Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 479, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

sneakyracer: 4/3 sensor is dated imho. They date back to when larger sensors were really expensive. Enthusiasts demand better performance nowadays at the $1000+ pricepoint. All TV/Monitors today are 16:9 as well so the 4/3 format is a bit awkward except for more traditional applications like print (magazines). In very small form factors the 4/3" format is nice but on larger cameras it makes little sense except maybe for the smaller lenses and increased affordability (if any). That does not mean that the OM-D cameras are bad cameras. On the contrary they are excellent just that there are better options for most folks available today.

Indeed - square and ignore the corners: all I want is a LOGICALLY circular sensor. Possibly, Octagonal could be produced for a slight price saving.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 20:24 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

sneakyracer: 4/3 sensor is dated imho. They date back to when larger sensors were really expensive. Enthusiasts demand better performance nowadays at the $1000+ pricepoint. All TV/Monitors today are 16:9 as well so the 4/3 format is a bit awkward except for more traditional applications like print (magazines). In very small form factors the 4/3" format is nice but on larger cameras it makes little sense except maybe for the smaller lenses and increased affordability (if any). That does not mean that the OM-D cameras are bad cameras. On the contrary they are excellent just that there are better options for most folks available today.

Nah! Make the finder circular (like you see through a telescope), and then let you apply any cropping you want, in any format, right up to the diameter of the image /sensor circle, later. Including lining up horizons or other linear elements.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 18:28 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

sneakyracer: 4/3 sensor is dated imho. They date back to when larger sensors were really expensive. Enthusiasts demand better performance nowadays at the $1000+ pricepoint. All TV/Monitors today are 16:9 as well so the 4/3 format is a bit awkward except for more traditional applications like print (magazines). In very small form factors the 4/3" format is nice but on larger cameras it makes little sense except maybe for the smaller lenses and increased affordability (if any). That does not mean that the OM-D cameras are bad cameras. On the contrary they are excellent just that there are better options for most folks available today.

Consider one simple thing: that dreaded "sloping horizon", that can only be fixed post-processing by losing some edges of your recorded image. It would be a thing of the past with a circular sensor. And has anyone EVER seen a "sloping horizon" through a telescope or pair of binoculars? Of course not!

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:22 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

sneakyracer: 4/3 sensor is dated imho. They date back to when larger sensors were really expensive. Enthusiasts demand better performance nowadays at the $1000+ pricepoint. All TV/Monitors today are 16:9 as well so the 4/3 format is a bit awkward except for more traditional applications like print (magazines). In very small form factors the 4/3" format is nice but on larger cameras it makes little sense except maybe for the smaller lenses and increased affordability (if any). That does not mean that the OM-D cameras are bad cameras. On the contrary they are excellent just that there are better options for most folks available today.

A key point is that the wider the height/width ratio, the less of the lens' image circle you are using. Take a unit circle (diameter of "1"); its area is Pi*r^2, in this case, 0.7854 square units.

A square of the same unit diagonal, has an area of d^2/2, in this case, 0.5 square units. Thus a square format can use 0.5/0.7854 = 0.637 of the image circle, or 63.7% if you prefer.

More generally, the area of a unit rectangle can be calculated as:

X = atan(W,H), A = cos(X) * sin(X)

Using this formula, a 4:3 format of unit diameter has an area of 0.48 square units, and can use 0.48/0.7854 = 0.611 (61.1%) of the image circle, slightly less than square.

A 2:3 rectangle of unit diameter, has an area of 0.462 square units, and can use just 58.8% of the image circle, while 16:9 has an area of 0.427, and uses just 54:4% of the image circle.

The narrower the format, the less of your lens' image circle is being used.

So how about a circular sensor which you could crop any way you like?

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 10:48 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

sneakyracer: 4/3 sensor is dated imho. They date back to when larger sensors were really expensive. Enthusiasts demand better performance nowadays at the $1000+ pricepoint. All TV/Monitors today are 16:9 as well so the 4/3 format is a bit awkward except for more traditional applications like print (magazines). In very small form factors the 4/3" format is nice but on larger cameras it makes little sense except maybe for the smaller lenses and increased affordability (if any). That does not mean that the OM-D cameras are bad cameras. On the contrary they are excellent just that there are better options for most folks available today.

I love 4:3 vs either 16:9 or even 3:2. One of the reasons I bought into 4/3rds all those years ago, rather than competing so-called "APS-C" formats. I'd even further prefer square (no more holding the camera on its side) - or better still, CIRCULAR (no more sloping horizons) ... after all, it works with telescopes and binoculars, so why not cameras? But I digress.

Fujifilm have shown us the way forward. The obsession with "Full Frame" is a bizarre artifact of our time. Just because Leitz's format survived 80 years, doesn't make it "the" standard. Choose whichever sensor size you want, for your purposes, and stop banging on about other people's choices.

Simples.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 23:37 UTC

Kodak, to me, still means my beloved, late, lamented Kodachrome 25 reversal film, that is all I ever used, during the first 25 years or so of my photographic life. Not a plastic action camera.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 22:37 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

JordanAT: iPhone 7 jokes aside, this might be better as a USB C / Lightning device, as the mic circuit on most phones is horribly noisy. I've had several Android handsets, and the G3 and G4 were almost passable if you went into Airplane mode. The iPhone 5 and 5s I've tried were all so noisy it's not worth recording anything but rough guide tracks. Even with the radios off the iPhone digital circuity running parallel to the audio path produced both low level noise and burst noise on the channel.

True - but then Rode already have both 30-pin (early iOS) and Lightning mics. I have their stereo 30-pin mic, and it's utterly excellent for music and wildlife/nature sound recording. But its orientation is towards sound capture, not video recording applications. Rode rocks. Just sad for them that this latest offering ain't gonna work with the new iPhones ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 21:24 UTC

Poor old Rode - JUST as Apple makes the 3.5mm Jack obsolete!

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 15:27 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies

Loving a lot about this - but currently SO happy with my OM-D E-M1 original, that I don't want to upgrade yet. Perhaps in a year's time ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:18 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply

Cool for freeze-action shooting. But IIRC (and I think I do), even my Braun flash dating from around 1976, could do flashes as short as 1/55000th of a second - so 1/63K doesn't seem like a massive amount of progress for a whole 40 years of R&D! Indeed, a mere 15% shorter.

Oh, and last time I looked (recently), that same Braun is still working from mains power, even though its built-in NiCd cells died in about 1978!

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2016 at 16:59 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

Does iOS 2.5 even run on modern iPhones and iPads?!!

;-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 13:24 UTC as 1st comment
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (946 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Agreeing that 56mm (135 equivelant) is narrower than 28mm (ditto), it's hardly "Tele"! It's not even "Portrait". Indeed, I seem to remember that the F2.0 Helios lens that came attached as standard with my original Zenit B, was 57mm (actual).

More interesting would have been a pair of identical "28mm" cameras at both ends of one of the long sides, to enable you to take landscape format, 3D photos.

Brian

pcimaging - no, not on a 35mm frame. But sure, yes, on smaller frames. It's all about that horrible word, "equivalent", that (generally) means, in photographic circles, "equivalent to a lens with the same field of view on a 135 format frame".

55mm on a 24x36mm frame (135, "35mm Full Frame"), _just_ longer than standard, which by convention was defined as 50mm, though more accurately would have been 43.27mm - the diagonal of the frame.

55mm on an 4/3rds sensor gives the same view as 110mm (give or take) on 135, making it a long portrait or short telephoto lens.

55mm on a 6x7 Pentax medium format camera would be distinctly wide-angle - about 25.81mm in 135 terms.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 19:34 UTC
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (946 comments in total)
In reply to:

jmimac351: That so many are debating what Apple has done with the iPhone camera may speak to the impact Apple has had. Like it or not, that iPhone can take the quality of picture that it does is pretty remarkable. Some like digital, some like analog (some like both)... I like the attention Apple has given the processing of images taken with their product.

For my money, when you're standing at the wall at Sebring and see something and snap a random picture that you want to remember seeing (and hearing) iPhone does a great job, like it or not...

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cars/Random/i-WdmBHQL/0/L/IMG_3299-L.jpg

No question - I not only like iPhone, I just LOVE it. And it's time my ageing 4s was retired to domestic duties, as the battery life has become more than a little variable in recent months. Mind you, it's done me 4 years of daily use, and still runs all weekend without a charge if just on standby.

But I still resent a 56mm-(35mm-equivalent) lens being described as "Tele".

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 19:27 UTC
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (946 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Agreeing that 56mm (135 equivelant) is narrower than 28mm (ditto), it's hardly "Tele"! It's not even "Portrait". Indeed, I seem to remember that the F2.0 Helios lens that came attached as standard with my original Zenit B, was 57mm (actual).

More interesting would have been a pair of identical "28mm" cameras at both ends of one of the long sides, to enable you to take landscape format, 3D photos.

Brian

Considering its price, and the fact that some of its elements might contain tiny air bubbles, it was a remarkably sharp and effective lens!

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 01:40 UTC
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (946 comments in total)
In reply to:

pocoloco: Yet another annoying item to charge. Can't charge and listen, unless I handover way too much money for wireless earplugs that are easily lost. Oh yeah, going on a trip, a 15 hour flight, I guess I need to buy 3 sets of these earplugs, because they only last 5 hours. What a crap for $200!

What problem do they believe they have solved? Do they realize they created 3 problems by removing the jack?

Digeni5, no-one is claiming this phone is a Scuba camera - but IP67 is enough to use the camera, unprotected, in or around pools, the beach, on boats, in the rain and more. And compared to the instant-death models we've had so far, this is NOT to be poo-pooed.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 00:55 UTC
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (946 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank_BR: "Next to the standard 28mm module is a tele-56mm lens with its own 12MP sensor"

Well, 56mm is the focal length of a NORMAL lens, not a tele-lens!
Apple wasn't happy to capture a significant part of the photographic market. Now Apple is subverting the photographic concepts, too.

Great minds - see the post I was writing in parallel ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 00:53 UTC
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (946 comments in total)

Agreeing that 56mm (135 equivelant) is narrower than 28mm (ditto), it's hardly "Tele"! It's not even "Portrait". Indeed, I seem to remember that the F2.0 Helios lens that came attached as standard with my original Zenit B, was 57mm (actual).

More interesting would have been a pair of identical "28mm" cameras at both ends of one of the long sides, to enable you to take landscape format, 3D photos.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 00:52 UTC as 43rd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: "low heat"?

LEDs get plenty hot if they're shining adequate light. But the heat can be dispersed say out the back.

If Polaroid's claim of "93% efficiency" is true, then heat will not be a problem. A (say) 1000W Halogen Equivalent panel would run off 100W of actual power, of which 93W would be light enerty - leaving just 7W of heat to dissipate. And 7W on a device that large will bare;y warm it up.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2016 at 07:51 UTC
On article Quick review: Apexel 8mm fisheye lens for smartphones (23 comments in total)

Many years ago (and I mean, MANY) I bought one of those through-the-door spyhole viewers, that you can use to see who is outside before opening your front door. Solid brass body, simple upright-image reverse telescope, you know the kind of thing.

Mounted in a piece of black plastic, rescued from some jar lid or somesuch, I could hold this over the 50mm f1.4 lens of my Olympus OM-1n, and take surprisingly effective "8mm fish-eye, full circle" shots, all for about £3. I still have it: must dig it out and hold it up to my iPhone!

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2016 at 19:10 UTC as 8th comment

Even if this won't be up to DSLR prime time anytime soon, THIS is the kind of sensor we need in GoPro style action cameras. Global vs Rolling/Progressive shutter every time for me.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 07:33 UTC as 22nd comment
Total: 479, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »