Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 759, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: It's funny seeing DSLR fanboys talking shi* about mirrorless cameras. They think the huge flipping mirror DSLR is the future. Wrong, the DSLR is the buggy whip of cameras. I bet the top people at DPR know that but they depend on the aging DSLR sheep for view count. The A7r II, A7s II , NX1 etc are the future.

Because EVFs have exactly one advantage - manual focus. Everything else is a disadvantage. They are slower, poorer in low light, noisy, have lousy dynamic range, and use a ton of power.

Honestly, the gain-up thing makes no sense to me. If I can see in the room without the camera, I can see through the camera viewfinder just as well. I was shooting the eclipse the other night and seeing detailed focus of the fully-eclipsed moon through f/5.6 optics on a crop camera was no issue. The same goes for some of those horribly dark rides at Disney. Even though I could barely see them with my eyes, I could see them through the viewfinder of my camera just the same (think ISO 6400, f/1.4, 1/15th).

I have used EVFs since the 80s, and have had and used several cameras with EVFs. The best thing I can say about them is that they are usually better than LCDs. They are always worse than OVFs, and by a HUGE margin.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: It's funny seeing DSLR fanboys talking shi* about mirrorless cameras. They think the huge flipping mirror DSLR is the future. Wrong, the DSLR is the buggy whip of cameras. I bet the top people at DPR know that but they depend on the aging DSLR sheep for view count. The A7r II, A7s II , NX1 etc are the future.

The EVF doesn't show you what the photo will look like, it shows you what an out-of-camera JPEG will look like. I virtually always process my images to look the way my eye saw the scene which is often entirely different than an out-of-camera JPEG when the lighting is high-contrast. So, my final images almost always look much more like the OVF look than the out-of-camera JPEG.

I've shot crazy difficult subjects in horribly, crazy low light with a dSLR (try shooting a 9m long object traveling 17,000mph in low Earth orbit, 400km away, at night, at 4,200mm equivalent through f/21 optics hand-tracked with a low-end crop dSLR with pentamirror). I still managed to do it. The viewfinder is essentially never a problem in low light with a dSLR. EVFs, on the other hand, are a problem. They slow down in low-light, they get noisy, and they are way too bright thus ruining the dark adaptation of your eyes.

With fast subjects, you'll miss the shot if you stop to review.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Ditch an optical viewfinder for no viewfinder? I wouldn't ditch an optical viewfinder for the best EVF in the world, much less no viewfinder at all.

They don't have 0.003s delay. That would require an imaging pipeline with zero delay, an infinite shutter speed, a microdisplay with infinite refresh rate, and a frame rate of 333 frames per second. Nothing is close to that.

No, an EVF doesn't allow you to see what the image will look like when you press the shutter. It allows you to see what an out-of-camera JPEG will look like, if you aren't using a flash, and only the portion of the scene that fits into the EVF's tiny dynamic range.

I've looked through modern EVFs, and they stink just as bad as they always have.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Ditch an optical viewfinder for no viewfinder? I wouldn't ditch an optical viewfinder for the best EVF in the world, much less no viewfinder at all.

High speed subjects, sometimes in low light, sometimes in extremely low light. Subjects where I need to be able to change focal length (sometimes a lot), re-focus and reframe all in a fraction of a second.

The lag is a killer. The lack of DR is a killer (way too dark in sunlight, way too bright in darkness). The lack of battery life is a killer.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: It's funny seeing DSLR fanboys talking shi* about mirrorless cameras. They think the huge flipping mirror DSLR is the future. Wrong, the DSLR is the buggy whip of cameras. I bet the top people at DPR know that but they depend on the aging DSLR sheep for view count. The A7r II, A7s II , NX1 etc are the future.

Well, when you show me an EVF that's usable for all the things I do, I'll take a look. The best of today aren't even close.

It's tough to beat near-infinite dynamic range, full human-vision color gamut, zero lag in all light conditions, zero noise, zero sensor heating and zero power use. Let me know when an EVF can do those things.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 12:49 UTC

Ditch an optical viewfinder for no viewfinder? I wouldn't ditch an optical viewfinder for the best EVF in the world, much less no viewfinder at all.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 12:47 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
On article The new Canon 35mm F1.4L II will be a thing of beauty (230 comments in total)

I've had the original for a while, and it's so outstanding optically that I never stopped it down for anything but DOF. I could find the known optical issues (CA, flare), but in practical shooting it is just so remarkably good that there was really nothing I wanted for in terms of optics, build, or AF performance.

The new one looks to be a substantial step up, starting from near perfection. I don't know where that takes you. Perhaps from the 5D on which I used mine to the 5Ds.

That said, I'm selling mine but not for the new one. I've basically just moved from full-frame and half-and-half primes and zooms to crop and all zoom, strange as that might seem. And even stranger, my low-light capabilities will actually improve across the board!

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 19:18 UTC as 47th comment

I must be doing the math wrong.

75db/6 = 12.5 stops

2^12.5 = 5,793

5,793 * 100 = ISO 579,300

Where did I go wrong?

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 15:02 UTC as 63rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Lee Jay: According to the specs, there are no slow motion modes beyond 120fps.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx100m4/specifications

I know...my point was to encourage DPReview to put an important feature like this one in the specs.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 15:58 UTC

According to the specs, there are no slow motion modes beyond 120fps.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx100m4/specifications

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 13:38 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know (614 comments in total)

I think I might consider it if it were half the price of a used FZ1000 (which is about $650 or so). The FZ1000 is the only fixed-lens camera that's interesting to me right now. It's the right balance of focal length and aperture for me, and it has 4k (good for stabilizing video down to FHD) and a viewfinder. As much as I hate EVFs, they're okay for video and way better than an LCD.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 19:09 UTC as 26th comment

The attraction of a wide angle macro lens escapes me. Every time I've ever wanted to do macro, I wanted longer focal lengths than practically any macro lens ever made.

So, I use my Kenko extension tube set with my 70-200. Even that doesn't really have enough working distance. Now, with a teleconverter and a crop body, then it feels about right.

So, my main macro lens has an equivalent focal length of 448mm.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 22:22 UTC as 42nd comment | 4 replies
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: No AA filter = no sale.
No OVF = no sale.
I suspect I'll never own a Sony camera since they'll never produce something I'd buy.

None of that is true. The EV 1 shot above is f/1.4, ISO 3200, 1/30th. That's EV 1. The framed shot of M13 with 2 minute exposure was taken in my back yard in a white zone. ISO 3200, f/15, 120 seconds is, I believe, about EV -4. And I've done darker than that (EV -6 is the darkest I've ever framed through the OVF).

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 15:57 UTC
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: No AA filter = no sale.
No OVF = no sale.
I suspect I'll never own a Sony camera since they'll never produce something I'd buy.

No, all of that is false. I frame moving subjects in EV's below 0 regularly with an OVF, and I've done down to EV -6 with a crop-sensor OVF on stationary subjects without any chimping. Every try to chimp on a 2 minute exposure?

You're saying a shot like this one (which is routine) is impossible because it was taken at EV1. Don't be silly. I have thousands of properly-framed shots below EV5 taken with SLRs.

http://tinyurl.com/ps7xd9c

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 14:10 UTC
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: No AA filter = no sale.
No OVF = no sale.
I suspect I'll never own a Sony camera since they'll never produce something I'd buy.

Oh, baloney. I've used OVFs in EV -5 conditions!

EVFs are the problem in low-light because they ruin the dark adaptation of your eyes.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 13:19 UTC
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: No AA filter = no sale.
No OVF = no sale.
I suspect I'll never own a Sony camera since they'll never produce something I'd buy.

"The EVF is the next step in the evolution of the camera."

EVFs are older than SLRs.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 12:39 UTC
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: No AA filter = no sale.
No OVF = no sale.
I suspect I'll never own a Sony camera since they'll never produce something I'd buy.

"30 stops may be a bit much, as you really only probably need to simulate/match instantaneous DR perceived, which is more modest."

But you need to do it over a huge range of scene conditions (say, EV15 to EV-5). And you want, say, 10 stops of DR at every step in that range. That's 30 stops.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 12:39 UTC
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: No AA filter? great, moire and aliasing again.

It's funny that someone would bring up math to explain why you'd want to eliminate the AA filter. Sampling theory says you have to have one to get good reconstruction of the original signal (look up Shannon).

"the theorem only applies to a class of mathematical functions having a Fourier transform that is zero outside of a finite region of frequencies"

Let's see...how do you get your subject to have that property?...

"The theorem introduces the concept of a sample rate that is sufficient for perfect fidelity for the class of functions that are bandlimited to a given bandwidth, such that no actual information is lost in the sampling process."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 11:29 UTC
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: No AA filter? great, moire and aliasing again.

You don't need regular repeating patterns for aliasing. Any edge or linear element will have jaggies. And people often wear cloth that does have regular repeating patterns anyway. I've seen it on cameras that do have AA filters. Cameras without them just do it worse.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 03:13 UTC
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: No AA filter? great, moire and aliasing again.

Why wouldn't there be high frequency detail in the in-focus sections of shallow DOF images? Answer: There would, of course. And shooting fast apertures doesn't always mean shallow DOF anyway. Further, you might need fastwr than f/16 to freeze subject motion even in good light. Finally, there's literally no good reason to include an expensive AA filter and then cancel it out with another one. The additional detail is miniscule but the artifacts are everywhere. It's not just moire. It's jaggies and other signs of aliasing too. Images look "crunchy" because of those artifacts.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 02:37 UTC
Total: 759, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »