spider-mario

spider-mario

Lives in Switzerland Zürich, Switzerland
Works as a Software Engineer
Joined on Sep 8, 2018

Comments

Total: 1604, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

robgendreau: DPR wrote: "up to 2:1 magnification (4x in 35mm equivalent terms)..."

Huh? magnification isn't sensor dependent in terms of macro A 2mm dot is 2mm at 1:1 on any sensor at max magnification, since 1mm is 1mm is 1mm. Eg https://www.allanwallsphotography.com/blog/2021/6/2/sensor-size-amp-magnification

I think OM is saying this is a 4x macro lens. Period. Right?

Still just more circular reasoning as far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

> we just need to define things at some point to be able to make sense of the world.

“Define”, sure (“macro is when we take big photos of small stuff”), “define dichotomously with an exact cut-off”, not really. You almost seem to be committing a nested false dichotomy: “either we define macro as ‘either macro if magnification ≥ [whatever], or non-macro otherwise’ or we don’t define it at all”.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2022 at 08:39 UTC
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

robgendreau: DPR wrote: "up to 2:1 magnification (4x in 35mm equivalent terms)..."

Huh? magnification isn't sensor dependent in terms of macro A 2mm dot is 2mm at 1:1 on any sensor at max magnification, since 1mm is 1mm is 1mm. Eg https://www.allanwallsphotography.com/blog/2021/6/2/sensor-size-amp-magnification

I think OM is saying this is a 4x macro lens. Period. Right?

Looking at whether magnification ≥ 1:1 to decide whether a lens is “macro” is like looking under the streetlight. It’s easier but what it tells you is not so useful.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2022 at 18:08 UTC
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

robgendreau: DPR wrote: "up to 2:1 magnification (4x in 35mm equivalent terms)..."

Huh? magnification isn't sensor dependent in terms of macro A 2mm dot is 2mm at 1:1 on any sensor at max magnification, since 1mm is 1mm is 1mm. Eg https://www.allanwallsphotography.com/blog/2021/6/2/sensor-size-amp-magnification

I think OM is saying this is a 4x macro lens. Period. Right?

“But if someone thinks that sensor size defines magnification, then they need to include as well the lens sharpness as well megapixel. As soft lens isn't then anymore ‘macro’, where sharp lens is ‘macro’.”

Well, maybe? It seems like a more useful way to look at it. A single number with a specific cut-off may be more convenient but it’s arguably an instance of: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-scientific-studies-are-so-often-wrong-the-streetlight-effect

“The fundamental error here is summed up in an old joke scientists love to tell. Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the officer he’s looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he’s sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light’s better here, explains the drunk man.”

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2022 at 18:06 UTC
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

robgendreau: DPR wrote: "up to 2:1 magnification (4x in 35mm equivalent terms)..."

Huh? magnification isn't sensor dependent in terms of macro A 2mm dot is 2mm at 1:1 on any sensor at max magnification, since 1mm is 1mm is 1mm. Eg https://www.allanwallsphotography.com/blog/2021/6/2/sensor-size-amp-magnification

I think OM is saying this is a 4x macro lens. Period. Right?

“It is for those who don't know the science and technical reasons.
Macro is 1:1 - 10:1 magnification ratio.
Micro is 10:1 to magnification ratio where you can't anymore use optical means.
What most people mistake is Macro to Close-Up photography. Where Close-up photography is from 1:10 all the way to 1:1 magnification, when it becomes Macro”

But see, you’re just restating the claim that ≥1:1 = macro, not actually providing any justification for it (and yet still dismissing those who find it arbitrary as “not knowing the science”). The only justification you have given is potentially for 10:1 to be where micro begins, not for 1:1 to be where macro begins.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2022 at 17:55 UTC
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

robgendreau: DPR wrote: "up to 2:1 magnification (4x in 35mm equivalent terms)..."

Huh? magnification isn't sensor dependent in terms of macro A 2mm dot is 2mm at 1:1 on any sensor at max magnification, since 1mm is 1mm is 1mm. Eg https://www.allanwallsphotography.com/blog/2021/6/2/sensor-size-amp-magnification

I think OM is saying this is a 4x macro lens. Period. Right?

Even the “definition” of macro as 1:1 is rather arbitrary. There is little to justify this specific cut-off other than perhaps convenience. It makes little sense for a lens to be “not-macro” at 0.8× magnification and suddenly “yes, macro” at 1×.

Richard Dawkins speaks of “The Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind”: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/12/issue-essay-line-dawkins

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2022 at 12:53 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: It is beyond irritating that a 360 camera like this doesn't have not even a basic Exposure Bracketing mode.
A simple software function, which most normal cameras have !
I own the X1 and have been waiting patiently for a AEB function ever since...

An Auto Exposure Bracketing function with the option of up to 7 exposures in Raw.
They have no idea how useful this could be to create Spherical HDRI files for computer graphics and many other use cases.
What a disappointment. :(

I think I’m almost more upset that part of the 1EV gap is achieved by varying the ISO setting instead of the actual exposure. If at least it was an actual whole stop, the 9 shots would cover 8 stops + native dynamic range, but 1/5s to 1/134s as in my test is just 4.7 stops instead of 8.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2022 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: It is beyond irritating that a 360 camera like this doesn't have not even a basic Exposure Bracketing mode.
A simple software function, which most normal cameras have !
I own the X1 and have been waiting patiently for a AEB function ever since...

An Auto Exposure Bracketing function with the option of up to 7 exposures in Raw.
They have no idea how useful this could be to create Spherical HDRI files for computer graphics and many other use cases.
What a disappointment. :(

(That was with the standard HDR mode. Perhaps the Night Shot mode is worth a try as well.

Edit: no, not for this purpose. I also got 9 raw files but all of them were taken at 1/25s ISO 324, at which settings the highlights were blown.)

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2022 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: It is beyond irritating that a 360 camera like this doesn't have not even a basic Exposure Bracketing mode.
A simple software function, which most normal cameras have !
I own the X1 and have been waiting patiently for a AEB function ever since...

An Auto Exposure Bracketing function with the option of up to 7 exposures in Raw.
They have no idea how useful this could be to create Spherical HDRI files for computer graphics and many other use cases.
What a disappointment. :(

I can choose the number of shots among 3, 5, 7, 9; as well as the EV gap among ±0.3, ±0.6, ±1.0; but it seems to count the ISO setting in the gap, so the range of actual focal plane exposures does not end up as wide as it would seem to imply. (In this test, shutter speeds varied between 1/5s and 1/134s.)

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2022 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: It is beyond irritating that a 360 camera like this doesn't have not even a basic Exposure Bracketing mode.
A simple software function, which most normal cameras have !
I own the X1 and have been waiting patiently for a AEB function ever since...

An Auto Exposure Bracketing function with the option of up to 7 exposures in Raw.
They have no idea how useful this could be to create Spherical HDRI files for computer graphics and many other use cases.
What a disappointment. :(

I just tried it on my One X2 and it produced 9 raw files although the exposures were not that far apart.

https://i.imgur.com/lpZtDdE.png

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2022 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: It is beyond irritating that a 360 camera like this doesn't have not even a basic Exposure Bracketing mode.
A simple software function, which most normal cameras have !
I own the X1 and have been waiting patiently for a AEB function ever since...

An Auto Exposure Bracketing function with the option of up to 7 exposures in Raw.
They have no idea how useful this could be to create Spherical HDRI files for computer graphics and many other use cases.
What a disappointment. :(

As far as I can tell, the One X2 has such a function (HDR & Night Shot). I would be surprised if the X3 doesn’t have it anymore.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2022 at 14:22 UTC
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

robgendreau: DPR wrote: "up to 2:1 magnification (4x in 35mm equivalent terms)..."

Huh? magnification isn't sensor dependent in terms of macro A 2mm dot is 2mm at 1:1 on any sensor at max magnification, since 1mm is 1mm is 1mm. Eg https://www.allanwallsphotography.com/blog/2021/6/2/sensor-size-amp-magnification

I think OM is saying this is a 4x macro lens. Period. Right?

When the article says “4× in 35mm equivalent terms”, it is quite explicitly talking equivalence. The lens doesn’t have a focal length of 180mm either, regardless of what sensor it’s in front of, but when mounted on a M43 camera, it’s equivalent to a 180mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2022 at 22:47 UTC
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

robgendreau: DPR wrote: "up to 2:1 magnification (4x in 35mm equivalent terms)..."

Huh? magnification isn't sensor dependent in terms of macro A 2mm dot is 2mm at 1:1 on any sensor at max magnification, since 1mm is 1mm is 1mm. Eg https://www.allanwallsphotography.com/blog/2021/6/2/sensor-size-amp-magnification

I think OM is saying this is a 4x macro lens. Period. Right?

If your sensor has half the diagonal, it implies that it takes an object of only half the size to fill the image, as if you had used a larger sensor with larger magnification.

It’s the effect on the image that matters for equivalence, as is the case for equivalent focal lengths too (the focal length doesn’t physically change either, but it’s as if you were using a longer focal length on a larger sensor).

https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.57.11.110801#sec2.7.3

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2022 at 21:45 UTC
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

zakk9: Very interesting lens. I hope the AF speed is fast enough to use it as a general telephoto lens as well, and that the price is low enough to fit my wallet.

And to all the children discussing "equivalence": Can you please go to your room and take your theories with you? I've been using FT and MFT since the E-1. The cameras and lenses work. You can take beautiful photos with them. You can even get shallow depth of field, at least as much as I'll ever need.

@ProDude: note that the scientific meaning of “theory” differs from the colloquial one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
“The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[6][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[6] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2][3]”

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2022 at 18:02 UTC
On article OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

zakk9: Very interesting lens. I hope the AF speed is fast enough to use it as a general telephoto lens as well, and that the price is low enough to fit my wallet.

And to all the children discussing "equivalence": Can you please go to your room and take your theories with you? I've been using FT and MFT since the E-1. The cameras and lenses work. You can take beautiful photos with them. You can even get shallow depth of field, at least as much as I'll ever need.

If you think equivalence theory implies that the cameras and lenses don’t work, you might not have such a solid grasp on it. This might help: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.57.11.110801

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2022 at 13:30 UTC
In reply to:

deednets: I would typically be mildly interested if it wasn't for the 85cm minimum focusing distance. That rules out quite a bit of what I typically shoot.

On that note: how difficult is it actually to create an 85mm lens that can focus closer, say, 35cm?

https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_rf_85_2_macro_is_stm

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2022 at 19:54 UTC

Edit: never mind, I misread the article.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2022 at 17:21 UTC as 11th comment
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

BrentSchumer: Sleeping on this solidifies that mm^2 (with LxH parenthetical) is the way to go.

These "Types" are just another weird kludge to memorize, and nothing was done to touch the ILC sensor sizes.

I'm sorry to be negative, but nothing is clearer, here. Presenting small sensors as a rough diagonal ratio to 1" is opaque as mud, and leaving out M43+ sensors from your system excludes 99% of where sensor size matters. Phones rely on software more than sensor size, after all.

If you're "not using completely different terminology from smartphone and drone makers" you're not moving to improve the industry. Stripping "inch" does little to educate or explain.

In fact, Micro Four Thirds is Type 4/3!

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2022 at 17:18 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

pedz: “Full Frame” could also be considered vague as well. Even calling it “Full Frame 35mm” is misleading since the wide edge (I believe) is actually 36mm.

The ”35mm” comes from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:135film.jpg

It’s the 24mm height + the band with the holes; it actually has nothing to do with the 36mm width.

(🤯, right?)

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2022 at 17:13 UTC
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (681 comments in total)
In reply to:

spider-mario: It’s kind of nice that the 44×33mm medium format ends up being “type 3.4”, i.e. same digits as in the mm measurements. (Would have been even better as “type 4.3” to have them in the same order but we can’t have everything.)

Truth be told, this is entirely beside my point. Just imagine that my original comment left out the words “medium format” altogether, i.e. it’s nice that the 44×33mm format ends up being “type 3.4”. That’s all.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2022 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

Trevor_S: Anyone have any tips on using the ONE series 360 cameras with Resolve ? ONE has a plugin for Premier but nothing for Resolve.

And by which authority have you decreed that “plug-in” would be the only acceptable spelling?

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2022 at 09:43 UTC
Total: 1604, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »