Hellraiser

Joined on Dec 19, 2013

Comments

Total: 1140, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DrCastle: Don't forget that PDAF technology improves by day just as much as CDAF does. Proof? See the AF in a9 or R5 and compare that to first generation mirrorless like Nex-5 or EOS-M1(which had one of the earliest forms of hybrid on-sensor AF).
And it leads us to think.. is the micro-hunting that's simply innate to a CDAF system a compromise people are willing to make to reclaim 0.03~0.05% of the pixels on the sensor? I applaud Panasonic for developing DFD, still. This is one of the areas where the new generation of computational photographic technologies are making visible progress.

I think of it this way - DFD is the best system for still photography (landscape, astro, product photohraphy, realestate, portraits, macro, architectual, still life and such...) PDAF for everything else...

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2020 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

Hellraiser: For some uses (realstrt photos that are posted solely on websites for example). Smartphone is more than enough and I too use a smartphone almost exclusively for those kind of photos.

Thats true. Phones cant fake bokeh and for wide apertures nothing can replace a good lens and probably that will stay that way for now. But I was talkung about realestate photos and similar where you shoot at small apertures and you try to get that depth of field as wide as you can...

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2020 at 05:57 UTC
In reply to:

Hellraiser: For some uses (realstrt photos that are posted solely on websites for example). Smartphone is more than enough and I too use a smartphone almost exclusively for those kind of photos.

I dont have a Zeiss Planar, but would you be so kind to post photo from that lens against a random other lens at 50mm so I can see if i can spot that "3d pop". RAW photos would be welcome. Same setup, same subject ofcourse...

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2020 at 08:12 UTC
In reply to:

Hellraiser: For some uses (realstrt photos that are posted solely on websites for example). Smartphone is more than enough and I too use a smartphone almost exclusively for those kind of photos.

Well. Ive seen thousands of photos and not once Ive seen that 3d pop that keeps being mentioned on the internet. I think that it goes in line with thot people that "can hear" the difference between €1000 and €3000 speakers.
Phone photos are good for phones/tablets and 4k displays. And thats how most of the people view those photos nowdays.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2020 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

Hellraiser: For some uses (realstrt photos that are posted solely on websites for example). Smartphone is more than enough and I too use a smartphone almost exclusively for those kind of photos.

Ps. We arent talking about portraits here. Fake bokeh sucks

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2020 at 08:25 UTC
In reply to:

Hellraiser: For some uses (realstrt photos that are posted solely on websites for example). Smartphone is more than enough and I too use a smartphone almost exclusively for those kind of photos.

Yeh. You are exaggerating. And 3d pop is just some myth coined on the internet that no real customer can see.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2020 at 08:24 UTC
In reply to:

Hellraiser: For some uses (realstrt photos that are posted solely on websites for example). Smartphone is more than enough and I too use a smartphone almost exclusively for those kind of photos.

Camera photos can look better but not "so much better" how you overexaggerate. Especially nowdays when most of those relestate photos are viewed on smartphone screens where photos made by a smartphone are virtually indistunguishable by those made by a camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2020 at 08:01 UTC

For some uses (realstrt photos that are posted solely on websites for example). Smartphone is more than enough and I too use a smartphone almost exclusively for those kind of photos.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2020 at 11:04 UTC as 37th comment | 20 replies
In reply to:

Hellraiser: Computational photography really is the future. Too bad camera manufacturers didnt embrace it. Nowdays photo made with a smartphone is more than enough for what vast majority of people actually need (social media and small print here and there).

@DBHC - it works in low light with moving objects - that is the major sale point of new camera phones. It also very well works in bright daylight with moving objects and makes RAW files out of multiple stacked images. My old Huawei Mate 10 lite does it and so do many other phones.
For social media sharing/internet and a small print here and there you cant really distinguish a photo made from a proper camera from that of a smartphone.
Heck, I've even made some commercial photos using only a smartphone.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2020 at 06:45 UTC
In reply to:

DBHC: I wonder why none of the comments mention that smartphone companies also have the same problems. They are having a harder and harder time selling the new models because the advantages are less and less.
Now people keep their smartphones for a much longer time. Earlier I changed smartphone almost every year, then every second year and now I have had the same Note 8 for 3 years.
Why? Because the difference to the new models are negligible.
Take the latest 108 MP Samsung S20 ultra. The files from the camera looks like watercolor. They look much worse than from the Note8.
Yeah it got a new processor and now 5G is coming, but it's all minor changes for the normal smartphone user and 5G is only available very few places.
So we see the decline in the adoption of new products which actually is good since humanity consumes way too much and therefore also destroy our nature.

@DBHC - or that. But I have found that the difference in image quality from top to midrange is not worth my money so ill stick to what my experience thought me :)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2020 at 06:38 UTC
In reply to:

DBHC: I wonder why none of the comments mention that smartphone companies also have the same problems. They are having a harder and harder time selling the new models because the advantages are less and less.
Now people keep their smartphones for a much longer time. Earlier I changed smartphone almost every year, then every second year and now I have had the same Note 8 for 3 years.
Why? Because the difference to the new models are negligible.
Take the latest 108 MP Samsung S20 ultra. The files from the camera looks like watercolor. They look much worse than from the Note8.
Yeah it got a new processor and now 5G is coming, but it's all minor changes for the normal smartphone user and 5G is only available very few places.
So we see the decline in the adoption of new products which actually is good since humanity consumes way too much and therefore also destroy our nature.

Thats why the smart buyer buys a midrange phone that offers almost the same performance as their flagship siblings and keeps it more than a year.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2020 at 13:08 UTC
In reply to:

Hellraiser: Computational photography really is the future. Too bad camera manufacturers didnt embrace it. Nowdays photo made with a smartphone is more than enough for what vast majority of people actually need (social media and small print here and there).

Under computational photography i consider increased DR and low light performance. Smartphones with computational photography fixed what they were lacking and closed the gap with proper cameras. Why would i want to buy a big brick that gives me the same performance as a small smartphone for what i need?
Camera manufacturers could have used the same trick and increase the performance of their output but they havent. And now that ship has pretty much sailed away...

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2020 at 13:03 UTC

Computational photography really is the future. Too bad camera manufacturers didnt embrace it. Nowdays photo made with a smartphone is more than enough for what vast majority of people actually need (social media and small print here and there).

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2020 at 11:04 UTC as 39th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Gesskay: While Many people didn't shoot M43,I believe no one can deny that Olympus was among the innovators of the Bunch.So many new features never seen before.Best in Class stabilization.Those who are laughing while saying "I told you so" are among the most ignorant of all photographers.It's a sad day indeed my friends

Of course phone cant do it all, but for most people, what phone can do - it is enough.
even in the day of film - most users either had a compact or a slr/rangefinder with a 50mm (or in some exceptions 35mm) lens on it. Those are the phone shooters of today.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2020 at 09:44 UTC
In reply to:

Jer81: How popular are these smartphone news items and topics compared to dedicated photo and video equipment?

I would like DPR to focus on dedicated photo and video equipment. Smartphones are the reason the camera manufacturers are struggling. So choose your side.

Edit: it isn't a transition for most users of this website
Smartphones will never be a valid option for people who want dedicated controls and be able to use different lenses. It is a valid option for a lot of people who like to take snapshots, but that isn't the audience of this website.

it is a transition - just like film to digital was :)

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2020 at 13:17 UTC
In reply to:

Gesskay: While Many people didn't shoot M43,I believe no one can deny that Olympus was among the innovators of the Bunch.So many new features never seen before.Best in Class stabilization.Those who are laughing while saying "I told you so" are among the most ignorant of all photographers.It's a sad day indeed my friends

@hjs_koeln for the kind of publishing that vast majority of consumers do (instagram, facebook and some digital photo sharing over IM) sharpness of phone photos is fare more than enough.
I've also made some professional photos by only using smartphone for publishing on realestate and hospitality sites. Customers were more than satisfied. Not everyone needs magazine print quality (less and less actually do - who the hell reads magazines these days?).
And new phones make pretty good photos even at low light. Top of the line phones take handheld night photos with less apparent noise than my APS-C camera does.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2020 at 13:10 UTC
In reply to:

Gesskay: While Many people didn't shoot M43,I believe no one can deny that Olympus was among the innovators of the Bunch.So many new features never seen before.Best in Class stabilization.Those who are laughing while saying "I told you so" are among the most ignorant of all photographers.It's a sad day indeed my friends

yeh... i dont really consider fake bokeh as computational photography. thats just a gimmick :)
but increased DR and low noise are superb examples how software can (could have) made cameras better...

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2020 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

Gesskay: While Many people didn't shoot M43,I believe no one can deny that Olympus was among the innovators of the Bunch.So many new features never seen before.Best in Class stabilization.Those who are laughing while saying "I told you so" are among the most ignorant of all photographers.It's a sad day indeed my friends

Yes - phones, pricing strategies, going all big (look at the lenses lately) and failure to innovate are the main culprits for the fall of camera.
Focusing on software of the camera also. Computational photography should have been a part of a camera makers strategy years ago. Now, even if they implement it, I think it would be too late.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2020 at 06:01 UTC

6th place photo is really the best one from the set, but no.1 and 2 are really good also. The rest arent really any special.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2020 at 19:55 UTC as 80th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Hellraiser: Cant wait till more computational photography features start appearing in proper cameras. There wont be any need more for sensors larger than 4/3 for most of us.

@apsc4ever - ill just add to the post above mine - lets not mix theory and practical performance. Another thing - smaller sensors will generally have less pixel count than same generation bigger ones so that is another thing that increases their performance besides the explanation above. You can say but then smaller sensor dont give the resolution figures bigger ones do. And that isnt true also - image stacking increases acutance.
Yes bigger sensors can also have CP, but that would be harder to implement and still carry the bulk of those large cameras. If a sensor of 1" size can have same DR as a FF one i wouldnt need to carry a brick around my neck and the neck would be happy :)
Some might need more resolution and more DR than I do and then 4/3 comes in, but why on earth would anyone want more than that and carry more weight?

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2020 at 07:59 UTC
Total: 1140, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »