Reading mode: Light Dark
Pat Cullinan Jr

Pat Cullinan Jr

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Sep 21, 2010

Comments

Total: 909, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: Concerning the photo of the baseball field--

The right-hand edge isn't very sharp, whereas the left-hand edge is sharp. Could this be a decentering problem?

Did you look at the edges?

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 20:55 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: Concerning the photo of the baseball field--

The right-hand edge isn't very sharp, whereas the left-hand edge is sharp. Could this be a decentering problem?

@tbcass. No, this flaw will stick out on a print. Else why bother looking at photographs?

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: One small step for Adobe, one small step for Adobe.

Years ago, I paid Adobe $125 for an upgrade to Framemaker. The added functionality? Japanese language support. They caught me napping.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 06:29 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klorenzo: Hi Richard I think that this "equivalent aperture" idea is doing only harm and confusion.
Try this: take three different cameras with different sized sensors and shoot a moving subject with the same aperture number, shutter speed and ISO and equivalent focal lenght.
You'll get three "identical" pictures with the same "brightness" and the same amount of motion blur. Do you agree?

Yes, DoF will be different in a precise amount and you can calculate the "equivalent DoF aperture". And yes, the noise will be different but it vastly depends on the actual sensor you are using: try a 5D classic vs a Sony A7S. Do you agree?

So the "equivalent aperture" is NOT equivalent with respect to exposure and motion blur and it is equivalent for DoF and, with a big approximation, for noise.
What is more important? Exposure and image content or noise and out of focus areas?

In which why this "equivalent aperture" concept is better then saying that there is a two stops difference in DoF and less noise?

OK, fair enough.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 05:21 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

RoyGBiv: Someone with a signal processing background has to re-write this. FF's advantage with respect to light capture has less to do with the cone of light, and more with size of photo-cell and pixel count. The reason that the real-life total light demonstration doesn't appear to display a linearly-related drop-off in noise performance is because it has little to do with the "total light capture" that this article (and so many well-meaning people) are blaming the lost performance on the light that falls outside the sensor. Unless the lenses are made of drastically different material capable of significantly different light refraction (which they aren't) , the light density is roughly equivalent. What's lost is the sensitivity of the photocells, and their ability to discern signal from noise. The smaller they are, the more difficult it is to discern. Drawing the light cone and showing that FF's light cone is larger than the APS-C light cone is a red herring.

Equivalence of what to what?

Equivalence is a binary relation. What things then are being compared?

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 05:19 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klorenzo: Hi Richard I think that this "equivalent aperture" idea is doing only harm and confusion.
Try this: take three different cameras with different sized sensors and shoot a moving subject with the same aperture number, shutter speed and ISO and equivalent focal lenght.
You'll get three "identical" pictures with the same "brightness" and the same amount of motion blur. Do you agree?

Yes, DoF will be different in a precise amount and you can calculate the "equivalent DoF aperture". And yes, the noise will be different but it vastly depends on the actual sensor you are using: try a 5D classic vs a Sony A7S. Do you agree?

So the "equivalent aperture" is NOT equivalent with respect to exposure and motion blur and it is equivalent for DoF and, with a big approximation, for noise.
What is more important? Exposure and image content or noise and out of focus areas?

In which why this "equivalent aperture" concept is better then saying that there is a two stops difference in DoF and less noise?

I'm sorry for being blunt. You folks at DPR render a stellar service, and I'm awfully grateful for all the help, information, and advice that I've made use of over the years. I wish you the very best.

Pat

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 11:41 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klorenzo: Hi Richard I think that this "equivalent aperture" idea is doing only harm and confusion.
Try this: take three different cameras with different sized sensors and shoot a moving subject with the same aperture number, shutter speed and ISO and equivalent focal lenght.
You'll get three "identical" pictures with the same "brightness" and the same amount of motion blur. Do you agree?

Yes, DoF will be different in a precise amount and you can calculate the "equivalent DoF aperture". And yes, the noise will be different but it vastly depends on the actual sensor you are using: try a 5D classic vs a Sony A7S. Do you agree?

So the "equivalent aperture" is NOT equivalent with respect to exposure and motion blur and it is equivalent for DoF and, with a big approximation, for noise.
What is more important? Exposure and image content or noise and out of focus areas?

In which why this "equivalent aperture" concept is better then saying that there is a two stops difference in DoF and less noise?

"Total light" is another spurious DPR concept. That and "more light."

As I wrote elsewhere, I recommend to ALWAYS explicitly say "DOF-equivalent" when you mean "DOF-equivalent," and "exposure-equivalent" or "brightness-equivalent" when you mean this latter concept.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 11:17 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klorenzo: Please have a look at the caption of the Oly 300/4 picture:

http://bit.ly/1N4ULqh

"Although not as fast as a 600mm F4 would be for full-frame". Is this sentence correct, wrong or just confusing? What does "fast" means in this context? Can I use it to shoot indoor sports or not? Is this equiv. reminder relevant in this article context?

I can see the value of this idea when comparing compact cameras with different sensors (LX7 vs RX vs LX100). But with ILS users usually know how the system(s) they use performs.

I suspect, and see around, that many people get this from this article: smaller sensors have more noise AND lenses are slower (it's not your thesis, I know).
I agree that you have to understand FoV, diffraction and "noise" equivalence, but not at the cost of muddying the waters with the exposure basics. Beginners will get lost in this debate.

And the elephant is still there: tech differences/choices and a few years of ageing can have a huge impact on the noise comparison.

@M DeNero

Agreed.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 11:13 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

ABuck289: I'd like to see where the medium format cameras fit in. Is a Pentax 645 worth the additional cost?

Great article, BTW.

"DOF equivalents"

Ahh, that's the way to say it. I recommend to ALWAYS explicitly say "DOF-equivalent" when you mean "DOF-equivalent," and "exposure-equivalent" or "brightness-equivalent" when you mean this latter concept.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 11:10 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

rwol1970: What does a 36x24mm have a crop factor of 1? Just because Oskar Barnack used standard available film when designing a small camera?

Yes!

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 11:03 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

RoyGBiv: Someone with a signal processing background has to re-write this. FF's advantage with respect to light capture has less to do with the cone of light, and more with size of photo-cell and pixel count. The reason that the real-life total light demonstration doesn't appear to display a linearly-related drop-off in noise performance is because it has little to do with the "total light capture" that this article (and so many well-meaning people) are blaming the lost performance on the light that falls outside the sensor. Unless the lenses are made of drastically different material capable of significantly different light refraction (which they aren't) , the light density is roughly equivalent. What's lost is the sensitivity of the photocells, and their ability to discern signal from noise. The smaller they are, the more difficult it is to discern. Drawing the light cone and showing that FF's light cone is larger than the APS-C light cone is a red herring.

@Timbo101
You are correct to discredit the statement, "... because the more light you capture, the less noisy your image, this is key to why large sensors generally give better image quality than small ones." I hate to say it, but DPR's notion of "more light" is spurious. It's a scandal. They do a sterling job in their reviews, but on this score they fall short. If they consulted with an academic or an optical or photographic professional having some credentials in mathematics or physics, they could recover. They must cut their losses. Crow must be discreetly noshed. And my best wishes to them.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 11:02 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (450 comments in total)

Is that B-17 a model or the real thing? (http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/0521877332/DSC06295_acr_2.jpeg)

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 10:17 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Sony is a technological powerhouse. RX100, RX10 III, RX1RII. These are phenomenal innovations.

Agreed!

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 09:52 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidNJ100: In fail to see how this is better than an A6300 with a Tamron 16-300mm lens with adapter. The A6300 with the Tamron is a 24-400 equivalent with a bit faster lens, especially on the wide side, than this 1" sensor Sony.

It is also lighter...the A6300, Tamron lens, and EF-S to E-mount adapter weighing less than 2 lbs. Total cost is similar, within 10% or so.

Dave,

(1) The Tamron at f/3.5 is not BRIGHTER than the f/2.4 Sony lens. It's dimmer. You have to expose either for a longer time or at a higher ISO. (2) At any given aperture, the intensity of the light falling on the focal plane is the same no matter what the size of the format is. I mean, the image at the focal plane isn't going to get brighter or dimmer if you change the size of the format, right? (3) PointsInFocus is a nice tool, only they're talking about DOF-EQUIVALENCE, not EXPOSURE-EQUIVALENCE. It's impossible to gain an increase in lens brightness just by putting it in front of a smaller sensor, right? Again, there is DOF-EQUIVALENCE and EXPOSURE-EQUIVALENCE. Try to keep these separate in your mind. (4) A really good treatment of depth of field versus sensor size is here: http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/. You won't get it with a single reading, though. Also, read the comments for additional insights. It's a tough read in spots.

All the best,
Pat

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 09:51 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: Concerning the photo of the baseball field--

The right-hand edge isn't very sharp, whereas the left-hand edge is sharp. Could this be a decentering problem?

Corey -- I took small crops from opposite edges. You can view them at https://pcullinan.smugmug.com/My-Fellow-New-Yorkers/Anything-and-everything/i-gwzc8Wp/A The images are 200% of the original. I added an additional sharpened version of the crops. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: One small step for Adobe, one small step for Adobe.

Ha ha -- that's a good one.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 19:04 UTC
On article Rare Nikon 1200mm F11 pops up on eBay (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Minolta Guy: Failed to mention:
2400mm F22 on Micro43
3240mm on NIkon 1

Instead of "DOF-EQUIVALENCE," it might be better to use another term, like "DOFness," or "DOFity," or "DOFitude."

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 19:02 UTC
On article Rare Nikon 1200mm F11 pops up on eBay (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Minolta Guy: Failed to mention:
2400mm F22 on Micro43
3240mm on NIkon 1

The DPR piece cited presents a "Real-world depth-of-field demonstration." They're talking about depth of field, that is, DOF-EQUIVALENCE. This is a matter of geometry, and in my opinion it's very misleading to call this "equivalence" at all. So the Nikon 1200mm f/11 on a micro 4/3 sensor would deliver the same depth of field as an aperture of f/22 on a full-frame sensor. This is to be distinguished from BRIGHTNESS-EQUIVALENCE, which is a matter of optical energetics. An f/11 lens on a FF sensor will be f/11 on an m43 sensor. A third species of equivalence can be termed ANGLE-OF-ACCEPTANCE-EQUIVALENCE, or MAGNIFICATION-EQUIVALENCE. In this sense, the 1200mm f/11 Nikon lens on an m43 sensor will deliver the same magnification as a 2400mm lens on an FF sensor. In summary, our Nikon lens, when used with an m43 sensor, is equivalent, relative to FF, to 2400mm f/11 AS REGARDS EXPOSURE, and to 2400mm f/22 AS REGARDS DEPTH OF FIELD. (I think I've lost the entire room by now.)

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 18:58 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: I'm sold. Know why? THE-RED-HEADED PARROT.

Robin Wong sure has taken some outstanding bird photos.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 16:10 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (450 comments in total)

I'm sold. Know why? THE-RED-HEADED PARROT.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 08:08 UTC as 73rd comment | 4 replies
Total: 909, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »