57even

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on Jul 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 547, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

57even: Phone cameras are a red herring. They may have scoured the compact market, but they were never an option for any traditional ILC buyer.

The ILC market has reached a plateau because the tech is mature and the image quality does not change much with each new generation. Even so, the volume is far higher than the film SLR market ever was, and far higher value per unit. I don't think the current survivors have much to worry about - they already scaled down to match expectations.

What is more interesting is the shift in ILC demographics. Overall numbers are not changing hugely, but ILC is replacing DSLR. That is partly the new Asian market and their lack of 'SLR legacy' and the maturation of the older NA/EU/Japan markets who are upgrading less frequently, or migrating to mirrorless to save weight.

The Nikon/Canon brand names and professional legacy are all that keeps DSLRs alive in mature markets. When they get serious about mirrorless, the DSLR is dead, but the ILC is not.

@melgross

Canon's marketing engine is second to none, partly because of the sports association. If they are #1 in mirrorless it's not because the products are anything to shout about though. Making the best camera is no guarantee of sales. Having the right brand certainly is.

Beats me. I never really warmed to any of their cameras.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Phone cameras are a red herring. They may have scoured the compact market, but they were never an option for any traditional ILC buyer.

The ILC market has reached a plateau because the tech is mature and the image quality does not change much with each new generation. Even so, the volume is far higher than the film SLR market ever was, and far higher value per unit. I don't think the current survivors have much to worry about - they already scaled down to match expectations.

What is more interesting is the shift in ILC demographics. Overall numbers are not changing hugely, but ILC is replacing DSLR. That is partly the new Asian market and their lack of 'SLR legacy' and the maturation of the older NA/EU/Japan markets who are upgrading less frequently, or migrating to mirrorless to save weight.

The Nikon/Canon brand names and professional legacy are all that keeps DSLRs alive in mature markets. When they get serious about mirrorless, the DSLR is dead, but the ILC is not.

Carol T - yes, my mistake.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 17:56 UTC

Phone cameras are a red herring. They may have scoured the compact market, but they were never an option for any traditional ILC buyer.

The ILC market has reached a plateau because the tech is mature and the image quality does not change much with each new generation. Even so, the volume is far higher than the film SLR market ever was, and far higher value per unit. I don't think the current survivors have much to worry about - they already scaled down to match expectations.

What is more interesting is the shift in ILC demographics. Overall numbers are not changing hugely, but ILC is replacing DSLR. That is partly the new Asian market and their lack of 'SLR legacy' and the maturation of the older NA/EU/Japan markets who are upgrading less frequently, or migrating to mirrorless to save weight.

The Nikon/Canon brand names and professional legacy are all that keeps DSLRs alive in mature markets. When they get serious about mirrorless, the DSLR is dead, but the ILC is not.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 11:51 UTC as 7th comment | 5 replies

So what exactly does this do that I can't already do with a USB backup drive for $90?

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 05:15 UTC as 1st comment
On article Fujifilm X-E3 Review (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mateus1: That's interesting, look at X-E3 RAWs 200-3200iso - left uper pancils with writings "ENCAUSTIC PAINT" and compare it to X-A3...

24MP X-E3 with X-Trans III image look mushy and washed details vs 24MP X-A3 Bayer:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e3-review/9

With that poor IQ it's better to buy any cam with 1" sensor or 2/3".

Or X-A3.

DPR use the same sharpening ACR settings for all cameras. They are not optimal for Xtrans. The potential sharpness is up there with any Bayer (have compared with D600) if you know how to do it.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

Full Stop: DxO will not test the Fuji GFX50s, right?

BSI wont make much difference to fill factor for a full frame sensor, so you can't expect too much. But a half stop improvement is a lot when the pixel is smaller.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2017 at 11:13 UTC
In reply to:

Full Stop: DxO will not test the Fuji GFX50s, right?

DXO's raw converter does not support Xtrans, though they may get around to testing the GFX50, they have not done so yet. It's not a conspiracy, but the sensor is similar to that in the Pentax 645, so should be comparable.

I am not really sure that most people really understand what the numbers mean anyway, but they are pretty consistent - once ISO corrected - with the design features of a particular sensor.

Nikon have generally optimised their high-res sensors for low ISO DR. This is no exception, though note that the DR numbers quoted are for an image downsized to 8MP. DR for a native sized image is pretty much what you would expect of a 14-bit sensor with low read noise - in other words just over 13 EV. In fact, slightly less than D810.

Better at high ISO, which is impressive. Probably due to BSI sensor and some read noise optimisation.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2017 at 11:06 UTC
In reply to:

martindpr: While it excites the geeks, this information means nothing to a photographer.

A great photograph could be taken by almost any solid camera (1'',4/3, APS-C, FF, MF, and bigger)

Still, this D850 is a versatile all inclusive package which makes it an appealing proposal...

Like everything else, it depends what you need it for. Do 99% of photographers need a D850? No. Is there anything comparable for those that do? Not much, if you already have Nikon lenses.

There's a lot of choice. Be happy.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2017 at 10:43 UTC
On article The 7 Commandments of Great Photo Walks (126 comments in total)

The biggest thing that made a difference to me was simply deciding what type of images I liked making, and trying to develop my own style in that genre. Once I did that, the constraints and opportunities were implied, not imposed.

I really don't think many people are good at everything, even if cameras are. All of the best images I have seen are largely typical of the photographer who made them. We all have a way we naturally 'see' the world, but finding out what it is can take time.

So this advice may be good for those that have not found their direction, but once you have, you do whatever you need to make it happen.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 11:06 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

jjz2: Say what? "Sony and Fujifilm can only cover a small part of that. So far there is no professional using their products. " ... kind of out of touch/condescending right? Plenty of pros are using them. Nikon is in denial.

To be fair, the professional Fuji market is confined to documentary, wedding and similar stuff, or landscape and studio with their MF sensor.

Compared to the number of pros using Nikon and Canon cameras for sport, it's a drop in the ocean, for. But Canon are beating Nikon there as well. It's just too much hassle to dump a stable of L lenses and switch.

If you took the sports market out of the equation, I suspect that Nikon's entire FF strategy would fall apart.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 08:30 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Nikon cannot ignore the APSC market. Yes, they need a mount that works with both FF and APSC, and a full-function mount converter for G lenses, but APSC provides an opportunity to capture the not-inconsiderable consumer market that isn't interested in large, cumbersome camera/lens combinations, but still wants a premium experience.

If they want to dominate again, they have to do so in markets where Canon and Sony are selling well - which is professional FF and amateur APSC.

Which is not to say that ASPC is not perfectly useful for many professional uses, or that a few pros are not already using it.

@T3

Dedicated DX lenses can be useful in terms of wide-angle primes (eg. 10 - 16mm). There is no point in duplicating 20mm and upwards its true, as long as there are some decent but affordable options (eg f1.8).

A lot of the DX zooms I bought for my D90 were simply poorly made and had poor quality. A 55-200mm lens is very useful on APSC, and smaller than a typical 70-300. As Fuji proved, they don't have to have poor performance.

Nikon have the knock down bargain basement lenses, and the upmarket pro stuff, but there is a gap in between. They also made their APSC DSLRs too cheap, and the Nikon 1 far too expensive. They must have lost their bottle in terms of trying to charge boutique prices for small cameras, but APSC is not small. It's as good as 645 colour film any day.

Fuji and Olympus have proved that there is a market for premium, compact cameras but they need premium lenses, not cheap consumer rubbish.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 08:25 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Nikon cannot ignore the APSC market. Yes, they need a mount that works with both FF and APSC, and a full-function mount converter for G lenses, but APSC provides an opportunity to capture the not-inconsiderable consumer market that isn't interested in large, cumbersome camera/lens combinations, but still wants a premium experience.

If they want to dominate again, they have to do so in markets where Canon and Sony are selling well - which is professional FF and amateur APSC.

Which is not to say that ASPC is not perfectly useful for many professional uses, or that a few pros are not already using it.

There is no reason not to have premium APSC lenses, but Nikon never bothered. It's why I didn't like my D90 and sold it. But the lenses for cameras like the A7 are mostly just as big as other FF lenses, so I am not tempted.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 03:28 UTC

Nikon cannot ignore the APSC market. Yes, they need a mount that works with both FF and APSC, and a full-function mount converter for G lenses, but APSC provides an opportunity to capture the not-inconsiderable consumer market that isn't interested in large, cumbersome camera/lens combinations, but still wants a premium experience.

If they want to dominate again, they have to do so in markets where Canon and Sony are selling well - which is professional FF and amateur APSC.

Which is not to say that ASPC is not perfectly useful for many professional uses, or that a few pros are not already using it.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 02:51 UTC as 116th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@Richard Butler: No problem Richard. Just asking.

@Anders Wanell: Depending on the ISO standard, it determines the average exposure of an output JPEG should be 18%. If the camera meters lower, the exposure is less, so the calibration is higher.

Of course, there is a lot of leeway.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

Hi Richard, just an assumption based on the fact that they usually are.

It's why I asked if the -3.5 EV figure was accurate, because that would make mid-tones 1 EV noisier than 18% saturation based SNR measurements.

That's a whole ISO level. The half stop seems more consistent with Nikon's usual metering (and ISO calibration) so has this changed?

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@MrBrightSide: I only tried it to compare my camera with a Sekonic meter, then concluded the metering was not 18% in either case. I read about the Kodak instructions later, but I was only after a reference point.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

Hi Richard.

If a stated ISO 100 is really 73, then yes. It was just that the article said 3.5 based on a step chart measured in density, not EV. Bit confusing.

However, it might be 3 EV. That would be 2.5 + 0.5. Not possible to tell from that chart though.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 00:32 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@rhlpetrus: I am not entirely sure. I guess if an 18% card produces a JPEG with RGB 118, then it would be.

When I tried to calibrate using a grey card, it was overexposed. Turns out light meters (ANSI) use 13% reflectance.

If you take a shot where highlights are close to clipping, the linear data will place 18% 2.47 stops below that. It's basically using ETTR.

Where 18% ends up in the image (RGB) depends on the tone-curve, but it's hard to analyse the tone curve without some reference point, like RawDigger.

I suspect low read noise enables camera companies to get better OOC results using tone-maps with mid-tone brightening to allow more highlight headroom, but it's useful to know because the same defaults are often carried over to LR.

All of which makes it hard to use image preview or camera histograms as a good indicator of exposure.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 23:18 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@MrBrightSide

How many people do this? ACR/LR is well known for using default tone curves that boost mid-tones for certain cameras, but knowing this also changes the way you need to deal with it.

Using a default in-camera tone-curve affects the ISO calibration. Use a lower exposure, and your mid-tones are darker, so they are adjusted using a tone-curve. If your mid-tones are too bright, and you use negative EV comp, you make the noise in the mid-tones even worse. Better to lower them in post.

Knowing this is kind of important, even for JPEG shooters.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@rhlpetrus yes I know, my question specifically is how is the default tone curve applied, because that affects metering and therefore ISO calibration. If (as implied) the mid-tone is -3.5EV from saturation, than that is a 1 stop underexposure, because 18% (the SOS standard) is always 2.47 stops below saturation - you can change that.

This also means that the default curve is applying 1 stop of mid-tone brightening to an underexposed mid-tone. Hence worse SNR.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 03:25 UTC
Total: 547, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »