Biowizard

Biowizard

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

Comments

Total: 608, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Robert: Is it intentional that I can not compare phones to cameras? I really like to see the difference with DSLRs!

Absolutely! I want to see Phone vs Compact vs 4/3rds, all on the same web page ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 13:58 UTC

YES it costs a lot, but considering the value of ones own creative content and data, there is NO substitute for buying at least two high-end, solid-state drives. I have a pair of LaCie SSDs, and can sleep at night.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 17:31 UTC as 3rd comment

I just hope THESE ones actually work better than the pile of crock I bought from them a few years ago. I now avoid WD like the plague.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 17:28 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Biowizard: For all those green-eyed folks bemoaning the price of a top-end Pro modular camera, here's a funny thought. Judged by sensor area, this camera is about 2/3rds the cost of an iPhone 7:

iPhone Sensor is 5.05mm * 3.72mm = 18.786 mm^2
100Mpx Phase One is 44mm * 33mm = 1452 mm^2

Cost of 128Gb iPhone from Apple Store = £699

£699 * 1452 / 18.786 = £54,026.83

So for bang-for-the-buck, based entirely on sensor size, the Phase One wins hands down compared to an iPhone.

There. ;-)

Brian

It is plain for ALL to see, that SENSOR SIZE is the key price differentiator.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 12:49 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: No flip up selfie screen.... no sale!

Ha! Show me a Selfie Stick STRONG enough to hold the Phase One (while still requiring only one arm from one person to hold it steady), and I might then potentially agree you have a point. ;-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 22:52 UTC

For all those green-eyed folks bemoaning the price of a top-end Pro modular camera, here's a funny thought. Judged by sensor area, this camera is about 2/3rds the cost of an iPhone 7:

iPhone Sensor is 5.05mm * 3.72mm = 18.786 mm^2
100Mpx Phase One is 44mm * 33mm = 1452 mm^2

Cost of 128Gb iPhone from Apple Store = £699

£699 * 1452 / 18.786 = £54,026.83

So for bang-for-the-buck, based entirely on sensor size, the Phase One wins hands down compared to an iPhone.

There. ;-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 09:09 UTC as 20th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

JamesMD172: Would this be good for street photography?

I think I detect a sense-of-irony failure here, Teila Day ... my impression is that James is asking the equivalent of, "Would an Airbus 380 be a good plane to buy for recreational flying?", and you have responded, "It depends on *your* needs".

:-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 08:51 UTC

Even though I might be getting and iPhone 7 as my ancient 4s is running out of steam, I just can't see why I would want to spend hundreds of pounds buying extra glass to clip to it. Phone cameras are for impromptu snapping when you find yourself without a real camera. Extra lenses are for real cameras.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 22:13 UTC as 14th comment

Echoing other comments - please can we have a carefully organised test of 3.0 (10-stop) or stronger ND filters? One using fixed colour temperature settings on the testing camera(s), and manually timed exposures in a controlled environment?

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 09:21 UTC as 4th comment

Why does the twin-camera 7 plus look _substantially_ softer than the single-camera 7? Were these images actually in FOCUS? Methinks a careful re-shoot is in order ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2016 at 13:30 UTC as 69th comment | 7 replies
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (161 comments in total)

By far the most exciting consumer drone so far.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 00:18 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (161 comments in total)

Oooh Errr ...

Drones comprise one technology, where week by week, I am SO glad I have waited before jumping on the band wagon. But this one might be the perfect orchestral conveyance ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 23:31 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 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 (654 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 (654 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 (654 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 (654 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
Total: 608, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »