57even

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

Comments

Total: 646, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

57even: So let me understand this. Unlike a smart-phone, or a mirrorless camera, I don't get a WYSIWYG preview of the scene I am about to take.

Perhaps this is why cameras have screens?

Would it have been so difficult to add an EVF instead of an optical finder?

@PostModernBloke

Well that's nice for you, but this camera is being marketed at phone camera users, which makes it about the dumbest idea I have ever seen - given that phone cameras are WYSIWYG and have so called 'neural' processing algorithms.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2018 at 19:23 UTC

So let me understand this. Unlike a smart-phone, or a mirrorless camera, I don't get a WYSIWYG preview of the scene I am about to take.

Perhaps this is why cameras have screens?

Would it have been so difficult to add an EVF instead of an optical finder?

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2018 at 15:05 UTC as 113th comment | 5 replies
On article What you need to know about the Fujifilm GFX 50R (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

racin06: I shoot Fujifilm's APS-C X-Series system (which rocks!) and I don't see me ever shooting MF; however, I find it very interesting and I hope Fujifilm continues to dominate MF.

The key thing for Fuji is that MF is apparently it is very profitable at the low volume (relatively) scale they are aiming at. High margin on lenses, which allows them to offer bodies at reasonable prices, as does borrowing firmware and multiple components from their existing cameras.

Sony may dominate FF mirrorless at the moment, but do they actually make any money? Nobody knows.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2018 at 04:43 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 Review (2478 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photo_Genius: Finally Fujifilm takes full advantage of APS-C towards full frame:
- faster sensor readout, that allows higher frame rates and 4K60
- compact body and lenses

If they continue keeping up with the latest sensor technology and image processors, they could always be twice as fast as the full frame competitors. Theoratically when full frame gets 4k60, they could have 4k120. When full frame gets 10 bit recording, Fuji could offer 12 bit and so on. I hope they keep being innovative in the future and push APS-C always to the limits.

@Otto k

The ADC just converts a voltage to a number. It's a 1 step process. Both APSC and FF cameras have 14-bit ADCs, so there is no difference in the amount of 'data' being read out.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2018 at 02:54 UTC

Good. I'm tired of having to use apps that are crippled by having to support those who refuse keep their OS patched and up to date.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2018 at 18:02 UTC as 122nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Fero: How easy would it be to add an auto-ISO mode that exposes to the right and include it in the next firmware update, I wonder...

Phone cameras already do this. The problem is that you need a video feed covering the whole sensor to identify the highlights. That's why it would only work with mirrorless cameras or in live view, unless your matrix meter covered the whole image area.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2018 at 01:33 UTC
In reply to:

Sacher Khoudari: Why do different cameras have a different base ISO, even if they use (almost) the same sensor? E.g. Fuji's and Olympus' cameras have (all?) ISO 200 as base ISO, while other cameras with Sony sensors (e.g. Sony's and Nikon) often start at ISO 100?

Even then, if I compare my Canon G7x II to my Fuji X-T1 (1-inch to APS-C), I see that given the same FoV, exposure time and aperture (I'm neglecting equivalent aperture here), the ISO value choosen by the auto ISO function differs by a factor of 2 (e.g. G7xII: ISO 200; X-T1: ISO 400). Why is this?

Olympus and Fuji use the SOS version of the standard (Standard Output Sensitivity) which specified standard RGB JPEGs have to average 18% in the zone being metered (plus or minus 1/3 of a stop).

Canon and most of the others use REI (Recommended Exposure Index) which simply means it has to look nice.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2018 at 01:25 UTC
In reply to:

thenoilif: Why is there so much hype around mirrorless?

It's not a revolutionary step forward from DSLRs. It's mostly a marketing gimmick that is solely designed to get people to buy a new system of bodies and lenses that don't offer any discernable advantage in image producing capability over the previous image producing system. Size advantage has been negated by the fact that ILC lens tech hasn't made any major leaps forward in regards to be able to produce top results while maintaining a well-balanced size/weight to the camera body. So, most of the top newer mirrorless bodies have grown in size and are close to be DSLR-like now.

Ok, there is one thing that mirrorless allows which is re-introduction of the vintage rangefinder camera body but this is mostly aesthetic since Fuji's line of cameras come nowhere near the best DSLRs or even FF mirrorless cameras.

@thenoilif

I suggest you don't buy one. Then you will never know what you are missing and you can carry on telling everyone how dumb they are.

Of course, they are not dumb. They just know what direction the technology is going and why. But if you don't know why, there's not much point in trying to explain.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2018 at 10:36 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

paulfulper: I prefer a full frame with low MP like 6-8 MP so it's extremely sensitive to low light , maybe 1million ISO ?

They don't capture more light, they just capture the same amount of light a little faster. To capture more, you'd need a bigger photodiode underneath the lens, ie a BSI sensor. Even so the improvement seems to be moderate.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2018 at 01:27 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)

Anyone who plans to work with their image data in post will require raw data with as much fidelity as possible. In which case, the only realistic option is a large sensor.

Those who don't have time for such nonsense and are happy to let an algorithm decide, it is probably not very important any more.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 21:21 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

paulfulper: I prefer a full frame with low MP like 6-8 MP so it's extremely sensitive to low light , maybe 1million ISO ?

Sensitivity has much less to do with photosite size, and a lot more to do with the total area of the sensor. In fact, smaller photosites are more efficient on the whole.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 21:10 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris2210: One thing you didn't cover much [or at least only by implication] is the effect of multiple sensors in computational photography. If you're effectively merging the data from two sensors simultaneously, you are also effectively doubling the imaging area, with three tripling it and so on.

That's arguably meant the largest benefit for smartphone imaging over the last few years. Personally I think that's the most significant thing about the gap - it allows the physics of a greater imaging area in a small[er] form factor. Ultimately that may mean small, multiple array cameras could indeed match the quality of a dedicated larger format camera.

The L16 shows that there's a way to go yet, but as a proof of concept it is intriguing.

I do think there may come a point when very powerful computational imaging will become so ubiquitous it may make us question the veracity of the result. But that's another, bigger question.

The trouble is, but the time to reach a sensor size equivalence, you have most of the phone given over cameras, and a lot more computation required. The lenses are smaller, but also less versatile and with higher diffraction. As soon as you start using different focal lengths, you lose the equivalence because the images do not precisely align.

In fact they don't anyway, so merging images does not have equivalent resolution either due to parallax.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 16:03 UTC

Canon EOS M has a throat diameter of 47mm (a huge 7mm less than the EF mount) and a flange distance of 18mm.

This is actually slightly larger than Sony's FF A mount (46mm/18mm) so they COULD make an FF mount from it, but I would guess they would have gone for a larger throat diameter if they had started with an FF design, just as I suspect Sony should have, given that they now seem to have abandoned the APSC market anyway.

Either Canon will expand their EOS M up-market, or come up with a new lens mount that would make the EOS M lineup redundant. Something of a quandary I feel.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2018 at 04:40 UTC as 27th comment

I'm all for the little guy getting justice. Well done Tony and Chelsea.
The victims could be anyone on these forums.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2018 at 00:03 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

(unknown member): People who say X-Trans is totally fine and not a hassle to process nowadays are so dishonest. There's good reasons for why people want Bayer sensors in Fuji cameras. Fanboys gonna fanboy.

I prepared myself for disappointment every time I shot a photo with lots of foliage on the X-T2's X-Trans sensor. Preferred my original X100.

There is only one raw converter that has 'issues' with Xtrans, namely Adobe. So why spend thousands on new cameras when using a different raw converter costs hundreds (at most) or nothing at all, or can be used as a plug-in with LR (X-transformer).

I output-sharpen all my images in Photoshop, and have no issues with X-trans and foliage.

But one thing I don't have to deal with is false colour and colour moire.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 15:18 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

sceneIt: This is the struggle to maintain control over our humanity versus letting insular small minded programmers dictate how everything is going to look and work. It's like drawing with a pencil and paper versus drawing with a wacom tablet. Despite all the technology I haven't seen any Michelangelo's.

The truth is technology and everything it does IS the limiting factor. Software is mind control. The most simple and elegant tools are the most freeing. Do you think a true artist cares about pixels or machine learning? No. Art is an expression of the soul not a computer programs algorithmic psuedo intelligence.

That said there is a benefit to having higher quality through these software tools. But the idea that they're going to do all your thinking for you is ridiculously unnecessary and a violation of our human right to make our own decisions in the creative process.

Does unsharp masking do your thinking for you? I presume you are quite happy for Photoshop to do all the math under the covers while you twiddle the sliders, so why is this any different?

And it's much better than having to rely on a local mini-lab for your film prints because you can't afford a darkroom (or a professional service).

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 19:30 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hyper111: Tech history has shown, the nimble usually overtake the the bigger boys.
During the late 80s. IBM came out with the humble PC, it was n't as powerful as mainframes. Over time, the PC has become more and more powerful. It knocked out the bigger players such as Digital, Sun and HP. In the past people bought mainframes, but who buys that these days?

Even WIndows is under threat from people using lighter and nimbler tablets and phones.

Camera manufacturers are not going to make their compact more smarter, in case it hurts the sales of their CSC and SLR equipment.

I am a great fan of advanced compact cameras.... However, whilst taking photos of New Year's event, my photos were not as good as those taken from people's mobile phones.

Look up IBM Z series. It is used widely by banks, airlines and cloud service providers.

Sure, they are smaller and cheaper than "old-fashioned" mainframes, but a tablet is much smaller and cheaper than an IBM PC.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 19:26 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hyper111: Tech history has shown, the nimble usually overtake the the bigger boys.
During the late 80s. IBM came out with the humble PC, it was n't as powerful as mainframes. Over time, the PC has become more and more powerful. It knocked out the bigger players such as Digital, Sun and HP. In the past people bought mainframes, but who buys that these days?

Even WIndows is under threat from people using lighter and nimbler tablets and phones.

Camera manufacturers are not going to make their compact more smarter, in case it hurts the sales of their CSC and SLR equipment.

I am a great fan of advanced compact cameras.... However, whilst taking photos of New Year's event, my photos were not as good as those taken from people's mobile phones.

Lots of people buy mainframes, usually running hundreds of virtual server images. It can often be cheaper than a server farm, which is the alternative.

Advantage of the mainframe solution is that some processes can grab more CPU for intensive crunching, and they usually have a very high memory bandwidth compared to micro-processor based servers. There is also much less distributed data management overhead.

And having one physical machine can often be simpler to configure and maintain, and scale.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 17:45 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

jp_eagle: most of such technologies used in mobile are able to apply to full-frame camera photo taking also.

so provided with time, if full-frame camera adopt some of technologies, the quality of images will still exceed the mobile photos because of better quality of glasses and sensors.

mobile photo will still be more convenient and easy to carry, full-frame photo will still be better quality and more/faster control.

Or provide camera-specific plug-ins to LR or other editing apps that can read header info from the camera, like which shots are parts of a group, etc...

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 17:39 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: A lot of commentators here seem to be missing the point. Whether you 'like' the images from the Pixel2 or not is not the point. The fact is they greatly exceed the physical parameters of the sensor used in that phone.

If people are going to be tempted into buying dedicated cameras, they will demand some level of visible superiority over what they can do with a phone. That means some similar techniques will have to be available, either in-camera or in post, to stay ahead.

In practice, a lot of this is just focus stacking or HDR stacking, but what is unique is the Pixel2's ability to identify areas of an image intelligently and align the stacked images so precisely. It does a much better job of HDR (the results look quite realistic) than some HDR efforts I have seen, and the 'fake bokeh' is pretty smooth too...

I would like some control over these effects, but there is no doubt that they work. They will work just as well on a D850, in most cases - and with better quality data.

So the only alternative to a phone is a full-frame camera? How well lifting shadows works depends a lot on what ISO you are shooting at and how big you want to print. I quite often want to have more DR in low light shots because of all the bright highlights (streetlamps, the moon, etc). Tends to be out of range even on my D800.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 17:38 UTC
Total: 646, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »