thinkfat

Lives in Hessen
Works as a Project Manager, Linux Hacker
Has a website at http://thinkfat.blogspot.com
Joined on Jan 23, 2009
About me:

Go to Italy. Be a cobbler.

Comments

Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (196 comments in total)

thanks for linking to the video from the Oregon Star Party :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 14:09 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Yongnuo YN 85mm F1.8 lens now available (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: BTW, for people that never bothered to look it up, here are the stats:

Canon is 9 elements in 7 groups, f/22 minimum aperture, 75mm diameter * 72mm height and 425g.
Yongnuo is 9 elements in 6 groups, f/18 minimum aperture, 81mm diameter * 79.5mm height and 460g.

I love how people like Edmond Leung, bardick, Marksphoto, dansclic immediately call this a copy and trash with absolute no facts.

OK, so when the optical formula is different, and the mechanicals are different and the only common thing is the focal length and aperture and the mount it's still a copy? What exactly did they copy, then?

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Interesting. However even more interesting, and relevant, would be test scores for cameras that people here can actually buy now and use. Has the Olympus E-M1 II been tested by DXO? YI M1?

Why would someone not spend $2000 on a micro four thirds camera? I recently spent more than that amount on a 5D Mk III, for no better reason than to entertain myself (not a protog). I could have as well spent the same money on the Olympus, had I been so inclined.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:48 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: Many have stated it already. DXOMark themself said these results are not comparable, because RED likely uses temporal noise reduction on their RAW Files.
This means they unfortunately didn't trick physics.

How do you know that? The camera has no mechanical shutter, so how would you tell how the exposure was achieved? It could be multiple frames and a clever algorithm that suppresses the noise floor.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 10:45 UTC
In reply to:

Roadrunner123: Is it still possible to have Kodachrome developed anywhere?

No.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 08:27 UTC
On article Google Pixel XL camera review (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

vegasdood: IMHO this is another one-and-done experiment like the Motorola. I will bet you $1 that the new flagship Nokia phone will put this phone to shame from a camera standpoint, hardware and software. Plus with Samsung sort of in a "nothing-new" purgatory, until their S8/N8 reflect a delivery date, Pixel is the only 'new' phone out there now.

I'm looking. Snapdragon 652 cpu and Adreno 510 gpu does not sound even remotely like flagship. And rumoured does not sound like upcoming, either.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 22:31 UTC
On article Google Pixel XL camera review (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

vegasdood: IMHO this is another one-and-done experiment like the Motorola. I will bet you $1 that the new flagship Nokia phone will put this phone to shame from a camera standpoint, hardware and software. Plus with Samsung sort of in a "nothing-new" purgatory, until their S8/N8 reflect a delivery date, Pixel is the only 'new' phone out there now.

There won't ever be a Nokia flagship phone again. That ship has sailed. There will be some phones under the Nokia brand of course, but cheap and for emerging markets. IMHO. YMMV.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 08:37 UTC

It's easy to share photos from a smart phone. Maybe the flickr app on the iPhone is very good. Uploading photos from a DSLR is much more involving, so the numbers are lower. Plus, smartphone cameras nowadays ar epretty decent and the photos totally worth sharing. No surprise here.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 07:55 UTC as 16th comment
On article Narrative will stop selling its life-logging cameras (49 comments in total)

Wrong direction. Had the clip taken a Selfie every thirty seconds it would have been a success.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2016 at 06:13 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

mr.izo: so, canon, what about your sensor development? i know for fact, this is main and only reason people jumping boats..
i'm next probably, just don't want to leave all that fine lenses behind, and sony still have to prove that they work as on eos cameras..

Another sensor tech Canon is not going to use. Panasonic, please make a full-frame camera with this sensor.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 16:02 UTC
On article Lily Camera flies itself and follows its owner (155 comments in total)

Sorry, I'd rather have the Nixie. This thing is huge, more then 25cm square.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2015 at 07:32 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

nikon300s: What about AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR ? Same thing?

No, that's a Fresnel surface.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 15:26 UTC

The inverse variant already works pretty well. Try asking Google Image Search "People shopping at a vegetable market"

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2014 at 13:58 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Paul Guba: Surprising no one is talking about the use of LED in flash unit. I find that much more interesting then the duration.

Yes, they're called "smartphones".

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

TLD: Am I right in thinking that Yonguo strobes do not do e-TTL?

No

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 06:37 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2406 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: One thing this article doesn't mention is that as sensor tech improves, your lenses are basically getting faster. Today's gutter standard f2.8 lenses can outshine the f/0.95 lenses of yesteryear because you couldn't push film beyond ASA 800 much (aside from being very expensive). When people complain some new 50/1.8 lens isn't "fast" it is actually a whole lot faster than a 50/1.4 lens from just 5-10 years ago because of digital improvements on the sensor. A "slow" FF kit lens (f/3.5-5.6 usually) producing indoor nighttime ambient light shots would simply be unthinkable 5 years ago.

@Death89: no, a better sensor cannot capture more light than is projected by the lens. Which is given by the geometry of the lens and the attenuation of the glass elements. The usable ISO of the sensor doesn't at all matter for the "equivalence" explained by the article. It's a nice side effect of digital sensor technology to allow higher ISO than film and thus allowing higher shutter speeds with a slow lens (and maintaining a decent level of noise).

It's not that the better sensors are capturing more light in that situation, they can just make do with less. Faster shutter at same aperture -> less light, full stop. If you don't assume that, the whole equivalence of the article goes "puff", and if you do, the ISO becomes irrelevant for the argument. That's why I said it's rightfully been left out.

So this doesn't affect the image the lens projects. And therefore a f/1.8 lens doesn't become a f/0.95 lens, for all the article requires.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 15:07 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2406 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lights: The only part of Equivalence that I have a difficult time in understanding is why would more light fall on an equal sized cropped area of a larger sensor, if the sensors were of the same exact design, than on a cropped sensor? with the same exact lens? at the same aperture? Yes for an equivalent FOV with different lenses I can understand that more light would fall on the larger sensor, since the entrance diameter of the lens would be larger. All the other stuff I can understand more easily, the DOF being different, diffraction being different...and of course FOV. I'm not trying to argue, but rather trying to understand...or perhaps no one is really saying this ;-)

"Why would more light fall on an equal sized cropped area of a larger sensor, if the sensors were of the same exact design, than on a cropped sensor?"

You may have a difficult time understanding that, because it simply is not so. The cropped sensor behaves exactly the same as if you cropped the image from a larger sensor.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 12:56 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2406 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: One thing this article doesn't mention is that as sensor tech improves, your lenses are basically getting faster. Today's gutter standard f2.8 lenses can outshine the f/0.95 lenses of yesteryear because you couldn't push film beyond ASA 800 much (aside from being very expensive). When people complain some new 50/1.8 lens isn't "fast" it is actually a whole lot faster than a 50/1.4 lens from just 5-10 years ago because of digital improvements on the sensor. A "slow" FF kit lens (f/3.5-5.6 usually) producing indoor nighttime ambient light shots would simply be unthinkable 5 years ago.

The article doesn't mention it, because it has nothing to do with the topic. It's also wrong.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 12:50 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2406 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: 18 hours ago, David Jacobowitz made an argument that this article should cite work which helped evolve the concept of equivalence (or how I call it, the equivalence theoreme).

To this end, I observed that the concept was missing in internet discussions dated 2007, Jan 11. At that time, Daniel Buck in http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/544062/ described the Brenizer method on the Fred Miranda forum (actually before Ryan Brenizer "invented" it; he did not). The effect is easily understood using equivalence (stitching effectively creates a larger sensor). Yet, the fredmiranda discussion fails to recognize this relation and does a poor job explaining the effect or compute its effective aperture.

Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that the equivalence theoreme was discovered after 2007 January. Moreover, this is a nice example how useful the equivalence theoreme actually is ...

Exactly. Everyone with a basic understanding of math can do it. I involves no more than +-*/

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 12:47 UTC
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: There is nothing special about any of the Schneider lenses made for the Phase mount. The Hassy H lenses are superior in every way.
While Leica and Zeiss are the Porsche and Mercedes of the optics world, Schneider is VW.

You forgot that VW owns Porsche.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 08:45 UTC
Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »