Brett8883

Joined on Nov 1, 2020

Comments

Total: 142, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article What's the best way to describe sensor size? (594 comments in total)
In reply to:

4Photos: *** FULL FRAME UNITS ***

It should be as easy as possible, and it should be intuitive. Most everyone knows the size of a "full frame" sensor. Many of us held film that size in our hands. So why not make that the reference point?

I suggest "ff-units":

1-inch sensor = 0.13ff
APS-SC = 0.4ff
Full Frame = 1ff
Fuji GFX100 = 167ff

(if you want to express in square mm, just multiply by 864).

I actually really like this. Puts those sizes in perspective nicely actually

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2022 at 01:08 UTC
In reply to:

Thorsman: Mirrorless cameras have the image quality and a plethora of improvements over DSLR's, but I'm yet to find one that switches on and is ready to shoot as quickly as a DSLR or wake from sleep as fast.

Try the Sony A1. It’s basically instantly on and ready to shoot. I’m sure it’s not the only one.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2022 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

jameskachan: Critically — they need to figure out how to get an AF assist beam working for mirroless cameras. There are all kinds of ultra low light usecases where photographers critically need instant AF Lock + Flash — which isn't possible with any mirrorless camera since none of them and no flash will support AF assist beams. We need new flashes that can work with mirrorless cameras and output an IR beam, or something that will lock focus in an instant while in the darkest of environments, for fast moving subjects.

Paparazzi, wedding shooters (think ultra low light dancing at end of the night), event shooters, news photographers, etc — all need instant AF lock with flash.

In ultra low light, even the most professional mirrorless cameras hunt a bit, and you cant afford that time, especially with fast moving subjects in ultra low light. It's mind boggling to me that more photographers arent complaining about this.

I’m confused because I use Sony mirrorless cameras and the AF beam assist coming from my Godox transmitters work just fine. There’s a huge difference between in AF speed and reliability in ultra low light between assist beam on and off so I know it’s working. I can’t imagine that it would be any different for other mirrorless brand

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2022 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

Dedus: I have no choice but to start this petition

https://www.change.org/p/sony-to-add-pre-shooting-buffer-to-the-a7-a9-a1-cameras-via-firmware-update

Badly need the pre-shooting buffer! :)
Please sign and share.

Duplicate

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2022 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

Dedus: I have no choice but to start this petition

https://www.change.org/p/sony-to-add-pre-shooting-buffer-to-the-a7-a9-a1-cameras-via-firmware-update

Badly need the pre-shooting buffer! :)
Please sign and share.

I’m on board. That is the one feature that would change my photography life.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2022 at 16:36 UTC

Some good improvements. On one hand this is a very minor update, on the other hand, the RS 2 was already so good there wasn’t much room for a huge update. really.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2022 at 01:40 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Txoni: Nice frame rate and no rolling shutter effect on a sensor that is not even stacked?!?!?

The bulky one time use memory cards were a killer though…

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2022 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

mmarian: For those who still fly the DJI Inspire2 this lens might be very tempting, especially for video. Pitty the corners are soft, a bit of a turn off for the stills shooters. At 130g it should balance well when attached to the X5S camera, as it weights exactly as the Oly12mm which balances perfect with the DJI balance ring. Only problem is the 55mm filter size, as the 12mm is 46mm🙁

Do you think we’ll get electronic control in the I2? I would think since the Panasonic Leica branding is the same as on the native lens but who knows.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2022 at 03:20 UTC
In reply to:

photography-lover: It will be interesting to assess their sustained minimal speed and thermal behaviour.

Couid be valuable for the Z9 whose buffer depth is highly impacted by CFExpress performance when shooting in lossless compressed raw.

That will become irrelevant when C1 Pro and DxO PL5 support the H* format.

Yes this was compressed raw and Xtra fine quality on the jpeg and HEIF. Yes I used a 1/500 shutter so that is plenty fast to get 30 fps and the camera makes a distinct shutter sound at 30 fps. Used the 50 1.2 GM which is 30 fps compatible.

I also tested 15 fps jpeg fine and the buffer barely gets used so I find it hard to believe it’s buffer limited at 15 fps jpeg fine with any CFe A card.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2022 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

photography-lover: It will be interesting to assess their sustained minimal speed and thermal behaviour.

Couid be valuable for the Z9 whose buffer depth is highly impacted by CFExpress performance when shooting in lossless compressed raw.

That will become irrelevant when C1 Pro and DxO PL5 support the H* format.

So I just did some buffer tests with my own A1 with the Sony tough card 160 GB CFe A cards and it can do 5.5 seconds of 30 fps raw before the buffer fills up and takes about the same amount of time to clear the buffer. In 20 fps it can do 17 seconds of raw and about 6.5 seconds to clear the buffer completely. At 15 fps of raw I shot through a full 160 GB card of continuous shooting and never filled up the buffer.

Interesting notes: Sometimes the buffer would clear while there were still photos being copied to the card but I checked and this never affected the length of the following burst or buffer clear time. Maybe there’s some secondary memory or buffer?

When the buffer is full the shooting speed is just a hair less than 15 fps, certainly much higher than 10 fps.

The buffer counter gets up to about 130 photos.

RAW vs JPEG vs HEIF didn’t change the length of the bursts or buffer clear time to any degree I could measure with a stop watch.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2022 at 23:15 UTC
In reply to:

photography-lover: It will be interesting to assess their sustained minimal speed and thermal behaviour.

Couid be valuable for the Z9 whose buffer depth is highly impacted by CFExpress performance when shooting in lossless compressed raw.

That will become irrelevant when C1 Pro and DxO PL5 support the H* format.

Yea I would have preferred type B cards on the A1 as well if for no other reason than the higher capacity. The A1 goes through a 160 GB card shockingly fast.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2022 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

HJVN: Two things that still confuses me, after reading this article.
What is it that we call megapixels in a sensor? Is it;
1. the number of photodiodes?
2. The number of colored filters that might cover any number of photodiodes?
3. Whatever the manufacturer decides to output in the media file?
4. Or is it the number of micro lenses that matters.

Is it time we start differentiate between the sensor and the megapixel files we get from it?

I pointed that out too but the way Sigma describes the MP on a Foveon sensor has always raised some eyebrows.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2022 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

HJVN: Two things that still confuses me, after reading this article.
What is it that we call megapixels in a sensor? Is it;
1. the number of photodiodes?
2. The number of colored filters that might cover any number of photodiodes?
3. Whatever the manufacturer decides to output in the media file?
4. Or is it the number of micro lenses that matters.

Is it time we start differentiate between the sensor and the megapixel files we get from it?

Further muddying the waters, Sigma defines it as the number of photosites on its Foveon sensors which, in that case, is not the number of pixels in the image file so I guess it depends on the manufacturer and the sensor technology

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2022 at 15:49 UTC

It’s kind of funny that photographers here are saying that it’s too soft and filmmakers on CineD are saying that it’s too sharp and they are having to use most filters to get the look they want lol. It’s just funny how our crafts can be so similar in so many ways but ideologically opposed in others.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2022 at 15:27 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Pseu_Pseu_Pseudonym: Having limited cameras, having to de-squeeze in post, paying more for the lens and ending up with fugly stretched specular highlight blobs?

Doesn't seem worth all the hassle and cost.

There are no guesses and no information is added or lost it’s just stretching the pixels to a new shape. Perhaps 2x anamorphic is easiest to understand, after desqueeze every pixel is two pixels wide and 1 pixel tall. You still have the same number of pixels, the pixels are just longer.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2022 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

Pseu_Pseu_Pseudonym: Having limited cameras, having to de-squeeze in post, paying more for the lens and ending up with fugly stretched specular highlight blobs?

Doesn't seem worth all the hassle and cost.

It’s certainly a matter of taste but I think the oval bokeh, and to a lesser degree the horizontal flare, are the reasons anamorphic lenses are used today and not in spite of those characteristics. I think oval bokeh is absolutely gorgeous but to be clear this particular Sirui lens doesn’t have good bokeh which is a shame. While I love oval bokeh I absolutely hate cat’s eye and the bokeh from this lens looks like out of control cat’s eye rather than anamorphic bokeh. To each his own

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2022 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

Pseu_Pseu_Pseudonym: Having limited cameras, having to de-squeeze in post, paying more for the lens and ending up with fugly stretched specular highlight blobs?

Doesn't seem worth all the hassle and cost.

I buy that you don’t gain new resolution by doing a de-squeeze or upscaling but no information is lost.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2022 at 04:13 UTC
In reply to:

Pseu_Pseu_Pseudonym: Having limited cameras, having to de-squeeze in post, paying more for the lens and ending up with fugly stretched specular highlight blobs?

Doesn't seem worth all the hassle and cost.

I still don’t see how that’s losing resolution. At worst you have the same resolution you started with

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2022 at 14:45 UTC
In reply to:

Pseu_Pseu_Pseudonym: Having limited cameras, having to de-squeeze in post, paying more for the lens and ending up with fugly stretched specular highlight blobs?

Doesn't seem worth all the hassle and cost.

I don’t follow on how you lose resolution. Are you saying because screens aren’t that aspect ratio?

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2022 at 05:44 UTC
In reply to:

Pseu_Pseu_Pseudonym: Having limited cameras, having to de-squeeze in post, paying more for the lens and ending up with fugly stretched specular highlight blobs?

Doesn't seem worth all the hassle and cost.

You don’t lose resolution due to de-squeeze unless you crop it.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2022 at 03:31 UTC
Total: 142, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »