BJL

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

Comments

Total: 346, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Belphegor: Sony A7R: 465 g
Sony A7R II: 625 g
Sony A7R III: 660 g
...
Sony A7R IV: 770 g ? (= my Canon 6D)
Mirrorless but not weightless… :-(

Weight with battery I take it—an extra 35g over the MkII in exchange for the larger battery with over twice the capacity is a good trade-off. In the past, Sony has gone too light on battery size in its 35mm format cameras.

P. S. And still about 300g lighter than its DSLR peers.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 01:18 UTC
In reply to:

davev8: if 8K is hear soon then it may be a problem for the video orientated m43 cameras to stay relevant ...i hear no rumor for a 33MP m43 sensor

Current phone-camera pixel sizes would scale to about 16K in 4/3" format, so if and when there is a demand for 8K in MFT, it would be easy as far as sensors go. If anything, smaller sensor sizes can handle high data rates more easily, due to shorter signal paths.
But realistically, so far 8K video is offered in a few professional models costing about US$80,000, aimed at broadcasting the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, while even the latest Sony A7R III with 42MP (8K frame width) sensor only delivers 4K video; why would you expect MFT to be on it already?

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

FLruckas: Hmm....
SSDs....
It's about time....
Blackmagic finally gave us back SSDs about a month ago...
This CFast stuff is a quirk that needs to end...
:=)

The standard is "newly arrived"; the first cards and readers have been announced for Q4 delivery. External SSD's like Blackmagic's HyperDeck Shuttle are great where their bulk can be handled, but hand-held cameras can sometimes benefit from a smaller form factor; for example, even Blackmagic's biggest camera, the URSA Mini Pro, also has CFast for internal storage of full res. raw output; their smaller cameras do not fir with the bus of an SSD. (And anyway, CFExress is essentially a small format version of SSD!)

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 19:06 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

FLruckas: Hmm....
SSDs....
It's about time....
Blackmagic finally gave us back SSDs about a month ago...
This CFast stuff is a quirk that needs to end...
:=)

The newly arrived CFExpress format will eventually replace both CFast and XQD, and it is essentially a removable media form of SSD: it uses the same protocols as the bestsellers SSD's (multiple lanes of PCIe etc.) and will eventually offer multiple media sizes. The initial card size is the same as XQD, and in a way it is just a major upgrade of XQD; the Compact Flash Association has effectively acknowledged that CFast was a wrong bet, by using SATA instead of the newer, better PCEe.

One would hardly want hand-held video cameras to always be dependent on bulky SSD units.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Does the viewfinder have good manual focusing aids, as in even inexpensive models like my Pentax K-1000? If so, it could be interesting to the numerous B&W film hobbyists and art students that I see around; if not, it is retro snobbery.

Did you read my whole post or just the last line? it _might_ be a well-designed tool, but only if it has a good viewfinder, and the PR says nothing about that rather important component, which is why I asked.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 00:31 UTC

Does the viewfinder have good manual focusing aids, as in even inexpensive models like my Pentax K-1000? If so, it could be interesting to the numerous B&W film hobbyists and art students that I see around; if not, it is retro snobbery.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 00:22 UTC as 82nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Along with using ancient Videocon tubes to measure sensor sizes, and applying crop factors to all sensors smaller than 135, but never for sensors bigger, one more thing perplexes me about the world of photography: "GREY Imports"?!!

We live in a global economy; I can by my laptop from the USA, my wine from France, my show posters from Italy. It's up to me. So why do CAMERA manufacturers, almost uniquely, try to punish those who buy a camera in one country, for use in another? What is GREY about me picking up a new camera body while on vacation in Japan and bringing it back to the UK? Why should my warranty cease to apply?

It's high time the concepts of "GREY" imports and a "GREY" market were banned.

Brian

Official imports come with warranty coverage, which can vary in cost from country to country: for example some countries mandate higher levels of warranty coverage than are offered in others. So gray market often means buying in a country with low warranty coverage costs and reselling in one like the USA where those costs are higher.

Why more common for cameras? Maybe because cameras are "value dense", so re-shipping them to a third country is easier and more cost-effective.

But the issue here might be outright black market: avoiding import taxes, by sneaking cameras in from a country with lower taxes. I have read that this is a big factor in Brazil due to high, protectionist import taxes.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: I know every companies want their own proprietor lens mounts. Besides that, what's the technical advantages of this DL mount that other existing mounts cannot do?

"I know M43 is open standard. Any APSC mount is open?"

Putting aside the hot topic of what counts as an "open standard", the relevant facts seem to be:

- The MFT group has allowed several camera makers to join, including DJI and Blackmagic, but it seems that DJI now wants to also offer larger formats; Super35 and beyond.

- AFAIK, all modern lens mounts that are big enough for Super35 format are proprietary. Some camera makers seem to have licensing deals to allow third party lenses (I have read that Tamron and Tokina license their use of Canon etc. lens mounts), but no camera maker is allowing "third part bodies" outside of the MFT club.

- For DJI's needs, Sony E mount is probably the only interesting one, since it also covers 36x24mm, but Sony is a also a major video- and digital cine-camera maker, so it is unlikely to share with its new competitor DJI.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: I know every companies want their own proprietor lens mounts. Besides that, what's the technical advantages of this DL mount that other existing mounts cannot do?

@Mistral75: thanks; good news!
And surprising, given that a 24mm lens covering 36x24mm is a more difficult wider-angle design that one covering only the so-called Super-35mm frame (in this case, 23.5×15.7 mm). This suggests that larger formats like 36x24mm are in DJI's plans.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 22:59 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: I know every companies want their own proprietor lens mounts. Besides that, what's the technical advantages of this DL mount that other existing mounts cannot do?

@mistral75: I’ve read that twice in forums, but do you have a link about the coverage of the longer lenses?

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 22:56 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: I know every companies want their own proprietor lens mounts. Besides that, what's the technical advantages of this DL mount that other existing mounts cannot do?

One argument for DL is that the still dominant lens mount for 35mm cine-cameras is PL, which is a huge 52mm deep; huge given that the cinema 35mm formats are only about 24mm wide(*). So a new far shallow one for digital super-35mm format makes sense in general, and for drones in particular, where reducing size and weight are very desirable.
It might be nice if they could have used one of the existing "APS-C" digital mirrorless system mounts instead (Sony E, Fujifilm X, Canon M, etc.) but maybe those proprietary formats were not available to them—and DL is even shallower.

(*) The depth of PL mount made sense in the day of movie cameras using film and with a bulky spinning mirror system for the viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: Who is this fool (sorry, person) to suggest what we should do with our money? I can do whatever I want with my hard-earned bucks, no need for his advice.

ZeBebito, your criticism applies equally to _any_ unfavorable review: are you saying that highly unfavorable reviews should never be published? Or doe that only apply with products that you like more than the reviewer does?

And to answer your follow-up question "... how come can I know what that guy is saying without reading the article?"
That is easy: by reading the subject line, which reveals clearly the this article is highly critical of the product.

By the way, you follow up by advertising your opinion that we should not spend our hard-earned money on a Leica M10: I happen to agree, but there you go, doing exactly what you criticize the article for doing.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 20:32 UTC
In reply to:

Trundling: Gonna take a loooong time. 45% is not a majority. Everyone wants Leica but few want a minority stack.

Update: the CEO Kaufmann's family owns the other 55%

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 02:32 UTC
In reply to:

Trundling: Gonna take a loooong time. 45% is not a majority. Everyone wants Leica but few want a minority stack.

30% can be enough for control if the rest are scattered amongst small holdings, but I believe that the rest of Leica is mostly in one large holding.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 01:33 UTC
In reply to:

photoholiko: If a private equity funds gets a hold of Leica you will see lots of junk with the Leica name on it. It will be sad to see that.

The current 45% owner Blackstone is a private equity company. Do you mean if such a company gets a majority share rather than 45%?
The good news is that so far Blackstone has not pushed to either break-up or dumb down Leica.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 01:29 UTC

In response to a "push question" that essentially demands agreement with the idea of a Nikon full-frame mirrorless, this curmudgeon for whom the Df is not old-fashioned enough so he had his customized his back to the early 1960's replies:
"we must consider doing full-frame"
which only says that this option must be _considered_, even if mirrorless Nikons in the more mainstream DX format are also offered, or if in the end only DX format is chosen.

So where does the headline get "it must be full-frame" from?
UPDATE: "must be" is from a human translation. I trust that the computer translation did not spuriously add the word "consider" and suspect that the human translator overlooked it, maybe out of wishful thinking.

P. S. definitive news about future products does not come though back-door chatter like this!

P. P. S. Or maybe this curmudgeon is from the part of Nikon management which thinks that "D850 users must be male".
UPDATE: he is retired, so yes: a nostalgic curmudgeon.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 15:56 UTC as 200th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Soooo many new cameras (which is always the case, isn't it...)! It's really come to the point (for awhile now) that most cameras by all brands are capable of superb imagery, and what divides them among users are the types of features and small improvements they may bring. And the arguments will go on as to what and who is best - sigh... And for those of us who shoot with a variety of systems, we can appreciate what each brings to the table.

Having said that, as an E-M10 Mk II user, there is nothing in this model (which looks exactly the same) which would cause many of us (IMO) who own the II to upgrade. There will be some though that must have the latest and greatest. Now is the time to look for the E-M10 Mk II version as the prices come down on that model. It will still be a very relevant camera.

New "Mk x" models are not usually aimed at people who already have the immediate preceding "Mk x-1". More likely customers are people buying their first camera at this level (maybe coming from a fixed-lens compact, or a phone, or a non-EVF MFT camera), or who have a model from further back in the series, like the original OM-D E-M10 in this case.

Updates like this are a matter of staying competitive with other brands, not with the company's own recent products.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: This article nonsensically dismisses the obvious ILC advantages of telephoto reach and low-light handling by blustering that "smartphones are already well on their way to solving those problems", without offering the slightest evidence, or dealing with limits set by basic physics.

The low light handling of sensors is within about one f-stop of fundamental physical limits (photon detection is already about 50% or better) and sensor resolution is not far from fundamental limits, because pixel pitches are down to about twice the wavelength of light. So for example, phone-camera focal lengths limited by pocketability to around 8mm and constrained to similarly small entrance pupil diameters will never match what even a fairly light-weight and compact zoom lens reaching a modest 150mm can do. If you try to argue that a heavy crop (say to about 1MP) is enough with a phone-camera, then cropping to the same pixel count from a modest ILC telephoto zoom lens will still reach far further.

@keep calm, the article predicts the _death_ of entry-level ILCs, but the two most popular ILC lens types are standard wide-tele zoom and telephoto zooms, so my point is that there are many users of such cameras who do care about telephoto reach and better low light/action handling than a phone-sensor will ever be capable of. Those numerous ILC users will not abandon them for phone-cameras with background blurring software, so the "$500 ILC" will not by any means become extinct.

Those who use just wide-angle primes might be vocal in forums like this, but are a small fraction of all users of entry-level ILCs. (Also, a lot of them are gear snobs who would never embrace fake-bokeh software or cameras without an eye-level viewfinder!)

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: This article nonsensically dismisses the obvious ILC advantages of telephoto reach and low-light handling by blustering that "smartphones are already well on their way to solving those problems", without offering the slightest evidence, or dealing with limits set by basic physics.

The low light handling of sensors is within about one f-stop of fundamental physical limits (photon detection is already about 50% or better) and sensor resolution is not far from fundamental limits, because pixel pitches are down to about twice the wavelength of light. So for example, phone-camera focal lengths limited by pocketability to around 8mm and constrained to similarly small entrance pupil diameters will never match what even a fairly light-weight and compact zoom lens reaching a modest 150mm can do. If you try to argue that a heavy crop (say to about 1MP) is enough with a phone-camera, then cropping to the same pixel count from a modest ILC telephoto zoom lens will still reach far further.

entoman Interpolation does not add detail (that is, it dos not increase angular resolution, as a longer focal length or smaller photosites do); it just smooths out data. And despite the caption, that Light L16 does not have any "150mm f/2.4" lens: such a lens would require a front element diameter of at least 150/2.4 mm = 62.5mm. It probably has "150mm equivalent FOV", but for example an actual 150mm lens on MFT has "300mm equivalent FOV" and the far larger 4/3" sensor can have more pixels than phone sized sensors, allowing more cropping to an even longer "effective focal length".

None of the examples of computational photography magically add greater angular resolution: the "portrait mode" instead blurs backgrounds (actually reducing resolution) and the so-called computational zoom seems to be about imitating effects like shallower DOF and different perspective relationships between foreground and background, not adding any actual fine detail.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 20:06 UTC

This article nonsensically dismisses the obvious ILC advantages of telephoto reach and low-light handling by blustering that "smartphones are already well on their way to solving those problems", without offering the slightest evidence, or dealing with limits set by basic physics.

The low light handling of sensors is within about one f-stop of fundamental physical limits (photon detection is already about 50% or better) and sensor resolution is not far from fundamental limits, because pixel pitches are down to about twice the wavelength of light. So for example, phone-camera focal lengths limited by pocketability to around 8mm and constrained to similarly small entrance pupil diameters will never match what even a fairly light-weight and compact zoom lens reaching a modest 150mm can do. If you try to argue that a heavy crop (say to about 1MP) is enough with a phone-camera, then cropping to the same pixel count from a modest ILC telephoto zoom lens will still reach far further.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 21:54 UTC as 154th comment | 4 replies
Total: 346, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »