VadymA

Lives in Canada Calgary, Canada
Joined on Jul 31, 2009

Comments

Total: 320, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

breschdlingsgsaelz: What's all this crap with the "monchrome 20MP" sensor that does not deliver good results? Why can't they just add a second lens with a longer focal length and fully capable sensor? Are these knock-off manufacturers all too dumb to copy the good stuff from apple? In this case even the prices is completely ridiculous. Good luck selling the device for this price.

It is now more than a year since apple introduced the dual lens setup and still no android phone is in sight that comes close. I would really like to have a usable camera in a smartphone but do not want to spend $1.000 for it.

I have no idea what they use 20mp monochrome sensor for, but just to speculate, is it possible that they are trying to emulate human eye functionality? Approximately 80% of eye sensors are monochrome, this is why we see in the dark with muted or no colors but without noise either. So maybe they are trying to overcome noise problem in low light using help from monochrome sensor. Again, this is just a thought.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:32 UTC
On article iPhone 8 Plus sample gallery (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

rwbaron: To each their own but in decent light these smart phone cameras do an amazing job for their intended use (screen and social media). A few years back I took a photo with my iPhone 5 of my mother enjoying a sundae on a park bench. When she passed away I was looking for photos of her and printed that image at 8x10 on my Canon Pixma Pro-100 and even on close scrutiny one wouldn't know it wasn't from a dedicated digital camera. Sharp, great color and no grain and many people commented on how nice a photo it was and couldn't believe it was from my phone.
Thanks Apple for giving us a great tool to capture what's important in our lives.

I agree with your statement, especially with the intended use part. Which for 90% of population fits perfectly into iPhone capabilities. This is no different from film era when most people used cheap P&S soap-shaped cameras with fixed lenses. Only probably 10% opted for DSLR's. Why, since they used the same film as a cheap P&S? My answer is features more than IQ. Fast glass, high speed, long lenses, macro, etc. None of it was available in P&S, none of it is available in iPhone either. So nothing's changed really. For the 10%, we still need dedicated cameras today like we did 30 years ago ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 23:01 UTC
On article iPhone 8 Plus sample gallery (195 comments in total)

People, stop complaining about IQ. It is a simple point and shoot device. Not even an advanced point and shoot despite some software gimmicks. It probably costs like 20% of the rest of the phone. So for this type of device, it is quite good.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 21:50 UTC as 34th comment

Thank you Apple for buying this software. Now please DELETE.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 01:50 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies

I don't believe it was handheld, and even if it was, it was definitely with stabilizer in the same hand and who know what kind of light support behind him. Didn't DPR mentioned about tricks videographers do for such "shot with IPhone" promo videos?

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 05:39 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply

Awesome skills, but I wish he found better way to apply them. It can literally help save lives, not to endanger them.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 07:22 UTC as 50th comment
In reply to:

thenoilif: I won't even consider an all-in-one unless it offers the following:
100 mp curved sensor that allows for taking pictures in total darkness

100 fps because I would hate to miss that 1 shot
ESP AF tired of all this joystick and phase detect blah blah

8K Apple touchscreen with OSX with free app suite including full capture one and all of adobes programs
The screen should also have drone magnetic propulsion technology so I can finally take a real selfie

12-2000 Zeiss (Japan) 1.2-8.0 zoom lens

Liquid tech video because pixels are so 2017

Shoots uncompressed raw that only produces 1mb file sizes

Processing

Processor with AI that just knows all of the colors I like

All of this the size of a credit card so I can put in my pocket but also be able to insert it into a 1000g DSLR body because I have big hands and I like to feel the weight balance

Lastly, and most importantly, it needs to be $799 Same as the power shot G3 my favorite camera.

This joke was funny first time, but getting old really fast :(

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 04:19 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: "The addition of phase detection autofocus is pivotal to all of those features." - in all fairness, Nikon was using phase detection on its 1" cameras since 2011. So there is really nothing pivotal in this.

Here is from the latest Nikon model developed in 2014 and released in early 2015:

"The Nikon 1 J5 achieves a level of speed and accuracy not even a DSLR can match. Its cutting-edge autofocus system uses 105 phase-detect AF points to instantly identify and focus on your subject. Hold down the shutter button and turn each second of action into 20 tack-sharp, full-resolution photos. Fix your focus, and the Nikon 1 J5 can capture at a mind boggling 60 frames per second continuously."

I am not bashing Sony, it is a great camera, and I am particularly impressed with the lens speed. I have almost all N1 zoom lenses, but none of them are that fast. Just wanted to point that the rhetoric of the article sounds overblown and unfair comparing to reality.

Daniela, your comments just show that you have no clue what you are talking about. Go look at my galleries, you will find good examples in Nikon 1 album of anything from high ISO, to f1.2, to sports, to 800 mm, to ultra wide, and all with native N1 lenses. I promise, when you finally see real samples for the first time in your life, not because someone told you so, you will not dare to call them "unremarkable".

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 02:44 UTC

"The addition of phase detection autofocus is pivotal to all of those features." - in all fairness, Nikon was using phase detection on its 1" cameras since 2011. So there is really nothing pivotal in this.

Here is from the latest Nikon model developed in 2014 and released in early 2015:

"The Nikon 1 J5 achieves a level of speed and accuracy not even a DSLR can match. Its cutting-edge autofocus system uses 105 phase-detect AF points to instantly identify and focus on your subject. Hold down the shutter button and turn each second of action into 20 tack-sharp, full-resolution photos. Fix your focus, and the Nikon 1 J5 can capture at a mind boggling 60 frames per second continuously."

I am not bashing Sony, it is a great camera, and I am particularly impressed with the lens speed. I have almost all N1 zoom lenses, but none of them are that fast. Just wanted to point that the rhetoric of the article sounds overblown and unfair comparing to reality.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 20:38 UTC as 56th comment | 4 replies

I am sure it is a fine camera, could be even the best for certain tasks. But reference to human eye sounds pure marketing to me. Being produced by nature, each human eye is not exactly the same. Human eye don't use Bayer pattern. There is approximately 100k b/w sensors and 30k color sensors in human eye, if I remember correctly. And color perception is also a function of brain, not just eyes. So how is this all relevant to IQ3 is beyond me. And also, photography is more about "departure from reality" (A.Adams) than reflection of reality. Pictures that look realistic are usually quite dull. Manipulating colors is what helps achieve emotional impact and is considered one of the crafts in photography. So all this human eye reference is pure b/s.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 18:48 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies

I hate Samsung-like rounded edges. Why not make them like iPad? Would be so much easier to handle...

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 20:11 UTC as 172nd comment
In reply to:

SimenO1: I'm impressed by the improvements in camera technology and image quality the last 90 years. Today a similar (or better IQ) image can be made in a fraction of the time, at a fraction of the cost, with a camera that weighs a fraction of that 8x10 camera, and a billion people have good enough equipment to do so. 90 years ago it took quite some effort and few had the equipment needed.

I don't know for sure, but I think exposing over 4-6 hours in natural light might add some unique qualities to the image that are not replicable in a split-second shot with a modern camera. Might be an interesting experiment to do.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 13:41 UTC

"...I know what you're thinking. "But zoom! Pixel-level resolution! Low light image quality!" I'm here to tell you that smartphones are already well on their way to solving those problems, if they haven't already..."

Really? I don't think they are even close to solving those problems.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 18:23 UTC as 183rd comment | 1 reply
On challenge Petal Portraits (1 comment in total)

Why only 25 entries? Almost everyone here likes taking pictures of flowers...

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 22:45 UTC as 1st comment

Our company bought a few and I tested one for a few days. Totally agree with Consumer Report - freezing, non-responsive touchpad, weird touchscreen operation in some instances. It was a pain using it for work, even as a temporary device.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 23:20 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Lichtbild: Epic fail. Mushy details galore. My D600 upsampled images would probably deliver comparable quality. That's an R&D proof of concept, not a commercial product.

I agree, this is a great and very useful technological experiment, worth several years of engineering efforts to prove whether the concept can work or not. I am glad there were funds available to finance this experiment. But clearly more time is needed to be spent in the lab before making it a commercial product. Hope someone will continue financing this experiment. Although time is critical, there were news about upcoming technology that places a lens over each pixel, that could be quite a game changer, especially in this cellphone-type of cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Yulu Sung: The grass under the shipwreck photo looks odd at 100%, some regions appear in clear focus while others are blurred, computational error?

Padre, so what is the point of adding 50MP to the file if they don't contain any details. A simple upsizing from 24MP would produce similar results. What am I missing?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Oh common, the samples are just horrible. At 100% they look like P&S quality from 2003, only 5 times larger. I would be embarrassed to charge $1,600 for a camera with IQ like this. The down-sampling would not help if the details are not there. Plus, what's the point of this camera if you need to down-sample in order to get something as good as any other camera does? Pretty much what I was saying - you cannot replicate a good glass and a good sensor by sticking 16 cellphones with tiny sensors and tiny lenses together, especially if it is done by the guys with no experience neither in photo science nor complex software engineering.

@ planetMich, I don't think so. I've seen some 100mp panoramas where the more you zoom, the more details you can see, which is quite amazing. This is just the same 12mp small sensor image overlaid 4 times with horrible artifacts as a result. I believe they mentioned earlier that only four cameras can fire at once. Those cameras are not of magical quality, they are just cell phone sensors. Garbage in, garbage out; all I can see.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Oh common, the samples are just horrible. At 100% they look like P&S quality from 2003, only 5 times larger. I would be embarrassed to charge $1,600 for a camera with IQ like this. The down-sampling would not help if the details are not there. Plus, what's the point of this camera if you need to down-sample in order to get something as good as any other camera does? Pretty much what I was saying - you cannot replicate a good glass and a good sensor by sticking 16 cellphones with tiny sensors and tiny lenses together, especially if it is done by the guys with no experience neither in photo science nor complex software engineering.

Seriously, just open any file, via link, and look at full resolution. Maybe I am not doing it right, then please correct me. But when I do it my way, I see a lot of mush in details, like grass, the face is very-very blurry. What else I can say? They look Ok in small size, but enlarged they are just horrible.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 19:38 UTC

Oh common, the samples are just horrible. At 100% they look like P&S quality from 2003, only 5 times larger. I would be embarrassed to charge $1,600 for a camera with IQ like this. The down-sampling would not help if the details are not there. Plus, what's the point of this camera if you need to down-sample in order to get something as good as any other camera does? Pretty much what I was saying - you cannot replicate a good glass and a good sensor by sticking 16 cellphones with tiny sensors and tiny lenses together, especially if it is done by the guys with no experience neither in photo science nor complex software engineering.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 18:50 UTC as 40th comment | 8 replies
Total: 320, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »