tests - what would happen at ISO 6400 MINUS 1 EV ar @12800 minus 2 EV (before clipping at that areas of course)?

2. Canon cameras generally showed greater DR that competition at medium ISOs which also should be considered.

1. Just did a test with my 600D. Shot at ISO 3200 in Av mode with no exposure compensation, then switched to M mode and shot at ISO 6400 and H (12800). Developed RAWs in Canon's DPP with corresponding compensation and no NR. Result - ISOless by my sight. Indeed, why should the tendency shown in your test reverse exactly at the point of the normal exposure? In fact, I was hoping that it might continue. Neither.

There was no clipping at the tones of interest with +2EV.

2. For example, DxOMark shows for the 6D greater DR than for the A7 between ISO 1600 and 6400. I noticed that difference for many cameras. I thought it must mean something. In the Bill Claff's table you pointed at, there are only DR values at base ISO and low-light (highest ISO). At that settings there is indeed no advantage to the 6D over the A7 in my example above.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2015 at 17:27 UTC

Two points:
1. In your Raw DR: Exposure Latitude & ISO-invariance tests - what would happen at ISO 6400 MINUS 1 EV ar @12800 minus 2 EV (before clipping at that areas of course)?

2. Canon cameras generally showed greater DR that competition at medium ISOs which also should be considered.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 19:30 UTC as 26th comment | 9 replies
On Sources of noise part two: Electronic Noise article (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

DuncanDovovan: So in terms of real life photography, could we say this?

1) When the subject must remain low key, use longer exposures, lower ISO and position the histogram to the right, to make sure you have as little noise in the dark parts as possible.

2) If the dynamic range covers the histogram and in high dynamic range situations, expose normally at low ISO to prevent blown out highlights. Or use HDR through multiple exposures.

3) In dark situations, when you cannot lower your shutter speed anymore, because motion blur will become an issue and the available light prompts you to use high ISO values, you can under expose the (RAW) photo by dialling down the ISO multiple stops and adjust in post processing in order to gain dynamic range / keep highlight details that would be lost at high ISO values.

4) When you are a real noise ninja, larger sensors with bigger and more light sensitive lenses give you the opportunity to scale down your photos and thus reducing the noise levels that way.

OK?

@ Great Bustard:
In manual mode with fixed aperture and shutter speed (which may be required for some reasons) the ISO setting does not affect the exposure (the amount of captured light), but the brightness of the image will be different.

With a LDRN camera you can set a lower ISO and then push up in the post. The noise level will be about the same. Still more safe would be to underexpose by changing the aperture and/or shutter speed at the same ISO (in that case the sensor can not reach the saturation level).

With a high LDRN camera, you need to choose the ISO as high as possible af far as the highlights are preserved. If nesessary you can reduce the brightness in the post. If you can play with the aperture and shutter speed, it would be still better to increase the exposure keeping the ISO as low as possible.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2015 at 14:00 UTC
On Sources of noise part two: Electronic Noise article (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

DuncanDovovan: So in terms of real life photography, could we say this?

1) When the subject must remain low key, use longer exposures, lower ISO and position the histogram to the right, to make sure you have as little noise in the dark parts as possible.

2) If the dynamic range covers the histogram and in high dynamic range situations, expose normally at low ISO to prevent blown out highlights. Or use HDR through multiple exposures.

3) In dark situations, when you cannot lower your shutter speed anymore, because motion blur will become an issue and the available light prompts you to use high ISO values, you can under expose the (RAW) photo by dialling down the ISO multiple stops and adjust in post processing in order to gain dynamic range / keep highlight details that would be lost at high ISO values.

4) When you are a real noise ninja, larger sensors with bigger and more light sensitive lenses give you the opportunity to scale down your photos and thus reducing the noise levels that way.

OK?

Very shortly as I understand it: if your camera has a comparatively low downstream noise (that is, it is nearly ISOless; AFAIK at the time they are all except those with Canon-made sensors), you can safely underexpose for 1-3 stops and then push up in post. Otherwise you should (noise-wise) always choose the highest possible ISO (if the aperture and shutter speed can not be changed any more) and then if required pull down in post.
I am not an expert, though!

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2015 at 19:53 UTC
On Sources of noise part two: Electronic Noise article (234 comments in total)

Just curious, what is the main component of upstream noise - reset noise or pixel amplifier one?

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2015 at 15:25 UTC as 32nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »