Lives in United States Orlando, FL, United States
Works as a academics
Joined on Feb 23, 2006


Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

lotzi: As with many people here, I find that this news about using photojournalism-class, off-the-shelf cameras and lenses for taking pictures on the space station is more a public relations move. Price is irrelevant in a situation where the cost of sending cargo to the space station is in the $20,000 / pound range.

What I was saying is that considering that the space station budget is about $2 billion, and imaging is an important part of it, this is the kind of situation where it is funny to use $6000 off-the-shelf cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 15:17 UTC

As with many people here, I find that this news about using photojournalism-class, off-the-shelf cameras and lenses for taking pictures on the space station is more a public relations move. Price is irrelevant in a situation where the cost of sending cargo to the space station is in the $20,000 / pound range.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 14:44 UTC as 20th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

The Squire: AWESOME except that Micro USB3 port! Probably the worst port ever created. Why no USB-C?

Why do you need USB-C hardware? The other end of the cable can be a regular full size USB-A connector (as is in many new phones).

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:23 UTC
On article Google shares high-resolution Pixel 2 sample photos (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

desertsp: Phone cameras are getting pretty impressive, which makes sense given that they're by far the most popular type of camera and manufactures are investing accordingly.

What I'm curious about is to what extent hese processing advancements can be applied to traditional cameras. If a tiny-sensor camera can be made to produce images essentially comparable to say a 1" type camera (under certain circumstances of course), then maybe that same 1" type camera could produce images similar to a those from a full-frame camera, if a similar amount of research and development were applied.

1) Power/heat management: why do you think that you need more power for processing images from a larger sensor? Most of the things the pixel does are performed on the processor, not on the sensor.

3) It will take some real trickery: if you take a computational view of photography, the lenses, the sensor and post-processing are all computations. Doing computation on the processor is not different from doing computation using a lens, like the RX10 with "18 elements in 13 groups (6 aspheric elements, including AA lens)". In fact, it is more similar to what the brain does: single lens, not particularly good quality, non-zoom, not color corrected, most vision happens in software, in the brain.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 14:29 UTC
On article Google shares high-resolution Pixel 2 sample photos (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

LV-426: Today's average joe/jane consumer isn't using a PC anymore with big monitors - they use a Smartphone or Tablet for the majority of their needs (web surfing, email, gaming, shopping). On most phone/tablet screens, the image quality from a phone sensor is going to look quite good and that is all that really matters these days.

Well, actually, I am looking at these at a 32 inch 4K monitor, full screen. And they are quite good on that one as well.

In absolute terms, they would beat something like the ZS70 at the corresponding focal length (brighter prime lens, allows the use of ISO 50 for most shots).

But a ZS70 would redeem itself once you need to zoom (I would say already at around 60-70 equivalent). And of course the 1 inch and higher have their own advantages.

But there is an obvious creep in the alignment of camera types: your 38-80 zoom is dead and is replaced by a smartphone, the RX10 or FZ1000 replaces your family DSLR and video camera, etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 12:58 UTC
On article Leica M10 added to the studio comparison tool (210 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: Or pay 900 USD for a Sony A7 and have similar (not identical, though) IQ for a fraction of the price.

HowaboutRAW: And the best Leica M lenses are optically unmatched--therefore this Leica M10, when used with those lenses, offers better image quality.

Until you compare it with a higher resolution camera. One would think that if Leica is so convinced of the superiority of their glass, they would try to put it in front of a higher resolution sensor, i.e. play to your strengths.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

onemoreguy: I wonder with the 1.3 crop mode (2.2 crop factor) in a Nikon dx cameras, d7500 for example, + the new 70-300mm AF P, you would get similar bokeh result at the long end as this camera. You would get 660mm f12.6, right? The Sony RX10 gives you 600mm f10.8 and a little higher pixel count, but lower image quality.
The only downside with the Nikon combo is, you would have to change lens for the shorter end. In exchange, you would get much better image quality.

Absolutely, the D7500 + 16-80 + 70-300 would beat this camera in many situations (not in 4K video, where it has a crop).

It is also more expensive, is a two-lens solution, heavier... decisions, decisions.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

elementare: Little innovation for a yet very good camera but which price starts to trespass in the territory of high end cameras, including (semi)professional FF.

It's more than good for consumers but will not appeal them for the high price and at the same time it will hardly appeal prosumers that at that prices would always prefer to invest in something more professional and long term valuable such as an interchangeable lens system.

Another very good and expensive professional toy from Sony but always an toy.

I did "invest" in a Nikon D300, the 18-200 and 12-24. None of those lenses live up to 24MP, let alone more. Anyone who believes that lenses are a long term investment is seriously delusional.

The sheer range of photo and video capabilities the RX10M4 brings to a single camera setting is astonishing. School plays and middle school soccer will be photographed and video-d at qualities which would not have been feasible for the London Olympic games.

With regards to the price, well... people do pay $1000 for the RX100M5, and so if that is worth it, this is worth it at $1700. If there will be a competition, Sony will adjust the price, just like it did with the RX10 when the FZ1000 was released.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 02:56 UTC
In reply to:

J A C S: I hope that they will make Zenit great again!

I had one of the "E" models - a very basic SLR, which just worked. I would not mind such a digital equivalent - cheap, with a Japanese sensor, everything manual, and one of the popular mounts.

I bought mine in 1979 in Romania. It still works (the selenium meter as well, go figure).

It is unlikely, however, that any historical connection can be made between that camera and whatever they want to produce now.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 02:30 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Canon 80D+18-400 is a $1750 combo. I'm pretty sure the RX10 III walks all over this for image quality and features. If you truly wanted a one lens setup, I think I'd go that route.

Interesting. When I say "correctly priced", people assume I mean is a bargain. If it would walk all over the 80D / Tamron combination, the correct pricing would be twice the price. In practice, the still quality is a bit lower, but is compensated by the video features, and wider lens.
Now, if you could significantly beat the RX10III with a configuration costing half the price, now then the price would be too high. Nothing on the horizon for that, so I guess Sony is not particularly motivated to update that camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 02:34 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Canon 80D+18-400 is a $1750 combo. I'm pretty sure the RX10 III walks all over this for image quality and features. If you truly wanted a one lens setup, I think I'd go that route.

This just shows how correctly priced the RX10III is.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 20:13 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

FlyinDoc: When and if the RX100M5's OSPDAF sensor gets added to RX10M4 (which is inevitable, the way Sony upgrades products), wouldn't that be a great camera for shooting wildlife and birds, for less than the cost of even a medium telephoto FF lens?

Sony seems to be dragging its feet about this upgrade. This obviously could have been done long time ago - but as there is no competition to respond to, they can just wait and sell the old camera.

The RX10M4 would also come dangerously close to be a production quality video camera, and might be competitive in sports photography as well.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 14:50 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

a777: Question remains plain simply: how to compare lenses of fz1000 and some ultrazoom DSLR lenses (18-300 for example)? Is fz1000 much better? Because DSLR lenses have more reach, better eq aperture and the pack sizes quite comparable.
But only comprasion that we have - strictly between compacts, or strictly between DSLR lenses. But what if I already have APS-C DSLR and thinking about ultra-flexible reach?

This would be a much more vexing question if you would actually have a DLSR lens that matches the range of the fz1000 (25 to 400 equivalent). Across the common range I think that the image quality of the lens would come out more or less equivalent. The rest of the camera, however, is very different.

But let's put it differently: the fz1000 can handle all the photography and video needs a non-professional photographer might encounter. You can handle travel, candid portraits, family sports, create very nice videos etc without carrying any accessories. The quality will be very good. That is quite a lot for a single package $700 camera.

It is not a professional device, neither for exhibition-quality landscapes, studio work, sports, videography etc.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 14:06 UTC
On article Panasonic DC-ZS70 (TZ90) sample gallery (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

Liorr: Come on panasonic - who buys this kind of sensor in the smartphone era.
Only 1" sensor can survive and have market now - I would buy such a camera if it only had 1" sensor and NFC... too bad.

Well, as the 1'' sensor is 4.3 times bigger than the 1/2.3, there would be space for an intermediate size that at 12MP could still have photosites the size of the 1'' sensor, while allowing for pocketable superzooms of 24 to 400 with a bright-ish lens.

But then again, it seems that sensor development had slowed down considerably...


Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 21:25 UTC
On article Panasonic DC-ZS70 (TZ90) sample gallery (56 comments in total)

Disclaimer: I am not pixel peeping, but watching the pictures full screen at a 32 inch / 4K monitor, from about 18 inches away. In this setting, most daylight pictures took in regular settings look gorgeous to me.

There is a picture where I don't really understand what happened:


What is going on in the bottom right part? It is clearly unsharp even without picture peeping, yet it is not a very wide setting. Does the lens have a kink at this focal length? Or is this a flare?

I also think that once you learn the camera and its tradeoffs, one could get better pictures in the same settings - for instance:


could have been taken at 1/30 and ISO 800 instead of 1/125 and ISO 3200 (or even at 1/15 and 400). Same applies to some of the soccer game photos, where there was no need for 1/250.


Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 13:50 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies

Some thoughts about this type of camera vs a good smartphone (eg Samsung S7):

-the quality on the image, for the equivalent settings is better on the phone (more processing power).

-but: the phone has a 26mm equivalent focal length. This is _very_ wide. There is massive distortion on the side of the image. On group photos, if they fill the picture, people not in the center have their heads squished and distorted. In fact, even if you photograph a single person with 2/3 rule, the face will be visibly elongated and banana shaped.

-already to get a wide-anglish shot, like the lens on a Fuji X100 (35mm equivalent), you would need to do a digital zoom (or use about half the pixels).

-to get a shot which is minimally appropriate for a portrait, at around 50mm equivalent, you can use about 1/4 of the pixels (3 megapixels).

-to get a "flattering" portrait, what you would use is about 80mm - that would leave you 12 * (26 / 80) ^ 2 = 1.2 megapixels.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 13:13 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

iamatrix: Honestly, the 1 inch sensor is dead IMHO. These 1 inch sensor cameras are too expensive and make little sense. Most people own mobile phones and the quality while not quite as good as a 1 inch sensor is close enough to fill the void for what most people need, add the ability to instantly share, manage, and edit and you have everything you need when the DSLR or Mirrorless body is too big or unnecessary.

When you say "expensive" you mean "price to the public". The Sony RX100M5 ($1000) likely does not cost more to manufacture than the RX100M1 ($400), and the manufacturing cost is probably about $100. The reason why they sell it for $1000 is because they can, and according to their pricing model, this price spread maximizes their profit. Not different from any other business, really.

But there is a _lot_ of price leverage there. I would be more worried about the consumer DLSR business, the D3300s and Canon Rebels of the world, which could be already eaten wholesale by something like an RX10M4 which is cheaper to manufacture and has a higher profit margin. Although they will probably price it $2000 on the "live and let live" basis.

cheers Lotzi

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 19:30 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

EskeRahn: It does sound a bit like overkill on a 32" monitor, unless you use it really close...

Most people can just distinguish details down to around 1/12000 of the viewing distance. At my age it is more like 1/7000. I have met a single eagled eyed guy with a 1/25000 limit though, I'm sure he would love it.

I have made some test-sheets where you can test your eyes in seconds, that can be found here: http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/?p=32

Hm, this is a computer monitor, not a TV. It is supposed to sit on the desk in front of you. If you use it to display pictures, you might also occasionally lean close, just like when looking at a printed image.

I find it bizarre that people on a photography website are complaining about this resolution being too high. Don't we want a monitor that can actually display those 24 megapixels? Otherwise, why are we recording those?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 03:19 UTC
On article This film camera is 100% 3D-printed, including the lens (136 comments in total)

Of course, if he would have printed all the camera body, mechanism, etc. but would have complemented it with a glass lens, the sample photos would have looked indistinguishable from any other camera, and thus, unremarkable.

So really, we are here celebrating the bad lens, which is there such that the 100% printed claim can be made. Of course, the film was not 3D printed, so the 100% is still questionable.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 00:08 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands on with the Hasselblad H6D 50c/100c (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: Just some non-sense comparison: My 2014 sedan is $25,000 and my wife's 2015 SUV is $32,000.

Well, if you would be a taxi or Uber driver, you would use those cars as your daily work tools, and you will account for their cost in your tax forms.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 19:13 UTC
Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »