Edgar_in_Indy

Edgar_in_Indy

Lives in United States Indianapolis, United States
Joined on Sep 9, 2010

Comments

Total: 1413, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

TN Args: @Jeremy Gray only one of the three lenses did you describe as “equivalent” mm. The other two you left the impression that they actually are 16mm and 85-125mm.

Oh boy. Anybody who even knows what "equiv" denotes will also know that it does not even need to be stated.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2022 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

milek: Why even bother with all the complexity of a "true optical zoom" if it's just 1.5x (85-125mm equiv)?!

And as for cropping, you're already at a disadvantage on the telephoto lens due to the combination of the smaller sensor and smaller aperture. Cropping is not recommended. My experience with the Pixel 6 Pro telephoto informs my opinion on this.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2022 at 04:15 UTC
In reply to:

milek: Why even bother with all the complexity of a "true optical zoom" if it's just 1.5x (85-125mm equiv)?!

Yes, 85-125mm would not normally be a very impressive range, but it's a whole different ball game when the "camera" in question already has a couple wider primes built in that are only a tap away. You should be looking at the range of focal lengths as a whole, instead of considering the telephoto module in isolation.

In my book, this setup earns points for great flexibility, assuming the image quality is competitive.

We should also keep in mind that we're discussing a camera that is only a few mm thick, lol.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2022 at 03:53 UTC
In reply to:

milek: Why even bother with all the complexity of a "true optical zoom" if it's just 1.5x (85-125mm equiv)?!

@milek: My Pixel 6 Pro's telephoto is 104mm equiv. I enjoy shooting with it a lot, but framing is sometimes difficult since it can be either too long or too short. Being able to pick anything between 85mm and 125mm would be fantastic. But why does this need explained?? lol

I'm guessing the people at Sony know a thing or two about making a good camera!

Link | Posted on May 12, 2022 at 02:01 UTC
In reply to:

capanikon: 85-125mm (FX format equivalent) is a 1.4x zoom range.

A DSLR lens like Nikon's 18-300 has a 16x zoom.

Not a very good point though, since there are a couple wider lenses included. 85-125mm gives you some flexibility for framing when shooting portrait/telephoto.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2022 at 01:59 UTC
In reply to:

biggercountry: I learned photography on film, and I was never doing anything demanding, let alone something that I could be compensated for. Now that we have an appreciation for the resolution of 35mm film relative to today’s technology, it made me think of how I rarely ever pushed the envelope of what film was capable of. Maybe an occasional 8x10 print if I felt I had a really good shot. I just didn’t think about it because that’s all there was.

It also makes me think of how great older movies look that were shot on film, and “remastered” to digital 4K. They were, in effect, shooting in UHD all along. It’s amazing how much detail there is in those movies that be extracted by a good digital capture - such as the first three Indiana Jones films.

It seems like there was a 7-10 year period where many movies were shot digitally at HD resolution, and they’re doomed to remain at that low resolution forever, or until AI upsampling is perfected. Same for my early digital pictures.

"Russian Ark" was filmed with the Sony Sony HDW-F900. It's a 3-sensor camera with separate 2/3" CCD sensors for red, blue, and green. It's the same camera George Lucas used to shoot Star Wars Episode II. (Episode I was shot on film.)

The interesting thing about "Russian Ark" is that it was captured using uncompressed video. That makes me wonder if there may be a possibility of releasing a higher-quality version someday by going back to the original uncompressed footage and re-encoding it for a 4K Blu-ray.

Not that there's likely to be a lot of interest in Russian cinema any time soon...

Link | Posted on May 8, 2022 at 01:18 UTC
In reply to:

biggercountry: I learned photography on film, and I was never doing anything demanding, let alone something that I could be compensated for. Now that we have an appreciation for the resolution of 35mm film relative to today’s technology, it made me think of how I rarely ever pushed the envelope of what film was capable of. Maybe an occasional 8x10 print if I felt I had a really good shot. I just didn’t think about it because that’s all there was.

It also makes me think of how great older movies look that were shot on film, and “remastered” to digital 4K. They were, in effect, shooting in UHD all along. It’s amazing how much detail there is in those movies that be extracted by a good digital capture - such as the first three Indiana Jones films.

It seems like there was a 7-10 year period where many movies were shot digitally at HD resolution, and they’re doomed to remain at that low resolution forever, or until AI upsampling is perfected. Same for my early digital pictures.

"Russian Ark" from 2002 is a good example of a movie that was pushing the boundaries of technology at the time, but is now "stuck" in HD.

It was shot as a single 96 minute take involving more than 1800 actors. The locations and costumes are gorgeous, so it would be amazing in 4K, but being one of the first digital-only movies it was captured in HD.

Maybe some day AI/machine-learning can do a convincing job of up-converting some of these early digital movies?

Link | Posted on May 7, 2022 at 11:57 UTC
In reply to:

agrek: The smile of a blue bear looks more sarcastic on the reconstructed image...

I also feel like the dog looks slightly more morose in the reconstructed picture...

Link | Posted on May 7, 2022 at 11:32 UTC
On article DPReview TV: OM System 40-150mm F4 Pro Review (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

Funny Valentine: claiming the lack of OIS as a "downside" is really preposterous, since Olympus has the best IBIS that outperform all OIS from all brands (I'm not even exaggerating) even up to 150mm.

Even if there were a small advantage to dual IS, I would still prefer an unstabilized lens.

Adding OIS to a lens means more parts that can fail, a more complex optical formula, more weight/size, and a higher cost. To me, the marginal benefits would just not be worth it.

I think Olympus knows what they're doing.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2022 at 09:49 UTC
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: This is such a good idea that I would have thought it was an April Fool's joke if it was posted a couple weeks earlier. Seems like it would be much more useful though if it could also connect wirelessly?

Sure, I use wired over wireless whenever I can. But why not both is my point.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2022 at 12:51 UTC

This is such a good idea that I would have thought it was an April Fool's joke if it was posted a couple weeks earlier. Seems like it would be much more useful though if it could also connect wirelessly?

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2022 at 04:04 UTC as 20th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

Lol, I guess you must feel better now after returning to get your little dig in?

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2022 at 09:06 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

"Sometimes they multiply by four because there’s a fourth, white, sub-pixel to boost brightness"

Yeah, that's right, I forgot about that. Shenanigans, lol.

But it does become difficult to figure out what the actual screen resolutions are, for comparison purposes.

For whatever reason, DPR will occasionally mention the actual screen resolution in an article, instead of just the "dots" figure. Those occasions are few and far between, but I always make a point of thanking them in the comments when they list the screen's true resolution.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2022 at 22:43 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

So for comparison, my first smartphone, the 2011 HTC Rezound, had 2.7M dots (1280x720). My last smartphone, the mid-ranger TCL 10 Pro had 7.5M dots (2340x1080), and my current phone, the Google Pixel 6 Pro, has 13.5M dots (3120x1440).

Mind you, I'm not saying that cameras need anywhere *near* that resolution on their rear screens. I'm one of those who think that cell phone screen resolutions are needlessly high. I'm just illustrating the difference in how phone screens resolution has advanced over the years while camera screens have increased very little.

It has always seemed a bit odd to me, but I think there have been some credible explanations shared in the thread.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2022 at 22:14 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

"It isn't really low resolution is it? Just lower that the resolution of other screens. "

By today's standards, they are all low resolution. You could be forgiven for thinking otherwise though, since they try to not draw attention to rear screen resolution by using "dots" instead of the actual resolution.

They arrive at the dots number by taking the H x V resolution, and then multiplying that number by 3, to account for the green, red, and blue subpixels. So a lowly 800x600 screen would be rated as 1.44 million dots. Sounds a lot more impressive, right?

Looking at the four cameras on the chart in the above article (all of which cost $2000-$2500) the screens are rated at .92, 1.04, 1.62, and 2.1 million dots. The lowest HD resolution is the old 720p, which is 1280x720. That would equate to 2.7M dots. So all of the cameras are below that.

And in most cases, the full screen is not even used when viewing images, or has a different aspect ratio, so it's actually lower than that.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2022 at 21:59 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

And yes, like many people on this thread, I also mostly review photos on my Sony camera by holding it up to my face and looking through the EVF. But it's not necessarily because I just like doing it that way. It's because the EVF is better.

If my camera had a rear screen similar in quality to any of my last three cell phones, I would probably use it much more often to review photos and videos.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2022 at 01:28 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

JPM29, That doesn't help answer the original question. A nicer screen would still be nicer, even if not *strictly* necessary. But there's plenty of things you could point to on a high end camera that aren't strictly necessary, but have been included because some customers want.

And to your point, even mirrorless cameras and high-end enthusiast compacts without an EVF still have lackluster rear screens with similar specs to EVF-equipped models. I own a couple myself. So it can't be just be that they skimped on the rear screen since they have a nice EVF that someone can use if they don't mind holding the camera up to their face to view photos and videos.

I figured there must be a technical design limitation, since the rear screen spec was so universal from manufacturer to manufacturer. Otherwise, it would be easy for one maker to get a leg up on another by boasting that they have a "full HD" or "4K Ultra HD" screen. And I believe some very credible explanations have already been posed.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2022 at 01:24 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

Higher-end phones have had high refresh rates for a generation or two now. My Pixel 6 Pro does 120 Hz.

And yes, it does impact battery life, but the phones usually have options for the user to select their desired rate, or they have smart features to automatically lower the rate when it doesn't need to be high.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2022 at 00:54 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

This may also help explain why they can use higher resolution displays in the EVF than they do on the back of the camera. I've always wondered about that, since the EVF screen is so much smaller, it would, of a necessity, be more difficult to pack more pixels into such a small screen. (ie a 0.5" 1280x720 LCD panel would be much more difficult to manufacture than a 6" panel of the same resolution).

But in this case, miniaturization of an EVF LCD was not the major design problem...the major problem was with lighting a large rear-mounted high-resolution LCD panel enough to overcome ambient lighting, which can sometimes be very bright.

But a tiny screen as found in an EVF will not require a large, bright light source...especially since it is only viewed in a dark environment (the viewfinder). So they don't have to worry as much about LCD aperture ratio, and the need to combat ambient light with a very bright backlight. So they make the rear panel lower res, but bump the EVF up.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2022 at 15:47 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

...continued

If that's the case, then that's the first time I've ever heard of that. But this LCD "aperture ratio" is kind of an important piece of information. Especially in this current age where TV's are going to 4k and even 8k, even though it's still hard to find video streams with a high enough quality and bitrate to even justify 4K, let alone 8K.

It may also explain why even some high-end 4K LCD home theater projectors, such as my Epson 5040UB, use high-speed pixel-shift technology to get to 4K resolutions, rather than use true 4K LCD panels, since brightness is very important on a projector.

It would also make me question the value of the super high resolution screens that most high-end smartphones have these days. As Samuel pointed out earlier, the resolution on those phones is already higher than necessary. If I could bump the resolution of my phone screen down, and have more battery life, that's probably a trade I'd be happy to make.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2022 at 15:43 UTC
Total: 1413, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »