Class A

Class A

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) Wellywood, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Joined on Jun 4, 2009

Comments

Total: 195, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

In summary, your article is still very misleading, creating the impression of a fundamental difference ("traditional" vs "non-traditional") that just doesn't exist.

You write that you don't want people to reach wrong conclusions, but the way your article is phrased, some will definitely believe there has been some breakthrough with respect to preserving dynamic range when increasing the ISO setting.

BTW, everything else being the same, a larger sensor does give one more dynamic range. Not better low-light capabilities, but more dynamic range. In that sense, you gain more "highlight recovery", if you don't expose to the right too much.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 05:37 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

A preview-boost with an actual RAW-data-histogram would be ideal, but no one is offering that yet, right?

In any event, if camera-supported underexposure is so useful (as opposed to letting the photographer handle it), why is that not offered for lower ISO values as well? Would it not be useful to, -- quote "not lose dynamic range" -- unquote, for lower ISO values to?

The answer is of course that your presentation of "increasing ISO while not losing dynamic range" is extremely misleading. If that worked, it would not only be a "small deal" or "easing the workflow", it would be revolutionary. It won't ever happen, though, as it is against the laws of physics.

I am not saying that an entirely ISO-invariant concept -- where the ISO setting just influences a metatag -- is not a good idea, but it isn't fundamentally different from what you can do today already.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 05:32 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

Richard, this will hopefully be my last response.

You went from
1. "increase ISO but not lose dynamic range" (in the article; still extremely misleading), to
2. "significantly easier workflow", to
3. "not a huge deal".

Fuji and Hasseblad are not using the sensor "more intelligently", they (may) provide a pretty small convenience factor. I inserted "(may)" because I am not sure whether the Pentax 645Z actually does not use a metatag system for higher ISO values as well. Are you positively sure it doesn't?

All a photographer needs to do is to ensure that highlights are not clipped. As a matter of fact, using the "metatag"-system makes this harder, because the highlights will appear to be clipped on the back LCD (and the histogram!) whereas they are not. [If the highlights are not clipping when pushed mathematically, you don't need an increased dynamic range anyhow).

Arguable, a straightforward scheme makes it easier to push ISO just enough, but no further.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 05:26 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

P.S.: There are claims from apparently credible sources that the Hasseblad X1D-50c, the Fuji GFX, the Pentax 645Z, and even a PhaseOne, all use the same Sony 50MP 43.8 x 32.9mm CMOS sensor.

While the CFA and microlenses may be different among the above cameras, the ISO / dynamic range behaviour will be the same amongst all these cameras. If anything (the difference would have to be confirmed) the only difference would be whether some of these cameras would require the photographer to explicitly underexpose, or whether underexposure happens under the hood. The quality of the image will be the same in each case.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 15:46 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

My point was that the X1D-50c does not bring anything new to the table w.rt. ISO invariance. There are many other ISO-invariant cameras from Sony, Pentax, and Nikon.

Many Pentax DSLRs do not apply hardware amplification beyond ISO 1600. I am unsure whether they actually protect the RAW data and only put a "push in post-processing" value in the metadata or ruin the RAW data, but in practice the difference does not matter much.

One simply shoots at base ISO (or a higher ISO setting that does not blow out the highlights) and then pushes in post as needed.

The only advantage of a camera supporting the capture of the unpushed RAW data and managing the required post-push through metadata is that the preview on the back of the camera won't look (potentially severely) underexposed. While that is a practical advantage, the main advantage is the ISO invariance of the sensor.

BTW, the Pentax 645Z could be ISO-invariant as it uses a Sony sensor and Sony sensors typically are "ISO-less".

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 05:34 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

Richard, thank you very much for your response.

However, you have just restated the advantages of "ISO invariance" or an "ISO-less" sensor. I am well aware of these advantages.

The problem with the way you want to have your cake and eat it too is rooted in the notion of effective ISO. Only if you are able to push the image in post-production by 4 EV without blowing out highlights, you actually get an effective ISO of 1600. If you can only push by 2 EV, your effective ISO is only ISO 400.

We apparently agree that one good way of measuring ISO is to look at the "saturation-based speed", i.e., obtain the ISO value by looking at the maximum possible exposure that does not lead to a clipped output. If you stop short of pushing by 4EV in post -- whether that is through only pushing by 2EV in the first place or pulling down from a nominal 4EV push -- you don't get to ISO 1600.

Do you not agree?

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 05:28 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

I have not tripped over semantics.

1. There is no fundamental advantage of letting the camera undexpose under the hood vs you doing it manually.

2. Many "traditional" cameras take the same approach.

You cannot have your *effective* ISO cake and eat your *effective* dynamic range too. DPReview's comment does not make sense as is.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 05:48 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)

Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 01:38 UTC as 45th comment | 15 replies
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)

"...impressive purity of focus...": OK, but if a DSLR -- built for still photography -- misses a dedicated movie recording button, DPReview downgrades the camera.

Makes sense much?

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 01:25 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply

Pentax Limited 43mm f/1.9.

The 43mm are exactly matching the image diagonal of the FF format. The traditional 50mm "normal" lens was always a compromise between focal length and engineering effort to obtain good quality.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 02:00 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply

Great news!

I've been a big fan of the V6 -- have been rock solid for me -- and started to use the V6II just recently.

I'll keep shooting with manual flash control for the most part, but having the option to get a quick automatic estimate and then being able to lock that in would be great. Also, for some fast-paced event coverage automatic TTL metering may be a good tool to have in one's arsenal.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 01:51 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

The title should start "Thinking about buying a crop medium format camera?". However, that would be admitting that the current baby-MF format cameras do not have sensors of the size of what traditionally has been referred to as "MF".

Of course, companies like Fuji like the idea of "MF" not referring to a particular size, but there is no denying that film cameras like the Pentax 645 had a much bigger image format and that the current baby-MF sensors that are hardly worth having over a standard FF (135mm format) camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 09:53 UTC as 52nd comment | 4 replies
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Suggestion to DPReview:

Perhaps mention that the K-1 has five-axis image stabilsation (as you do with the Sony) and don't claim that sensor-based stabilisation is used for video (because it isn't).

Wouldn't it also be interesting for readers to learn that the K-1 has an on-demand Bayer-AA filter (-simulator)? A unique feature that seems worth mentioning.

Some may also find the Astrotracer functionality really interesting? I appreciate you couldn't test it yet, but still worth mentioning, right?

Personally, I think the extensive weather-sealing is more worthy of being mentioned in the top "What we like" list than the external illumination, the latter being more in the "nice to have, but not essential" category like the unmentioned third wheel.

@LightBug
I have just seen the latest Flickr statistics: Mirrorless cameras make up a measly 3% of cameras used for submissions. Of course, iPhone submissions trump DSLR submissions by a factor of almost two, but there are still more than 8 times more DSLR submissions than mirrorless submissions.

All this talk about the death of the DSLR seems premature, to say the least, and all the mirrorless hype is still not translating into higher usage figures. The industry will of course try to continue to push a product that is cheaper to manufacture.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 00:49 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: @DPreview: Have you ever compared the number of modern lenses available for the K-1 compared to FE lenses for the A7II?

Please see this list of FF lenses that are currently available for the K-1: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/314559-ff-lenses-k-1-can-bought-new.html

AFAIC, there are no grounds at all for pointing out a scarcity of lens selection for the K-1. I realise that the A7 series can accommodate many more lenses than just its (rather limited) native FE lenses through adapters but adapters come with their own set of problems (precision, handling, size, AF compromises). Have you never experienced AF issues due to third-party adapters/lenses on the A7 series? I have.

BTW, not only people already owning K-mount lenses can benefit from a vastly wider selection. Even people new to Pentax have access to the used lens market which offers a number of great gems.

"What's your point?" You should ask that question yourself. You are a denying an "advantage for Pentax" although I never have claimed an advantage for Pentax.

All the points I made were just countering the notion of too few FF lenses being available for the K-1 and/or the urgency of raising this as a concern.

I'm out.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 08:14 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: @DPreview: Have you ever compared the number of modern lenses available for the K-1 compared to FE lenses for the A7II?

Please see this list of FF lenses that are currently available for the K-1: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/314559-ff-lenses-k-1-can-bought-new.html

AFAIC, there are no grounds at all for pointing out a scarcity of lens selection for the K-1. I realise that the A7 series can accommodate many more lenses than just its (rather limited) native FE lenses through adapters but adapters come with their own set of problems (precision, handling, size, AF compromises). Have you never experienced AF issues due to third-party adapters/lenses on the A7 series? I have.

BTW, not only people already owning K-mount lenses can benefit from a vastly wider selection. Even people new to Pentax have access to the used lens market which offers a number of great gems.

I have not been worrying about K-nount FF lens availability ever.

First of all, I have access to more than enough FF lenses for my K-1, some of them being discontinued but excellent Pentax lenses.

Second, Pentax has launched their FF camera with more FF lenses available than Sony did their first FF E-mount camera.

Third, there are six FF Pentax zooms and 13 (thirteen) FF Pentax primes. Please count correctly. Some of the above lenses have not been recently released as FF lenses, but have always been capable of delivering FF image circles.

Fourth, if you include third-party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, etc, there are 14 (fourteen) FF zooms and 49 (forty-nine) FF primes. These are all original K-mount lenses, no adapters required. I've used adapters myself for a while and it sucked. Thanks, but no thanks.

Fifth, there are more FF lenses on the roadmap, with an expected release date in 2017.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 00:12 UTC

Why don't they fast forward to what they are heading to?

They should just sell ready-made pictures. Some of them will have cut-outs where heads/bodies of customers are merged into.

Done.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 05:31 UTC as 10th comment

I prefer the rendering of this new version over that of the old Sigma 85/1.4.

Now Sigma only needs to release it for K-mount and they'll have a buyer in me.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 04:53 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (368 comments in total)

@DPreview: Have you ever compared the number of modern lenses available for the K-1 compared to FE lenses for the A7II?

Please see this list of FF lenses that are currently available for the K-1: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/314559-ff-lenses-k-1-can-bought-new.html

AFAIC, there are no grounds at all for pointing out a scarcity of lens selection for the K-1. I realise that the A7 series can accommodate many more lenses than just its (rather limited) native FE lenses through adapters but adapters come with their own set of problems (precision, handling, size, AF compromises). Have you never experienced AF issues due to third-party adapters/lenses on the A7 series? I have.

BTW, not only people already owning K-mount lenses can benefit from a vastly wider selection. Even people new to Pentax have access to the used lens market which offers a number of great gems.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 23:27 UTC as 37th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

InfamousOne: Dale, did you try any of the RAW functions after iOS10 update? As now iOS supports natively the same raw files as on OS X. So NEF's are just fine and can be seen as an image in any iOS app. I wouldn't be surprised if it "just worked" even in the WD app–

If you still have it around, it may be worth a check!

Pentax supports DNG out of camera. Are you saying that does not work either?

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: Why is the Fuji GFX being referred to as a "medium format" camera? Its sensor has the size of the crop-MF format that is currently used in other MF cameras.

While these other cameras have a mount size that will allow their successors to have full MF sensors, the GFX won't be able to grow its sensor size.

Calling the Fuji GFX an "MF" camera is like calling a camera with an APS-C sensor an FF camera just because it makes the mount small enough that an FF sensor will never fit. Using an APS-C sensor never made a camera an FF camera just because a lot of other cameras with FF-mounts used APS-C sensors.

I can understand Fuiji trying to get away with a "medium format" label, but why do journalists follow Fuij instead of calling a spade a spade?

I know that full-sized MF doesn't exist yet. I'm talking about the future. Let's see in five years what sensor sizes will be on offer then.

The GFX system is not as future proof as current digital MF systems.

And no, adapters won't help the GFX, unless they are speed-boosters. But who wants to use a 50MP sensor with adapters and speed-boosters that all have their slight or not so slight problems?

Plus, the speed-booster would only work with a big MF lens and then we are back to the A7 series ergonomics issue. Huge lenses with tiny cameras are just a mismatch.

The cameras in the A7 series and the GFX are fine cameras. I don't have anything against them. I just don't like it when they are hyped up beyond proportion as the non-plus ultra and solution for everyone.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
Total: 195, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »