Biowizard

Biowizard

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

Comments

Total: 516, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (483 comments in total)

Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

1.00/3:2 (1.0 diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio)

4/3rds, with a diagonal of about 21.65mm, would be:

0.50/4:3 (0.5 diagonal, 4:3 aspect)

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 13:46 UTC as 18th comment | 13 replies
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (483 comments in total)

Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a "1 inch" sensor? I know it is anything _but_ 25.4mm diagonal.

PLEASE can we start coming up with a STANDARD way of measuring sensor sizes that does NOT keep harking back to ancient vacuum tubes?

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 18:58 UTC as 93rd comment | 40 replies

It's a shame that Panasonic persist in putting their anti-shake technology into the lens ("Power O.I.S.") while Olympus put theirs into the camera (5-way sensor movement), because this adds a level of incompatibility and/or loss of functionality between cameras and lenses from these two manufacturers, who otherwise share the same lens mount.

Does anyone know how "Power O.I.S." actually works? Some early stabilisation systems used a physical, spinning gyroscope ring couple to a spring-mounted lens element (for example, my old Sony Mavica) - you could actually hear it spinning up when you engaged anti-shake.

What is Panasonic's mechanism?

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 09:59 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies

Subscription = Bye Bye

... oh, and I don't fancy having the first folder on any of my devices wiped clean by a "CC Update", thank you very much.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 16:09 UTC as 7th comment
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: If I was starting out from scratch and looking for my first DSLR, this would rate very highly in my estimations. Congratulations to Ricoh/Pentax for producing a wonderful, traditionally-inspired modern DSLR.

Brian

Indeed Tim - and as DPReview has already said, this is, in many ways, what the Nikon df _should_ have been!

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 12:25 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: If I was starting out from scratch and looking for my first DSLR, this would rate very highly in my estimations. Congratulations to Ricoh/Pentax for producing a wonderful, traditionally-inspired modern DSLR.

Brian

Ecopix, I totally accept that "If I was starting out from scratch" is hypothetical, but that's my point. THIS could have been the camera I would have chosen as my first, had I been born 40 years later than I actually was.

My first SLR (as was common back then) was a Zenit E. My first high-quality camera, and which I still have, in full working order, is an Olympus OM-1n.

And had 1976 been 2016, most likely my OM-1n would have been a Pentax K-1.

Of course, Olympus now runs in my blood, so what I actually have and use day to day, loving every cubic millimetre of its being, is an Olympus OM-D E-M1. Not an SLR, but a gorgeous mirrorless SLR-style camera.

Apart from the (lack of) mirror box and physical pentaprism, my current Oly and the Pentax share a great deal in common, like the 5-way sensor shift anti-shake, articulated screen, and classic styling.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 09:18 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)

If I was starting out from scratch and looking for my first DSLR, this would rate very highly in my estimations. Congratulations to Ricoh/Pentax for producing a wonderful, traditionally-inspired modern DSLR.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 23:03 UTC as 475th comment | 8 replies

THIS bit worries me, A LOT:

"This system uses the latest super-resolution technology, which captures four images of the same scene by shifting the image sensor by a single pixel for each image, then synthesizes them into a single composite image."

Surely that is going to introduce horrible colour artifacts on any moving object, especially at slower shutter speeds?

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 10:54 UTC as 17th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

MeganV: I miss the days when Adobe's attention hadn't shifted wholesale to free mobile junk apps subsidized by my monthly CC rent.

And I miss the days when "updates" to the desktop software didn't remove features to make them look / feel / work more like mobile junk apps. I know, I know, I still haven't gotten over the "new Coke" Lightroom "import experience" or the attempted removal of Photoshop's Save For Web.

I get it, I know, Adobe, Apple, et al. that my photographic universe is supposed to start with iPhone and end with Instagram. That I'm a complete oldster luddite troll if I persist with a real camera, retouching with desktop Photoshop, and printing my work.

ephipi - looks like DVDs of CS6 are indeed in short (or non-existent) supply. Shame, I thought one of the links I found a couple of days ago had physical discs for sale. Turns out it electronic download only.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

MeganV: I miss the days when Adobe's attention hadn't shifted wholesale to free mobile junk apps subsidized by my monthly CC rent.

And I miss the days when "updates" to the desktop software didn't remove features to make them look / feel / work more like mobile junk apps. I know, I know, I still haven't gotten over the "new Coke" Lightroom "import experience" or the attempted removal of Photoshop's Save For Web.

I get it, I know, Adobe, Apple, et al. that my photographic universe is supposed to start with iPhone and end with Instagram. That I'm a complete oldster luddite troll if I persist with a real camera, retouching with desktop Photoshop, and printing my work.

Ephipi, trust me: CS6 arrived on DVDs - both my PC/Windows version and my Mac version. And there are still legitimate, original copies out there available for order from reputable companies, if that is what you want. "CC" (which would have been CS7) is the first version to tie you to the cloud.

MeganV, yes, "future support" is a small thing: CS6 just works. And very well. The ONLY thing I can imagine wanting, is RAW support from some hitherto unknown camera I might one day buy - but as someone who is only 18 months into his current Olympus system camera, I can put that day off for at least another 7-8 years. And even then, I have the option of using Mac RAW processing or the RAW converter software that would come with such a camera.

In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and both Photoshop CS6, and even the much older Photoshop 7, which I use on my older computers, works perfectly.

Sorry Adobe, you stay in the Cloud. From where I am, I see nothing but Blue Skies.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 09:27 UTC
In reply to:

MeganV: I miss the days when Adobe's attention hadn't shifted wholesale to free mobile junk apps subsidized by my monthly CC rent.

And I miss the days when "updates" to the desktop software didn't remove features to make them look / feel / work more like mobile junk apps. I know, I know, I still haven't gotten over the "new Coke" Lightroom "import experience" or the attempted removal of Photoshop's Save For Web.

I get it, I know, Adobe, Apple, et al. that my photographic universe is supposed to start with iPhone and end with Instagram. That I'm a complete oldster luddite troll if I persist with a real camera, retouching with desktop Photoshop, and printing my work.

I don't miss the days - I simply choose to stick with Photoshop CS6! All I miss is future support.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Curious how, with smaller-than-35mm sensors, every focal length is usually quoted with its "35mm equivalent" length alongside, but with larger-than-35mm, this is not the case. No-one has ever said of a Hasselblad 70mm lens, "50,mm equivalent". Nor should they!

So why is this always done for smaller-frame cameras?

Brian

On this subject, my MAJOR bugbear is the continued use of ancient, meaningless descriptions for most sensor sizes. What the heck IS the size of a 1/1.7" sensor in millimetres?

Surely the time has come to describe ALL sensors in a standard way, indicating their size and aspect ratio concisely. A "35mm full frame" sensor is actually 24*36mm, giving it a 3:2 aspect ratio. Diagonally, it is about 43.25mm. The one thing it isn't, is "35mm", and by definition, ALL cameras are "full frame" for the size of sensor they contain.

So my OM-D E-M1's "4/3" sensor is 17.3*13mm, 21.6mm in diameter, and 4:3 aspect ratio. Why not call it, "21.6(4:3)", and your regular "full frame" camera, "43.2(3:2)". The 1/1.7" (7.6*5.7mm) sensor would be "9.4(4:3)" and so on.

From descriptions like this, anyone can work out the "effective" focal length of any given lens on any given sensor, without having to refer to a look-up table.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 11:24 UTC

Curious how, with smaller-than-35mm sensors, every focal length is usually quoted with its "35mm equivalent" length alongside, but with larger-than-35mm, this is not the case. No-one has ever said of a Hasselblad 70mm lens, "50,mm equivalent". Nor should they!

So why is this always done for smaller-frame cameras?

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 01:14 UTC as 19th comment | 12 replies

As a happy GoPro 3 Black owner, here is what would tempt me to upgrade:

1) A global shutter, to avoid distortions in fast moving and rotating objects, and kill the "jello" effect

2) Longer battery life, so a whole day's shooting could be accomplished without having to open the waterproof casing

3) Option for a rectlinear, wide angle lens (say 20/24mm 135 equivalent) rather than the current 170-degree fish-eye

4) Better sound quality while remaining waterproof

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 12:20 UTC as 4th comment

Trouble is this. For what it does, my GoPro 3 Black is amazing, and perfect. But nothing that's been produced since, makes me want to upgrade. Until the day I flood or otherwise kill my 3 Black, I'm very happy, thanks.

What you, GOPRO, have to do, is come up with something genuinely new!

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 22:55 UTC as 6th comment
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Nice article, Damien, but one point of order; quote:

"Olympus generally didn’t use big top-plate shutter speed dials until the OM series of 35mm SLRs"

When the OM-1 arrived, one of its best design features was that, unlike any other SLR, its shutter speed dial was NOT on the top-plate: it was a ring around the lens mount throat. Placing it there meant you could control both shutter speed and aperture from similar locations!

No need to talk to Ivor Matanle to confirm this one - I still have my once-new 1976 Olympus OM-1N and set of 4 prime Zuikos, in full working order!

Brian

Footnote: when I went to buy my Olympus OM-D E-M1 at Park Cameras a couple of years ago, I took the OM-1N with me to compare them. They are so nearly the identical size, and the styling is incredibly similar. Even more so, than with the two Pen-F cameras you are writing about!

darngooddesign, the OM-1 had a very simple "needle in calipers" meter on the left side of the viewfinder. You could _feel_ the shutter speed, because the shutter speed ring round the lens throat had two lugs on it, which, with experience, meant you knew how far round you'd turned it, and therefore what speed you'd selected. You'd set either the aperture or the shutter, then turn the other until the needle was midway between the calipers, to get the "perfect" exposure. All the dial on the top of the camera did, was bias this needle to match whatever film you had loaded. If you wanted (say) a half-stop adjustment, all you needed to do was continue to turn the aperture ring until the needle touched the top (for +0.5EV) or bottom (for -0.5EV) caliper jaw tip. If you wanted a whole stop adjustment, you simply twisted the aperture further still, until the needle touched the base of the caliper jaw. All simple stuff, and you generally got superb exposures.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 00:39 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (391 comments in total)

Gotta say, I am in love with my Olympus OM-D E-M1, not least because it handles so much like my original OM-1N from 1976. If I wanted a second body, this Pen-F would be a very good contender.

Olympus are producing the cameras I've always wanted: excellent picture quality, lovely handling, and sizes comparable to the best of the 35mm world. AND pretty! By comparison, even their own E-1 feels like a lump of lead, and as for the big Canikons, yikes! I'd need to hire a sherpa before getting one of their flagships!

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 21:03 UTC as 59th comment | 2 replies
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Nice article, Damien, but one point of order; quote:

"Olympus generally didn’t use big top-plate shutter speed dials until the OM series of 35mm SLRs"

When the OM-1 arrived, one of its best design features was that, unlike any other SLR, its shutter speed dial was NOT on the top-plate: it was a ring around the lens mount throat. Placing it there meant you could control both shutter speed and aperture from similar locations!

No need to talk to Ivor Matanle to confirm this one - I still have my once-new 1976 Olympus OM-1N and set of 4 prime Zuikos, in full working order!

Brian

Footnote: when I went to buy my Olympus OM-D E-M1 at Park Cameras a couple of years ago, I took the OM-1N with me to compare them. They are so nearly the identical size, and the styling is incredibly similar. Even more so, than with the two Pen-F cameras you are writing about!

damgooddesign, look closer at those photos. The top-plate dial is the FILM SPEED selector (ASA/ISO), not shutter speed dial! I can see how, at a quick glance, you could be confused. By placing the shutter speed dial round the neck, it is close to the lens aperture ring, and you can do all exposure setting with your left hand without removing your grip on the camera.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 20:58 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (391 comments in total)

Nice article, Damien, but one point of order; quote:

"Olympus generally didn’t use big top-plate shutter speed dials until the OM series of 35mm SLRs"

When the OM-1 arrived, one of its best design features was that, unlike any other SLR, its shutter speed dial was NOT on the top-plate: it was a ring around the lens mount throat. Placing it there meant you could control both shutter speed and aperture from similar locations!

No need to talk to Ivor Matanle to confirm this one - I still have my once-new 1976 Olympus OM-1N and set of 4 prime Zuikos, in full working order!

Brian

Footnote: when I went to buy my Olympus OM-D E-M1 at Park Cameras a couple of years ago, I took the OM-1N with me to compare them. They are so nearly the identical size, and the styling is incredibly similar. Even more so, than with the two Pen-F cameras you are writing about!

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 19:12 UTC as 79th comment | 10 replies
Total: 516, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »