BJL

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

Comments

Total: 249, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

photogeek: Too bad most of their lenses have noisy, slow motors and are worthless for fast moving subjects. FWIW, I ended up going with MFT after trying both X-T1 and E-M1 side by side. E-M1 is just much better made and all their lenses (at least all I have tried) have ultrasonic motors. The only real flaw that I could see in Oly lineup is their 17mm f/1.8 lens, which, while not that bad in absolute terms, is not that good either, and worse than their f/2.8 zoom.

When you say "USM", you mean "linear stepper motors" ["LSM"], which seem to be the best type for working with CDAF, whereas USM is the best with SLRs and their PDAF, but is sluggish with CDAF.

Several mirror-less system offer LSM focusing, so I doubt patents are a major barrier, and I loo forward to the X system getting something like LSM AF soon.

P. S. Olympus uses the marketing name MSC (movie and stills compatible), but the underlying technology is linear motors.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 15:21 UTC
On article Melt: Portrait of an Iceberg (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Teru Kage: Let me begin by saying the following is in no way meant as a criticism on Simon Harsent's fine work.

Having read the background story to these photos, I can appreciate the muted approach that Harsent used to convey his ideas. However, I wonder how many people would have provided as much praise if they saw some of these photos with no frame of context. I posit that if someone posted photos like 2, 5 or 6 onto a critique forum, the majority of comments would be along the lines of "too flat/dull", "needs some punch".

It makes me wonder if we've become victims of an abundance of images. With everyone and their uncle taking and posting photos these days, perhaps our expectation of "good" photography has been set so high that we eagerly place photos into the Snapshot category if they don't grab our attention right off the bat.

In any case, I like that these photos make slow down a moment to think whether I find them average or there's something more to be discovered.

Or maybe our perceptions are being skewed by the pervasiveness of the "digital Velvia effect", where almost every image we see online has been hit with the saturation or clarity sliders, or "auto-Enhance". For example, Google+ applies auto-Enhance to every uploaded photo without even asking or teling you; it takes special intervention to disable that. IPhone has it too, though at least you have to choose to edit and touch the "magic wand" icon to apply it.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2014 at 12:27 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces 1.4x teleconverter for X100/X100S (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: 1.4... not enough to make sense

Cudos to Fuji for keeping their systems fresh and alive. But.. the jump from 35 to 50mm is marginal and is certainly something within crop range in edit. (a crop your 16 megapixel image to about 11.5 mpix)

I would have liked it to be a 2.4 instead, offering just over 80mm equiv, and wouldn't mind sacrificing apertures to get there.

wootpile, you misunderstand:
- to get the "50mm FOV" by cropping without a TC, you have to use 1/2 the sensor area (dividing both horizontal and vertical pixel count by 1.4) so getting 8MP, whereas with the 1.4x TC, you get that same FOV with no crop of the image from the sensor, so using all 16MP.
- to get a "70mm FOV" without the TC, you have to crop by 2X, to half the width and half the height of the total image from the sensor, or 4MP, whereas with the 1.4xTC only a further 1.4x crop is needed to get that FOV, so 8MP.

Perhaps you are missing the fact that the 1.4X is a linear factor of image enlargement, not a pixel count factor. That is, it increases the focal length by a factor of 1.4.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 18:53 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces 1.4x teleconverter for X100/X100S (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: 1.4... not enough to make sense

Cudos to Fuji for keeping their systems fresh and alive. But.. the jump from 35 to 50mm is marginal and is certainly something within crop range in edit. (a crop your 16 megapixel image to about 11.5 mpix)

I would have liked it to be a 2.4 instead, offering just over 80mm equiv, and wouldn't mind sacrificing apertures to get there.

A 1.4x crop halves the pixel count (1.4 linear, so a factor of two in image area.) So from 16MP to 8MP.
The 1.4X TC could also be combined with a further crop, so that for example using both the 1.4X TC and a 1.4X crop gives a combined 2X for a "portraity" 70mm equivalent FOV with 8MP, instead of the 4MP got with just a 2X crop.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 14:57 UTC
On article Pentax K-3 Review (515 comments in total)
In reply to:

LensBeginner: Cons:
1. never shot jpg
2. ditto
3. that's a problem with lenses, not camera
4. true. But it's a camera, not a videocamera
5. true

...not many cons there, are there? ;-)

And this is why I would be happy if these DPReviews ended at the pros and cons and discussion, leaving each of us potential users to decide how important the props and cons are to us, instead of attempting to reduce all these many aspects to a single number, or a single color of award.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

Manfred Bachmann: again a new akku? slowly i think nikon needs a break!

akku is German slang for battery I think (as in "accumulator").
This uses a new smaller battery along with its new smaller memory card format, microSD.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 15:47 UTC
On article AJA enters cinema camera market with 4K Cion (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

BJL: Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?

It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.

Agreed that "super 35mm" is used loosely when describing video sensors. But it makes more sense to me to indicate roughly the format of a video sensor by comparing to a similar, well-known, widely used motion picture format than to compare to an obscure, failed still film camera format in a quite different shape: this sensor is in the roughly 1.9:1 shape of cine-4K, 4096x2160.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 00:09 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: Wonder how many uFT lenses will cover the 25.3mm Super35 image circle.

Weird. If Panasonic hadn't recently dumped all their JVC Kenwood stock (they were JVC's largest single investor for half a century) I'd say "oh look, a Panasonic subsidiary has joined four thirds".

But right now, it makes no sense.

P. S. Also "Super 35mm" is being used as loosely as "APS-C" these days. The actual sensor seems to have a 23.7mm diagonal for the cine-4K format, which is only 1.2mm more than the 22.5mm diagonal of official 4/3" format (18x13.5mm).

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

dark goob: This is just wrong. Super35 is 24.9x16.6.

21x12 is the same thing BlackMagic's Production Camera uses.

For Reference the GH2's multi-aspect sensor is 18.9x10.6mm at 16:9.

The phrase "Super 35mm" is being used with digital video the way "APS-C" is used with digital still cameras: as a rough indication of the size using a hopefully familiar film format, which Super 35mm is for cinema and video professionals.

I do not see many people complaining about using "APS-C" to describe sensor formats as small as Canon's 22.3x14.9mm, when the actual APS-C film format is 25.1x16.7mm, larger than any "APS-C" sensor.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 22:13 UTC
On article AJA enters cinema camera market with 4K Cion (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

BJL: Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?

It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.

APS-C film format was 15.1x16.7, so 3:2. In fact the "C" refers to the "classic" 35mm film frame shape of 3:2.
It was always strange describing digital formats by using the name of a film format that hardly anyone ever knew and is anyway different (bigger).
On the other hand, Super 35mm has a well-established meaning for motion photography, both film and digital; in particular, the customers for such a camera know what Super 35mm means. So why not use motion camera format jargon when describing a motion camera?

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: Wonder how many uFT lenses will cover the 25.3mm Super35 image circle.

Weird. If Panasonic hadn't recently dumped all their JVC Kenwood stock (they were JVC's largest single investor for half a century) I'd say "oh look, a Panasonic subsidiary has joined four thirds".

But right now, it makes no sense.

From the press release http://www.jvckenwood.co.jp/en/press/2014/04/press_140407.html

Proposal for new 4K-compatible camera system
1. [Reference Exhibit] 4K mini camera system
... This proposal will provide a new solution to expand the shooting field of the 4K camera system.

2. [Reference Exhibit] Interchangeable 4K compact handheld camera recorder
A “4K compact handheld camera recorder” will be on exhibit, featuring a 4K Super35mm image sensor, and MFT* Mount to flexibly accept a wide range of interchangeable lenses.

Item 2 makes me think that MFT mount is being used mostly as a "universal recipient", through which many lenses can be connected via adaptors.

But the Item 1 comment about "a new solution to expand the shooting field" intrigues me..

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 23:44 UTC
On article AJA enters cinema camera market with 4K Cion (28 comments in total)

Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?

It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 14:46 UTC as 8th comment | 5 replies

The 21x12mm mentioned in the article is a bit smaller than Super35mm, which is 24.9mm wide. So either that is a typo, or JVC is proposing a slightly smaller variant of 35mm cinema format (there are already plenty of variants around!). It is also only a 1.7mm larger image circle diameter than the 22.5mm diagonal of the official 18x13.5mm of official 4/3" format, even if current MFT sensors are a bit smaller than that.
Since many lenses cover a comfortably larger image circle that the format they are for (in particular, longer than normal lenses and zooms at all except their shortest focal lengths), I doubt that vignetting will be much of a problem. Also, mild vignetting in the corners of a video frame could be corrected with "lens correction" firmware.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2014 at 18:41 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies

Does it come in Apple bayonet mount?

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/7100428395/apple-patents-bayonet-mount-for-mobile-devices

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2014 at 17:27 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

razorfish: Why doesn't anyone have the guts to make a 17-120mm for a dslr or mirrorless? That would be a dream standard zoom, but everything starts at 24mm only so you still need to carry a true wideangle

This is for Super35mm movie camera format (frame width about 24mm) so its wide-angle coverage is comparable to 24mm with the 36x24mm frame of 35mm still camera format.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/cinema_lenses/cine_servo_lenses/cine_servo_17_120mm_t2_95_pl

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2014 at 17:52 UTC
On article Samsung announces tiny NX mini mirrorless camera (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: The smaller Panasonic GM1 has a larger sensor.
http://camerasize.com/compare/#545,491

"LxWxD" gives the volume of a box needed to store the camera with no lens attached; that does not strike me as a useful measure of portability.

Depth (front to back) with a lens attached is often the main constraint on fitting comfortably into a pocket or purse.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 18:01 UTC
On article Samsung announces tiny NX mini mirrorless camera (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: How is this better than a Panasonic LX7? You get a brighter lens with a bigger zoom range for a lot less money. Sure it has a bigger sensor than the Panasonic. However, the Panasonic's lens is much brighter(More than 2 stops).

The LX7's combination of 1/1.7" sensor with a very bright f/1.4-2.3 zoom lens gives about the same DOF wide open as 1" format with f/2.4-3.9: shallower DOF than with either of the initial two NX-M lenses, the f/3.5 prime and f/3.5-5.6 "25-75mm equivalent" zoom.

Also:
- the lower f-stops of the LX7 allow use of lower ISO speeds by a factor of about 6, so it probably has better low light performance.
- the LX7 zoom range of 24-90mm equivalent goes a bit wider and longer that the NX-M zoom.

So interchangeable lenses (not many for now though!) and the "selfie-screen" are the main advantages of the NX-M.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

drawer77: i have a question about Red cameras for you gurus out there. i know the Red camera are modular cameras. But do they use a reflex system like a DSLR or are they mirrorless ?

Do you see an OVF on the body in the photo above?

REDs are purely video-out cameras, with very big, high-quality EVFs and external LCDs available to attach to the basic 'brain'".

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 18:45 UTC
On article Phase One announces IQ250 50MP CMOS medium format back (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anastigmat: I wonder if Canon and/or Nikon will shake up the market by making its own medium format CMOS sensors, cameras and lenses.

Almeida:
(1) Phase One management has said that the Sony sensor is available to all; no exclusivity. So I hope for a Pentax 645DII using it soon.

(2) One big barrier for Canon, Nikon or Sony offering a full system in a format larger than 35mm is developing a range of high quality lenses for what is always going to be a low volume market with vastly loess total revenues and profits than the 35mm and APS-C format DSLR markets. I doubt they see sufficient return on investment there, compared to investing in their 35mm and APS-C format systems.

After all, Canon and Nikon never bothered with MF film cameras (nor did Minolta or Konica or Olympus or ...), and that was a far larger and more profitable market than digital MF. (DMF has higher unit prices and profits, but only about one tenth the sales volume of MF film cameras, and about one hundredth the unit sales of 35mm format DSLRs.)

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 21:23 UTC
Total: 249, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »