random78

Joined on Jun 3, 2010

Comments

Total: 235, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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?

Mirrorless cameras use contrast detect AF which means that they continuously look at actual image data to move the lens focus until the sharpest image is achieved. So I don't think the issue you are describing should matter for X-T1.

For that matter even if you use manual focus on X-T1 you will not have that problem. In your old cameras you could only look at visible spectrum when trying to focus. However in case of X-T1 or any other mirrorless / live view IR camera you will be looking at the actual IR data captured by the camera on the LCD/EVF and so when do manual focus you will get the correct focusing without any shift.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 18:44 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).

@Fraiser: Normally you have to get the camera modded by a third party to get this functionality with no warranty to fix it if you damage it in the process. Its good that the manufacturer is directly giving you that option instead of having to go to a third party, I don't see whats bad about that?

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 18:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces X-T1 IR for infrared photography (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

EcoR1: UV- spectrum of light is from ~ 200 to 400nm. This camera should not be advertised as a true UV-camera in the key features as the sensor can see only a very small portion of UV-light. Of course the biggest drawback for UV- photography are lenses. Most glass-materials used in lens elements don't have transmission below ~350nm. So even if the sensor would record lower than 380nm, it wouldn't do any good without specific and very expensive UV-lenses.

I believe CMOS sensors are only sensitive till about 1100nm and the sensitivity could be pretty low around 1100nm. I don't think there is any reason for Fuji to specifically add a filter to limit it to 1000nm. They have probably just labelled conservatively the range over which you are going to get a decent response. Their previous IR camera also covered 380-1000nm but reviews mentioned that it did capture some spectrum above and below that range as well.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 18:31 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces X-T1 IR for infrared photography (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

EcoR1: UV- spectrum of light is from ~ 200 to 400nm. This camera should not be advertised as a true UV-camera in the key features as the sensor can see only a very small portion of UV-light. Of course the biggest drawback for UV- photography are lenses. Most glass-materials used in lens elements don't have transmission below ~350nm. So even if the sensor would record lower than 380nm, it wouldn't do any good without specific and very expensive UV-lenses.

Well the camera is advertised as an IR camera for infrared photography. It has not been advertised as a UV camera. Its true that the specs mention capturing UV spectrum but no where do they say that it is a camera for UV photography. As you mentioned, lenses would be the biggest limitation in UV photography anyway, so it doesn't make sense for them to try and cover a broader UV range unless there are lenses to make use of that.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 17:26 UTC
On article Lytro ILLUM and Desktop software get major updates (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

random78: "And in case you've forgotten some of our earlier coverage of the Illum, F1.0 gets you 30-250mm F2.7 full-frame equivalent lens performance"

But the previous coverage said that the lens is constant f2.0 which would be f5.4 FF equivalent in terms of DOF. The camera picture also says f2.0. Where does this f1.0 number come from?

@Wing2: Well generally the "crop factor" is computed using the diagonal size which in this case would give 3.28x. In any case bottom line is that the crop factor is in the 3.2x-3.3x range.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2015 at 07:38 UTC
On article Lytro ILLUM and Desktop software get major updates (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

random78: "And in case you've forgotten some of our earlier coverage of the Illum, F1.0 gets you 30-250mm F2.7 full-frame equivalent lens performance"

But the previous coverage said that the lens is constant f2.0 which would be f5.4 FF equivalent in terms of DOF. The camera picture also says f2.0. Where does this f1.0 number come from?

"It's a 1"-type sensor, so the crop factor is not 3.15x, it's 2.7x"

From Lytro wbesite (https://www.lytro.com/illum/specs/):
Sensor Format: 1/1.2"
Active Area: 10.82 x 7.52 mm
Crop Factor: 3.19

So no. It is not a 1" sensor, and not a 2.7x crop.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2015 at 05:57 UTC
On article Lytro ILLUM and Desktop software get major updates (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

random78: "And in case you've forgotten some of our earlier coverage of the Illum, F1.0 gets you 30-250mm F2.7 full-frame equivalent lens performance"

But the previous coverage said that the lens is constant f2.0 which would be f5.4 FF equivalent in terms of DOF. The camera picture also says f2.0. Where does this f1.0 number come from?

Actually based on the lytro website the sensor is 1/1.2" not 1" and so the crop factor is about 3.15x, not 2.7x. That means that the constant f2.0 lens would be about f6.3 FF DOF equivalent.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 01:52 UTC
On article Lytro ILLUM and Desktop software get major updates (36 comments in total)

"And in case you've forgotten some of our earlier coverage of the Illum, F1.0 gets you 30-250mm F2.7 full-frame equivalent lens performance"

But the previous coverage said that the lens is constant f2.0 which would be f5.4 FF equivalent in terms of DOF. The camera picture also says f2.0. Where does this f1.0 number come from?

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 01:47 UTC as 8th comment | 10 replies
On article Lytro ILLUM and Desktop software get major updates (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

Everlast66: The price checking thingy top right reads:
"Buy on Amazon.com From $1,111.11"

Ha ha, yeah right, as if someone would pay $1.1k for this thing ;p

If it is really a 30-250mm f2.7 FF equivalent lens (in terms of DOF) then why not.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

Skipper494: It does not impress me when a company keeps bringing out new firmware versions, means they didn't get it right the three times before. The lenses are excellent, the performance clean, but it's still a 16MP camera.

@Skipper. Would you rather take the Sony approach where they release a camera with sub-par AF (A7) and then just a year after that released a brand new camera with slightly improved AF (A7II) which is still below par and you will need to wait for one more generation before it starts matching at least their own A6000. And btw I am a Sony mirrorless user.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: Yesterday, I saw another television ad for Samsung washing machines. When people think of Samsung brand, that's the kind of thing they think of, not cameras.

Samsung lacks brand identity in the camera sector. The notion that Samsung is going to somehow overtake Canon/Nikon is hysterical.

I agree that Samsung or even Sony has a long way to go before they could get the same brand recognition as Canon / Nikon. I also think that every time I use a Canon or Nikon DSLR it seems like a mature product which works as you expect whereas Samsung / Sony etc are still not as mature. However, Samsung / Sony / Fuji / Olymus / Panasonic are going in a much better direction for me than Canikon. I don't care how much commercial penetration a brand if it offers a product that I like.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 17:14 UTC
In reply to:

random78: Looks like NX1 got a firmware update as well. No news on that?

Looks like I was misled by the articles such as the following:

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-nx1-firmware-1-3-tackles-video-recording-quality-24390452/

The article was published yesterday and says that firmware 1.3 for NX1 has just been announced. And it is appearing in google as the latest headline news.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

random78: Looks like NX1 got a firmware update as well. No news on that?

Looks like NX1 firmware 1.3 was released within last day or two as well.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 05:44 UTC

Looks like NX1 got a firmware update as well. No news on that?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 02:50 UTC as 28th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

random78: I see that you talk about the physical connection being a plus compared to Sony Q-series and thats a fair point. At the same time though the wireless nature of the Q-series also makes it much more flexible. All in all you could at max say that it is in some way a refined version of QX100 but not much more than that. Nothing revolutionary here. Also the mode where you take 4 shots for lower noise has also been around on Sony cameras for ages. Nothing new there either.

I do see the value in physical connection if it reduces lag. At the same time with the Q once you mount it you could leave it on. With this thing it seems like it will be cumbersome to leave it on. You will likely have to keep it in the pocket and plug it in every time you want to take a picture. In any case we could keep arguing. Personally I am not the target audience as I am unlikely to get either one of those. However to me at least it just looks like a slightly refined take at an old concept.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

random78: And how is it so revolutionary compared to Sony QX100 which achieved the same a long time ago?

And why would the image quality be superior? Just because DxoMark has its image processing? Thats a very strong assumption to make unless you have had any time to actually analyze and compare the files from both. At the end of the day it is the same sony sensor and the lens is reliant on software correction like most other lenses in these small cameras. Nothing about it gives any indication that it will have IQ better than RX100 series.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:33 UTC

I see that you talk about the physical connection being a plus compared to Sony Q-series and thats a fair point. At the same time though the wireless nature of the Q-series also makes it much more flexible. All in all you could at max say that it is in some way a refined version of QX100 but not much more than that. Nothing revolutionary here. Also the mode where you take 4 shots for lower noise has also been around on Sony cameras for ages. Nothing new there either.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:31 UTC as 99th comment | 3 replies

And how is it so revolutionary compared to Sony QX100 which achieved the same a long time ago?

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:27 UTC as 100th comment | 3 replies

Could the preview folks please elaborate a bit more on the statement "Focus appeared to be on par with a native Canon body". Does it mean on-par with native Canon bodies in live view, or on par with native canon bodies in non-liveview PDAF mode.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 22:33 UTC as 186th comment | 4 replies

The improvements are nice but $949 is way too much.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 18:47 UTC as 95th comment
Total: 235, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »