tbcass

tbcass

Lives in United States Central, NY, United States
Works as a Master of the Universe
Joined on Nov 21, 2005
About me:

Sony RX10iii
Sony RX100
Sony A77ii
Sony A77
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 USD
Sony 35mm f1.8
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 "C" lens
Tamron 70-300 USD
Tamron 150-600 USD
Tamron 16-300
Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro
Also play Bass Guitar and Keyboards
Fender Squier Jazz Fretless 4 String
Fender Precision Lyte fretted 4 string
Fender Squire Dimension 5 string
Yamaha TPG635 electronic Piano/Keyboard

Comments

Total: 822, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: I must say I'm a bit surprised to see noise at a ISO100 shot in the sky, let alone ISO800 to the degree it has it. I had a A7RII prior to my Fuji X-T2 move and this is one of the things I feel was a step UP for me. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed Sony's cameras for years. I'm sure for some use it's great, but for the purposes shown in the samples I'm not the least bit impressed. Oh well......

Take a look at this to compare the A99ii and XT-2. Most of what you see in the DPR samples is due to poor RAW processing.;

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 00:02 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: with all due respect, the SLT mirror (not glass) is semi translucent and transmits all but 1/3rd of a stop of the light. In reality that's not half bad to say the least. Sure worth the fact it can nicely track video. I've got to hand it to Sony, their marketing ideas are pretty bold but more often than not they get the job done. It is more than a stop improvement over the A77MkII. The focus speeds are super. I had a A77MkII for a bit and I have to admit I sure did love the fit and feel of the body in my hands let alone that capable screen. They did handicap this one a tad just to preserve the A77RII from being completely encroached upon, but overall they did a good job. It sure kicks the Canon 5KMkIV in the butt that's for sure. The primary advantage other than shear resolution over the D500 I see is it's video tracking (which is pretty much non existent on a D500). But all in all it's competitive.

Richard Murdey
That's not the way DSLRs work. With a DSLR the light passes through a semi transparent portion of the mirror and is then reflected off another mirror so, just like the SLT, most of the light does not get to the PDAF sensor.

https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-works

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 23:59 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1290 comments in total)
In reply to:

gibbygoo: So is it a problem that I'm a full-time professional photographer and I have no idea what pixel-pitch is, why it matters or how I would notice the difference?

gibbygoo
Most modern cameras have IQ that is easily good enough for almost all professional work. The fact that most Pros use Canon despite the fact they don't have the best IQ is testament to that. Among Pros probably only those involved in fine art need the best possible IQ. Among hobbyists though the best IQ from the best gear is a goal unto itself and your condescending attitude is unwarranted.

I have to say though that among watercolor artists I bet that they desire the best brushes they can get. Musicians, professional and otherwise, often argue over what is the best equipment and in fact will go on an on over fine differences in sound that non musicians can't even hear. Astronomers desire the best telescopes. I'd say that photography is one of the few professions where the pros tend to be so clueless about their equipment.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 01:41 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1290 comments in total)
In reply to:

calson: As with so many other reviews the individual ignores completely the advantages in size, cost, and performance of the fast pro lenses available for this camera. It is very different than the situation with Canon or Nikon APS-C camera where owners have to use full frame lenses or mediocre wide angle zooms that are also slow. When it comes to a MFT camera and lens kit the MFT kit is going to be half the weight and half the bulk of the APS-C or full frame equivalent and half the cost. I have the Olympus 300mm f/4 OS lens and it is easily the equal of the Nikon 600mm f/4 VR lens that I also own and use and the Olympus lens was a third the cost and weighs 5 lbs. less and it small enough to get on a plane. With my full frame lenses a 500mm is the largest I can take in my carry on backpack.
Most performance issues mentioned are the type that can be corrected with firmware updates which will occur as with the E-M1 camera after its introduction.

No review should ever be done with the idea that a firmware update might, or might never, come. As far as high frame rates, it's much easier to achieve them with smaller, lower resolution sensors. I'd like to add that 12bit IQ on a FF camera is still much better than the best a 4/3 can achieve. I bet you can't even see the difference between 12bit and 14 bit.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 01:33 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1290 comments in total)
In reply to:

Amin Sabet: I just downloaded the RAW files for the ISO 6400 studio scene comparison of EM1 II, X-T2, D500. All were shot at f/5.6 but the Olympus and Fuji used a shutter speed of 1/2500s while the Nikon was at 1/1250s and is clearly exposed brighter when looking at the RAW data. In the JPEG comparison it was 1/1600s for the Nikon, 1/2000s for the others.

I don't know if that was an isolated error or whether you are not aiming for equal exposures in general. Certainly gives the Nikon an advantage in these particular comparisons. I went in thinking the Fuji would need a slower shutter speed for a JPEG of a certain brightness at a given nominal ISO (they have a track record of that). Surprised to see it was Nikon.

It's things like this that make me take these studio scenes with a large grain of salt. A lot of real world samples under a wide variety of conditions are far more useful IMO.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 01:27 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1290 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gcookie: Can someone tell Olympus to fix their web site. The link to the manuals for the Mark II has been broken for a while. Nothing like buying this camera and not being able to get a manual.

Real men don't read instructions.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 01:25 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1290 comments in total)

I wonder how this matches up to the GH5? This is pretty expensive for a 4/3 encroaching on FF territory but if you want the ultimate 4/3 this is it for now. That makes it worth the price.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 01:24 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: I must say I'm a bit surprised to see noise at a ISO100 shot in the sky, let alone ISO800 to the degree it has it. I had a A7RII prior to my Fuji X-T2 move and this is one of the things I feel was a step UP for me. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed Sony's cameras for years. I'm sure for some use it's great, but for the purposes shown in the samples I'm not the least bit impressed. Oh well......

SmilerGrogan
Sorry but you are going off on a tangent and your reply is irrelevant to the conversation. Maybe you don't understand what we were talking about, comparing noise visually between 2 sensors of differing resolutions. As a side note. Printing has a tendency to greatly reduce the amount of noise visible.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 20:34 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: I must say I'm a bit surprised to see noise at a ISO100 shot in the sky, let alone ISO800 to the degree it has it. I had a A7RII prior to my Fuji X-T2 move and this is one of the things I feel was a step UP for me. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed Sony's cameras for years. I'm sure for some use it's great, but for the purposes shown in the samples I'm not the least bit impressed. Oh well......

SmilerGrogan
You seem to be clueless as to what is meant by normalizing. When you print at a common size that is normalizing because normalizing is viewing at the same size regardless of sensor resolution. So when you print at 16x20 regardless of sensor resolution you are normalizing to 16x20. Viewing at 100% on the other hand is like printing at the maximum possible size allowed by the sensor. In essence with a 42mp sensor it may be possible to print to a maximum 54"x 36" (at 150 DPI) before pixelation becomes evident. With a 16mp sensor at 150 DPI the maximum size would be 32"x22". To normalize for comparison between the 2 sensors you would print both to 32"x22" which is the maximum possible with 16mp. When you view at 100% on your computer monitor it's much like printing at the maximum possible print size. So to compare the 2 sensors for noise (or anything else) you would resize the 42mp image to 16mp and then compare.
http://digitalphotographylive.com/megapixels-vs-print-size/

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 18:42 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: An LCD screen? A split prism? And a film cartridge? You see anything wrong with this?

I mean -- there is a digital image already. Why record on film and then scan it to a digital image? What can this do that a software filter cannot do?

This is as crazy as it can get.

I suppose someone will make some grainy, hazy horror movie with it hand held that will make people dizzy and sick due to camera movement.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 21:18 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: An LCD screen? A split prism? And a film cartridge? You see anything wrong with this?

I mean -- there is a digital image already. Why record on film and then scan it to a digital image? What can this do that a software filter cannot do?

This is as crazy as it can get.

I don't know how this turned into a film vs digital debate because that's not the point. It's about the poor quality of super 8 film so it should be about super 8 vs 35mm or 70mm. Super 8 is compact but in that realm digital wins easily. With larger formats well, that's a different story.

I'll make a prediction. A couple years from now we will have forgotten this super 8 camera even existed.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 21:04 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: I see nothing wrong with young people, even old, trying out something that was wonderful at the time.

Not everything that is old is bad. What is wrong with people doing what They want, not what some people think they should want.

Yes, the whole point is not that it's film but that it's super 8 which has poor quality due to the small size.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 20:58 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: To all the haters:

My grandfather shot Kodachrome Super 8 & also black and white movies of his kids. Those movies look as good today as they did when they were shot.

How good will all your digital videos look in 65 years from now? Will they even exist?

I can shoot some film and put it in an archival box with a projector, and know it will be viewable in 100 years as long as there is a source of electricity. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about any digital information formats.

And honestly how much more often do you really want to watch such videos? lol.

Also, protip: clouds evaporate.

Actually digital has the promise of maintaining quality indefinitely as long as you keep backing it up to newer archival methods every few years. I do that. For people that do not do that, well, that's not my problem. BTW film does deteriorate as some of my old Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides have (fungus).

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 18:29 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: I see nothing wrong with young people, even old, trying out something that was wonderful at the time.

Not everything that is old is bad. What is wrong with people doing what They want, not what some people think they should want.

I'll add one thing. The idea that film looks better than digital is only an opinion. I like the look of digital better.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 18:20 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

KrisAK: Sample footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXzv_F07BNo

Even on a 24" monitor it looks bad.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 14:33 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Maybe time to make a digital film camera that makes a buzzing sound while filming, where every frame is displaced slightly, that is now and then out of focus, with added noise, scratches, dust and graininess and where you have to hold the film button in during filming. And, of course, with bad colors. The realistic colors of normal digital cameras is of course unthinkable.

Actually, the buzzing sound might be a good idea. Also to be forced to hold the button in. It will add a tactile feeling. The major problem for me to film with compact cameras and phones is that I am not sure it is filming.

I don't see any hostility. Just people questioning why anybody wants to spend money on this. Curiosity I guess. Of course if someone is making a period movie and wants to show movies as they looked at the time but that's pretty rare.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 14:32 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: I see nothing wrong with young people, even old, trying out something that was wonderful at the time.

Not everything that is old is bad. What is wrong with people doing what They want, not what some people think they should want.

It's not the fact that it's film. It's that it is super 8! That film format is just too small to give anything but atrocious quality. Even 16mm film isn't that good. 35mm should be the minimum. I grew up with this stuff, home movies etc, it's awful.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 14:29 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (407 comments in total)

Why? Of course some film aficionados will be happy but how many will they sell, 100? Add to that super 8 quality is terrible!!!!!!!!!! Can someone tell me what the point of this is?

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 14:25 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: I must say I'm a bit surprised to see noise at a ISO100 shot in the sky, let alone ISO800 to the degree it has it. I had a A7RII prior to my Fuji X-T2 move and this is one of the things I feel was a step UP for me. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed Sony's cameras for years. I'm sure for some use it's great, but for the purposes shown in the samples I'm not the least bit impressed. Oh well......

It makes sense to normalize for size if you are comparing noise between two sensors of different pixel resolutions. A 24mp photo viewed at 100% will be significantly less magnified than a 42mp photo, the greater the magnification the more apparent the noise. This is just common sense. It's the reason DXO normalizes photos before taking measurements. It's the reason 6mp photos from long ago often look like they have less noise at 100% than modern high res photos despite the fact they have a much worse signal to noise ratio.

As for real life, yes we normalize for size every time we print or view a photo at anything less than 100% on our monitors. I didn't invent the standard. It's an accepted standard among reviewers and anybody with a knowledge of the technical aspects of photography.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

Woodyz: Is there a real reason to buy this camera if you don't already own A-mount lenses?

Investing into A-mount seems like a unnecessarily risky move.

AngularJS
I know only one thing. I don't go to forums of other brands and mounts or reviews of cameras I do not own and criticize those cameras for every flaw I can find. I consider that rude and insensitive.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:02 UTC
Total: 822, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »