PhotoW

Joined on Oct 14, 2018

Comments

Total: 94, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I'm quite excited for this since I appreciate the extra mm on the standard side and don't need wider than 20mm on the wide end, but I also wonder why this was made instead of a G2 for their 17-28 f/2.8. I'm sure this is going to be fantastic, but I'm curious about the marketing decision instead of a G2.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2022 at 12:54 UTC as 58th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

PhotoW: Had you just suggested this without asking users how they felt about it would be one thing, but you ran a poll asking users which method would be most intuitive to describe sensor size, then decided to go the complete opposite direction. The comments in your other article are incredibly negative - because we told you we didn't want this and you did it anyway. I think you need to come out and explain how you messed this up, because pretending to care about your members' opinions is not a good look.

@Richard Butler First, I had to look up that term. Fascinating story, definitely going to keep that in mind!

In that case, you should probably reverse the dimensions and the "Type". Putting the dimensions in parentheses means that they are secondary (which is why they are not part of the full name). Putting the dimensions first means that those are the making convention, and putting the "Type" in parentheses would only indicate the "sensor class". This would likely put your users' needs first.

Not arguing with the idea here - the naming convention we've been using until now has not been working - but the way you went about this was wrong. If you found the UX Designer you were looking for in your job post, I would recommend bringing your research process - including the poll you ran - to them to see where this deviated from standard UX practices. You want a system which will work for the user, but this is slightly counterintuitive.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoW: Had you just suggested this without asking users how they felt about it would be one thing, but you ran a poll asking users which method would be most intuitive to describe sensor size, then decided to go the complete opposite direction. The comments in your other article are incredibly negative - because we told you we didn't want this and you did it anyway. I think you need to come out and explain how you messed this up, because pretending to care about your members' opinions is not a good look.

The problem was asking users what they wanted, then not following through. Coming up with a new system is great and they took great steps trying to research it when reading it to the community. We definitely need a new system, but one which disregards the community's input specifically after requesting that input is not going to work.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 15:59 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoW: So, was asking for our opinion on how to describe it in that poll the other week pointless? Seems like the responses here are mostly negative. That's an absolutely terrible usage of user research right there. I understand that you were looking for a UX Designer recently, so I seriously hope you consult best practices with them next time you make a decision which counters your userbase's intuitions.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5478738679/what-s-the-best-way-to-describe-sensor-size

@Tom Still no. That's not what users asked for. They asked for dimensions. The bulk of the negative responses, from what I can understand, see that the dimensions aren't the descriptor, the "Type" is, and the dimensions will be secondary (and not always referenced if they're only included parenthetically). That's not at all what was implied by the poll they took and not what users envisioned.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 15:56 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dunlin: There seems to be a bad reception, but personally I think it's a good thing.

That's not what users asked for. They asked for dimensions. The negative response here, from what I can understand, sees that the dimensions aren't the descriptor, the "Type" is, and the dimensions will be secondary. That's not what was implied by the poll they took and not what users envisioned.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 15:52 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

kolyy: "Sony Semiconductor, one of the world's largest sensor makers, has also adopted this naming system."

This sounds like you have just made up this naming system and persuaded Sony to use it. While in reality, you have simply adopted Sony's convention, which they have used for some time. Many people will not be happy about it, quite clearly, but using the naming scheme of the largest sensor manufacturer is certainly sensible, if you want to drop the reference to inches.

They have not made this clear. They've approached this ad is they were trying to find a method the community approved of. Adopting a method a corporation uses doesn't always make sense if their methods aren't intuitive either. Since when has Sony cared about UX?

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 15:48 UTC

Had you just suggested this without asking users how they felt about it would be one thing, but you ran a poll asking users which method would be most intuitive to describe sensor size, then decided to go the complete opposite direction. The comments in your other article are incredibly negative - because we told you we didn't want this and you did it anyway. I think you need to come out and explain how you messed this up, because pretending to care about your members' opinions is not a good look.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 15:38 UTC as 57th comment | 11 replies
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoW: So, was asking for our opinion on how to describe it in that poll the other week pointless? Seems like the responses here are mostly negative. That's an absolutely terrible usage of user research right there. I understand that you were looking for a UX Designer recently, so I seriously hope you consult best practices with them next time you make a decision which counters your userbase's intuitions.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5478738679/what-s-the-best-way-to-describe-sensor-size

@Tom No, they have not. The top result of the poll was to use sensor dimensions. For example, the sensor dimensions for the sensor in the Sony a7iv are 35.90mm x 23.90mm. Members indicated that this would be an adequate way of describing the sensor size since we would all know exactly how large it was in comparison to every other sensor. DPReview looked at that data and went the other direction.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 15:32 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

Billy34: Edit: nevermind, this isn’t actually any better.

Why is it so hard for industries in general to just use actual specifications when referring to things? It’s literally just a height and width measurement.

Rounding up hides things.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 15:16 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoW: So, was asking for our opinion on how to describe it in that poll the other week pointless? Seems like the responses here are mostly negative. That's an absolutely terrible usage of user research right there. I understand that you were looking for a UX Designer recently, so I seriously hope you consult best practices with them next time you make a decision which counters your userbase's intuitions.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5478738679/what-s-the-best-way-to-describe-sensor-size

@Tom No they are not. Type 1 standing for 1" is just replacing the diagonal inch measurement with the word 'type'. Dimensions means A x B, two measurements which multiply to a surface area.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 15:14 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dunlin: There seems to be a bad reception, but personally I think it's a good thing.

They asked members how they would classify it in a poll the other week, then ignored the results and did whatever they wanted, going against what most users found to be simple and intuitive.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 14:43 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)

So, was asking for our opinion on how to describe it in that poll the other week pointless? Seems like the responses here are mostly negative. That's an absolutely terrible usage of user research right there. I understand that you were looking for a UX Designer recently, so I seriously hope you consult best practices with them next time you make a decision which counters your userbase's intuitions.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5478738679/what-s-the-best-way-to-describe-sensor-size

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2022 at 14:42 UTC as 269th comment | 10 replies
On article What's the best way to describe sensor size? (595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Notwitholding: In these days, computational photography more and more renders this debate completely irrelevant.

Just like EV cars decimated the debate on engine displacement.

True, but even those companies still use specs as marketing tools. The camera has been a major marketing tool for most new phones.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2022 at 21:19 UTC
On article What's the best way to describe sensor size? (595 comments in total)

Manufacturers probably want to avoid using sensor dimensions. It would reveal that some sensors are larger than others despite being labeled as "FF" or "APS-C".

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2022 at 15:21 UTC as 180th comment | 3 replies
On article What's the best way to describe sensor size? (595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Notwitholding: In these days, computational photography more and more renders this debate completely irrelevant.

Just like EV cars decimated the debate on engine displacement.

In terms of the look of the photos, maybe, but discussing the sensor size itself regardless of final output is rather confusing with the current methods.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2022 at 15:20 UTC
On article What's the best way to describe sensor size? (595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alan Kyker: I like sensor area but in units of 35mm FF. For example a FF sensor would be 1 and MFT would be 1/4 (or 4).

The crop factor is also handy since it scales the focal length and aperture to a FF reference.

Exactly the way it should be, though this would be the hardest method to implement since certain companies want nothing to do with FF.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2022 at 15:17 UTC

I really like this expansion, but light/power is almost always lost when introducing wires. How much light efficiency will be lost with this attachment? Any indication of this anywhere?

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2022 at 22:32 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

Cariboou: I have a subscription plan for photography, and for video I think for free nothing working better of DaVinci Resolve so I pass!

The only upside to the video aspect of this would be if it could handle ProRes RAW since Resolve can't. Highly unlikely that Rush will support that though...

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2021 at 16:06 UTC

It's kind of amazing that the only substantial leaks about this camera have been from Sony themselves. They've kept a tight lid on leaks from this so far, kind of funny they're the ones who "messed up" with this.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2021 at 20:23 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

PerfectMark: For me the most interesting feature is USB 10Gbps. As that could mean you are able to plug an M2 USB SSD in and record the 10bit video directly to that.

Able to - yes. Likely - no. Sony has never used the USB that way before. Would be great if they changed that, but it's unlikely to be the case.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2021 at 14:04 UTC
Total: 94, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »