falconeyes

falconeyes

Lives in Germany Germany
Has a website at falklumo.blogspot.com
Joined on Apr 28, 2008

Comments

Total: 437, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: One less region for me to visit, if this goes ahead.
Europe can go to hell with this "copyright" nonsense!

@Nuno
actually, the entire nonsense arose out of an attempt by Julia Reda to get rid of this nonsense in all of Europe, including France. What you see now is a French lobby fighting back. Hope, we'll see victory for Julia. W/o her heroism, nobody would discuss the current nonsense in France.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

user colin: The statement "no one has ever been prosecuted" above is incorrect. Jean-Marie Cavada claimed no Facebook user has ever been prosecuted. This is quite different. The proposal makes ordinary citizens criminals, but fails to appreciate that Facebook/Wikipedia/etc are protected by US "safe harbour" law that means they can't be prosecuted for what users upload provided they respond to take-down requests. Cavada thinks his proposal will make big American monopolies like Facebook pay the architect of The Shard for the right to publish your holiday photo. No, they'll just remove it, but only if they are asked.

The ADAGP (a French collecting society), believes that between 10–20% of image rights, currently generating net payments of between 3 and 6 million euros per year, relate to sculptures or buildings in France that would be affected by freedom of panorama. That's a lot of legal threat letters arriving on professional photographer's doormats. Pro photographers should be very worried.

A law (France) which takes away the freedom of panorama from every French for the benefit of 3-6 M€ per year is ridiculous and should be against the French constititution.

Afterall, the average damage per person and year is 0.10€ only. To restrict liberal and citizen freedoms this much (no freedom of panorama) for so little benefit (avoid 0.10€ "damage") should not be possible in a working democracy.

Currently, mostly Germans (Julia Reda) go wild over the proposal (to remove freedom of panorama) while French (Jean-Marie Cavada) remain rather silent. IMHO, this is the real scandal.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 13:28 UTC
On Canon warns about dangers of counterfeit camera gear article (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: Batteries, eh? That's trying too hard. I only buy batteries from Amazon that are claimed to be compatible with my cameras. So far they've worked fine.

What does DPR think I should do?

Mike

Hähnel is an Irish company (with roots as contract manufacturer for a German dealer).

There are a few brands which sound German but aren't (Hähnel, Edelkrone etc.).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 09:01 UTC
On White House ban on photos and social media has ended article (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

Horshack: Regarding the prohibition of lenses longer than 3", I demand a congressional investigation into Equivalence and its effect on our Democracy.

3" is 3" is 3" :) :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

Rooru S: the Nikkor 500mm F4 is still cheaper than Sony 500mm F4. Sony must lower their prices!

@Rooru, maybe, the 500 was delayed enough so Sony was happy to release it at all.

But nevertheless, the lack of glass for the FE remains a weakness for Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 16:36 UTC
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (313 comments in total)

This looks like the closest thing to the 16-50/2.8 lens in Pentax DA* or Sony land. A much required lens for any pro use of DX. A 50/2.8 lens allows for crops looking like 80mm F/4.5 which is pretty close.

So, the important question to ask: what aperture does this new Nikon lens offer at 50mm? If that would still be around F2.8, then this would be a much anticipated lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 15:05 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

QuarryCat: Nikon obviously believes still in DSLR-Fullframe for the next 8 years.
or
they don't believe in Fullframe mirror less System-Cameras
or they see no chance to built the lenses lighter and smaller for mirror less.

I don't believe either, that adaptation for long super-tele-lends makes sense.

I use 2.8/300 mm - 2.8/400 mm - 5.6/800 mm
and I won't go to Nikon, which is 3-5 years behind Canon in super-tele-lenses. Not even for a D750 or D810.

They should have done a 4.8/600 mm even lighter and they should bring a 5.6/100-600 mm - then I and many others will switch.

> does it make any sence to split photography in Non-Tele and Tele?

Well, the sports photographer crowd you see at mega sports events with their long protruding army of lenses is quite different from a tourist attraction's crowd of photographers. Don't you think so?

Hubble scope and microscopes use quite different kind of cameras too ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

Rooru S: the Nikkor 500mm F4 is still cheaper than Sony 500mm F4. Sony must lower their prices!

These lenses are rare. Smaller companies selling fewer units must sell them at a premium if at all.

E.g., Pentax now only has slower 560mm F5.6, still expensive though. Theoretically, Canon has a slight advantage over Nikon here because Canon has a soemwhat better market share among sports photographers.

However, Sony declaring themselves as "challengers" released their 500/4 in A mount when E mount (which is the same as FE mount provided optics has a full frame image circle) was already pushed to market.

I wonder if Sony wouldn't need to push an affordable say FE 500/5.6 (less than 2500$) to the market to make any inroads in the wildlife, sports and BIF territories.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 11:25 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: Nikon obviously believes still in DSLR-Fullframe for the next 8 years.
or
they don't believe in Fullframe mirror less System-Cameras
or they see no chance to built the lenses lighter and smaller for mirror less.

I don't believe either, that adaptation for long super-tele-lends makes sense.

I use 2.8/300 mm - 2.8/400 mm - 5.6/800 mm
and I won't go to Nikon, which is 3-5 years behind Canon in super-tele-lenses. Not even for a D750 or D810.

They should have done a 4.8/600 mm even lighter and they should bring a 5.6/100-600 mm - then I and many others will switch.

So does Sony.
Their recent (i.e. E/FE-mount era) 500mm F/4 (btw which is heavier even w/o VR and more expensive than the new Nikon 500E) is an A mount lens, not FE mount.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 10:31 UTC

I am puzzled by the MTF differences of 500E vs. 600E. The 500 looks a lot better. Not sure if this is real. But just in case, I digged further ...

The 600E has a (relatively) larger reduction in weight and a second front lens which is smaller in relation to the first one than the 500E. It looks like the 600E is more compromise between weight and wide open performance than the 500E -- of course both being stellar. But with a TC and high resolution body, could be that the 500E ends up having more reach than the 600E ;)

OTOH, could be that those MTF on Nikon site are artificial and not very meaningful in practice.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 10:24 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Martinka: MTF of 500 mm looks pretty impressive:
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-500MM-F4E-FL-ED-VR-MTF-chart.jpg

Yes, but much different from the new 600/4E. I am sure, the performance in the field will be different and more equal.

Awaiting true tests now, loosing trust in Nikon MTF charts...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 10:13 UTC
In reply to:

Rob: I expected a lot more from the BSI sensor. If it's not going to provide at least a whole stop of better high ISO performance, then it doesn't deserve the hype that Sony's marketing is giving it.

Closer to 100% QE does exist, but it isn't that much of a difference. The biggest progress will be color detection w/o filtering (about 1 stop) and camera arrays which let you use the back of your phone as a single big lens.

However, by that time, phones are dinosaurs when everybody moved on to smart watches with their tiny cameras ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 11:56 UTC

About Meyer Optik 2015 ...
This company is a brand only, purchased and managed by a small German software company with about 25 people, located in Koblenz and running a small office in Atlanta -> http://www.netag.de/net-SE-in-overview.68.0.html?&L=1

As for the price ...
The $1700 price was only created to make the $600 kickstarter price look like a bargain. They obviously succeeded, bravo!

As for the soap bubble bookeh ...
A bokeh where pin light sources have a harsh edge is commonly called "busy" and the buttery bookeh sought after by photographers is the opposite, smooth edge with smooth inner light disc. Too sell a bokeh which is "ugly-by-definition" as soap-bubble as if this would be a good thing is another,... bravo!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 09:05 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

kewlguy: How come J5 is so much sharper, with better noise too?

Looking at the J5 noise (in RAW), the noise looks peakier, not lower. Therefore, I assume the J5 images were sharpened more.

BTW, the J5 in the corners looks rather soft and that's the purpose of these comparisons. This kind of noise comparisons can't be done on DPR, it isn't designed as a lab test. E.g., even if DPR uses lightroom with equal settings, there always is a chance that Adobe uses vendor-specific and otherwise hidden presets. It is certainly the case for the RX100m3 lens profile preset which can't be disabled.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 23:38 UTC
In reply to:

Rob: I expected a lot more from the BSI sensor. If it's not going to provide at least a whole stop of better high ISO performance, then it doesn't deserve the hype that Sony's marketing is giving it.

@Rob
let me add that BSI was introduced with the mark II model, not this mark IV!
As has been said, the promise of Exmor RS or stacked BSI (over BSI) is speed, not sensitivity.
Moreover, expecting a stop better ISO performance is ignoring physics totally. The mark II, III (and probably IV) models have ~70% quantum efficiency. Good luck in boosting that number by one stop, my friend ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

TriezeA72: I'm surprised the Greek government hasn't tried launching a kickstarter campaign to save their failing economy.
Im sure they could make some sort of gyro lens with tzatziki effect, and flog it off for €1700 a pot, (earlybird special €1699.99)

Paul, don't play Robin Hood. Esp. as you would be part of those being robbed, not gievn ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:48 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: I don't know if the m4 sensor is visibly noisier than the m3 sensor. I have trouble to see it and prefer to wait for a lab testing.

However, IIRC what Sony said in a recent interview, Sony moved the ADCs from the sensor chip off to the stacked logic layer, using copper vias. This way, Sony can incorporate more ADCs and increase readout speed by a significant factor. Which is used by a much faster electronic shutter and video.

However, it made me wonder immediately if readout noise wouldn't increase marginally. I am especially looking forward to DxO testing on DR at base ISO to have a closer look at that. The DRAM chip though may have nothing to do with this.

If Sony managed to incorporate the ADC array onto a separate logic layer for their larger chips w/o any negative impact on image quality then it will allow for a whole new generation of image sensors. E.g., they could implement arbitrarily low ISO and arbitrarily high dynamic range in the digital domain of the stacked sensor.

@Mike, in this case, I'll wait for DxO. In other cases I've done it myself, as documented in older blog articles. But I'm not that curious in this case that I cant wait.

My point was that a difference isn't obvious and that then it makes no sense to speculate about differences one can only measure.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

TriezeA72: I'm surprised the Greek government hasn't tried launching a kickstarter campaign to save their failing economy.
Im sure they could make some sort of gyro lens with tzatziki effect, and flog it off for €1700 a pot, (earlybird special €1699.99)

Why is it the cause of problems is always elsewhere?
There are no Eurovisionaries and no threats. There is one country (Greece) which went bankrupt for reasons everybody in Greece admits have been internal. And which asked for help from other countries on several occasions to avoid declaring it. BTW, in 2011, Greek debts have been HALVED already!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 15:56 UTC
In reply to:

naththo: Fairly soft image in RAW Im afraid. 1" sensor and over 20mp is not ideal. Noise is pretty good but I think for detail and 1" sensor keep it down to at least 10mp or so.

On purpose, DPR doesn't apply proper capture sharpening to their studio tests.

Therefore, this kind of sharpness comparison is fruitless. Rather, download RAWs, do proper capture sharpening and noise reduction, and scale the LX100 image up to the RX size and then compare and report your findings.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: I don't know if the m4 sensor is visibly noisier than the m3 sensor. I have trouble to see it and prefer to wait for a lab testing.

However, IIRC what Sony said in a recent interview, Sony moved the ADCs from the sensor chip off to the stacked logic layer, using copper vias. This way, Sony can incorporate more ADCs and increase readout speed by a significant factor. Which is used by a much faster electronic shutter and video.

However, it made me wonder immediately if readout noise wouldn't increase marginally. I am especially looking forward to DxO testing on DR at base ISO to have a closer look at that. The DRAM chip though may have nothing to do with this.

If Sony managed to incorporate the ADC array onto a separate logic layer for their larger chips w/o any negative impact on image quality then it will allow for a whole new generation of image sensors. E.g., they could implement arbitrarily low ISO and arbitrarily high dynamic range in the digital domain of the stacked sensor.

You looked at JPG, I looked at RAW for a more direct comparison. I can if I insist, detect differences, yes. However, I am not sure these are beyond sample variation. Also, it is beyond me why people measure noise with their eyes rather than a calibrated measurement methodology.

Differences must be either striking or left to a good lab to be determined.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 13:59 UTC
Total: 437, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »