Enginel

Joined on Jun 9, 2011

Comments

Total: 331, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

David Hull: OMG -- someone actually successfully implemented "Double Super PDAF." in a production device. Canon is indeed doomed :-)

@David Hull
Canon probably licensed them certain IP for this

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2021 at 17:49 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Holly: Pfft, it’s a struggle to get a lens to resolve 50MP on an FF or APS sensor. The pixels are already too small. And this things gonna resolve 50?

@Tom Holly
Studio scene comparison tool, here, on dpreview shows otherwise: 90D with 50/1.4 produces sharper images than 5DM3 with 85/1.4.

You said "same lens", probably a zoom lens intended for full-frame camera which isn't good for using on a crop camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2021 at 17:47 UTC
In reply to:

Vermeero: 50 megapixel sensor using that small size? I think it will not look good when viewed on a desktop monitor at actual size (1 pixel in the image = 1 monitor pixel). The power of resolving detail is more related to sensor size and matching optics than it is to pixel count if the two compared do not drift apart to much in pixel count. So it’s like comparing a 30 mp phone to a 18 mp full frame dslr, which one will resolve more detail?

@ottonis: the VHS example is a red gerring; Topaz AI wasn't trained on datasets with old VHS images.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2021 at 17:39 UTC
On article Why have cameras and lenses become so expensive? (673 comments in total)
In reply to:

AdamT: I Guess Sony can charge the money they do for the A1 because they can ....... Lets face it , its just a computer with a sensor, shutter and a lens mount same as the Canon R5 yet costs £2000 more than the already high price of the R5 .. none of the complicated mechanics which hi end DSLRs had to justify their sometimes crazy prices

How is flapping mirror much complicated than IBIS or focal plane shutters, which most mirrorless cameras retain?

Link | Posted on May 31, 2021 at 09:39 UTC
On article Sony announces new ultra-fast FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens (548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clavewifi: The Voigtländer Nokton 50mm 1.2 SE weights 383 g, and costs roughly 1k and may be half the size. Hence, you have to weigh in with a lot to obtain autofocus, maybe too much

Yeah, moving a lot of glass requires heavier motors, and larger aperture, more mass and less air inside. Many of optically perfect schemes can't be used because they involve too much glass to move. Such problems wouldn't arise if they moved sensor to focus, which weights a tiny fraction of that of f1.2 focusing elements. Then, at cost of camera bodies being 10-20 g heavier, we'd have significantly decreased weight of lenses.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2021 at 11:36 UTC
In reply to:

Astro Landscapes: After finishing my testing of the Z5, I can definitely say that the image quality is incredible; even comparing the Z5 and Z6 side-by-side against the A7III and A9II, I found that the difference between any of those four cameras is smaller than the difference between actually nailing a correct exposure, and not doing so by about ~1 stop.

Put a different way, take test images on ANY 24-megapixel camera at ISO 12800, compare the shadows, and then try the Z5 again at +1 EV brighter. The shadows of that brighter Z5 image will completely smoke all competitors.

>actually nailing a correct exposure, and not doing so by about ~1 stop.

isn't that same 1 stop equal to difference between normally exposed 12800 ISO and 6400 ISO? (and FF-apsc difference is 1.2 stops)

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2020 at 06:16 UTC
In reply to:

RegisS: It looks like this lens works on a lab bench with the subject illuminated by a specific wavelength of light. To use this lens in natural light, it would need a narrowband optical filter to block all but the wavelength the lens is designed for. That's a lot of light loss. There may be machine vision robotic uses for this tech, but it won't be much use as a cellphone camera lens.

You could have narrow-band illumination instead

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2020 at 10:24 UTC
In reply to:

Karroly: No IBIS, no buy... ;-)

Also ergonomics is terrible. xD

Link | Posted on May 7, 2020 at 11:55 UTC
In reply to:

ivan_w: Will apsc has better quality result and less vignette with this body cap lens?

Anyway, I think the price is too high.

@quiquae
but not every smartphone has such wideangle lens as 18 mm on FF.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2019 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

Mattanja: Why not turn the lens around by 90 degrees for a change (and I'm NOT saying with a mirror, in order not to spoil any of the IQ), and let the light enter via the upper side of the phone? That way one could just hold the phone level and even take more discrete photos. Then lens length or thickness would not matter at all. Just my 2 cents.

> take more discrete photos.

this is why it won't take off, as people would assume the worst than every owner of such phone is a voyer and attack him/her.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2019 at 04:02 UTC

Barrel distortion is a feature, not a bug; lens with barrel distortion has greater FOV than rectliniar lens with same focal length. So they always crop out exterior parts, taking choice away from you.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2019 at 10:20 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

alexgannis: Pay for adobe rent software you'll never own, No thanks. I'll keep my Photoshop and Lightroom 6.0. and Affinity .

Technically you do not have software you buy in a retail store. You can buy a license, or hardware medium, but you do not own the software -- read the user agreement. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/08380617021/microsoft-reminds-everyone-you-do-not-own-your-software.shtml

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2019 at 10:10 UTC
In reply to:

Roman_93: no color control wheels, no liquify for the body instead of just face?
And so much more third party is offering for years.

The Abo model is a sleeping pill for innovation.

Yup but most people are lazy and don't want to go to third party software for one feature or two.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2019 at 10:03 UTC
In reply to:

Frank_BR: It is very strange that Fujifilm could not design a practical 33mm F1 lens...

Just as an exercise of imagination, take a Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f / 0.95 ASPH and scale down the linear dimensions of all mechanical and optical parts by the 1.5x APS-C crop factor.

The resulting lens will be a 33mm F0.95, with the same angular coverage of the Leica Noctilux, and capable of fully covering the APSC format. The weight (and volume) will be reduced by a factor of 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5, but as the Leica Noctlix weighs 700 g, the 33mm F0.95 scaled down lens will have a weight of only 207 g!

It is true that scaling a lens is not that simple, and an AF system should be added, but it is strange that the Fujifilm 33mm F1 prototype was so heavy, about 1300 g.

I made a discussion thread on thishttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4182419
and got multiple non-answers o.o

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2019 at 16:11 UTC

I want even smaller DSLR with reduced backfocus and small standard lens (like Sams NX 30/2)

Link | Posted on May 18, 2019 at 07:08 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-S1 review (1971 comments in total)
In reply to:

pascal b: As simple as it is, Panasonic lost me by becoming a 2:3 format follower.
Why no FF4:3 new standard with their old friend Olympus?
Why this industry lost its boldness? Why no more 1:1 cameras? Why no more 6:7 (my favorite format) cameras?
Market size? 4K and tomorrow 8K compatibility?
Yes I know, I can crop, even before shooting, contrary to Sony E mount...
But I had a dream. And now we have a bulky 2:3 Lumix camera supposed to be the grail for photography and video.
Maybe I'm getting really old.

non-square sensors have faster readout (given same area).
because rows and columns of CMOS image sensors aren't same.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2019 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: The basis for the plaintiff's legal argument is not presented here, so it is hard to see what they are claiming. (Right to privacy? Right to publicity? )

Just playing the devil's advocate here....

A crazy argument could also be made by the descendants of the slave owners. Weren't these slaves their legal property and how did they lose their rights to profit from their ancester's possessions?

well IIRC in most cases slaveowners were compensated by US goverment for freeing slaves?

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2019 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

PostModernBloke: “He who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past.” - George Orwell.
So who should control this archive?

It seems clear to me (as a white Englishman), that these images are the inheritance of the African American people. This archive belongs to those who were violated in order to produce it. It is a part of their legacy. The images should be donated to some public body that is actively recording the history of slavery. They are important documents - not for me or you maybe - but certainly for the descendants of these people.

Photography is an important art; but like any other discipline it has sometimes been reduced to political propaganda. 19th century ethnographic photographs are a shameful chapter for photography, and 19th century racists were quick to utilise it to promote a white supremacist agenda. Not least Harvard.

Photos 100 yo old should be in public domain.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2019 at 03:46 UTC
In reply to:

SmoothOperator: And you wonder why Native Americans and African Americans refuse to participate in studies, either at the tribal level or individually at a much lower rate.

Because they are not paid/offered too little for it?

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2019 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

BazzzH: Would make an awesome portrait lens (100mm) for MFT probably.

There's already 42.5 mm f/0.95 MFT lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2019 at 06:16 UTC
Total: 331, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »