PIX 2015
fireplace33

fireplace33

Lives in Austria Upper Austria, Austria
Joined on Nov 28, 2007

Comments

Total: 160, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I'd love to see a direct comparison to my current "walk around lens", the Sigma 17-50 F2.8

Maybe such a comparison could convince me to buy the 16-80 ?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 17:05 UTC as 12th comment
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (331 comments in total)

anyone know what the max aperture would be at 50 mm?
In such non constant aperture lenses, the F2.8 is sometimes lost very quickly as one zooms in.

I'd like to see a comparison of this lens in its 17-50 range to my Sigma 17-50

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 06:07 UTC as 83rd comment | 2 replies
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Esquilo: But why 72 mm filter thread!? Does any other Nikon lens use 72 mm threads!?

No, I'll stay with my 16-85. Then I can use the same 67 mm filters as on my 70-300 and 28/1,8.

The thread will be made as small as possible while still packing in the all the glass and stabilisation elements needed.

The very useful and popular all purpose zoom
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II
uses a 72mm thread
these all do too:
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR
Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G
plus a mulitude of third party lenses for Nikon mounts

A technique to avoid buying extra filters for each thread diameter is to buy a filter set that is at least as big as your largest thread and use "step up" rings for the other lenses

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 06:03 UTC
In reply to:

TheWhiteDog: Very innovative to say the least. But lets face it, smartphone users like the ease of taking pictures with their phone, anything that makes that experience even a little more complicated is usually rejected. And for 99+% of smartphone camera users, the photos or videos are just being sent to Instagram, Facebook, etc so quality isn't priority #1. But for true photographers this could be nice, but I suspect they would still rather carry a SONY RX4, just as easy to use since you wouldn't leave this attached to your IPhone permanently so the set-up-to-use time is even more and there is the lack of a zoom and what looks to be a fiddly, and potentially fragile, connection between the IPhone and this camera.
But more options are always great and this is very innovative, so kudos to DxO for bringing this to the marketplace.

Even if you assume 99.9% of all mobile phone users are not interested, then that still leaves 0.1% of all the 3.6 Billion mobile phone users worldwide. Which works out at 3.6 million potentially interested people. Not a bad starting point !

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

@bcmills
thanks for your clear descriptions. I agree entirely with your statements.

@Nukuunukoo
Thanks for the extra PM with your diagram. I can now see where your arguments are coming from. However, there is an underlying misinterpretation in your diagram, you have assumed that the white paper is showing a single pixel with circuitary next to it. But in fact the white paper is showing all the pixels in that pixel section, with the circuitry next to the entire pixel array. If you read through bcmills replies I think it will become clear to you too.
Hope that helps.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 12:18 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

@ Martin, The test results for noise performance will be interesting to see!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 06:02 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

Thanks Nukunukoo.
I had already seen that link and it was, in fact, the reason I made my original comment.
The “30%” that is mentioned on page 3 is referring to the total package size of the sensor component, and has nothing to do with increasing the light gathering area of the pixel section .
The “better performance” of a Stacked sensor is mainly due to the extra space available for the logic circuits added on a complete new layer instead of being crammed around the edge of the pixel section. And also, the logic circuit designers are given the opportunity to use the thinner pitched “45nm rule” instead of the 65nm needed on the pixel array layer in their designs.
All very clever, but sadly not an increase in the surface area for usable light

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 05:58 UTC
In reply to:

breivogel: It appears that the active area, number, and pitch of the pixels remains the same as before. The peripheral circuitry that previously sat around the pixel array is moved underneath it on a separate layer. The big advantage lies in the fact that the fabrication processes for the photo sensor and the logic layer can be individually optimized. This probably results in the ability to run the logic at much faster speeds (hence the ability to do much higher frame rates as well as 4K). I might have a concern about possible thermal issues, as the underlying circuitry might heat the sensor array unevenly. OTOH, charge injection from the logic could not influence the photosites.

It is really quite an amazing technology, actually bonding two chips on top one another and interconnecting them - all with acceptable yield for a consumer device and the potential noise sensitivity for photosensors.

That is how I understand it too

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

Well the diagram in your link sort of proves the point I was making. The active optical sensor size (called "pixel section" in that link) is the same in old and the new design. We both already agreed on that.
And the the area maked as "circuit section" in that link is outide the optical part of the 1" chip pixel area in the old design and so it makes the total package size in old design larger.
The new design puts that "circuit section" underneath the pixel section which is very clever and reduces the total package size but does not increase the light gathering capability of the important "pixel section" by 10% or 30%.
There may be some small improvement in pixel area by connecting the pixels vertically to the circuitry below but so far I have seen no reports on how many % increase that might give. If anyone has any facts here it would be interesting to hear from you.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 20:54 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

I appreciate your multilayer motherboard idea, that is also what I saw in internet eg. like here

http://electroiq.com/insights-from-leading-edge/2013/12/iftle-172-sony-tsv-stacked-cmos-image-sensors-finally-arrive-in-2013/

However, what we need is someone to tell us two "self confessed technical noobs" what the "active area" is of a photosensitive pixel in the previous design and the "active area" of that same pixel in the stacked design.
I somehow doubt that it will be anywhere near 30% bigger in the new stacked sensor.
Where is that info , anybody?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

fireplace33: On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

@nukunukoo
Well I said above that the pixel array sensor size was exactly the same, so we certainly agree there.
What I don't see is any way that a pixel array (light sensor) that is the same size as before has somehow a "bigger surface area for usable light"
If you look at the diagrams in internet, of the stacked sensor then the logic circuitry that was placed "next to" the light sensitive pixel array in the old design is now placed underneath the light sensitive pixel array.
This makes the physical package size of the "thing" that camera designers have to fit into a camera smaller, but doesn't gather more light? it is still a 1" sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 14:52 UTC

On a technical note,...
At first, I got the impression here that the active area of each individual pixel had somehow become bigger with this new stacked sensor technology, and the sensor could thus gather more light.
But looking closer at the stacked sensor design, the physical size of the array of all the light sensitive pixels is just the same as before.
The active area of the pixels are the same size and the gap between the pixels is also the same.
What becomes smaller is “only” the size of the total chip package (photo sensitive part + logic circuitry part) , since with the new design the logic circuits are placed underneath the photo pixels instead of next to the pixel array.
This obviously brings space advantages to a camera designer and allows more complex circuitry advantages, but not a light gathering advantage, or did I miss something?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 13:24 UTC as 20th comment | 22 replies
On The Welder in the - Canon vs Nikon : The Working Class - (in BW) challenge (5 comments in total)

Congratulations on a great shot !

Direct link | Posted on May 26, 2015 at 22:03 UTC as 1st comment
On Galloping into a New Year in the A "normal" look to the world - full color challenge (1 comment in total)

Amazing wooden horse!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 08:05 UTC as 1st comment
On Enter the Dragon in the Forced Perspective challenge (1 comment in total)

cool!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 09:46 UTC as 1st comment

Wow, these must be really old, looks like #3 was taken at least 2000 years ago

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2015 at 22:08 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (950 comments in total)
In reply to:

jeffinchiangmai1: What is often overlooked when talking about pixels or loss of pixels (as in the LX100) is that the the number of pixels is roughly the square of the sides e.g. 16 mega pixels could roughly equate to 4 x 4 mega pixels.
If you reduce 16 down to 12, that's a loss of 25% actual pixels..
However, this only equates to about 13% loss on the sides of the 4 x 4 square.
Is this such a loss in quality that it first seems?

On the other hand, since this camera has a very short tele (70mm) you will probably find yourself cropping a lot of images to "zoom in" a bit more; and now that "square relationship" will cut your total pixels down very quickly to a very low level. So as the LX100 starts with fewer pixels and then "has to" crop, it's not a particularly good recipe for larger high quality prints :-(
You can't always zoom with your feet, and digital zoom is more or less just the same as cropping.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 25, 2014 at 23:54 UTC
On Sunset on the Playa in the Unusual Natural Formations challenge (1 comment in total)

Nice photo.
The mystery of those sailing rocks has finally been solved and even caught on film!
The answer is "ice shove"

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 22:30 UTC as 1st comment
On Massey Ferguson in the wheat field in the The Harvest challenge (1 comment in total)

great shot !

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 08:11 UTC as 1st comment
On Rice farmers I in the The Harvest challenge (4 comments in total)

wow, 1st and 2nd place !
both worthy winners. Good light , movement, composition,...
Interesting processing technique too.
I'm guessing it's a red filter in pp or IR filter while shooting ?
whatever, it delivers some very good contrast.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 08:11 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 160, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »