Otis13

Joined on Dec 18, 2020

Comments

Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

white shadow: Good optical performance but a bit pricey for an APS-C lens. Very little or no lens flare. Nice star burst effect.

And if you want to compare lenses, try using the f2.8 zooms on Fuji. I have all three of them. The 50-140 is constant aperture. The 8-16 is not, you get an audible aperture click in the middle of the zoom range. The 16-55 is far from constant aperture You actually get 3 audible aperture clicks when zooming from one end to the other. The lenses want to appear as constant T-stop but they are not doing a very good job.

Each lens is unique and Fuji make good lenses for the cost, but they have their flaws compared to the competition. They also have their advantages. All manufacturers have good and bad lenses in the lines.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2021 at 10:25 UTC
In reply to:

white shadow: Good optical performance but a bit pricey for an APS-C lens. Very little or no lens flare. Nice star burst effect.

The cost is actually the same for similar quality. F2.8 full frame is more expensive than f2.8, but it uses a lot more glass to achieve the larger physical aperture. This explains the cost difference. One should compare at the same angle and physical aperture, so f4 should be compared with f2.8. Then, the cost is similar. The size and weight is also similar for same quality and design, because the sensor size is irrelevant when the angle of coverage and the absolute aperture is the same.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2021 at 10:15 UTC
In reply to:

white shadow: Good optical performance but a bit pricey for an APS-C lens. Very little or no lens flare. Nice star burst effect.

When you are comparing lenses, the crop factor is irrelevant if the angle of coverage and the physical aperture is the same. If a lens is cheaper than another that matches these two parameters, you will find that the lens design is actually different, one has far fewer elements and groups, less special lenses in the assembly, inferior mechanical construction, weather sealing, different type and amount of motors etc.

When you are comparing lenses, convert focal length and aperture. This levels the field in terms of optics. Then check the lens design and the extra features it may have.

The sensor size is a tiny part of the lens design. It's merely a projection to a specific distance. In the distance if sqrt(2) larger in width and height, the image will be darker in photographic terms, but the sensor will probably be a stop better in noise, so that levels the field. ISO1600 on full frame will generally have the noise of iso800 on crop factor sensor, so f4 vs f2.8 is not a problem.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2021 at 10:14 UTC
In reply to:

white shadow: Good optical performance but a bit pricey for an APS-C lens. Very little or no lens flare. Nice star burst effect.

Guys this is not how optics work and there is nothing subjective about them.

When you are comparing lenses it only makes sense to compare them when they are doing the same job, in other words, the angle of coverage of the scene must be the same, and the subject must be at the same position. When you achieve this on formats using different sensor sizes, the absolute aperture is the same and the amount of glass is actually similar if the design in terms of elements and groups is similar.

An f2.8 is actually an f/2.8 and the absolute aperture is the same. It's presented in this format so that you can have the same exposure with different focal lengths, not because its the physical reality of the lens design. It's photography language, not physics. All your f2.8 lenses can expose at the same settings, but only because the physical aperture was translated to photographic terms and presented to f-stops.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2021 at 10:06 UTC
In reply to:

white shadow: Good optical performance but a bit pricey for an APS-C lens. Very little or no lens flare. Nice star burst effect.

Woz D Boss, you obviously know very little about optics, but that is no excuse for this type of reply.

The f4 on full frame is not narrower than the f2.8 on crop factor cameras as you claim. It's the same size. You need to understand what (absolute) aperture is before commenting on these matters.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2021 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

white shadow: Good optical performance but a bit pricey for an APS-C lens. Very little or no lens flare. Nice star burst effect.

If you are comparing equivalent apertures and equivalent focal lengths, the price of the lens should be the same, and the weight should also be the same for a similar optical design. The crop factor becomes irrelevant. The 50-140 f2.8 should compare with a 70-200 f4. Every time I actually compared, Fuji was good value compared to Sony. It usually outperforms the equivalent.

In this case, the equivalent is the Sony 28mm f2, a very simple optical design that has no weather sealing. It's very affordable, but I would gladly pay twice as much for a decent image and some peace of mind.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2021 at 08:55 UTC
In reply to:

io_bg: The 102mp medium format sensor and the 26mp APS-C sensor in their X cameras have the same pixel density.

Therefore, why do you say GFX cameras are fine with their Bayer CFA and the X cameras 'need' X-trans? I'm not buying it.

The scene and the output size is a given. A camera with 4x the resolution in megapixels has the Nyquist point at a frequency 2x greater. That means it can sample twice the linear detail before aliasing appears.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xt4&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=nikon_d800&attr13_3=nikon_d800e&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr126_1=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.5477476607815179&y=0.30916864187994236

Top left is x-trans, top right is bayer without OLPF.
Bottom left is higher resolution bayer with OLPF, bottom right is higher resolution without OLPF.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2021 at 06:23 UTC
In reply to:

MikeRan: Oh no. A pro Sony article is gonna make some people upset. Even with real data. Here it comes.

Is this dynamic range performance considered to be good for a camera of this cost? This is a video-centric sensor design. A D7500 is much better in dynamic range and would produce a better landscape photo at any reasonable ISO.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2021 at 17:21 UTC
On article Why Raw video might not be the game-changer you expect (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Internet Enzyme: So the main point that I'm seeing this article make, is that the improvement delta between gamma encoded rec. 709 video and raw video is not analogous to the improvement seen in photography when we move from JPEG to raw because of the fact that JPEG is a comparatively even worse acquisition format, which is more of an academic argument than a pragmatic point, I think. The second point is this kind of tired, typical set of technical and expense considerations that people love to raise regarding this topic, but I feel that these should not discourage anyone who is actually aiming to achieve the highest quality image they can: if you have the budget, there's no reason you shouldn't be shooting raw. Then there are the issues with Final Cut and ProRes RAW which I feel are too specific. Perhaps the scope of this should have been limited to ProRes RAW and Final Cut specifically, but I suppose that limits the potential clicks

I can tell who I'm talking to. You are confused beyond repair.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2021 at 23:12 UTC
On article Why Raw video might not be the game-changer you expect (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Internet Enzyme: So the main point that I'm seeing this article make, is that the improvement delta between gamma encoded rec. 709 video and raw video is not analogous to the improvement seen in photography when we move from JPEG to raw because of the fact that JPEG is a comparatively even worse acquisition format, which is more of an academic argument than a pragmatic point, I think. The second point is this kind of tired, typical set of technical and expense considerations that people love to raise regarding this topic, but I feel that these should not discourage anyone who is actually aiming to achieve the highest quality image they can: if you have the budget, there's no reason you shouldn't be shooting raw. Then there are the issues with Final Cut and ProRes RAW which I feel are too specific. Perhaps the scope of this should have been limited to ProRes RAW and Final Cut specifically, but I suppose that limits the potential clicks

:) I'm an old man. Engineering is my field. I have worked in the digital imaging industry for years. I have designed workflows from pixel value to display image. This is how I know you don't understand the basics. I hold intellectual property in this field. My work is used in the industry, in production lines, defense and medical applications. I keep learning, but at this stage, the technical side of things is not very interesting. If you want to learn, start with a simple image processing app, virtualdub perhaps, and implement basic things so you can see how it really works. They have updated it to include 16bit and it reads modern formats. If you can get a true uncompressed bayer source, it's even better.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2021 at 08:55 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Panasonic 70-300 F4.5-5.6 review (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

BrentSchumer: Panasonic Engineer 1: OK, we added everything on the checklist. Enhanced sun stars, macro, weather sealing, near-parfocal performance, and great looks.

Panasonic Engineer 2: I didn't hear "image quality."

Panasonic Engineer 1: I mean, who would use a telephoto zoom at full telephoto? That's crazy talk.

It's a 4.3x zoom, so the situation is more difficult on this one. 2.0x to 2.8x can work well at both ends.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2021 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

Otis13: Hare Ball wins in every single category. Not even competing with the others.

I only judge by the aesthetics of the image, light, texture, unity, etc, so everything else looks like an amateur snapshot to me, and the fire photo looks like the work of an amateur designer with it's annoying almost vertical composition. I don't want a story to come weighting on the image. Has the hare lost his family? Is everything we see dead? It shouldn't make a difference. I don't even read the text in these cases.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2021 at 14:43 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Panasonic 70-300 F4.5-5.6 review (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Otis13: It's too expensive for a design with 17 elements.

@Jon555, a better comparison for different specifics would be a lens with very large elements, like the Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 with 13 groups and 17 elements.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2021 at 14:20 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Panasonic 70-300 F4.5-5.6 review (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Otis13: It's too expensive for a design with 17 elements.

Within the same line with similar number of special elements and similar aperture and similar focal length, the number of groups and total elements shows a lot. This lens at $1250 with an 11 group design and 17 elements, vs an 70-200 f4 at $1700 with a 17 group design and 23 elements? That 300mm has be very useful.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2021 at 14:16 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Panasonic 70-300 F4.5-5.6 review (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Otis13: It's too expensive for a design with 17 elements.

Do I need to explain what lens elements are used for and how the complexity of the design influences cost?

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2021 at 12:31 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Panasonic 70-300 F4.5-5.6 review (80 comments in total)

It's too expensive for a design with 17 elements.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2021 at 08:05 UTC as 24th comment | 7 replies
On article Why Raw video might not be the game-changer you expect (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Internet Enzyme: So the main point that I'm seeing this article make, is that the improvement delta between gamma encoded rec. 709 video and raw video is not analogous to the improvement seen in photography when we move from JPEG to raw because of the fact that JPEG is a comparatively even worse acquisition format, which is more of an academic argument than a pragmatic point, I think. The second point is this kind of tired, typical set of technical and expense considerations that people love to raise regarding this topic, but I feel that these should not discourage anyone who is actually aiming to achieve the highest quality image they can: if you have the budget, there's no reason you shouldn't be shooting raw. Then there are the issues with Final Cut and ProRes RAW which I feel are too specific. Perhaps the scope of this should have been limited to ProRes RAW and Final Cut specifically, but I suppose that limits the potential clicks

We don't use LOG LUTs for the minimal effect it has due to pre-emphasis. Any shadow boost/tone control can provide this without changing the look significantly. You think 8bit solved its problems with a LOG LUT? :) The highlight DR controls can also fit dynamic range on the other end, and even ENG camcorders had those. These two methods maintain the display compatibility and they can fit more than the camera has to offer in a modern format, because the PSNR is high enough. The main purpose of LOG today is in the control domain. I would recommend you stop reading on the subject until you grasp the basics.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2021 at 07:31 UTC
On article Why Raw video might not be the game-changer you expect (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Internet Enzyme: So the main point that I'm seeing this article make, is that the improvement delta between gamma encoded rec. 709 video and raw video is not analogous to the improvement seen in photography when we move from JPEG to raw because of the fact that JPEG is a comparatively even worse acquisition format, which is more of an academic argument than a pragmatic point, I think. The second point is this kind of tired, typical set of technical and expense considerations that people love to raise regarding this topic, but I feel that these should not discourage anyone who is actually aiming to achieve the highest quality image they can: if you have the budget, there's no reason you shouldn't be shooting raw. Then there are the issues with Final Cut and ProRes RAW which I feel are too specific. Perhaps the scope of this should have been limited to ProRes RAW and Final Cut specifically, but I suppose that limits the potential clicks

What you are saying is not making any sense. You ignore the basics of this. I'm not a teacher.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2021 at 05:18 UTC
On article Why Raw video might not be the game-changer you expect (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Internet Enzyme: So the main point that I'm seeing this article make, is that the improvement delta between gamma encoded rec. 709 video and raw video is not analogous to the improvement seen in photography when we move from JPEG to raw because of the fact that JPEG is a comparatively even worse acquisition format, which is more of an academic argument than a pragmatic point, I think. The second point is this kind of tired, typical set of technical and expense considerations that people love to raise regarding this topic, but I feel that these should not discourage anyone who is actually aiming to achieve the highest quality image they can: if you have the budget, there's no reason you shouldn't be shooting raw. Then there are the issues with Final Cut and ProRes RAW which I feel are too specific. Perhaps the scope of this should have been limited to ProRes RAW and Final Cut specifically, but I suppose that limits the potential clicks

If you know nothing about imaging, applying a LUT can be compression or any other thing:)

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2021 at 02:24 UTC

This video does not fool me. In the 70s, the kid next door projected 8mm cartoons for us. I know projection works by magic, so acquisition must also work by magic.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2021 at 02:15 UTC as 17th comment
Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »