JohnTheKeenAmateur

JohnTheKeenAmateur

Lives in Australia Melbourne, Australia
Joined on Dec 9, 2016
About me:

Keen amateur photographer using Sony RX100iv, Sony a7ii & Sony a7iii

I am johnthekeenamateur on Instagram

Comments

Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16

Uh, oh !! Have just discovered that v3.0 upgrade is not compatible with saved Memory settings .. That is, M1 - M4 settings saved to card in slot #2 - Now having to reconstruct my settings from own memory (Expletive!)

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2019 at 03:05 UTC as 16th comment

Another nice, tho quite subtle, feature included in this update is mentioned on page 32 of the new manual - that is;
{You can move to the next MENU tab by pressing the Fn button. (This function can be used when the camera’s system software (firmware) is Ver. 3.00 or later.) }

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2019 at 06:11 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

Searching: I bought DxO PhotoLab, and although the product is OK, their customer service is really second class. I will not have any future dealing with them.

That's not my experience at all, "Searching" - - I'm a PhotoLab user and I'm regularly on the DxO forum, where I see DxO staff (and other users) doing their best to answer all queries and deal with all issues. I suggest you try again.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2018 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

jay jay02: "Raw histograms or Raw clipping warnings that would help optimize exposure. It means no development has been done to create more sophisticated tools that would help you judge the quality implications of exposing to the right, and when to let the highlights go" magic Lantern does all of this!

@panther fan said;
"On the new Sony for example you can select HLG as a JPEG tone curve giving your JPEG (and thereby your histogram and Zebras) the same clipping point as your RAW."

That's a very interesting suggestion - I wonder (as I don't yet have my new a7iii, to try this out for myself!) if the 'Gamma Disp(lay) Assist' feature would then work to 'normalise' what you see in the EVF *without* similarly impacting the Histogram and Zebra display ??

If so then this could be a very useful way to get a better handle on the actual degree of highlight clipping captured in the RAW data.

John

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2018 at 07:58 UTC
On article Sony a7 III Review (2173 comments in total)
In reply to:

HAL11000: I can't read all of the 1288 comments, BUT
deal breaker number ONE: no Lightroom 6 support as opposed to A7R3 or D850.
I don't want to pay extra for vital post processing.
Second why can`t the Exposure Correction Dial not be fixed? This goes for all A7.
Whereas the Mode Dial can be fixed.

One of the best RAW converters (and general image editors) around is DXO's PhotoLab ... and I see that DxO has the RAW converter module for the a7iii scheduled for availability on 18th May.

Note: DxO provides RAW converters by camera model (and lens combo) on an auto-detected & auto-download basis ... not "baked into" the product version.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 11:47 UTC
On article Sony a7 III Review (2173 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobT3218: 693 AF points against 117 sounds like a good thing but I'm not quite sure why. Is it for AF tracking? Maybe it's my shooting style but I don't know what I'd do with so many points.

OK - It sounds like I'm very much underestimating the AF tracking ability of the a7iii ... I'm now looking forward to trying this out for myself (once I have my new copy in-hand).

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 11:40 UTC
On article Sony a7 III Review (2173 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobT3218: 693 AF points against 117 sounds like a good thing but I'm not quite sure why. Is it for AF tracking? Maybe it's my shooting style but I don't know what I'd do with so many points.

ttran88 said: {The beauty is you don’t need to do anything, just focus on composition and subject matter and let the camera do the rest. The days of focus and recompose are over!!}

Maybe, for specific scenes - - except that you then have no control of exactly what it is that the camera focuses on ... most likely, it will be whatever is closest to the camera ... which is not necessarily what the maker/taker had in mind.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2018 at 11:24 UTC
In reply to:

JochenIs: Manufacturers do not comply with the ISO standard. Newer cameras of the same manufacturer tend to have slightly less actual ISO at the same ISO settings to make the newer camera look better at the same ISO setting. Also different manufacturers might have different actual ISO. To future proof measurements and make them comparable to other brands we should measure the provided brightness at each ISO setting.
Also interesting does the shift of ISO setting change at the dual gain breakpoint?

@keeponkeepingon - As you quoted, Rishi said: "... we always give every camera the same amount of total scene light ...".

Scene light is the light available to the camera sensor - coming from the scene.

Shutter speed is a component of exposure that determines the amount/quantity of light captured from the scene.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2018 at 02:39 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1039 comments in total)

{{The Panasonic G9 (left) is the first mirrorless camera - excluding the medium format Fujifilm GFX 50S - to offer a top plate LCD since the Samsung NX1}}

Mmm - - Aren't you forgetting the entire Sony RX10 series ?!

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 01:41 UTC as 131st comment
On article Sony a7R II versus a7 II: Eight key differences (401 comments in total)

Review says: <<At the all-important base ISO (ISO 100 in both cameras) the difference is a little under one stop. >>

However, Bill Claff's PDR vs ISO chart at Photons to Photos (this one: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7M2,Sony%20ILCE-7RII) for the A7ii and A7Rii doesn't show anything like a 1-stop difference at ISO-100.

Perhaps Bill has updated the chart on his site (?) - 'cos I see it looks a little different to the screenshot in the Page-3 section, above.

In which case, is the DR not as different for these 2 models as first thought ??

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 10:14 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1194 comments in total)

Sorry to be picky, but ... when something is said to be happening "in the summer" then it's quite confusing for those of us living in the other hemisphere of the world (which includes Australia, New Zealand, lots of Africa, South America, etc. etc, etc).

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 05:35 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
On article Fast Five: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V Review (436 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnTheKeenAmateur: DPR's review of the RX100 IV included extensive test result of its Image Quality & Dynamic Range ... including the implied suggestion to apply Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma;

I tried this, 'cos I was interested in the assertion that doing so would "prompt your camera to use the exposures you'd expect from ISO 1600, but with low levels of amplification behind the scenes (in fact it could almost be made for this way of working)."

However, I found one major limitation - in that applying this Picture Profile caused the minimum ISO to be set at ISO-800 ... which prevents the aim of setting lowest possible ISO (base ISO is 125 for this camera) in order to exploit the sensors ISO-Invariance.

Am I misunderstanding something here ?

FYI: This question has been answered (in excellent detail) over here; https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-iv/15

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 03:48 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1556 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnTheKeenAmateur: Regarding the implied suggestion to apply Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma;

I tried this, 'cos I was interested in the assertion that doing so would "prompt your camera to use the exposures you'd expect from ISO 1600, but with low levels of amplification behind the scenes (in fact it could almost be made for this way of working)."

However, I found one major limitation - in that applying this Picture Profile caused the minimum ISO to be set at ISO-800 ... which prevents the aim of setting lowest possible ISO (base ISO is 125 for this camera) in order to exploit the sensors ISO-Invariance.

Am I misunderstanding something here ?

Regards, John M

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this so carefully, Richard - Thanks !

I've read thru twice & carefully, and I'm reasonably sure I understand it all (!) ... So, am now going out to do some experimentation, as you suggest.

Regards, John-TKA

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 00:12 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1556 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnTheKeenAmateur: Regarding the implied suggestion to apply Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma;

I tried this, 'cos I was interested in the assertion that doing so would "prompt your camera to use the exposures you'd expect from ISO 1600, but with low levels of amplification behind the scenes (in fact it could almost be made for this way of working)."

However, I found one major limitation - in that applying this Picture Profile caused the minimum ISO to be set at ISO-800 ... which prevents the aim of setting lowest possible ISO (base ISO is 125 for this camera) in order to exploit the sensors ISO-Invariance.

Am I misunderstanding something here ?

Regards, John M

Many thanks for your response, Richard !!

My question (also informed by your excellent DPR article; "What's that noise?") was motivated by the implied suggestion (in the 15.Raw-Dynamic-Range section of review above) that, with sensors that tend towards ISO-Invariance, one can ["use the shutter speed and aperture value you'd usually use for ISO 1600, while staying at ISO 125 and using a much lower level of amplification, and then selectively brightening your image later. Using a lower level of amplification means that highlight detail is less likely to get over-amplified and blown-out."].

So, when you seemed to be suggesting that enabling Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma might facilitate setting exposure in this way, I was immediately intrigued ... and I tried it out ... only to find that doing so forced setting of minimum ISO=800 ... which seems to contradict the aim of the suggested approach.

May I pls ask for some clarification on this ...

Regards, John-TKA

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 03:15 UTC
On article Fast Five: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V Review (436 comments in total)

DPR's review of the RX100 IV included extensive test result of its Image Quality & Dynamic Range ... including the implied suggestion to apply Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma;

I tried this, 'cos I was interested in the assertion that doing so would "prompt your camera to use the exposures you'd expect from ISO 1600, but with low levels of amplification behind the scenes (in fact it could almost be made for this way of working)."

However, I found one major limitation - in that applying this Picture Profile caused the minimum ISO to be set at ISO-800 ... which prevents the aim of setting lowest possible ISO (base ISO is 125 for this camera) in order to exploit the sensors ISO-Invariance.

Am I misunderstanding something here ?

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 01:55 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1556 comments in total)

Regarding the implied suggestion to apply Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma;

I tried this, 'cos I was interested in the assertion that doing so would "prompt your camera to use the exposures you'd expect from ISO 1600, but with low levels of amplification behind the scenes (in fact it could almost be made for this way of working)."

However, I found one major limitation - in that applying this Picture Profile caused the minimum ISO to be set at ISO-800 ... which prevents the aim of setting lowest possible ISO (base ISO is 125 for this camera) in order to exploit the sensors ISO-Invariance.

Am I misunderstanding something here ?

Regards, John M

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 08:17 UTC as 32nd comment | 5 replies
Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16