Class A

Class A

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

Comments

Total: 201, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Ruekon: It is a pity that Nikon came that far. Wasn't it Nippon Kogaku once piggybacking on Zeiss Ikon, providing more innovative lenses and then developing Nikon cameras to perfection?

I wished Nikon would still focus on better and more innovative products, in particular lenses, instead of resting on former success and claiming against companies that take the lead today.

The term "earth-moving implement" (for "spade") would not fly in a patent. Too short. More like:

Apparatus with a concave-shaped actuation surface (a) attached -- via special purpose fasteners using a helical friction-based attachment structure (b) -- to an elongated cylindrical handling implement (c) designed to support bi-handed, lever-like operation, with the functional purpose of moving a load (d) by temporarily counteracting gravity acting on the load, with a superimposed translation of the load in a horizontal plane (e). [N.B. the application of said apparatus to move loads in a vertical dimension is described in a different patent.]

This description will appear multiple times, i.e. every time where one would normally use "spade".

Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 23:04 UTC

Sal's scandal and his inability to understand what is wrong about it is a shocker, but what I find way more noteworthy is that Fro seems to have found some medication that actually works for him! He wasn't half as crazy as he used to be. :D

Just joking, of course. Gotta love Fro (inventor of the sniff test).

Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 22:34 UTC as 6th comment
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: "...introduces a degree of inaccuracy and imprecision that tends to come from secondary-sensor AF..."

It's just the system that every top of the line sports photographer uses. While mirrorless systems have been trying to catch up for years and years (and are getting better), this method you essentially describe as problematic, is still the fastest and best AF system in challenging situations. Challenges include motion and low light.

Mirrorless cameras have their place -- although one wonders whether MF is the right format to go for portability -- but I do not see a point in putting down DSLR technology that has genuine advantages.

Point taken regarding "accuracy vs precision". I would refer to "(lack of) precision" as "(high) variability" but I now understand that you used established technical terms.

I'm glad that you are now conceding that the Canon (using PDAF) could at least do just as well as CDAF-based systems in a comparison.

As Cicala's examination shows, some of the bad rep of PDAF (large variability) only occurs with older Canon technology which does not actually use a closed-loop feedback system (tsk, tsk, tsk). This is something I long suspected and it is nice to see that someone could demonstrate it.

Granted, a PDAF system requires calibration to achieve the same accuracy as CDAF but then delivers accuracy and precision on par with CDAF. And most likely with better speed and in more challenging light situations.

Ergo, no need to denigrate PDAF as an outdated approach with inherent problems ("...introduces a degree of inaccuracy and imprecision...").

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 03:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: "...introduces a degree of inaccuracy and imprecision that tends to come from secondary-sensor AF..."

It's just the system that every top of the line sports photographer uses. While mirrorless systems have been trying to catch up for years and years (and are getting better), this method you essentially describe as problematic, is still the fastest and best AF system in challenging situations. Challenges include motion and low light.

Mirrorless cameras have their place -- although one wonders whether MF is the right format to go for portability -- but I do not see a point in putting down DSLR technology that has genuine advantages.

Correct, you did not claim that CDAF is better in all respects but stating that an AF approach introduces "inaccuracy and imprecision" (whatever the difference is) is pretty damning.

I appreciate the challenges associated with getting all AF points calibrated but serious shooters have been sending their D810s to Nikon to achieve exactly that.

Regarding "50MP resolution": The precision requirements for the D810's AF system (36MP for 36x24) are higher than those for any of the MF cameras discussed (50MP for 44x33). The linear resolution of the D810 (or K-1) is 10% higher per mm. Hence their AF systems must be more precise than those in the MF cameras.

Have Nikon/Pentax made a mistake when they equipped their resolution monsters with PDAF AF?

Let's consider the 50MP Canon 5DS:
Its AF system must be 30% (linear resolution) more precise than those of the MF cameras you looked at. Still it uses a PDAF system. In other words, this AF approach simply is not plagued with "imprecision".

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 22:02 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: "...introduces a degree of inaccuracy and imprecision that tends to come from secondary-sensor AF..."

It's just the system that every top of the line sports photographer uses. While mirrorless systems have been trying to catch up for years and years (and are getting better), this method you essentially describe as problematic, is still the fastest and best AF system in challenging situations. Challenges include motion and low light.

Mirrorless cameras have their place -- although one wonders whether MF is the right format to go for portability -- but I do not see a point in putting down DSLR technology that has genuine advantages.

Of course the needs of sports photographers and medium format photographers are different.

Nevertheless, the prevalent use of PDAF ("secondary sensor-AF" as you put it) systems in top of the range gear by top professionals is indicative of the fact that it is more than precise enough for professional requirements.

We are also talking about long focal lengths and wide apertures, i.e., shallow depth of field. Plus, light can be bad in sports venues.

CDAF will struggle not only when motion is involved but also in low light levels.

A physicist (falconeyes) once elaborated that PDAF can be more precise than CDAF. Of course the system needs to be well-calibrated.

Why do you think sensor manufacturers produce sensors with on-sensor PDAF if CDAF is so superior?

Coverage is a genuine advantage for CDAF, but the comparison is in no way as slanted as you present it. Just the use of "secondary-sensor AF"...; it is the first time I see classic PDAF described in this manner.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 20:52 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (347 comments in total)

"...introduces a degree of inaccuracy and imprecision that tends to come from secondary-sensor AF..."

It's just the system that every top of the line sports photographer uses. While mirrorless systems have been trying to catch up for years and years (and are getting better), this method you essentially describe as problematic, is still the fastest and best AF system in challenging situations. Challenges include motion and low light.

Mirrorless cameras have their place -- although one wonders whether MF is the right format to go for portability -- but I do not see a point in putting down DSLR technology that has genuine advantages.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 22:43 UTC as 3rd comment | 7 replies
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 53rd 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
Total: 201, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »