BJL

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 17, 2002

Comments

Total: 269, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

chshooter: Using the 85mm lens on medium format doesn't convince me. The lens was designed for 35mm sensors so heavy vignetting and soft corners seem to be pretty likely on a bigger sensor

Typically, lenses longer than "normal" produce a bigger than needed image circle, as a side effect of their design, with image circle diameter not much less than their focal length. So _any_ 85mm lens design has a good chance of comfortably covering the mere 55mm image circle of the GFX, and probably even any 65mm design.

What I do not expect from these "discount" third party lens makers is wide-angle or normal lenses for larger than 36x24mm formats – those definitely need new optical designs.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 23:55 UTC
On article Sony a9 first look videos (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike921: Specs look good, sure do. When/if the lens situation firms up they could be serious competition to Canon/Nikon. However, Cameras are such a small part of Sony corp. revenue, the product line can be eliminated in very short order should the balance sheet dictate (a la Samsung). Canon and Nikon have a lot more skin in the game.

@rubberdials The EF-M mount diameter is 47mm, so wider than Sony E mount (46.1mm) while both are 18mm from the sensor, so that sounds wide enough for 36x24mm format. (Nikon F mount is only 44mm wide!) But maybe you know more details.

Anyway, in the worst case, Canon could introduce a 35mm format mirrorless mount that _is_ big enough, and accommodate EF lenses via an adaptor. Likewise for Nikon.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 02:39 UTC
On article Sony a9 first look videos (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike921: Specs look good, sure do. When/if the lens situation firms up they could be serious competition to Canon/Nikon. However, Cameras are such a small part of Sony corp. revenue, the product line can be eliminated in very short order should the balance sheet dictate (a la Samsung). Canon and Nikon have a lot more skin in the game.

@rubberdials, Canon already has its mirrorless system "M" system that allows EF lenses to be adaptor mounted and fairly small bodies. The same would work with a 36x24mm sensor:

With mirrorless cameras, sensor size has rather little effect on the size of the camera body — size is mostly dictated by lens size and the need for adequate controls, battery, and such.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 20:44 UTC
On article Sony a9 first look videos (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

pjl321: If Sony knows what a great feature an electronic shutter is then why would they not include it on the A-Mount flagship the A99ii?

I like the A9 but the price is too high, the A99ii offers similar-ish speeds, almost twice the resolution, dual card slot, good battery life (for Sony) and has better priced lenses (ie Tamron, Sigma).

Its hard to justify paying 50% more for this camera over the A99ii or if you are locked into the E-Mount already then paying twice the price of the A7rii (although is a much bigger speed increase A7Rii to A9 than A99ii to A9).

I am also a little worried by the lake of interest in what mentioning what really matters, image quality, ISO handling, low light performance, dynamic range...)

Perhaps because:
A) The electronic shutter is a feature aimed at special needs like very high frame rates that are more important to the target market of this camera than for the A99ii.
B) This is a newer sensor than the one in the A99ii (which arrived almost two years ago in the A7Rii) and with fewer, larger photosites, which might make it easier to do the electronic shutter, and to do it with acceptably low rolling shutter effect.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 15:15 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dragonrider: JPEGs are kind of flat (low contrast and muted colors) but the processed shots look nice. I do think the limited depth of field on the MF could be "limiting" for a lot of applications.

@Porky89 Yes, that is exactly what I said. The higher ISO speed option is not so bad, since it roughly just cancels out the IQ advantage that the larger format typically has at equal ISO speed, but I think we agree that the IQ advantage of medium format typically comes with the trade-off of lower shutter speed; it is not for action photography!

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 00:20 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dragonrider: JPEGs are kind of flat (low contrast and muted colors) but the processed shots look nice. I do think the limited depth of field on the MF could be "limiting" for a lot of applications.

@Dragonrider, how does your comment about DOF translate to "not much of a real IQ advantage"? Traditionally MF has been chosen over 35mm format for greater resolution, finer tonal gradations (related to dynamic range) and better lens quality through factors like achieving a giver DOF at a higher f-stop and so with less aberrations — but typically at lower shutter speeds and so with more need for a tripod (or good IS!)

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 18:42 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dragonrider: JPEGs are kind of flat (low contrast and muted colors) but the processed shots look nice. I do think the limited depth of field on the MF could be "limiting" for a lot of applications.

DOF can always be increased by stopping down, and with apertures chosen to give equal DOF in different formats, the diffraction effects are also equal (when images are viewed at the same size.) So it is not true that larger formats are "stuck" with less DOF.

The higher f-stop needed to get a given DOF does mean that a larger format is stuck with needing to either:
- use a lower shutter speed in order to get the same DOF at the same ISO speed, or
- increase the ISO speed in order to get the same DOF at the same shutter speed,
but at worst that reduces or cancels the IQ advantages of a larger format; it does not put it at a disadvantage in IQ. (Just in price, size, and weight!)

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

Nicolas Alexander Otto: I'm German and I've never heard of these guys before. Maybe it's because I mainly shoot ultra wide and thus have no need for such lenses or it's because their marketing department is not up to the task. Anyway looks interesting for portrait shooters I guess.

@mr.izo Reading that Wikipedia article to the end, it appears that the current "Meyer Optik" is just reusing the name of that venerable company, which disappeared some years ago.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: I am not familiar with the brand.
Is this a company with proven products or just something with a fancy name to sound exclusive?
Could anyone who used these lenses respond with your experience?
Thanks.

Edit: After posting that, I read through many comments below and got a good laugh out of them. I think I got my answer :)

@Karroly Indeed, I am not saying that these lenses are not indeed German designed and made; I am only saying that this company is not at all the same one as the prestigious "Meyer Optik" of years past, so the name of the company is deliberately misleading.

Frankly, it smells like yet another KickStarter pyramid scheme.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 23:37 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: I am not familiar with the brand.
Is this a company with proven products or just something with a fancy name to sound exclusive?
Could anyone who used these lenses respond with your experience?
Thanks.

Edit: After posting that, I read through many comments below and got a good laugh out of them. I think I got my answer :)

Thanks Karroly: so this is a recently created company, recycling the brand name of a historic lens maker that disappeared some time ago. A bit like the current "Kodak" and "Polaroid" branded products, but far more expensive.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 00:57 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a lovely review... Yet what it is really missing is an understanding why we need medium format in the first place. So, listen up :)

It is all about lenses. More precisely, about a fundamental conflict between sharpness and micro-contrast. The conflict stems from the fact that the smaller the frame is, the higher are requirements for lens resolution. More resolution means more edge sharpness, means higher overall contrast. That, in turn, prevent from increasing micro-contrast. Larger frame means less need for high resolution, which, in turn, makes it easier to design a lens with higher micro-contrast.

Now, what is micro-contrast, and why do we want it? It is the micro-contrast that makes pictures look alive. Lenses with high sharpness and low micro-contrast (like Sigma Art series, for instance) render a highly detailed image that looks flat. A high micro-contrast lens creates an image that looks three-dimensional even when it is not critically sharp.

@Preternatural Stuff: actually, the article points out that in this case (and often with medium format vs 35mm format) the larger format does not give much in the way of options for less DOF, because the lenses for a format larger than 35mm tend to have higher minimum f-stops, (particularly in leaf-shutter systems like Hasselblad's.) This roughly cancels out the DOF difference in minimum DOF, which only applies if you assume equal f-stop in the different formats—or even puts 35mm ahead in that "contest".

Not that any MF or larger format user I know care much about striving for extremes of shallow DOF: they are instead mostly stopping down to get enough DOF, with "wide open" used only for composing, for accurate focusing and a bright image in the OVF.

More resolution, finer tonal gradations, and less lens abberations (related to typically using higher f-stops) are far more often the arguments I hear for using MF over 35mm.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a lovely review... Yet what it is really missing is an understanding why we need medium format in the first place. So, listen up :)

It is all about lenses. More precisely, about a fundamental conflict between sharpness and micro-contrast. The conflict stems from the fact that the smaller the frame is, the higher are requirements for lens resolution. More resolution means more edge sharpness, means higher overall contrast. That, in turn, prevent from increasing micro-contrast. Larger frame means less need for high resolution, which, in turn, makes it easier to design a lens with higher micro-contrast.

Now, what is micro-contrast, and why do we want it? It is the micro-contrast that makes pictures look alive. Lenses with high sharpness and low micro-contrast (like Sigma Art series, for instance) render a highly detailed image that looks flat. A high micro-contrast lens creates an image that looks three-dimensional even when it is not critically sharp.

About micro-contrast: my read is that this is the familiar fact that with a smaller format, the lenses of proportionately smaller focal length used to get the same Field Of View need proportionally higher resolution (in lines per mm); more carefully, a target like 50% MTF needs to be achieved at proportionately higher lpmm. What I have seen from the best lenses for formats from Four Thirds to 35mm to 44x33mm and up is that they often do have MTF performance that increases as the format size gets smaller; for example Four Thirds and MFT lens MTF graphs are given for 60 and 20 lpmm vs the common 30 and 10 lpmm for 35mm format. Optics tends to allow this: scaling down a lens design to the smaller focal length and image circle needed to get the same FOV coverage on a smaller sensor tends to maintain roughly the same angular resolution and so scales up the resolution—BUT the manufacturing tolerances needed to get the results that the design promises can become more challenging.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

Arastoo (sorry for the typo), I agree with most of what you say. A lot of "equivalent aperture" arguments in favor of larger formats ignore that bit about needing to increase the exposure index ("ISO speed") to get the same DOF _and_the_same_shutter_speed_.
That is why I see a core advantage of formats larger than 36x24mmm being when used at base ISO speed, and therefore requiring _longer_exposure_times_ when seeking the same DOF. When a larger sensor is exposed like this, and so gets close to full well capacity in highlights, it has a good change of gathering more total photons, helping DR, SNR and/or detail. For example, the larger sensor could have:
(1) more pixels of the same size as a smaller sensor, so getting about the same photon count on average as the smaller sensor, giving more detail and similar DR and SNR, or
(2) an equal number of larger pixels, each getting more light, giving more DR, better SNR, about equal detail.

All assuming well capacity per unit area is similar!

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

@Aristo: the point is that more total light can be gathered, typically by longer exposure times at base ISO speed. Actually the higher f-stop needed to get the same DOF in a larger format means less intense illumination and equal total light gathering rate across the whole sensor, so longer exposure times are often essential to getting the main IQ advantage of a larger format.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 11:29 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a lovely review... Yet what it is really missing is an understanding why we need medium format in the first place. So, listen up :)

It is all about lenses. More precisely, about a fundamental conflict between sharpness and micro-contrast. The conflict stems from the fact that the smaller the frame is, the higher are requirements for lens resolution. More resolution means more edge sharpness, means higher overall contrast. That, in turn, prevent from increasing micro-contrast. Larger frame means less need for high resolution, which, in turn, makes it easier to design a lens with higher micro-contrast.

Now, what is micro-contrast, and why do we want it? It is the micro-contrast that makes pictures look alive. Lenses with high sharpness and low micro-contrast (like Sigma Art series, for instance) render a highly detailed image that looks flat. A high micro-contrast lens creates an image that looks three-dimensional even when it is not critically sharp.

Can you point me to a definition of micro-contrast and an explanation of why scaling down for a smaller format to a shorter focal length of higher resolution (in lines per mm; same in lines per picture height) reduces micro-contrast and how that makes an image "more flat, less 3D"?

I do expect that lens optics will ultimately be a natural advantage of larger formats, but I want the details!

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 11:23 UTC

A good article overall; my only complaint is that no current 36x24mm format camera matches both the DR and resolution of these 44x33mm format cameras. For now, the performance gap been 36x24 and 44x33 is small, but any 36x24 options does sacrifice a bit in either resolution (Nikon, Sony, Pentax) or DR (Canon).

As far as I can tell, the traditional advantages of larger formats—before the digital photography forum obsession with SNR, high ISO and "BOKEH"—have been related mostly to DR (related to handling of fine tonal gradations and scenes of high subject brightness range), detail (pixel counts and lens resolution in "lines per picture height"), along with advantages in lens performance, partly from lower aberrations and such, due to working at higher f-stops (as is the case when seeking a given DOF). As in "base-ISO and never mind the shutter speed: use a tripod or flash when IS is not enough."

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 02:45 UTC as 97th comment
In reply to:

princecody: Does Fuji make their own chips?

This article suggests that there might be more customization than I thought, including deeper wells for more highlight tolerance (and so 1/3 stop lower base ISO speed)—though the language is rather garbled.

http://fujifilm-x.com/de/x-stories/gfx-technologies-1/

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 00:01 UTC
In reply to:

Arnold Attard: Fuji's GFX quasi medium format is strategically competing with Full Frame. The sensor size is not a full blown 6x6 medium format but larger than 24x36. They have achieved a substantial technical and production head start on Sony, Canon and Nikon.
For street photographers full frame no longer makes any sense and the APS-C is here to stay. With a 33x44 sensor Fujifilm virtually almost doubles the sensor's optical performance of a 24x36. Prices will inevitably align in the not too distant future to current high end full frame cameras. This is called strategic marketing! Being an X-pro2 user I'd love to see a GFX X-pro22.

With digital, the old 6x6 (56x56mm) film format is a rather irrelevant comparison. Current medium format systems are all based on 56x42mm ("645") format for film backs, and the biggest sensors are slightly smaller at 54x40mm.

I like Fujifilm's choice of formats: 24x16 and 44x33. With EVF camera systems and their all-new lens systems, I see no reason to conform to the formats of film, laid down almost a century ago, and the size ratio between these two is a bit more than between the 36x24 to 56x42 film formats.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: Does Fuji make their own chips?

HB1969, thanks for the extra details. Let me rephrase then that the whole sensor is manufactured by Sony, and the electronic part is also designed by Sony, but with custom toppings (CFAs and micro lenses) designed by FujiFilm.

P. S. While we are debating the fine points: the company is FujiFILM, as it clearly says on the front of their cameras. Many Japanese companies have "Fuji" as part of their name, and for example while you might think that "Fuji America" is the US distributer for this camera, in fact here is the company that puts the name "Fuji" on its products: http://www.fujiamerica.com/evolution.html

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: Does Fuji make their own chips?

FujiFilm uses Sony CMOS sensors these days: the GFX uses the same 44x33mm Sony sensor as several other cameras from Hasselblad, Pentax and Phase One.
Sometimes Fujifilm uses its own custom Color Filter Arrays on those sensors ("X-Trans"), but the electronic part is still from Sony.

FujiFilm did develop some of its own CCD sensors, called "SuperCCD", but has not developed its own CMOS sensors.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 14:53 UTC
Total: 269, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »