Amnon G

Amnon G

Lives in United States Bellevue, WA, United States
Works as a Program Manager
Has a website at www.spacepirations.com
Joined on May 19, 2005
About me:

Family man, space enthusiast, technologist and photography buff seeking simplicity.

Comments

Total: 122, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

stevo23: I want lustrous skin. Maybe this lens is just the thing!

Rub it on your face twice a day :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

Amnon G: What about the X-T20? Much cheaper than the X-T2, same engine under the hood, also capable of 14fps in electronic shutter mode.

Thanks, right.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 05:28 UTC

What about the X-T20? Much cheaper than the X-T2, same engine under the hood, also capable of 14fps in electronic shutter mode.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2017 at 20:20 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

Amnon G: What I don't get is the quickly degrading high ISO performance. Is the sensor itself (or the layers) not up to par with other manufacturer sensors (like the ubiquitous Sony sensors, for example) or is it an inherent problem in layering the RGB sensors?
Just look at ISO 1600 and it's a mess. 3200 and 6400? Forget about it.
Great SNR in good light is becoming less and less a worthy trick, no matter what the sensor size is. At least for me as much as I like the idea of losing the demosaic algorithms of all other sensors I cherish the flexibility of taking photos in less than ideal light without setting up lights, which I suspect most people appreciate higher ISO performance over ideal-light performance.

@Earthrise, I simply wanted to understand whether this limitation compared to conventional sensors could be solved in the future. A question about a technical phenomenon is not a complaint.

Thanks for the explanation, @T3!

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (637 comments in total)

What I don't get is the quickly degrading high ISO performance. Is the sensor itself (or the layers) not up to par with other manufacturer sensors (like the ubiquitous Sony sensors, for example) or is it an inherent problem in layering the RGB sensors?
Just look at ISO 1600 and it's a mess. 3200 and 6400? Forget about it.
Great SNR in good light is becoming less and less a worthy trick, no matter what the sensor size is. At least for me as much as I like the idea of losing the demosaic algorithms of all other sensors I cherish the flexibility of taking photos in less than ideal light without setting up lights, which I suspect most people appreciate higher ISO performance over ideal-light performance.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 17:58 UTC as 133rd comment | 6 replies

Hmm... No current model of Fujifilm, only previous models.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 05:24 UTC as 83rd comment
In reply to:

falconeyes: The service by EXIF.co has no real value. I am disappointed by the "smart watermark" feature too.

I thought about a similiar service years ago. And it would have embedded a dynamic, invisible watermark (steganography) into every image served by the image host. It would contain timestamp and download IP and a searchable attribute. Plus a service to scan the net for such images and automatically go after those who download and share. BTW, the same is possible for music and movies. Much better solution than DRM.

What falconeyes means if I understand correctly is that when anyone downloads the photo it will have data embedded in it that can trace the specific instance of that photo to the downloader. So, if you download it and then use it on your website / sell it as your own, it will not only have the copyright details in it but also your IP and timestamp. Pretty cool.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

Amnon G: Brilliant. How hasn't others made that before? Kudos Canon!

Yup, before I was alive :-)

This is a neater design thanks to LEDs, though.

Thanks for the link.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 00:18 UTC

Brilliant. How hasn't others made that before? Kudos Canon!

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 04:34 UTC as 57th comment | 2 replies

What I like about the output from my Fujifilm X-T20 and the X-E2 before it (to a lesser extent) is the ISO invariance. And I don't mean it from the pure technical manner of the tests DPReview does, but just in terms of the look of the images and the feeling of freedom I have when I shoot because noise, especially color-nose, does not shoot through the roof at ISOs I actually use.
As sensors get better and better, this point may get moot. But until then, combined with ergonomics which I like (no explicit need to switch between PASM modes, for example) and color reproduction (which I personally like) make it a winner package especially for people not willing to commit to FF in terms of weight (or money).

Yes, Canon, Nikon, etc. all make fine photography machines, this is not a Fujifilm is better post, just my personal case of preference.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 23:34 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

JakeB: This is why Fuji camera owners are the envy of Nikon, Canon, and, shudder, Sony people.

Fuji produces already excellent cameras and then continues to improve them for years where other companies force their users to buy new hardware.

Why does it have to be an us vs them so much? It's great to have a lot of choice of great cameras. Fuji users are happy with Fujis, Nikonians happy with Nikon and Canon happy with Canon. Why does someone have to be wrong rather than all of us be right?

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 18:13 UTC
In reply to:

JakeB: This is why Fuji camera owners are the envy of Nikon, Canon, and, shudder, Sony people.

Fuji produces already excellent cameras and then continues to improve them for years where other companies force their users to buy new hardware.

As a happy owner of now my 3rd Fuji (X-E1 replaced by X-E2 and now X-E3) I can say there are indeed some features that seem basic, however the core of these cameras was always unique enough that I could live without these for the benefit of other items.

I don't agree about being the envy of others, that's as pretentious as this OS is the envy of that OS or this company is shaking because that company did this to its computer/console/camera/OS/car.

I am happy that over time, the core that I liked in Fuji got augmented with pieces that were available in other cameras to make it less of a compromise (which every camera is - just think of the FF vs APS vs m43 discussion...).

Having said that - Fuji, my X-T20 touch controls are so basic it is almost a waste of hardware, and I am waiting for that feature to name my custom settings. Thanks for auto-shutter speed, great focusing and of course great handling and great ISO invariance that allows me to do more with less weight of equipment!

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 21:23 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (375 comments in total)
In reply to:

iamatrix: I don't know why, but the image quality doesn't look as good as my XT10. Can't place it ? Maybe the dynamic range lacks in comparison ??

You know, I had a similar first reaction comparing to my X-E2. Play with the settings, it's a little different but better (high ISO and faces look much better for one).

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:08 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (375 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Seso: "The camera's Auto ISO system isn't focal length aware" - this is not true, it is. Quote from the camera manual at http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-t20/menu_shooting/shooting_setting/index.html#iso: "If AUTO is selected for MIN. SHUTTER SPEED, the camera will automatically choose a minimum shutter speed approximately equal to the inverse of the lens’ focal length"

Thanks, didn't know that! I have some settings to change on my XT-20 now :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (375 comments in total)
In reply to:

FuhTeng: Neat, I've been waiting for this review, particularly the AF portion. I want to see how it'll do with my toddler running around - just need to figure out which AF mode to set it to.

I'm glad I'm renting this (along with the 18-55 and 23 f/2), arriving tomorrow so I can play with it myself and see if I want to jump into Fuji-land as my sidekick rather than my current a6000.

It will do great. I have photos of my 11 year old son playing soccer. Shutter speed is important in these cases so high ISO performance helps.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:01 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (375 comments in total)

Max burst rate is 14fps with electronic shutter.
From Fuji's spec sheet:
Continuous shooting Approx. 14.0 fps [Only Electronic Shutter](JPEG: 42 frames Lossless compression RAW: 23 frame Uncompressed RAW: 22 frames)

Link: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_t20/specifications/

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:00 UTC as 86th comment
In reply to:

Full Stop: This camera is a good example for how creative companies
were in the early years of digital.
The lack of film enabled new design ideas.
Technology seemed to have no limits.

And now in 2017…
Design: like from the '50s to the '80s.
Connectivity: oh great, we can connect to a smart phone.
AF: wow, we can choose an AF-point via touch screen or joy-stick (welcome to the '80s).
My EOS 5 had eye-controlled focus point selection in 1993!

I was wondering about eye-controlled focus point selection too. Has that technology failed, proved to be a dead-end or what?!?
A search brought me to this page: http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bstA

Quote from a post:
Phil Winter , Aug 04, 2013; 06:55 p.m.
About 15 years ago, I bought and A2E, which I loved and still have. It was my first "serious" camera since I bought a Pentax ME Super back in the 80's. Anyway, I loved the ECF. It worked great for me. At first. But as I became more skilled, I learned to examine the scene, particularly the back ground, more carefully. My eye, wandering around the scene, caused the ECF to zoom in and out of focus. After a while it drove me crazy, so I quit using it, and now I don't miss it.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2017 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

Jefbak: http://philipbloom.net/blog/canon5div/
DP Philip Bloom makes it very clear why this release in the Canon 5D series is a slap in face for DSLR video makers. This is the camera and company that started the whole thing – and then took it away. I'm not upgrading to this camera as a MK3 and Samsung NX1 owner and I think their are a lot of hybrid video/photo professionals out ther who buy equipment in this price range (or lower) feeling the same way.

Not that it matters, but wasn't the Nikon D90 the first DSLR with video? DPR experts do you remember?
Also can someone explain what's the different compromises in camcorders so they don't exhibit this?

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 22:02 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2486 comments in total)

I've had my X-E2 as a pre-order, so basically from the day it was released (it replaced an X-E1). I am contemplating replacing my X-E2 with an X-Pro2 or X-T2 (or the mythical X-E3). While image quality is not the only factor (there are the improved controls, other benefits the Pro and T series have over the E series and some disadvantages too) I looked at the Studio test and compared the X-Pro2 to the X-E2 in the dimply lit setting and ISO 6400 and looking at RAW. Am I seeing correctly that the per-pixel noise is higher for the X-Pro2?

Again, I know this is by far not the only factor, but please stay within the narrow scope of this question if you care to reply and don't start a thread about all the other advantages of either X-T2 or X-Pro2 or a thread about how newer equipment won't make my photos better or stating I should really get a lens...

Thanks!

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 01:45 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies

It would be interesting to see if someone ever makes a sensor that behaves like film.

Current sensors behave the complete opposite of film - they clip highlights and allow pulling shadows (each with their limitations of ISO invariance and dynamic range, but in general that holds true). Film, on the other hand, clips shadows (where there's not enough light hitting the chemicals to cause a reaction) but can pull-back highlights much better.

Each, of course, has its own set of advantages.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2016 at 16:13 UTC as 48th comment | 3 replies
Total: 122, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »