gmke

Joined on Nov 6, 2013

Comments

Total: 93, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (584 comments in total)
In reply to:

liberty aint what you think: Annoyingly neither RawTherapee nor DarkTable will open raws (stills) from the GH5S.

Hope it's just a because the camera the samples came from is likely still running beta firmware.

DT manages to see the jpegs built into the raws for preview.

The problem was, the secondary comment is disconnected from one where I wrote about GH5S ISO depth (which oddly appears below) and what you came across was the reply to a reply (which appears above at the moment).

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 11:05 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (584 comments in total)
In reply to:

liberty aint what you think: Annoyingly neither RawTherapee nor DarkTable will open raws (stills) from the GH5S.

Hope it's just a because the camera the samples came from is likely still running beta firmware.

DT manages to see the jpegs built into the raws for preview.

BSI matters. Deprecating the amount of space diverted to other circuitry on FSI demonstrates amnesia. The problem with CMOS compared to CCD highlighted the issue. Unpublished CCD variations got 35 to 45% of the area available within the pixel square, while CMOS only got 25%. Actual pixel size still matters. That the sensor makers exploited the feature to explode the pixel count on small sensors is beside the point. Both of the D-850 or A7-RII sensors are liberated from ISO hell with BSI. It is an essential noise abating technique. Otherwise the 12-megapixel full frame sensors would substantially outgun on ISO capability and require 15 or 16-bit capture. They don't. All that 20-megapixel joy on one inch is brought to you with BSI. The rest of the stuff DOES take quite a lot of space. Ask a fabricator first before republishing current stream of thought.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 14:39 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (584 comments in total)

Oops. Substantial loss of [stills] resolution prioritizes video? Cough cough, A non-sequitur... The reduction of resolution and deployment of BSI for the first time favors low-light shooting regardless of whether it be for video or stills. For a camera that wears 4K video credentials on its sleeve, and there is no loss of resolution, but excess available. Those who shoot stills were never much interested in the first place because there are so many other wonderful options.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 00:09 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (584 comments in total)

A considerable noise has been raised over whether the GH5S sensor is derived from the IMX294CJK sensor which explicitly sports the BSI fabrication feature, and which would do more to explain deep ISO in comparison to the front side chip in the A7S-II. The full frame comparison vis-a-vis cell area alone is kind of lame in my view unless you account for the huge disparity in the percentage of cell area devoted to light gathering. Front side chips are dramatically dominated by non-sensitive circuity, so the area comparison is apples and oranges.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 23:26 UTC as 95th comment | 4 replies
On article 2017 in review: a look back at February (80 comments in total)

Excuses were rubbish. Manufacturing does not cost Nikon more than anyone else,, nor does development, and there lies the problem. We need additional one-inch products beyond what Sony, Canon, and Panasonic have offered, and Nikon learned full well, that a 50 to $100 premium for the branding would stall. They have been standing still for the most part, pat on the technical portfolio, and putting off save-the-farm projects at great risk, making bets that have not panned out. When the Nikon mirrorless full-frame appears next year, the failure to anticipate mirrorless inroads from Sony will come full circle. Nikon will call late catch-up effort "innovation" after too much blood-letting rebukes board-room reticence. I really quite like the TowerJazz tie-up. What will tell, is whether step-motorized, made-for-mirrorless lens offerings will come along too. More likely, they will say, "works with all your [old] lenses" to the Nikon choir.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 23:05 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

dpfan32: This is a money sinkhole... I may go back to a RX100

You are mostly correct. A bright lens in front of a sensor with a very clean 800 ISO can do an awful lot of work in that short zoom category. I certainly survived on one for a while, in a burgled situation where the rest of my gear went out the back window. It seems a logarithmic affair: there is a huge $1000 crowd, and a relatively sparse $10,000 audience a good number of whom crave capability more than opportunity. Depends on the money. For each there is a sweet spot.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 22:25 UTC

I agree with all of suggestions with one exception, the point of view that makes assumptions about the shooter. I acquired a camera body and two lenses to start and my fist accessory was an extra battery. They cost nothing next to a good lens, and I learned the hard way, that I was not very good at estimating remaining battery life. Since the name of the game, when you have a real camera, is to shoot more keepers of excellent quality, it is a shame to lose an entire event because you are not in the habit of keeping a charged spare. The tripod and all the rest came later. All told, it depends on the shooter's level of interest. If the camera is to be left forever on "P" you are probably good to go with a two-lens kit, not my cup of tea. I have seven lenses and at least three more I could easily make use of.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 21:16 UTC as 47th comment
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (619 comments in total)
In reply to:

gmke: The obvious fact that none of the CDAF cameras can satisfactorily do continuous AF for video does not warrant an unreliable rating on the AF in general. These are stills cameras used part time on video duty. If you have occasion to shoot video with objects approaching or departing, PDAF cameras are the best bet, DFD in frequently satisfactory, second, place. All the rest are going to have trouble focusing 24 or 30 times per second.

The lack of 20 megapixel sensor only makes sense as a wedge to allow the E-M5.Mk3 to be viewed as better. The story on THIS camera is 4K, which is roughly an 8-megapixel picture anyway. If you've a previous model, there is not enough here to think about "upgrading."

Cost of 20-megapixel OSPDAF sensor is open question because the semiconductor fabrication is the same piece under the GH5 and E-M1.Mk2 hood. The Bayer filter is added last and it just happens that some of the green lenses are traded out for transparent phase discrimination. How much does the optical layer cost? Does Sony make or buy them?

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 11:03 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (619 comments in total)
In reply to:

gmke: The obvious fact that none of the CDAF cameras can satisfactorily do continuous AF for video does not warrant an unreliable rating on the AF in general. These are stills cameras used part time on video duty. If you have occasion to shoot video with objects approaching or departing, PDAF cameras are the best bet, DFD in frequently satisfactory, second, place. All the rest are going to have trouble focusing 24 or 30 times per second.

The lack of 20 megapixel sensor only makes sense as a wedge to allow the E-M5.Mk3 to be viewed as better. The story on THIS camera is 4K, which is roughly an 8-megapixel picture anyway. If you've a previous model, there is not enough here to think about "upgrading."

That's the $10 question. Is it a gimmick to put 4K on cameras with mediocre tracking? Expensive PDAF cameras CAN handle a range of demanding focus scenarios. Besides, real cinematographers focus the old way--they practice the shot on a tripod and do it manually, with geared cinema lenses. Are we back to, "you get what you pay for?"

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 16:56 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (619 comments in total)

The obvious fact that none of the CDAF cameras can satisfactorily do continuous AF for video does not warrant an unreliable rating on the AF in general. These are stills cameras used part time on video duty. If you have occasion to shoot video with objects approaching or departing, PDAF cameras are the best bet, DFD in frequently satisfactory, second, place. All the rest are going to have trouble focusing 24 or 30 times per second.

The lack of 20 megapixel sensor only makes sense as a wedge to allow the E-M5.Mk3 to be viewed as better. The story on THIS camera is 4K, which is roughly an 8-megapixel picture anyway. If you've a previous model, there is not enough here to think about "upgrading."

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 16:08 UTC as 93rd comment | 7 replies

Nikon's current public enemy #1 is, of course, Sony Mirrorless, so you can be sure that, whatever else Nikon is working on (sans reflex mirror), the company can no longer sit idly by. Given that the parts bin is full of really good stuff already, one wonders how a late entrant can be see as trendy, or worthy of the extra coin the company will charge for branding, all of which leads to a conclusion, mainly, that the effort will be hailed by Nikon faithful, who alas, will not trade what is already owned for similar plus EVF. The day is late. You can also be sure that the company is working overtime on story, hype as it may be seen, if the product is not better than the Canon crossovers. The wealth and plethora of current options are wonders of their own. Something new? Bah.... The other nice effect will be, if Nikon gets all the ergo factors right, that some pressure will be put on Sony to respond with ergo improvements to match. We'll have to wait and see.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 19:22 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies

While I agree that a shutter priority option would simplify the corner EV situation (versus motion opportunity), it is always true that you can run the ISO up yourself (not the strong point of these 1:2.3 cameras) to get shutter speeds you like. It's relatively easy. The query of whether camera modes float your boat is rather more philosophical, well beyond criticism, though Olympus has a clear historical preference for training photographers in the aperture priority mode. It's always a question of how much big camera can you get into a small camera, and this model breaks new ground in the 1:2.3 sector.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2017 at 14:54 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: So many people on here saying if only it had a larger sensor. Well, Nikon tried that with the AW1, and it ended up being a great demonstration of why a larger sensor is not a good fit for this segment:

The lens on the AW1 is HUGE compared to the lens on the TG cameras, which does not protrude at all.

And on top of that, the max aperture on the Nikon lens is nearly two stops slower, which will negate much of the advantage of the larger sensor.

And on top of THAT, the AW1 zoom lens has a much smaller range, not going very wide or very far (30-74mm equiv vs 25-100mm for the TG).

And on top of THAT the Nikon lacks any kind of stabilization (size constraints?), which means you will sometimes have to shoot at a higher sensitivity, eating further into the large sensor's advantage.

So in the end, placing a 1" sensor into this kind of camera mostly ends up being an exercise in futility. Gotta at least give Nikon credit for trying, but the Olympus is an all-around better choice.

Considering fixation on sensor size...
(1) 1:2.3 is not our favorite size (29mm squared) but it is almost twice the size of a typical phone sensor (15mm) . (2) Olympus could opt for 49mm or 116mm, but did not, most likely because the size of the optics is always a consideration. Smaller is better in no-fuss situation. (3) HEADLINE: Sony hath produced a BSI fabrication, intentionally limiting the megapixels, so that we end up with a 29mm gizmo with IQ and ISO performance better than the 49mm frontside onlies, that used to be the welcome favorite in enthusiast compacts.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2017 at 14:39 UTC

In the thousands of pictures I have shot on a late-model CMOS sensor, none of them seem to have fans, propellers, or guitar strings in them. So I guess having an expensive new camera that acts like it has a CCD sensor is a national emergency.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 04:44 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1197 comments in total)

As I suspected, the DFD algorithm by itself doesn't cut the CAF mustard so another algorithm steps in, movement trending. I think the camera is only focusing DFD 6 or 8 times a second and guessing the intermediate focus points. That's what DFD does, guess. PDAF goes directly, simply, and more quickly to every focus point. No guessing, however sophisticated it may be. Simple subtraction wins.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 06:14 UTC as 189th comment | 1 reply
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2204 comments in total)
In reply to:

gmke: Hmm... Fuji priority on early lenses was image quality and that is why the focus was slow. What's this? Newer lenses with fast focus motors have poor image quality? No. You can have great glass and crappy focus motoring and great glass and excellent focus motors. Two independent variables. Its journalistic spin to avoid saying fast focus motors were not a priority on some of early Fuji lenses. Hmm. Absolutely and equally fast focus motoring is not known in any lens line-up. The lens business is full of jugglers. Faster motors cost money, and the lenses in question were targeted toward a price conscious segment. How shocking.

Obviously, we have some very nice glass these days, optically stunning, but with ultra-fast focus motors; so we can say with confidence that the two are not necessarily exclusive. How both are achieved is a science known to only a few. We also have experience with lenses designed solely for PD-AF, slowpokes when adapted to CD-AF cameras. So yes, the F=MA equation and one-shot PD-AF vs binary search of CD-AF issues highlight a technical challenge easier to surmount with smaller and lighter focus elements used in combination with recent expertise in step motors. We've also had the reverse, new lenses without step motors and not of the best optics, for cheap. So no, I don't really want to talk about balance, even if it is a technical, design concern. If I have to shell out hard-earned coin, I want tack-sharp optics and state-of-the-art focus speeds. For a bit less, I can accept a lens without a step motor. The Fuji claim may be true, but in my mind, only with respect to obsolescence.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2016 at 02:14 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (508 comments in total)
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: I love my LX100. With the Meikon housing it also does quite well underwater. An update in the future would be appreciated.

Sad that in the above comparison the Nikon DLs are still missing. The 16-50 and/or the 24-85 would have been an instant (though somewhat nonsensical) buy.

Although I am a fan of the LX100 I decide, over and over again, to pray for an LX200. Next gen sensor, same FAST lens, tilt/touch screen. The point is, none of PEN-type cameras have a lens that retracts into the body. To come close in size, you have to sell out for a crappy aperture pancake zoom, or keep your self-respect with the 20mm f1.7 pancake lens (give up zoom). I'd say, the system camera can stay home about half the time.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 15:50 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1396 comments in total)

D500 debuted at $2400? $1800 is not MSRP, but current discount price. B&H says MSRP is $2000. One thing is true. Olympus marks prices high at rollout. The selling price will come down when numbers fall off. I think they will delay the E-M5.Mk3 until E-M1.Mk2 numbers decline.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 01:35 UTC as 215th comment | 6 replies

While democratic imaging and photography do not seem the least of synonyms to me, I can say I am glad that image quality has come way up on phones. The point is, taking pictures is a happy thing, the more the merrier, and the image quality is now quite good.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 00:54 UTC as 12th comment
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2204 comments in total)

Hmm... Fuji priority on early lenses was image quality and that is why the focus was slow. What's this? Newer lenses with fast focus motors have poor image quality? No. You can have great glass and crappy focus motoring and great glass and excellent focus motors. Two independent variables. Its journalistic spin to avoid saying fast focus motors were not a priority on some of early Fuji lenses. Hmm. Absolutely and equally fast focus motoring is not known in any lens line-up. The lens business is full of jugglers. Faster motors cost money, and the lenses in question were targeted toward a price conscious segment. How shocking.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 04:59 UTC as 61st comment | 2 replies
Total: 93, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »