Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 1841, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article These are the best smartphone cameras you can buy now (97 comments in total)

Best phone with a stupid notch at the top of the display screen..... (opening envelope)..... and the winner is.... the Apple iPhoneX!

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 20:58 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SandySandy: The M43 manufacturers and community should go on a b*tch slappin rampage against Sony's sensor division for treating them so shoddily. It's terrible. The progress in M43 sensors is way too slow suddenly and not much in the right direction.

PDAF
MUCH higher resolution.
MUCH faster frame rates and higher bit-depth

Sandy,

You are absolutely right about the MF sensor being at least 9 times larger. And this explains part of the higher cost. But it really is compounded by the fact that the larger the sensor gets the lower the yield per wafer.

Because there are fewer MF sensors on a standard wafer they might only yield 35% without defects. The rate for smaller sensors is much higher. Around 75% for a 4/3 sensor.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/53794/what-limits-the-size-of-digital-imaging-sensors

Also, I believe my Olympus EM1 has a Panasonic made sensor, so M4/3 was using Panasonic sensors long after the GH2.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 11:32 UTC
In reply to:

SandySandy: The M43 manufacturers and community should go on a b*tch slappin rampage against Sony's sensor division for treating them so shoddily. It's terrible. The progress in M43 sensors is way too slow suddenly and not much in the right direction.

PDAF
MUCH higher resolution.
MUCH faster frame rates and higher bit-depth

M4/3 requires Sony to make a sensor for $100 or less. Medium Format sensors can cost ten times that much (maybe even more, since I am just guessing).

Sony would probably build anything Panasonic or Olympus wanted them to build if there was enough profit in it for Sony.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: The ISS currently has a crew of six, and six is the maximum capacity it can have.

You have to wonder why NASA needed 53 $5,000 cameras for a crew of six. Are they planning to use them as throw-aways? Or, did they buy a 25 year supply because they got a good price for a large quantity?

Or.... is this just a simple case of a government agency spending $300,000 of taxpayer money because they can?

Two spares and 51 more with different lenses mounted?

OK.... if you say so....

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

teddoman: I didn't realize there was so much fast action in outer space. You'd think NASA would buy more specialized photography equipment, like infrared-modified cameras and astrophotography cameras and such.

NASA might get a few cases of Tang for free. I seriously doubt Nikon would give them $300,000 worth of cameras. All it would take is one free camera for the NASA purchasing agent to do the trick.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 00:15 UTC

The ISS currently has a crew of six, and six is the maximum capacity it can have.

You have to wonder why NASA needed 53 $5,000 cameras for a crew of six. Are they planning to use them as throw-aways? Or, did they buy a 25 year supply because they got a good price for a large quantity?

Or.... is this just a simple case of a government agency spending $300,000 of taxpayer money because they can?

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 00:09 UTC as 48th comment | 9 replies

If it wasn't for Kickstarter and new cell phone releases, Dpreview would be hurting for editorial content.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 18:13 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)

Fantastic price for this lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 19:27 UTC as 51st comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 first impressions (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

Carol T: So, I am curious. Anyone have any idea of what percentage of 'professional' photographers actually use m4/3? I know of a lot who use APS-C and 35mm, and even MF (I actually know of far more professional photographers who use MF than m4/3, though that is very likely due to the bias in my interests).

The only ones I ever hear of who use m4/3 are the odd one or two people bring up when someone asks 'do pros use m4/3?'. Which isn't my question, I know some do, but in the bigger picture, are there really that many, especially for stills? The post keeps mentioning 'the targeted professionals' essentially, and I am curious who they are, and how there could be enough of them to provide a market for this camera (I do realize a LOT of amateurs will love this camera!).

Carol... a lot of that is just hype from Dpreview.

Yes, the G9 is a great camera, and can be used by pros in some situations. But you won't see many of them at NFL sidelines during games.

And similarly the GH5 is a fantastic video camera, but an awful lot of professionals are still willing to pay $40,000 for professional video cameras.

Saying something "can be used by pros" isn't saying what the pros are actually using. I suspect they have needs that go beyond "great performance for a low cost."

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 19:23 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 first impressions (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

Carol T: So, I am curious. Anyone have any idea of what percentage of 'professional' photographers actually use m4/3? I know of a lot who use APS-C and 35mm, and even MF (I actually know of far more professional photographers who use MF than m4/3, though that is very likely due to the bias in my interests).

The only ones I ever hear of who use m4/3 are the odd one or two people bring up when someone asks 'do pros use m4/3?'. Which isn't my question, I know some do, but in the bigger picture, are there really that many, especially for stills? The post keeps mentioning 'the targeted professionals' essentially, and I am curious who they are, and how there could be enough of them to provide a market for this camera (I do realize a LOT of amateurs will love this camera!).

Here's something to think about.

The amateur market is a lot bigger than the pro market is. This is especially true for brands that don't specialize in making pro gear (in other words "Panasonic and Olympus.")

M4/3 was designed for and is squarely aimed at amateur photographers even if some pros also use it. The G9 is targeting the high end of the amateur market. And I think it hits that target pretty well.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 18:24 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 first impressions (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

Carol T: So, I am curious. Anyone have any idea of what percentage of 'professional' photographers actually use m4/3? I know of a lot who use APS-C and 35mm, and even MF (I actually know of far more professional photographers who use MF than m4/3, though that is very likely due to the bias in my interests).

The only ones I ever hear of who use m4/3 are the odd one or two people bring up when someone asks 'do pros use m4/3?'. Which isn't my question, I know some do, but in the bigger picture, are there really that many, especially for stills? The post keeps mentioning 'the targeted professionals' essentially, and I am curious who they are, and how there could be enough of them to provide a market for this camera (I do realize a LOT of amateurs will love this camera!).

Carol, there are no statistics for this. But we do know two things.

1. Some pros do use M4/3 cameras, either as a primary or secondary system. If you do a google search, you will come up with dozens or perhaps even hundreds of examples.

2. Dozens or Hundreds isn't very many when you consider how many professional photographers there are. I have never been to a wedding yet where the paid professional photographer wasn't using a big honking Canon or Nikon camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Along with using ancient Videocon tubes to measure sensor sizes, and applying crop factors to all sensors smaller than 135, but never for sensors bigger, one more thing perplexes me about the world of photography: "GREY Imports"?!!

We live in a global economy; I can by my laptop from the USA, my wine from France, my show posters from Italy. It's up to me. So why do CAMERA manufacturers, almost uniquely, try to punish those who buy a camera in one country, for use in another? What is GREY about me picking up a new camera body while on vacation in Japan and bringing it back to the UK? Why should my warranty cease to apply?

It's high time the concepts of "GREY" imports and a "GREY" market were banned.

Brian

Precisely how do you "ban the grey market" when we can't even ban the black market?

We could end up with Camera Cartels smuggling in cameras and Camera Gangs murdering judges and police chiefs!

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 10:32 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9: What you need to know (240 comments in total)

Very impressive.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 20:36 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marty4650: To be fair.... this project makes more sense than the Yashica faux film camera does. At least you don't have to buy extra fake film canisters to change ISO, and you can use lenses you already own.

But with SO MANY great film cameras selling for next to nothing today it looks like this entire project was designed for some school system in California that cannot buy used cameras. They require "new only" in order to spend more taxpayer money.

And... it enough people still want to use carriages, and there are no parts available for them.... then some smart person will start making those parts and create a very profitable business doing it.

But that won't work if there aren't enough people who still want to ride in carriages.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 19:58 UTC

To be fair.... this project makes more sense than the Yashica faux film camera does. At least you don't have to buy extra fake film canisters to change ISO, and you can use lenses you already own.

But with SO MANY great film cameras selling for next to nothing today it looks like this entire project was designed for some school system in California that cannot buy used cameras. They require "new only" in order to spend more taxpayer money.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 09:13 UTC as 40th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Lassoni: So maybe greedy liberal capitalism doesn't work in poorer countries, where there's lesser purchasing power and smaller middle class?

Yes... it was very greedy of Nikon to impose a 55% import duty plus a 15% sales tax on their products.

No wait... that wasn't done by Nikon, it was done by a Socialist government!

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

sirhawkeye64: I wouldn't be surprised if they cut out South America and Africa completely before too long, and Nikon's would then only for sale in NA, Europe and parts of Asia only. I mean, if it means survival, then so be it (as I'm from the US, and I would think the Asia and NA would be the two markets the would pull out of last as a last ditch effort if they had to.

Although I could also see this as a potential for grey market gear to end up Brazil and other places before too long, for those who still want Nikon gear but there isn't an authorized reseller around.

Revenant.....

CIPA does not separate North and South America. They lump these numbers together as "Americas."

You probably meant to say "According to CIPA, the European camera market is bigger than North and South America combined."

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 23:29 UTC
In reply to:

PerL: "Relatively small?". I guess everything IS relative.

You should try to explain equivalency to her. It is worth a shot. :)

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 13:06 UTC
In reply to:

User9362470513: If you use M4/3 why would you want such a huge lens? Surely M4/3 is about small size and low weight? If you want this sort of lens you may as well get a FF camera and accompanying size and weight.

Jeff.... yes it would make sense. If you recall, a few years ago Panasonic had planned a 150mm f/2.8 lens, but it somehow got dropped from their lens roadmap.

And a long macro lens might even be better. Something like a 100mm f/2.8 macro.

If there is a "gap" in the M4/3 prime lens lineup, then it isn't anywhere under 50mm. It is between 75mm and 300mm.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: This is probably a stupid question, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance.

If this lens is "as good as an Art Lens" then why isn't it sold as an Art Lens? What makes an Art Lens different from Sigma's other lenses?

Thanks for the explanation.

So that means this lens isn't called an Art lens because it requires digital processing to correct for optical aberrations. I suppose that means it "really isn't as good as an Art lens."

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 13:48 UTC
Total: 1841, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »