|
awelch100
Lives in
Jacksonville, FL, United States
Has a website at
http://www.apwimages.com/
Joined on
Sep 10, 2012
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |
| Prague by Manuel Jos Carvajal from Your City - Rooftops | Docklands, Victoria, Australia... by Timotis77 from Where I live | DONALD SPRAYING STEAM by TX Photo Doc from Car Shows 2018 | Just happy! by fan700 from Smile |
mosc: Sony should have let them use E-mount. These lenses wouldn't be that much bigger and it would open so many more lens options for their drone/camera. Sony sells more lenses and they probably already make the sensor so how do they not win?
Two reasons- 1) Money. A proprietary mount means that people have to buy lenses from DJI. 2) Size and weight. The gimbal and drone need to be properly balanced. Throwing random E-mount lenses on it would be disastrous. Some dummy would inevitably destroy their camera and gimbal by trying to fly a 70-200mm f/2.8 or the like.
Ruekon: With 1000 fps, HDR photography should become a pleasure to use. Take for instance 2 shots in 2/1000s of a second. Even if a bit more time would be needed for full size images, the results might make discussions about dynamic range of smartphones obsolete!
While the sensor may be able to do a full readout 1000 times per second, that doesn't mean that the camera can capture images at that speed. The actual frame rate will be determined by a number of factors, including memory speed and bandwidth. In other words, the camera is only as fast as it's slowest part. Where this will make a definite difference is in video capture. The fast sensor readout will eliminate much of the "jello" effect caused by the CMOS sensor's rolling shutter.
K25: what is the point of fixed lens digital cameras?
Fixed lens cameras had 2 main advantages vs. ILC in film/flashbulbs era: 1) size (thanks mirrorless) 2) shorter flash synchro time (thanks central shutter)
But nowadays?
More compact with better optics than an equivalent ILC, leaf shutter, built in 3 stop ND filter.
JackM: Whatever turned the greens to orange and brown, it wasn't the Mavic.
I'm pretty sure they just applied the infamous M31 LUT at full strength and called it a day.
awelch100: This is the perfect example of someone pushing 8-bit 4:2:0 LOG footage past the breaking point in post. I'll be willing to bet that the original, ungraded footage looked decent but then they graded it way too hard. For example, the sky is so blocky that it looks like something out of Minecraft. Had they shot in a more linear gamma and not gone so extreme in their grading (or more likely, LUT selection), then I'll bet the footage would have looked pretty darn good.
The Mavic Pro has the same camera electronics as the Phantom 4 so the results should be very similar. If shot under the right conditions, with the correct setting and graded lightly, the Mavic and Phantom 4 can produce some nice footage. The problem is that many Mavic Pro owners don't know how to do this.
Your right though, the Phantom 4 Pro should handily beat both of them with it's 1" sensor and better recording options. Now, if they would only put that camera on the Mavic body...
This is the perfect example of someone pushing 8-bit 4:2:0 LOG footage past the breaking point in post. I'll be willing to bet that the original, ungraded footage looked decent but then they graded it way too hard. For example, the sky is so blocky that it looks like something out of Minecraft. Had they shot in a more linear gamma and not gone so extreme in their grading (or more likely, LUT selection), then I'll bet the footage would have looked pretty darn good.
jadot: I really liked the video, but as others have suggested the actual IQ doesn't do the Mavic any favours.
I really want to like the portable, inexpensive drone, but I can't find any footage that sells it to me.
Yes, I'd pay $1500 for that. I like the IQ of the Phantom 4 Pro but not the size. Also, I think the Mavic Pro's IQ is pretty decent, as long as you shoot under the right conditions and don't try to grade it heavily.
This video is a perfect example of what not to do- shooting in 8-bit LOG and then pushing it too far in post. I downloaded the 700MB original clip from Vimeo and it's pretty much just as ugly. If you look at the sky, the severity of the artifacts are unbelievable. Had they shot in a more linear profile and not tried to go so extreme in post, it would have looked just fine.
Roadrunner123: Looking beautiful but will the speed of focus make me want to save my pennies and upgrade from my X100? If it can take the kids running about the indoor soft play place then yes, if not then no.
From the original X100? For sure. Lightyears better.
Tapper123: I'm probably buying one. Never owned any X100 but have always been interested. My only gripe is lack of weather seals, but apparently Fuji claims they couldn't add it without a redesign of the lens. Maybe next model?
My X100S is my favorite camera of all time. I'll probably retire it an pick up the X100F since the sensor and AF have been updated.
falconeyes: I believe this is the relevant paper (2nd session):
http://ieee-iedm.org/session-30-display-and-imaging-systems-advanced-imagers-and-photodetectors/
And back in 2013:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6576670&isnumber=6576594&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fstamp%2Fstamp.jsp%3Ftp%3D%26arnumber%3D6576670%26isnumber%3D6576594
However, I see no reason why an organic film sensitive to an electric field cannot be used as a global shutter in a conventional sensor, i.e., covering the entire sensor ignoring its pixel structure.
If such kind of "organic shutter film" would exist with good quality, then why on earth isn't everybody already replacing mechanical shutters by such films?
I know they control conversion efficiency rather than transparency. But I imagine the two properties are closely related.
Something doesn't add up here ...
Precisely- it's because an organic film of such quality hasn't existed until now, which is the whole point. Panasonic and Fuji have been developing this for years and it's only now reached the stage where it is production ready. Both of those papers you cited were written by Fujifilm and Panasonic researchers.
Antahkarana: With regards to formats, Fuji chose APS-C because it is striking a balance between portability (i.e. smaller bodies and lenses) vs. low-light/dynamic range performance of sensors.
Medium format-wise, perhaps Fuji would differentiate itself from competitors with a Pentax 67 style body? Years back, I was considering purchasing a 67 due to its large frame on 120/220 films. The prints this camera made were buttery smooth in comparison to 35mm and its operation was similar to 35mm bodies vs. Hasselblads and Rolleis.
With the worldwide economy slowing, camera makers need to be focused on quality products that differentiate themselves. Me-too products will not get most people excited and people will tend to stick with what they have until they really feel it is useful to upgrade.
@nerd2- Come on, you can't compare the size of an auto-focus APS-C lens with a manual focus FF lens, they are two different beasts.
Bhima78: Mind boggled that the A7 II wins over the D750. Even though I have fully converted to mirrorless, if I had to buy a high end ILC, i'd get the one that actually has an amazing native lens library. Taken as a system, the D750 is leagues better.
The sad thing is that almost no one that voted has actually read a review of, let alone used, an A7 II. Admittedly, it looks good on paper but I still think that it shouldn't have been included in the Best Of 2014" since it wasn't released in most markets until 2015.
misolo: Why is it always near impossible to find out the sensor size and focal length on these things?
Because it's sensor size is not something they would want to advertise considering how small it is compared to many other camera sensors. The Hero4's sensor is almost certainly 1/2.3", just like the previous versions.
peevee1: "Professional quality video capture at 2.7K30"
Another marketing invention? What is that 2.7K30, something like 1500p30? Or is it 2700 pixel wide, but the same 1080 lines high?
You would use the 25/50fps option if you were shooting specifically for distribution in countries which use the DVB standards. This includes most of Europe and Asia. The 30/60fps options would be chosen for North American distribution.
peevee1: "Professional quality video capture at 2.7K30"
Another marketing invention? What is that 2.7K30, something like 1500p30? Or is it 2700 pixel wide, but the same 1080 lines high?
2704 x 1520 in 16:9 mode and 2704 x 2028 in 4:3 (4:3 on Black Edition only).
It's useful to shoot in "2.7k", apply software image stabilization in post and output at 2K.
tuerta photography: Very nice, but at that price I'd have to liquidate my lens collection just to afford that body. I was hoping it was going to be priced under the a7R
I can't believe anyone is complaining about the price of this camera. It is a full-frame, 4K shooting body for $2500! Please name anything else with it's capabilities that is even remotely in it's price range.
I'm invested in Canon/Fujifilm and am not sold on the Sony A series as a system yet, but damn, this is a great deal for those who want to shoot 4k video.
SuvoMitra: Yes, well done, Fuji. Nice cameras and great support. I've stayed with the classic X100, which is a different camera now with FW 2.0. Also, the WCL-X100 is amazing if a 28mm equiv is sometimes preferable, without loss of quality. For me, the X100+WCL functions as two different cameras that do different things in combination with other cameras/focal lengths.
@Plastek- Not true. What exactly makes an adaptor/converter inherently inferior? More glass? Well, if that was true then we would expect any lens with more than one element to produce infereior quality images.
Perhaps what you are referring to are generalized focal length adaptors and converters. In that case, what you state would likely be true. The 28mm adaptor for the X100/X100S is not one of those, as it is specifically designed for use with the 23mm f/2.0 lens and no other.
Buhl213: When one buys X-trans or Foveon equipment, it is because it is deemed superior to common mass-marked targeted Bayer-alternatives by the consumer, right? Why can this consumer not understand that it is an informed choice he/she makes, a choice that also excludes the "normal" software-support from software-vendors who has chosen to target the 70-80% of the most common marketplace within the photography-segment with the best ROI (same software, same demosaiching, same filter-mechanisms, a new table to describe a new lens) ?
I see no economic reason that these SW-vendors should support less common technologies unless directly paid to do so, and hence the camera-vendors have to make it a competitive technology (in terms of quantity, not quality), or seek alternatives (e.g. paying SilkyPix or SPP-developers to do the job).
In other words: STOP WHINING. Go take some pictures - and let the Sonikonicus-users enjoy their support, they need it, they bought inferior & conform technologies ;)
The reason people are whining is because Fuji reps have claimed that the company has been working with Apple and Adobe to improve(or include) support for X-Trans cameras.
You are correct about the software developers. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to devote resources to support a technology that is only found in a small percentage of cameras. The blame falls squarely on Fuji.
Still no Fujis...