Teila Day

Teila Day

Lives in United States FL, United States
Has a website at www.teiladay.com
Joined on Apr 5, 2005

Comments

Total: 544, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Low light noise at iso 3200 is the same as on the Pentax K-1 at iso 6400 (pixelshift 12.800 is even marginally better). And the same as iso 12.800 on the 645z. Pixel size is 4.5um the same as on the A7RII. Sony should have used their BSI-cmos tech to make this sensor outperform their older 36mp and 52mp sensors.

@Favorable... by all means, in the sincere spirit of learning something from you, please direct me to examples of where "pixel-shift" has made strides in shooting dynamic content.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 00:57 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: This, and Ansel Adams' other cameras, should really be in a museum, so that future generations can wonder in amazement (as I do today) at the incredible dedication that drove Ansel to clamber up inhospitable mountainsides with all his cumbersome gear, to obtain the incredible photographs that will continue to be revered long after all of us are dead.

Nothing stops "the public" from crowd sourcing funds to buy multi-million dollar artworks to be put into museums. The bottom line is that most of the public just isn't interested. Adam's camera isn't exactly a "public treasure" in the first place, no more than the first Apple computer. Had Adam's been the first to be hired as an official photographer for the nation's "forestry service" (just an example) and used the camera which was paid for by taxes, then that would be a different story... Private property being auctioned off to private bidding-- fine by me!

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

PKDanny: 4x5 DSLR is coming soon!!

PKDanny is right.. though it might not be coming "soon"; but you can bet your bottom dollar that 4x5 detail/quality will be made available in a hand holdable, likely mirrorless, form factor. I'm eager for the tech to get there.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2016 at 00:13 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Fujifilm Interview (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

dosdan: It will be interesting to see how Pentax responds to Fujifilm's MF if it's a successful product. Perhaps they'll try and cut down the camera size and go mirrorless and drop the price. The Pentax MF lenses are designed for a fairly deep 70.87 mm flange distance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance) which will limit how thin a MF camera Pentax can build.

Ultimately though these MF cameras are crying out for tripod use to fully realise their resolution potential, so camera bulk (or lack of it) may not be that much of a differentiator.

Competition is good.

Dan.

@dulynoted... and while running out of shutter speed is always something to consider, it was far more of an issue in the days of film and early years of digital.

I've sold work at 16,000 ISO (the background matters), handheld with the 645Z. Today I can have the best of both worlds; I can shoot on the dark side of a building early in the morning at f/16 or so, iso 100, using a tripod; go into the residence, shoot looking down from a 2nd floor balcony looking down into the living room with natural light coming into the windows, handheld, 6400-12800 iso... and things are getting even better with each generation of sensors. ** I can do far more with the 645Z, than I could with the Canon 5D2. No contest.

Bigger sensor? Yes... but the high iso capabilities of modern sensors makes hand holding much less of an issue compared to older tech or shooting/pushing film.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2016 at 18:15 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Fujifilm Interview (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

dosdan: It will be interesting to see how Pentax responds to Fujifilm's MF if it's a successful product. Perhaps they'll try and cut down the camera size and go mirrorless and drop the price. The Pentax MF lenses are designed for a fairly deep 70.87 mm flange distance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance) which will limit how thin a MF camera Pentax can build.

Ultimately though these MF cameras are crying out for tripod use to fully realise their resolution potential, so camera bulk (or lack of it) may not be that much of a differentiator.

Competition is good.

Dan.

dulynoted.. you're 100% correct. Handholding isn't even remotely an issue when shooting MF as long as one uses he/her common sense. I remember the days when people were going on and on about a 12mp Nikon D2x being hard to "hand hold" due to it's whopping huge number of pixels... Same drivel. ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2016 at 00:33 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Low light noise at iso 3200 is the same as on the Pentax K-1 at iso 6400 (pixelshift 12.800 is even marginally better). And the same as iso 12.800 on the 645z. Pixel size is 4.5um the same as on the A7RII. Sony should have used their BSI-cmos tech to make this sensor outperform their older 36mp and 52mp sensors.

.... That's what I was getting at with the "fruit-in-a-bowl" comment; meaning that you basically have to shoot something static to get any real-world use out of the feature. It's old, but great technology and I surely wouldn't want to have to fiddle with software in attempts to making less-visible any "movement" such as hair in the wind, etc., in the resulting photographs.

Don't be fooled, lenses $1k more expensive typically have attributes that pixel shift can't come close to compensating for :)

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

elefteriadis alexandros: I look at 100% and the images is mediocre, no tack sharp and with lot of artifacts and unacceptable noise, maybe its from jpg compression?
I think with a good 50mp clean file and good resize you are very close to this.

@historianx.. Working photographers who shoot in order to eat, pay several mortgages, and send kids to college; who use various MF cameras in their work can probably see the irony in your statement.

"People should be less **tunnel visioned** on 'sharpness'; There's a time and place for "tack sharp"

I stand by that true statement 100%

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 04:45 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: No 4K? What is the typical size of a single RAW file? What kind of gear would be required for the workflow?

I'm guessing roughly 160mb raws. You can process the files easily on practically any reasonably fast computer whether it be a notebook computer or workstation, tethered or not. If you have Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One software, etc., and any reasonable backup solution (drive space is cheap), then you're in business.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 04:23 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Low light noise at iso 3200 is the same as on the Pentax K-1 at iso 6400 (pixelshift 12.800 is even marginally better). And the same as iso 12.800 on the 645z. Pixel size is 4.5um the same as on the A7RII. Sony should have used their BSI-cmos tech to make this sensor outperform their older 36mp and 52mp sensors.

Pixel shift is great, but unless you're shooting fruit-in-a-bowl...

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 04:00 UTC
In reply to:

Zdman: I can't believe how much better even print size looks. So even downscaled the advantage is huge. that 12mp is more than you'll ever need doesn't seem to hold anymore as I'd rather have the downsized phase One XF 8mp image than a full res 30-50mp one. Just look at how much sharper the sponge is or the brush is.

@Zdman, People too often uttered such untrue statements ... "12mp is more than you'll ever need.." was of course never true. Just as we won't be firmly immersed in large format territory until 200-300mp. Manufacturers unfortunately have the masses thinking that 36, 50 and 100mp is whoppingly huge.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 03:57 UTC
In reply to:

JamesMD172: Would this be good for street photography?

@Biowizard ... No irony, since medium format has been used for street photography for decades by professionals and amateurs alike. Medium format *easily* allows the capture of day-to-day activity in metropolitan areas. The problem is people have been programmed to think "1dx = sports, medium format = portraits, still life & landscape, etc.." ... unfortunately.

I'd *definitely* choose to shoot MF over a 1Dx for most things in the New Orleans French Quarter; large fish markets in Korea; busy tourists streets around San Francisco (Market, Powell, etc.). The bottom line is that unlike shooting say, football, you can immerse yourself in great "street" shots quite easily without autofocus and only a 35 or 50mm prime. Shooting at f/16, 1/400 or so straight down Canal St. (New Orleans) to capture tens of thousands of Carnival revelers, yields better results/detail at 100mp as opposed to current 20mp - 36mp options.

Should've used a Turbine Beaver in your analogy :)

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 03:52 UTC
In reply to:

elefteriadis alexandros: I look at 100% and the images is mediocre, no tack sharp and with lot of artifacts and unacceptable noise, maybe its from jpg compression?
I think with a good 50mp clean file and good resize you are very close to this.

There is no contest between 100mp and 50mp when it comes to detail. We're only on the cusp of resolving detail in such a manner that the sensor can easily render hairs, detail of an eye's iris, and other fine detail well without having to finesse macro lenses and extension tubes. 200-300mp puts us in the sweet spot. Resolution is like horsepower in a tractor. People should be less tunnel visioned on 'sharpness'; There's a time and place for "tack sharp" :)

What's apparent to me is that this 100mp sensor in a 645 Pentax would offer *me* far more real world benefits over the phase system; other than sync speed. I don't find a lot of features on the Phase useful (focus points, high(er) iso, tilt screen, etc.). That said, this Phase is a nice kit.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 04:24 UTC
In reply to:

JamesMD172: Would this be good for street photography?

... Like asking would a certain car be good for your particular family. We wouldn't know; it depends on *your* needs, wants, and goals for street photography. For me, I prefer medium format hands down for street photography while others would rather use a 1Dx or other 35mm based cameras.
It also depends what you're going to do with the photographs.... stock photography? print to canvas? fine art prints? What is good for street photography most depends on what the photographer aims to photograph, where the action is, and the use of the photos.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

DamianFI: DPReview team,

An article comparing the most popular half dozen ND (and CPL) filters would be much appreciated by many!

@agentul, excellent post. It's amazing that filters (one of the most basic facets of photography) haven't been compared on this site. They should also do a test related to the degradation in image quality related to using clear filters as "protection" to tamp down myths and how probable or improbable lens flare is under typical use.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 13:17 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoRotterdam: To quote: "The tonality and color of the images are something else"

This is what you see when you go from APS-c to FF: different tonality and colors.
So, I wonder how the 50MP X1D and the new Fuji will be compared to this. That's the reason you'd like to upgrade. The X1D images I have seen looked very promising in this respect.

I get the physics aspect, however I think people lean far too heavily on the mechanics and superlatives, as opposed to the reality of using the larger CMOS sensors and looking at differences in prints and differences that their eyeballs can see as opposed to parroting sites like DXO, et al. (1) I get better higher iso performance **in practice** and colour range in the whites when using CMOS sensor MF than using a D800 series Nikon or 5D series Canon and most other APSC or FF cameras.

The smaller 645 digital offerings are no more 'cropped' than a 645 being a 'cropped' version of a 6x9. FF denotes a specific digital or film size. "Medium Format" refers to a wide range of sizes.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 20:29 UTC
In reply to:

tex: Hmmmm, interesting...I actually expected more. I figured it would really spank the 645Z, but I'm not seeing that----the rez is certainly higher, but i don't feel like he higher iso performance is that much better.

I also noticed the high iso benefit over the 645z to be miniscule. What gets me is the resolution alone, and that's what has me hankering for a lot more resolution. Hair is one of the toughest things for smaller sensors to render nicely. While the 645z does a fine job at rendering fine blonde hair on a dark sun-tanned lower back, 100mp does, and higher resolutions will do, a noticeably much better job at capturing the realm of "small detail". That said, Sony made one heck of a sensor (understatement) and Ricoh/Pentax did a darn strong job with the 645z.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoRotterdam: To quote: "The tonality and color of the images are something else"

This is what you see when you go from APS-c to FF: different tonality and colors.
So, I wonder how the 50MP X1D and the new Fuji will be compared to this. That's the reason you'd like to upgrade. The X1D images I have seen looked very promising in this respect.

@ET2... I see *less* of an image quality jump going from a 1.6x Canon 7D to a FF Canon 5D2, than from going from a 5D2 to a Pentax 645z.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 17:49 UTC
In reply to:

ottonis: From ISO 1600 and beyond the PhaseOne is clearly inferior w/r to noise when compared to contemporary FF cameras such K1 etc., even when scaled down to equal resolution/size.
I really wonder why these MF sensors are lagging behind FF sensors in low light performance, considering their significantly larger size. Is that possibly caused by tuning them for highest DR at base ISO? Or are the most recent advancements in sensor technology just too vulnerable in order to provide sufficient (silicon wafer) yield rates?

Best

David

@Wild Light "The sort of people that use this camera don't often shoot over 400"
... (sigh) I really wish people would quit perpetuating that myth. Sure, back when shooting 400 ISO using a MFDB equated to being on the fringe of getting ratty results, yes.. shooting at anything other than base ISO was a compromise. That hasn't been true for years.

Shooting a CMOS equipped MF camera gives the photographer opportunity to use ISOS that weren't commonly used many years ago, because they were practically unusable. ** Not because we didn't want to use them, or couldn't make use good of them for actual work ** ... especially in portraiture when biting sharp facial detail isn't always wanted and when shooting at base or the use of flash isn't possible or wanted. Shooting 3200 ISO at f/10 for 1 or 2 sec, no flash, is often within real-world parameters of many working professionals shooting MF.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

ottonis: From ISO 1600 and beyond the PhaseOne is clearly inferior w/r to noise when compared to contemporary FF cameras such K1 etc., even when scaled down to equal resolution/size.
I really wonder why these MF sensors are lagging behind FF sensors in low light performance, considering their significantly larger size. Is that possibly caused by tuning them for highest DR at base ISO? Or are the most recent advancements in sensor technology just too vulnerable in order to provide sufficient (silicon wafer) yield rates?

Best

David

@cameron2 ... ((chuckle)) :) Just giving you my real-word response to your "When would you ever shoot a camera like this at ISO 1600 or higher?..." Luckily for us today, we can enjoy shooting with shutter speed, aperture, ISO combinations that were practically impossible only a decade ago. Wonderful options theses days! I am a fan of using a tripod, however there are so many places and situations where using such isn't possible.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 17:14 UTC
In reply to:

razadaz: It's ironic really. Photography started with large cameras that shot beautiful high definition photographs. Look at some of the old Vogue photographs shot on 10x8inch view cameras. As time progressed photographers turned to smaller formats on 120 roll film with lower quality images. By the 60s many photographers were shooting on 35mm. Images of much lower quality and high grain appeared in Vogue and other magazines on a regular basis.

Now we seem to be moving in the other direction. Fashion or evolution?

Manlike Tier .... Why do people keep basically saying that MF cameras aren't for "street" photography, when in fact they work well for street (I find them more attractive for street photography most of the time over a 1Dx, etc..). People over the decades have used MF cameras during war, concerts, street reportage.. especially with the old 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9's (even 4x5). Same goes for today- it's just better in many respects because we don't have to deal with the inconveniences of film developing, scanning and or mastering prints with more versatility.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f6/86/a5/f686a5b9f33243c8256aa84a65c24761.jpg

http://www.editorialphotos.co.uk/uploads/1/3/0/8/13080214/1058518_orig.jpg

http://www.p1600.com/8cc276a6-5814-4bd8-844d-507a204325ed/gallery/2013/5/1200/1200_130139766184218750_788.jpg

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 03:00 UTC
Total: 544, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »