BJL

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

Comments

Total: 314, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Photo_AK: Consumers shouldn't care about this, it really doesn't matter - we'll just buy other memory cards, big deal ... But this is bad news for Nikon and their decision to go with XQD instead of CFast. Having only one manufacturer supporting XQD is really not good, not to mention it's one of their biggest threats and competitor on the camera market that didn't go with XQD even in their own cameras ... Not good.

Sony use XQD cards is some of its video cameras (XQD and CFast seem more oriented to the high bandwidth needs of video) so the format seems safe for now.

XQD does have the advantage of using the faster and more widely supported PCIe whereas CFast uses SATA, and is now slower than the fastest SD card standard, 6.0.

Maybe that is why the CompactFlash Association seems intent on replacing both XQD and CFast by CFExpress, which uses PCIe, but with up to 8 lanes and in the form factor of XQD rather than than of CFast. (So maybe it should be called XQDExpress?!)

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

Reactive: I think it's great that Fuji are doing well, but I'm sure a couple of things might help them sell even more.
a) Replace the Fujifilm name. It's from yesteryear and looks silly and old-fashioned on a modern camera.
b) Try to modernize the designs. However technically competent they are, and however good the handling, making cameras that look like antique Zenits from the 1970s can do nothing but help many potential buyers overlook Fuji and go straight to modern looking Canons and Nikons.

@drblack: "alpha" was the branding that Minolta used in Japan. Sony decided to eliminate the regional differences in brand name ans use "alpha" everywhere.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

Yassine Eraman: Please what's the size of RED 8K sensor ?? Is it FF or MF or APS-C ??

According to Read's website at http://www.red.com/products/weapon-8k#tech-specs the sensor is 29.90 x 15.77 mm (Diagonal: 33.80 mm), and an "ANA" version at 33.60 mm x 21.60 mm (Diagonal: 39.94 mm).
So bigger than the classic 35mm movie formats like Super 35 and a bit bigger than so-called APS-C sensors, but a bit smaller than 35mm still format of 36x24mm (41.5mm diagonal), so that lenses for that format can be used.

However, multiple articles about the original announcement give the sensor size as 40.96mm x 21.6mm:
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/04/red-8k-full-frame-vista-vision-weapon-dragon-6k-price-cost-availability-nab-2015
https://www.engadget.com/2015/04/13/red-8k-weapon-camera/

Maybe Red announced one thing and then exercised its standard disclaimer "Tech specs reflect both current and projected information. Everything is subject to change." to make the sensor usable with a lot more lenses.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
On article iOS 11 will cut photo, video size in half (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

Linerider: So this only works with the latest Apple device.
What's the point?

@WesPerry Yes there has been some H.265 support and usage since the iPhone 6, released in late 2014. See this news story
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/12/apples-iphone-6-iphone-6-plus-use-h265-codec-for-facetime-over-cellular

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 14:34 UTC
On article iOS 11 will cut photo, video size in half (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

bartjeej: Would HEIF also allow even lower compression (or atleast, less lossy compression) than current low-compressed jpegs, or more than 8 bits, at sensible file sizes?

Yes to both: HEVC and HEIF (H.265) have options for lossless compression and various bit depths up to 16. IIRC, iOS 11 will only use 8 and 10 bit depth. Lots of details at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Profiles

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 14:22 UTC
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 (301 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 (301 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 (301 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 (137 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 (137 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 (137 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
Total: 314, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »