LaFonte

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 28, 2008

Comments

Total: 321, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »
In reply to:

andrzej bialuski: Has anyone here ordered this Test Camera?

I did 2 days ago and got an order confirmation from Sigma, but no shipping date. nor a way to check status of my order.
Is your experience similar to mine?
Did Sigma sent you a link to check your order online?

My bet would be that there were thousands like you and the logistic went poof. Many times companies that do not sell directly don't prepare for the real world of shipping and returning.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 00:25 UTC

The ISO 100 is a total blast, but it goes downhill so fast after that! As an amateur I can't stay with ISO 100 for my normal shooting and the higher ISO noise defeats the purpose of a special sensor.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 00:13 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon 1 V3 stock shortage prompts official apology (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

plasnu: Finally, the mirrorless cameras have become popular in US and Euro.
According to CIPA, between Jan-May 2014

The shipment of Mirrorless +38%
The shipment of DSLR -13%
The shipment of Compact -40%

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201405_e.pdf

The cellphone workflow far outshines the small compact cameras. Take picture, quick adjustment, send it to your mom. Soon or later bigger cameras will have to compete with that workflow, the current wifi features are abysmal at best.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 00:11 UTC
On article Nikon 1 V3 stock shortage prompts official apology (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

caravan: Great Price,too bad it has a tiny sensor,articulating LCD,touch screen,and zoom lens.

It is not tiny, but neither as good as the sony 1". The Pentax Q was tiny sensor and the price wasn't that far from N1.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 00:08 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: There has been more than 1000 comments so far. What can be learned from them?

1) Many people don't read, at least don't engage their minds while reading, but nevertheless they are quick to reply. They don't read the replies to their replies either, or unable to comprehend them, because they keep repeating the same fallacies again and again.
2) Many people have difficulty understanding simple laws of physics and elementary school arithmetic. It's really shameful state of affairs. Blame expensive government schools for that.
3) the previous 2 problems are exacerbated by a "choice-supportive bias" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias). Notice that most (if not all) of the objections are coming from the people with small sensors (m4/3, 1").

Now, the really ugly thing is that most of those people are your average voters. I shudder thinking people with such cognitive faculties go to the voting booths.

It is all upside down.
I am thankful for the article that spells the relation of different parameters and it can be printed and used when one actually needs it.
The comments, that is a different story.

@ mostlyboringphotog: As for the equivalent FL, I read many comments and I don't think there is a single one that would have trouble to understand what the article explained about FL. I think most people (and me) had problem about the second part and that is "equivalent exposure" and most notably why do we should care. Because the F number works fine. Why do we need to recalculate it to equivalent aperture? We don't. F number is not broken. It is only when you want badly to match DOF of two different cameras with different sensor size.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 22:37 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: There has been more than 1000 comments so far. What can be learned from them?

1) Many people don't read, at least don't engage their minds while reading, but nevertheless they are quick to reply. They don't read the replies to their replies either, or unable to comprehend them, because they keep repeating the same fallacies again and again.
2) Many people have difficulty understanding simple laws of physics and elementary school arithmetic. It's really shameful state of affairs. Blame expensive government schools for that.
3) the previous 2 problems are exacerbated by a "choice-supportive bias" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias). Notice that most (if not all) of the objections are coming from the people with small sensors (m4/3, 1").

Now, the really ugly thing is that most of those people are your average voters. I shudder thinking people with such cognitive faculties go to the voting booths.

I didn't read a single comment that would claim that small sensors are better or equal to a bigger sensors of the same or similar number of pixels. Or what else you mean by objections? Objections to what? To the article? The article math and statements are fine.

But for some reason this thread is full of comments asserting that photographers with 1" sensors absolutely for some weird reason think that their sensor must be better or equal much larger sensors. (like you mentioned in your 3) But where are those people?

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 22:20 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

nigelht: Physically masking a 36MP FF sensor to the same size as a m43 sensor results in an equivalent 9MP m43 sensor.

You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor which indicates that "total light" has little impact on noise or DR because it should be well understood that these characteristics are based on sensor/adc design and pixel size.

The "idea of equivalence" doesn't tell you anything about the noise potential low light performance of the sensor (relative to same generation sensors). The pixel size does. Larger pixels = less noise.

"Equivalent aperture" only addresses DOF equivalence.

But still, in general, larger the pixel sizes, the higher efficiency, the more data for the a/d to bump up the ISO = less high ISO noise, no? Irrelevant of how big is the whole sensor. Could be tiny sensor with few pixels or huge sensor with much more pixels of the same size. Noise would be the same.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 22:01 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: To put more fuel to the fire,
I think the article explained perfectly the first part
"what is the equivalence" but failed to explain the second part "why should I care"
Maybe a page 5 is needed with a real life situation for a photographer in the field with his camera, not a nerd in a lab with 4 different cameras taking picture of a single subject and comparing how they differ. I kind of don't use cameras like that and I don't think many photographers do that either.

So I am standing knee deep in a mud somewhere outside with my camera pointing at something. What should I take from the article that would help me take better picture. How does it relate to me and indeed why should I care about anything that was said (assuming of course I am not complete idiot and I understand that higher ISO means higher noise)

That's pretty level headed practical info Mr. Bustard the Great. At least someone here understand this whole can of worms.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:54 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

nigelht: Physically masking a 36MP FF sensor to the same size as a m43 sensor results in an equivalent 9MP m43 sensor.

You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor which indicates that "total light" has little impact on noise or DR because it should be well understood that these characteristics are based on sensor/adc design and pixel size.

The "idea of equivalence" doesn't tell you anything about the noise potential low light performance of the sensor (relative to same generation sensors). The pixel size does. Larger pixels = less noise.

"Equivalent aperture" only addresses DOF equivalence.

What he is saying is that noise relates to the size of the photo wells, and what you are saying is that noise relates to the size of the sensor. I stand with the former.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:51 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: To put more fuel to the fire,
I think the article explained perfectly the first part
"what is the equivalence" but failed to explain the second part "why should I care"
Maybe a page 5 is needed with a real life situation for a photographer in the field with his camera, not a nerd in a lab with 4 different cameras taking picture of a single subject and comparing how they differ. I kind of don't use cameras like that and I don't think many photographers do that either.

So I am standing knee deep in a mud somewhere outside with my camera pointing at something. What should I take from the article that would help me take better picture. How does it relate to me and indeed why should I care about anything that was said (assuming of course I am not complete idiot and I understand that higher ISO means higher noise)

Aha, so this would help me to buy more gear!
Still the author should expand the article how to apply this theoretical knowledge in real life.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:47 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)

To put more fuel to the fire,
I think the article explained perfectly the first part
"what is the equivalence" but failed to explain the second part "why should I care"
Maybe a page 5 is needed with a real life situation for a photographer in the field with his camera, not a nerd in a lab with 4 different cameras taking picture of a single subject and comparing how they differ. I kind of don't use cameras like that and I don't think many photographers do that either.

So I am standing knee deep in a mud somewhere outside with my camera pointing at something. What should I take from the article that would help me take better picture. How does it relate to me and indeed why should I care about anything that was said (assuming of course I am not complete idiot and I understand that higher ISO means higher noise)

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:39 UTC as 281st comment | 8 replies
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jylppy: Figuring out this in the beginning of my hobbyist-photogapher career was a big "Heureka"-moment for me and the reason I sold off my 4/3 Olympus and bought Canon 5D. Yes, plenty of bulk to carry around, but I finally got the bokeh I was after. Everybody makes their own choices for the reasons important to them, but understanding "Equivalence" is fundamental to not to be fooled by the "F-numbers".

There is this weird assumption that more shallow dof the better. That doesn't work for a lot of photography and most social photography that 90% of people use daily actually benefit from large dof.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:28 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure?
If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.
As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.
So maybe call it equivalent DOF.
Or is it that I totally don't get it?

Thanks Erik for translation, I actually understand what you are saying perfectly.
The whole discussion reminds me the time when I was preparing for driving test and instructor was very slowly explaining that red traffic light means stop, yellow means get ready and green means go. Wow. What a revelation that day was.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 21:13 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure?
If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.
As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.
So maybe call it equivalent DOF.
Or is it that I totally don't get it?

Don't try to make me look more stupid than I am. Is this some kind of new revelation that ISO 12800 on 1" is not good in comparison to FF. Did you honestly think that I was in the impression they are the same? I assumed everybody here understand this fact years and years back that small sensors are noisy and smaller you go the more noise you get. How come this is now big news and what we trying to solve? To make ff as noisy as 1" because that is the only way to practically use this perfect theory of noise ratio. We obviously can't make small sensor less noisy.
I still don't get it. Everyone who has a camera knows that his camera starts to stink after certain ISO, be it 800, 3200 or 12800. That's why there is auto ISO margin. I just don't get what are we trying to do because really we can only make better camera worse, not the other way.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 20:59 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaFonte: But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure?
If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.
As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.
So maybe call it equivalent DOF.
Or is it that I totally don't get it?

I think you are mudding this even more. Sorry. So same f, same t and same ISO on two cameras will NOT produce the same exposure because I have to care about sensor size? because I don't know many photographers that calculate (or know how to) signal noise ratio etc as you describe above.
We all know that smaller size sensor will have more noise and higher DOF, but I am kind of lost why my F1.8 cannot be used as yours F1.8 for proper exposure.
Also I don't see it. I can't improve my noise ratio on my small sensor camera, I can only equivalently make your big sensor camera worse by bumping up ISO so they look equal. But why would I like to do it?????
I just dot get it.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 20:34 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)

But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure?
If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.
As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.
So maybe call it equivalent DOF.
Or is it that I totally don't get it?

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 20:17 UTC as 287th comment | 25 replies
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sven44: It's refreshing to see more and more people on this thread "getting it", and fewer and fewer coming out with rubbish like "f2=f2=f2".

One last time:

Bob shoots with a Panalympus (2x 'crop factor') with a 28mm lens at f/1.8, 1/60s at ISO 400

AND HIS PICTURES ARE DAMN NEAR IDENTICAL TO

John's 'full frame' 35mm camera with a 56mm lens shot at f/3.6, 1/60s at ISO 1600.

Same FOV. Same DOF. Same brightness of image. Same noise even - notice how Bob's shot was at ISO 400, but his sensor is smaller so intrinsically noisier - meanwhile John cranked up to ISO 1600 because he used a slower aperture.

The difference then? Bob's camera, and especially his wide angle lenses, are smaller. Hurrah for Bob! But sadly, his lens is slower (it's labelled 1.8 but shoots just like f/3.6), while John's lens really does open up to 1.8 to give him more blurred backgrounds and cleaner images at ISO 400. Hurrah for John!

Take your pick, then take lots of pics! :-)

You confused me even more. Why bobs lens is slower?
If john does use the same ISO 400 then he would also need to open his lens to the same 1.8 to keep the same 1/60 right?
So in general both bob and john can use the same 1.8 1/60 and 400 and get identically exposed images? So why is bobs lens slower, seriously I am totally confused now.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 19:50 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review (863 comments in total)
In reply to:

hrt: Why does Sony change its models so frequently ?
Does Sony think that consumers will continue to pay for such high frequency of model changes?

I love the RX100 M3 and have purchased it this time, but that doesn't mean that I will do it again.

What was the intention/meaning of launching RX100 M2 ????
Sony's management policy only (irrespective of buyers' actual needs) ????

Answer me please, Sony !!!!

It is simple, they can sell the same thing to the same people. Look at forums how many people "upgraded" from m1 to m2 to m3. I say "upgraded" because in many of the cases they still have them all, just not using them because they are so "old".

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 21:48 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review (863 comments in total)
In reply to:

freakpix: Seriously, I wish it would have come with 4K, perhaps RX IV ...

What would you do with a minuscule P&S camera that does 4K? Most consumers wouldn't be even able to edit it or do anything with 4K at all.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
On photo P9310096 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

impressive image from such a tiny camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 21:15 UTC as 1st comment
Total: 321, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »