Easycass

Easycass

Lives in Thailand Phuket, Thailand
Works as a Offshore Vessel Exploration Manager
Joined on Jun 8, 2012
About me:

I am a late 40's Australian, work offshore running a research ship, travel all the time, love photography, and one day may even grow up.

Comments

Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: One last go...

Equivalence is a great word, in the cases we wish to use it for here, it essentially means "gives the same result", or at least "very similar". I may not fully understand all this, but surely, whether you have a use for the information or not, we can agree on the following: -

1. Equivalent exposure - Eg Settings of f/2.0 - 1/60s - ISO400 has an 'equivalent exposure' to f/4 - 1/30s - ISO800. Agreed?

2. Equivalent FOV - Eg a 50mm lens on 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent field of view' to 75mm on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

3. Equivalent DOF/DIF/TL - Eg Settings of f/1.4 on a 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent DOF, diffraction and total-light' to f/2.1 on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

No one is saying in any of the 'equivalences' above that the 'settings' themselves are the same, only that they produce an equivalent result: whether exposure, FOV or DOF.

Maybe my numbers above are out (late at night), but you likely get my drift.

Let's move on, hey...

Hi there GB and M,

Yes, I understand all your points. Being a 35mm film dude from way back, I too really do think of exposure as 'how much light' and 'for how long', with the relationship between them known as reciprocity, but I guess I added in the ISO part of the equation in my example since, these days, digital control of ISO sensitivity appears to play a big part in what people use to control the final image 'brightness'...

I guess I was just trying to get us all beyond the point of worrying about using the word 'equivalent', as it 'seems' so many posters were worried that any mention of it combined with the word 'f-stop' would be confused with exposure. I mean, so long as we stipulate explicitly 'what' is equivalent, using the word with FOV and DOF/DIF/TL/etc should be quite understandable.

I do believe there is a place for the article above and hopefully Richard can use the assorted comments to refine his article to avoid future confusion and/or controversy...

My best...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 08:22 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)

One last go...

Equivalence is a great word, in the cases we wish to use it for here, it essentially means "gives the same result", or at least "very similar". I may not fully understand all this, but surely, whether you have a use for the information or not, we can agree on the following: -

1. Equivalent exposure - Eg Settings of f/2.0 - 1/60s - ISO400 has an 'equivalent exposure' to f/4 - 1/30s - ISO800. Agreed?

2. Equivalent FOV - Eg a 50mm lens on 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent field of view' to 75mm on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

3. Equivalent DOF/DIF/TL - Eg Settings of f/1.4 on a 1.5 crop sensor has an 'equivalent DOF, diffraction and total-light' to f/2.1 on a full-frame sensor. Agreed?

No one is saying in any of the 'equivalences' above that the 'settings' themselves are the same, only that they produce an equivalent result: whether exposure, FOV or DOF.

Maybe my numbers above are out (late at night), but you likely get my drift.

Let's move on, hey...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2014 at 17:16 UTC as 22nd comment | 5 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Butler: It's been suggested to me that people would be happier if we used the term 'Equivalent F-number' rather than 'Equivalent Aperture.' Is this the case?

Instead of a new term, or an existing term that might confuse people, then, since we are mostly trying to give a match to characteristics of field-of-view and depth-of-field, why not be specific: FOV/DOF Equivalence

To satisfy both sides of the argument to get equivalent images, 1) those that wish to use the full sensor frame will adjust their lens focal-length and aperture, and 2) those that wish to crop their sensor data keeping the same lens focal-length and aperture, we can quote the information with focal length, aperture and crop factor...

Thus simply: -

FOV/DOF Equivalence Information

APS-C: 54mm f/1.4 ~ 35mm FF: 84mm f/2.1 ~ Crop Factor 1.5

I think most people would understand that. Just an idea...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 04:42 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: Perhaps a simple question may help decide if this is useful or not: -

Let's say my photo assistant has an APS-C camera with a crop-factor of 1.5, and I have a FF frame camera. We agree that we will take the same shots of a model, in that the end results of the raw image files must have the same angle of view, same exposure, same framing and same depth-of-field. We also decide that the APS-C camera will use f/1.4 and a 56mm lens, in aperture priority.

We essentially want 'equivalent' photos.

So, the question is, what settings do I need for my FF camera/lens to match the APS-C images?

From what I see, I might get two answers to this: -

1) a lens focal length plus aperture value to use, or
2) opinions expressing that it is unimportant, or that f1.4 is f1.4 is f1.4, or it is too confusing, or I don't need any calculations, etc...

For me, I would certainly find the first answer to be more helpful... Possibly a use for some calculations after all?

Okay, let me have it...!

Hi nigelht,

Yes, I get your equivalence methodology: -

Crop: take my FF sensor, throw away all the data that surrounds the central part of the image.

Yep, that actually works. Incredible.

Guess that just means my nice FF camera is not really worth having. What a shame.

And yet, if someone were to just do a tiny little bit of maths, I could use the whole FF sensor by suggesting an 85mm, at f/2...

As to your "The real question is why would you want to in the first place". If you cannot answer the question, fair enough, but you have no right to ask me to change it.

I see that the problem is the difference in methodology and terminology. Most aspects of photography can be accomplished using multiple methods. Why not we just all live with each. You can stick with your cropping method, and I will use my whole sensor with an 'equivalent' lens and aperture.

If I want the equivalent image straight out of two different format cameras, simple math works fine no matter what we call it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 04:08 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)

Perhaps a simple question may help decide if this is useful or not: -

Let's say my photo assistant has an APS-C camera with a crop-factor of 1.5, and I have a FF frame camera. We agree that we will take the same shots of a model, in that the end results of the raw image files must have the same angle of view, same exposure, same framing and same depth-of-field. We also decide that the APS-C camera will use f/1.4 and a 56mm lens, in aperture priority.

We essentially want 'equivalent' photos.

So, the question is, what settings do I need for my FF camera/lens to match the APS-C images?

From what I see, I might get two answers to this: -

1) a lens focal length plus aperture value to use, or
2) opinions expressing that it is unimportant, or that f1.4 is f1.4 is f1.4, or it is too confusing, or I don't need any calculations, etc...

For me, I would certainly find the first answer to be more helpful... Possibly a use for some calculations after all?

Okay, let me have it...!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 19:05 UTC as 48th comment | 15 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: Thanks for legitimizing one man's crackpot theory. You have set photographic understanding back by 150 years and made life harder for photography teachers everywhere.
What you guys are ignoring is that f-stop also controls overall performance of the lens. Most lenses are sharpest at their middle apertures—there's no "equivalence" for that law of optical engineering. The image from a cropped sensor camera is not going to be as sharp across the frame at f/2.8 as one from a large-sensor camera is at f/5.6.

rfsIII:-

I think we sort of agree. Your phrase "In other words, it's great for choosing which camera to buy, but can interfere with intelligent choices once you're out in the field"...

1) Yes, I think this article is relevant to people that look at a website that reviews cameras, where people might like to understand a comparison between different sensor format cameras.

2) No one ever said we 'had to' think about this when using a 'chosen' format out in the field. Luckily, I am 'intelligent' enough to not confuse myself when I use an individual format in the field'.

I just found this interesting in understanding why, for instance, the DoF at F1.4 on the APS-C Fuji looks different than the same shot on the F1.4 FF Nikon.

If people do not find the information useful, I say then just don't use the information... For me, yes, I found it useful for the purpose of understanding the comparison of different formats, but not for using within a format. Not anything to worry about really...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 05:53 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: Thanks for legitimizing one man's crackpot theory. You have set photographic understanding back by 150 years and made life harder for photography teachers everywhere.
What you guys are ignoring is that f-stop also controls overall performance of the lens. Most lenses are sharpest at their middle apertures—there's no "equivalence" for that law of optical engineering. The image from a cropped sensor camera is not going to be as sharp across the frame at f/2.8 as one from a large-sensor camera is at f/5.6.

Interesting that it appears you have 'decided' that your fellow readers are 'ignoring' some facet of lenses that you find relevant and important...

Your comment, whether correct or not, is yes, for sure is part of a much broader discussion about lens performance, but perhaps not really relevant to the core of this article, which was to explain equivalence. Do you agree?

To your point, yes, one can agree that in many cases, it will likely be easier to design a lens for a larger sensor to out-perform a lens designed for a smaller sensor, especially if using parameters such as optimum aperture 'sweet spot'. Not too difficult to agree on, or not one we could ignore I don't think, despite your belief otherwise...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 14:52 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)

Nice article Richard...

I don't quite get what the hecklers in some of the comments are on about, but I for one found that it was well written, and easy to follow. This is the sort of article we need on DPreview and other photo-oriented sites. Opinions (like from the aforementioned hecklers who would rather throw in a negative bit of gibberish to back up their sometimes curiously narrow points of view) are fun to read at times, but it is refreshing to get a bit of factual stuff to set things straight once in a while...

Cheers...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 14:28 UTC as 150th comment | 5 replies
On Fujifilm X-T1 real-world samples gallery article (187 comments in total)

You know, firstly I gotta say, after reading the various comments posted in reposnse to many of the posts by Dpreview, one could certainly come to a conclusion that the majority of photographers (and I use the term loosely) who do choose to comment on the forum are a rather miserable bunch who seem to revel in finding negative aspects to almost anything...

Let's clarify... The sample pictures for a camera or lens serve as a reference, taken in different lighting and shooting conditrions, that augment the technical reviews of the equipment. The images are not a stand-alone guage as to if equipment is worth buying, but give us 'extra' criteria in the review process. They do not need to be stellar shots in themselves, since surely that could more reflect the capability of the photographer raher than equipment. A consistent style in varying conditions for reviews, even if mundane in content, provide a good benchmark for assessment.

Thanks again to Dpreview for the additional information.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2014 at 13:25 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On Fujifilm teases upcoming SLR-style X system camera article (921 comments in total)
In reply to:

M DeNero: For days now I have been reading comments looking for common sense rationale explaining the functional benefits of these retro cameras. I haven't found any compelling ones. I have, on the other hand, found hundreds of superficial "it sure is pretty" comments.

Hi there M DeNero ,

I understand that some people do not see it as logical, as people have different perceptions, needs and thus preferences. Take communication, some people prefer to talk, some can type faster, some can use hand-signs, some people can write. All have preferences, and none are better than the other, except to the individual. The same with camera controls.

I think the 'gush' as you put it, is because many people who came from the pre buttons and dial age have an affinity to the dials and knobs. To understand is only to appreciate that people have different experience and desires from you.

For me, to change shutter speed, I could push a button and turn a command dial 3-4 times, or turn the shutter speed dial maybe once. Same for aperture, push a button and turn a dial a few times, or on a lens get what I want in less than a single turn. Just seems 'less fiddly' to me. I dunno, its like trying to explain liking a manual stick-shift over an automatic transmission...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2014 at 00:17 UTC
On Fujifilm teases upcoming SLR-style X system camera article (921 comments in total)
In reply to:

M DeNero: For days now I have been reading comments looking for common sense rationale explaining the functional benefits of these retro cameras. I haven't found any compelling ones. I have, on the other hand, found hundreds of superficial "it sure is pretty" comments.

Hi M DeNero, yes, some people maybe cannot think of anything logical as to why they like a camera. In a way, I wish people did not refer to it as 'retro'.

There are at least four types of interface on today's cameras: 1) Push Button/Command Dial, 2) Menu/Command/Cursor, 3) Touch Screen, 4) Direct Dial, and likely more.

For me, I like number 4. If we want to use the word 'retro', I like it because the main things I adjust are shutter speed, aperture, exposure compensation, ISO, metering and drive mode, with AE/AF locks as a bonus. If I can adjust all these directly on a camera that has these controls seperated in a logical layout, it helps me concentrate on the picture rather than the camera. Just my preference, but I do understand if not everyone's cup of tea.

Whether it is pretty or not is rather subjective I agree, but to those that do like the layout, that suits their style of shooting, then I guess it just might appear to be a thing of beauty for them...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2014 at 15:26 UTC
On Fujifilm teases upcoming SLR-style X system camera article (921 comments in total)

Hope Dpreview does not mind, but just wanted to point everyone to some extra pictures of the camera over at fujirumours. More drool for those that love the functionality and logical layout of the traditional direct dial settings...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2014 at 15:08 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nowelly: I find these comments incredible. As a current Nikon user, an ex-Canon user (back to the days when it all started with the EOS 650), I have to say that the Df is a refreshing addition. I will also say, as a Nikon user, in photography, ergonomics mean "ease of access to the majority of critical exposure and mode controls at a heartbeat" (because often in photography, you need to make a split second decision, not browse through endless menus and two-handed command dial + button options). Photography is all about getting that vital shot, not about faffing with over-complicated gear and impressing your mates with what hangs around the neck. The Df offers a return of that elusive one-turn dial adjustment or flick of a switch, made possible without removing an eye from the viewfinder ... many photographers will view that possibility alone, with D4 sensor, as worth it's weight in gold.

I agree with the sentiments and desire of Nowelly. Yes, ease of access to the critical exposure controls, which to me means being able to adjust aperture, shutter speed, ISO, exposure compensation, and mode control, all with little change in grip and hand orientation. This is what I hoped the Df would be. I long for it.

But, I have to also agree with T3's observations. This has all the knobs, but the combination of locking mechanisms and less than optimsed placement means that for my style of shooting, setting changes look like they may be somewhat cumbersome.

Of course we have not held one, but just looking at it, ease of access in "a heartbeat" may not be what this camera is for...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 08:46 UTC
On Hands-on with the retro Nikon Df article (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: Well, good for Nikon to give us an alternative, but I think Andy's summing up on page 10 of the Hands On says it for me...

Probably like to redesign the whole control layout, but even a subtle redesign would do it, perhaps: -

1: Top-plate left: Dials for ISO and WB - Lockable
2: Top-plate right: As is, take away mode dial, move LCD forward, and add non-lockable exposure compensation operated by thumb.
3. Front: Change rotary control on right-hand fore-finger to non-lockable mode dial, use stepped rotating ring around lens mount to cover apperture control of G-lenses.

That is just one idea, undoubtedly lots of others everyone wishes for. Nice idea Nikon, but for me, the implementation leaves me wondering...

Well, I bow to your great wisdom in knowing my needs better than I do...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 03:53 UTC
On Hands-on with the retro Nikon Df article (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: Well, good for Nikon to give us an alternative, but I think Andy's summing up on page 10 of the Hands On says it for me...

Probably like to redesign the whole control layout, but even a subtle redesign would do it, perhaps: -

1: Top-plate left: Dials for ISO and WB - Lockable
2: Top-plate right: As is, take away mode dial, move LCD forward, and add non-lockable exposure compensation operated by thumb.
3. Front: Change rotary control on right-hand fore-finger to non-lockable mode dial, use stepped rotating ring around lens mount to cover apperture control of G-lenses.

That is just one idea, undoubtedly lots of others everyone wishes for. Nice idea Nikon, but for me, the implementation leaves me wondering...

I am sure I will try it out. Believe me when I say I love the idea of the sort of control lay out offered here, but only wished, according to my style of shooting, that there were a few changes, an opinion only, but based on what I need, which may of course differ from your needs...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 17:44 UTC
On Hands-on with the retro Nikon Df article (230 comments in total)

Well, good for Nikon to give us an alternative, but I think Andy's summing up on page 10 of the Hands On says it for me...

Probably like to redesign the whole control layout, but even a subtle redesign would do it, perhaps: -

1: Top-plate left: Dials for ISO and WB - Lockable
2: Top-plate right: As is, take away mode dial, move LCD forward, and add non-lockable exposure compensation operated by thumb.
3. Front: Change rotary control on right-hand fore-finger to non-lockable mode dial, use stepped rotating ring around lens mount to cover apperture control of G-lenses.

That is just one idea, undoubtedly lots of others everyone wishes for. Nice idea Nikon, but for me, the implementation leaves me wondering...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 09:07 UTC as 15th comment | 6 replies
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1514 comments in total)

You just got to love all the comments that are negative, pessimistic, scathing, derogatory and downright miserable... I believe it is in the interests of every photographic company to be open to the idea of providing a choice of user interface, regardless of the level of technology inside. We do not need to like all the choices we are given, but why not embrace the fact we are at least given the chance to choose...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 05:17 UTC as 135th comment | 6 replies
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (554 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: To comment... I always shake my head and smile when I read the negative comments thrown about on DPreview.

When I studied photography, all those photographers around me were such enthusiastic and positive people, eager to embrace all that was thrown our way. Even for me, I thought I would never give up film, but soon came to appreciate the benefits of digital.

While this camera, what ever form it comes in, will not suit every photographer, I am sure there will be some, perhaps, yes, the older types, but also perhaps some enlightened younger generation, who would at least welcome the chance to hold something that had the technology of a D4, but the photographic handling of an F4; a photographic hybrid.

I think if such a creature was made, there would be many who would feel again the real 'love' of having something that melted into ones hand, looked purposeful, was able to record excellent imge quality, and became, as we used to believe we had, something we could never be without...

I would have to agree the 'sentiment' with which I have phrased my like for such a hybrid concept is rather romantic. It is a funny thing, but although I moved to the F5 at the time, I still found myself picking up the F4 first. It wasn't because older was 'better' by any stretch of the imagination, just the feel of the thing, that Soviet tank. That is what romance is I guess, a desire to choose something that may be flawed in both function and ergonomics, yet still feels good to hold and use. We do the same with people, boats and cars all the time...

But enough of all that poetic stuff. I agree with you in terms of improvements we have seen over the years. I just think it is a good thing that manufacturers provide a choice of user interface, one for those that love menus and touch screens, and ones that prefer discrete exterior controls that both show a setting and allow its adjustment directly. One way is not better than the other; it is to have the choice that is important.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2013 at 00:55 UTC
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (554 comments in total)

To comment... I always shake my head and smile when I read the negative comments thrown about on DPreview.

When I studied photography, all those photographers around me were such enthusiastic and positive people, eager to embrace all that was thrown our way. Even for me, I thought I would never give up film, but soon came to appreciate the benefits of digital.

While this camera, what ever form it comes in, will not suit every photographer, I am sure there will be some, perhaps, yes, the older types, but also perhaps some enlightened younger generation, who would at least welcome the chance to hold something that had the technology of a D4, but the photographic handling of an F4; a photographic hybrid.

I think if such a creature was made, there would be many who would feel again the real 'love' of having something that melted into ones hand, looked purposeful, was able to record excellent imge quality, and became, as we used to believe we had, something we could never be without...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2013 at 16:44 UTC as 62nd comment | 12 replies
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: A good article. There will always be various ways to achieve better results; explaining the technique was the point.

And ‘cheating’? Even purist photographers are never able to fully represent reality. Would that mean everyone ‘cheats’?

In camera we: crop, rotate, use focal length, DOF, compression, distortion, shutter speed, expression, props, shadows, viewpoint, film, exposure, blockers, lighting, reflectors, masks, filters, etc.

In the darkroom we: dodge, burn, mask, filter, diffuse, solarize, graduate, spot, colour balance, vignette, bleach, and even do composites (you know, a house and a different sky) by multiple exposures and sandwiching negatives.

In Photoshop we: do all of the above and more.

All the above distort what is reality. Am I to believe that those ‘photographers’ here who accuse people of ‘cheating’ do none of the above?

Photography - Painting with light - You do not have to like what is created, but love that we have the ability and freedom to create...

Hello again Wye,

I do understand your desire for a personal authenticity, but as you say, I think as long as people do not try to pass any modified image as something it is not, then we are happy.

Believe it or not, I am with you, and prefer unaltered images as much as possible. I used to think the only image that came close to be straight fromn the camera at least, was a positive slide, no printing, no cropping, only the film, ASA, aperture and shutter to get it right. I do allow myself a bit more latitude these days... Though sometimes I still can't bring myself to straighten a horizon in PS!

But I guess I have learned to appreciate there are many forms of photography these days, many ways to poduce 'the image', and so long as 'it works', I try not to judge 'how' they made it work...

Ps...
I too think you should keep the iPhone shots on your website. I really liked them. Whether they are photo-like or painterly, for me it only mattered that I enjoyed looking at them...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2013 at 21:03 UTC
Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »