random78

Joined on Jun 3, 2010

Comments

Total: 237, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Does this mean that A7II will now do PDAF with LA-EA3 adapter? I would be much more interested in buying into the A7 system if I could use A-mount lenses on it with decent PDAF. (Not interested in LA-EA4 due to light loss etc).

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 18:59 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ozdean: With that viewfinder overlay dial and all the other goodies this has to be the innovation of the year.
Release will be March I'm guessing they are waiting for sony to release the 42mp BSI to them
Knobs are placed so you don't have to take your eye from the viewfinder to adjust overlay settings - all we asked for and more.

Traditionally both Nikon and Pentax have extracted noticeably more out of Sony sensors than Sony does in its own cameras. So lets hope they get their hands on the 42MP sony sensor and take it to its fullest potential.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 21:53 UTC
In reply to:

Lofote: Oh my good that second mode dial to select what to change (ISO, HDR, etc.)... Why does anyone think this is a good control? I mean, there is a reason Sony stopped this after Minolta did it for upto Sonys own (still largely Minolta developed) A100... It is not practical, as it is not good to use blindly.

@Lofote: You are missing the point that the many of the controls on that dial still have their dedicated buttons such as ISO, exposure compensation, drive mode etc. It is not taking away any of those traditional controls, but adding even faster access to some of the controls.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 21:52 UTC
In reply to:

Marcelobtp: Hybrid viewfinder rumor?

@Digimat: The issue is not placement of the LCD. The LCD can be anywhere. The issue is that the sensor itself is behind the mirror. So the light can't reach the sensor if the mirror is down. You could either get the Optical viewfinder path or the main sensor live view, but not both. Unless, of course you use a semi-transparent mirror or a light splitter to get some of the light to the sensor and some of it to the OVF path. But again you will have the same issue of dim viewfinder, and also get sub-optimal sensor live view.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 21:26 UTC
In reply to:

Marcelobtp: Hybrid viewfinder rumor?

@Digimat: The basic principle that you are describing was used by Sony in some of their alpha DSLRs (I am not talking about the later DSLTs, but some of the earlier DSLRs). IRC they called it secondary sensor live view. It was neat (I had it in my Sony A580 DSLR), however it had a couple of major disadvantages. First some of the light had to be taken away from the optical viewfinder and directed to the live view sensor. That meant that the optical viewfinder had to be smaller and/or darker. Second issue was that since the live view was not coming out of the main sensor so it was low resolution. Which meant specially that if you want to zoom in to say do accurate focusing, you couldn't. A third issue was that unlike the main-sensor live view where you directly look at the captured sensor data and thus get 100% accurate focus if you use live view, in the secondary sensor live view, you face the same front/back focus issues as you get with PDAF.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: The universal mount is a Smartphone.

DFTT

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: The universal mount is a Smartphone.

@T3, Horshack is trolling. As they say 'don't feed the troll'

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 17:15 UTC
In reply to:

String: Just waiting for the inevitable posts...

This guy knows nothing! No pro would EVER use an EVF, let alone a mirrorless!

@Temporel: The "real viewfinder" i.e. the OVF is actually a hinderance for studio work, not a plus. It is far easier to fine-tune your composition using the LCD. And you don't need adapters with mirrorless because they have native lenses like DSLRs do. However what Brian is talking about is that he had a large collection of lenses sitting idle with him because he couldn't use it any longer but mirrrolress has allowed him to put those to use.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: Is dpreview.com on a mission to save Samsung? If you have any input, tell your korean buddies to make the NX more attractive but not cheesy. Definitely not clunky. Add dont forget add a good evf on NX700.

No they won't. You probably don't get what I am describing. I am talking about keeping the camera down at your chest or waist level instead of hanging it up in the air. Thanks to the flip LCD you can still look at the recording. So your body is now between the camera and the people behind you so no one gets disturbed. And the camera is also no longer between you and the performance. So you are free to enjoy the performance and at the same time record it without disturbing any one. This is how I capture my daughter's ice skating shows for example.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: Is dpreview.com on a mission to save Samsung? If you have any input, tell your korean buddies to make the NX more attractive but not cheesy. Definitely not clunky. Add dont forget add a good evf on NX700.

The LCD on cameras like NX500 (and A6000) swivels up and offers a better solution. Instead of holding up the camera with LCD facing people behind you, you can flip the LCD up and look down at the LCD while capturing the video. Again I would much rather have the ability to look at the performance with my eyes as well while making the video, instead of having to watch the performance through the EVF all the time as I make the video. And being able to look at the entire scene is a great plus when recording a large performance with multiple performers. We all have our preferences, but after years of using EVFs, I have developed a preference to not use them very much.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: Is dpreview.com on a mission to save Samsung? If you have any input, tell your korean buddies to make the NX more attractive but not cheesy. Definitely not clunky. Add dont forget add a good evf on NX700.

I have used a large number of mirrorless cameras starting from the first mirrorless Panasonic G1, going through olympus, samsung, canon, all the way to my current Sony A6000. In terms of controls and ergonomics I rate the Samsung mirrorless as being towards the top in the group. In past they lacked in sensor performance and AF / general operation speed. Now that they seem to have fixed that, I would rate NX500 as a highly desirable mirrorless camera. As for EVF - well I was an early EVF adopter with Panasonic G1/GH1. However over time I now think EVF is overrated. I prefer the greater flexibility of using an LCD where I can keep eye contact with my subject and still look at the LCD for composition, instead of having to hide behind the camera looking through the EVF. I would gladly take the beautiful LCD displays of the samsung cameras over the small LCD of my A6000. I rarely use the EVF of my A6000, and when I do it is mostly because it offers a larger view than the small LCD.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 03:55 UTC
In reply to:

Jokica: Why would owners of A7R II needed SpeedBoster anyway. Why would they need adapter with PDAF ???

CDAF is generally superior to PDAF for accuracy. Mirrorless cameras with on-sensor PDAF typically use a hybrid scheme where they use PDAF to quickly get in the vicinity of the right focus point and then use CDAF for final adjustment to get high accuracy.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2015 at 02:13 UTC
On article Sony brings uncompressed Raw to a7S II, a7R II and... (562 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: I don't understand the choice between uncompressed/losslessly compressed/lossy compression of Nikon. At this point, only Losslessly compressed as sense.

Sony seems to like to offer wrong choices only: uncompressed/lossy compression. You either loose at lot of storage space (and have impact also on continuous shooting), or image informations.

There should be one and only way, losslessly compression. And 1 menu item less to understand :)

Hopefully dpreview could confirm with Sony if there is indeed a lossless compression option?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 16:55 UTC
On article Sony brings uncompressed Raw to a7S II, a7R II and... (562 comments in total)

"Sony's cameras have only recorded compressed Raw files which can have a visual impact on some images" ...

@DPReview folks: you guys know enough to recognize that it is not compression that causes visual impact, rather it is the "lossy" compression scheme used by Sony which causes the visual impact. What we need is not an uncompressed RAW, rather a loss-less compressed RAW which reduces file size without throwing away any data.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 16:51 UTC as 123rd comment
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (511 comments in total)
In reply to:

privater: I really want fuji to consider upgrade their sensor to at least 24Mp to match the competition.

@brownie314: I agree. I would rather have Fuji achieve very fast performance and AF across its lineup with 16MP sensor, rather than being bogged down with having to deal with larger 24MP images.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 21:55 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (511 comments in total)
In reply to:

privater: I really want fuji to consider upgrade their sensor to at least 24Mp to match the competition.

@privater. Do you actually NEED those 24MPs or do you just WANT it because others have it? I have been using a 24MP A6000 for a while and can't remember a single instance where I made any use of those 24million pixels.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 21:51 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces X-T1 IR for infrared photography (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo808: I used to like the little red dot on my lenses (no, not that sort) that showed where to refocus if I was using infra-red film. Because IR has a different and non-visible wavelength, normal visible light focusing would put the pictures ever so slightly out, so we had to focus normally and then move the lens barrel to allow for the IR shift. Imagine how tricky that's going to be with today's super fast lenses!

That's going to be a neat trick to pull off in an autofocus camera, and fun to watch on the screen. How many will think their pictures are out of focus?

Hugo, the sensor only has Red, Green and Blue pixels. When you remove the IR cut filter as with XT1, then the same Red, Green and Blue pixels also capture the IR light. The sensor has no clue that the actual light was not RGB but IR. A pixel is a photon counting machine. When a photon hits a Red pixel, the sensor counts is as a red photon regardless of whether it was actually UV light, visible light or IR light. So no matter what is spectrum of the captured light the sensor always reports it as RGB data. There is no need to do anything special to make that data visible. If the sensor is capturing any type of light then it will always be recorded as RGB values and will be visible on EVF / LCD. Of course you may need to change the WB etc as suggested to make it look better.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 21:22 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces X-T1 IR for infrared photography (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo808: I used to like the little red dot on my lenses (no, not that sort) that showed where to refocus if I was using infra-red film. Because IR has a different and non-visible wavelength, normal visible light focusing would put the pictures ever so slightly out, so we had to focus normally and then move the lens barrel to allow for the IR shift. Imagine how tricky that's going to be with today's super fast lenses!

That's going to be a neat trick to pull off in an autofocus camera, and fun to watch on the screen. How many will think their pictures are out of focus?

"But if you are using an IR cut out filter you won't be able to see anything through the viewfinder? "

That's only true for optical viewfinders. When you look at the LCD / EVF you are not looking at the actual light from the scene, instead the LCD/EVF take the data captured by the sensor and display it as RGB data which you can see. Your LCD/EVF don't/can't display the actual IR light from the scene.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 22:14 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces X-T1 IR for infrared photography (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frasier Krane: Big deal. Apparently, all they did was remove the IR cut filter from the sensor of their original X-T1. This isn't innovative at all. I believe all existing and past digital ILCs can have this same conversion. It's not too difficult really.

I believe the only thing is that you might have to replace the IR cut filter with a piece of glass of the same thickness. And I'm not even sure that's strictly necessary.

To be clear, this is just an X-T1 without an IR cut filter. And, if you add an IR cut filter to your lens, this will probably work like an unmodded X-T1.

This camera/sensor has no more IR sensitivity than any standard off the shelf camera (when its IR cut filter is removed).

Sure.

Neez (6 hours ago)
Canon should do this for their rebel line, it's not like it costs anything to put in a clear glass instead of an IR filter over their sensor.....

By rrccad (6 hours ago)
well i guess it's a better alternative than using lifepixel,etc - however with less filter options.

possibly still cheaper to get a used X-T1 and a conversion - but for a 400 USD price premium over a brand new X-T1, it's worth it if you are purchasing a X-T1 for the sole purpose of full spectrum / IR modification.

By hammarbytp (2 hours ago)
Basically it is a standard camera with it's hot filter replaced during manufacture and with a heft price increase. Doesn't sound that attractive to me

By Leandros S (5 hours ago)
That price is just asking for DIY videos of how to remove the filter from the standard model.

Are these enough examples, or should I go through all the posts?

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 19:34 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces X-T1 IR for infrared photography (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frasier Krane: Big deal. Apparently, all they did was remove the IR cut filter from the sensor of their original X-T1. This isn't innovative at all. I believe all existing and past digital ILCs can have this same conversion. It's not too difficult really.

I believe the only thing is that you might have to replace the IR cut filter with a piece of glass of the same thickness. And I'm not even sure that's strictly necessary.

To be clear, this is just an X-T1 without an IR cut filter. And, if you add an IR cut filter to your lens, this will probably work like an unmodded X-T1.

This camera/sensor has no more IR sensitivity than any standard off the shelf camera (when its IR cut filter is removed).

"Only because there were 100 comments before mine, and no one else mentioned that this is just a VERY minor modification to their existing X-T1."

Really? Then you need to go back and read the comments. There are numerous comments discussing how this could be done by removing the IR filter on a regular camera. Most people who are interested in IR photography already know this. There might be a handful of commenters who don't know about it but majority of the posters already know this.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 19:20 UTC
Total: 237, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »