noirdesir

Lives in Switzerland Switzerland
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Nov 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 560, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think there is some confusion as to what a "long zoom camera" is. If the 8.3X and 10X zooms belong in this group, then maybe the 25X zooms need to be in another group.

I realize 8.3X was once considered "long zoom" but that was back in 2004. Today, long zoom means "30X, 40X, 50X and more."

DPR has assembled a group of 5 SLR styled "bridge cameras" and 1 compact travel zoom camera of various zoom ratios, and called them "long zoom camera." The only things they really have in common is they have sensors 1.0 inch or larger, and they all "cost a lot."

Marty wasn't talking about superzooms, he was talking about "Enthusiast Compact Camera Roundup" (the precise title would be: "Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras"). In that group, the Fuji X30 and XQ2 have (had) 2/3" sensors.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: The P9 can indeed produce shall DOF effect, but not the DR and the smooth transitions of a high end FF cam w a good lens.

As I said, my doubts are in regard to how the blurred area looks. I don't think you can fully recreate the look of the blur of a 'large aperture' lens. In particular since the accuracy of the distance information will be limited.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 21:17 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: The P9 can indeed produce shall DOF effect, but not the DR and the smooth transitions of a high end FF cam w a good lens.

But as shallow as a 70-200 mm f/2.8 on FF? And isn't this partly based on using the two cameras to identify depth and blur some areas to simulate shallow DOF? (Ok, maybe what they are actually doing is a bit more complex but I still doubt it can replicate the shallow DOF of FF).

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 19:42 UTC

I'm wondering, if one configures the card to connect to ones home WiFi network, doesn't this mean that the password for said WiFi network needs to be stored on the card. And therefore, if somebody would manage to wirelessly hack into the Eye-Fi card, that password would be exposed?

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 23:10 UTC as 21st comment

Correction by Hasselblad: There will be zoom lenses for the X1D
http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/hasselblad-ceo-perry-oosting-says-x1d-actually-will-have-zoom-lenses

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 22:29 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: For those waiting for 'pancake' lenses for this Hassy; it won't happen. Ever. Unless you want it to be f22 pinhole-cap lens?

While marketing can fool you into .. "look kids, we have shrunk the flange distance: quickly go buy our camera now!" .. mood, they cannot distort the laws of optics same as they can twist our minds into the mirrorless fad.

Front element of any decent lens still nees to sit at a certain distance from the sensor, and there is no way around it. (Unless you want *&^_@ image quality).

Slim down the camera, but the lens must grow bigger then. Really good pancakes are a trait of the SLRs, not of the larger format mirrorless cameras. With mirrorless fad, you will get a slimmer camera body, but almost always some 'beer can' or 'tomato tin' of a lens.

PS. Check the Fuji 27mm/2.8 and Pentax DA40/2.8; Pentax lens is half the height of Fuji, and still there are no optical cheats in it; only but 100% tele-centricity.

The smaller flange distance isn't causing squat. It's the lens design that a smaller flange distance enables (but in no way requires), that can cause problems.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 13:04 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: The MF paradigm is shifting. This camera is the starting point. In my opinion.

Joe, you are using Canon's APS-C size as a reference which is a bit smaller than everybody else (as I already said):
Width: 22.3 mm, Height: 14.9 mm, Area: 332 mm²

APS-C (Sony α DT, Sony E, Nikon DX, Pentax K, Samsung NX, Fuji X, Leica T/X):
Width: 23.6–23.7 mm, Height: 15.60 mm, Area: 368-370 mm²

And digital FF is also not always exactly 24 x 36 mm, its width varies between 35.8 and 36 mm, and the height between 23.8 and 24 mm and thus its area between 856 and 864 mm².

Canon 1DsII/1DsIII/1DX/6D/5D/5DII/5DIII: 24 x 36 mm
Leica SL: 24 x 36 mm
Nikon D700/D3/D3s/Df/D4/D4s/D5: 23.9 x 36 mm
Nikon D600/D610/D750/D800/D800E/D810/D3X: 24 x 35.9 mm
Pentax K1: 24 x 35.9 mm
Sony A850/A900/A7R/A7RII: 24 x 35.9 mm
Canon 1DX II: 23.9 x 35.9 mm
Sony A7/A7II/A99: 23.9 x 35.8 mm
Leica M9/240: 23.9 x 35.8 mm
Canon 1Ds: 23.8 x 35.8 mm
Sony A7S/A7SII: 23.8 x 35.6/8 mm

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 19:18 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: The MF paradigm is shifting. This camera is the starting point. In my opinion.

You are mixing up definitions of percentage-based increases.
- The X1D has a sensor that is 1.68x larger than FF, or has 168% of the area of FF, or has a 68% larger surface.
- FF has a sensor that is 2.33x larger than APS-C, or 233% of the area of FF or has 133% larger surface

(Taking the more common version of APS-C as used by Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Samsung, Leica & Ricoh instead of Canon's version of it. Also MF 6x6 film was only about 56 x 56 mm or 3136 mm², not 3600 mm².)

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 13:24 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1188 comments in total)
In reply to:

drgarym: Same sensor as Pentax 645 but how about image quality?

Applying the sunny f/16 rule, in bright sunshine (ie, ISO 100, 1/100 s, f/16), ISO 100, 1/2000 s and f/3.5 should just about work out in using the XCD lenses wide-open. If they can squeeze a shutter speed of 1/4000 s of their system, that would extend to f/2.5.

Their 1/2000 s shutter speed is created by overlapping a 1/1000 s, aka 1 ms, shutter-open window from the mechanical leaf shutter, with a 1/1000 s window from the electronic shutter, offset from each other by 0.5 ms. Though technically, they only need an electronic first curtain shutter which imposes less compromises than a fully electronic shutter as the mechanical shutter sets the end of the exposure and the electronic shutter defines the beginning. They are working on improving the timing accuracy of those two shutters such that the overlapping part is reduced, ie, start the 1/1000 s mechanical shutter and then 0.75 ms (instead of 0.5 ms) later start the electronic first curtain shutter.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

Deardorff: It is not a real Hasselblad without a 6x6 square format. Try all you want but this and the other stuff you make are pretenders to the throne of the Square as ordained by God and Ernst Wildi.
Have used the 6x6 for decades but your smaller rectangle digital stuff will never see a dime from me.

Taking the square aspect ratio aside, why do you think we have not seen any digital sensors larger than about 6x4.5? Yes, we have seen scanning backs for 4x5' cameras but they are slowly dying out as well because the line sensors going into them aren't produced anymore.

We don't even have 'modern' MF systems larger than 6x4.5. The only MF system larger than that that got AF was the Rollei 6x6 system (which somehow soldiers on, marching through multiple bankruptcies and takeovers but probably largely unchanged for the last 15 years).

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 13:00 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: For those waiting for 'pancake' lenses for this Hassy; it won't happen. Ever. Unless you want it to be f22 pinhole-cap lens?

While marketing can fool you into .. "look kids, we have shrunk the flange distance: quickly go buy our camera now!" .. mood, they cannot distort the laws of optics same as they can twist our minds into the mirrorless fad.

Front element of any decent lens still nees to sit at a certain distance from the sensor, and there is no way around it. (Unless you want *&^_@ image quality).

Slim down the camera, but the lens must grow bigger then. Really good pancakes are a trait of the SLRs, not of the larger format mirrorless cameras. With mirrorless fad, you will get a slimmer camera body, but almost always some 'beer can' or 'tomato tin' of a lens.

PS. Check the Fuji 27mm/2.8 and Pentax DA40/2.8; Pentax lens is half the height of Fuji, and still there are no optical cheats in it; only but 100% tele-centricity.

Let's take a pretty good pancake lens, the Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7. It has a length of 26 mm and sits on a mount with a 19.25 mm flange distance. Scaling this up linearly to the 44 x 33 mm sensor size, we would have a combined lens length + camera depth (up until the sensor plane) of 115 mm.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 12:39 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Stonewall: Waiting for the digital fuji 6x9😇

44 x 33 mm sensors have now appeared in cameras priced as low as $7000. 54 x 40 mm can be had in an H5D-60 for $18000 (but that might be a close-out price). A 6x9 aka 56 x 86 mm would be about twice the size of the 54 x 40 mm sensors. Given that the size increase from 44 x 33 mm to 54 x 40 mm is only about 50%, a 6x9 sensor would probably cost at least $60000 as a new product (the H6D-100 costs about $33000) and might come down to $40000 if it becomes a second-tier sensor five years later. But that doesn't include the cost for 6x9 lenses (covering an image circle 1.5x larger than all existing 645 lens).

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 00:09 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

LFPCPH: I have been thinking. The Hasselblad Xpan camera had 45mm 4.0 and a 90mm 4.0 lenses. Could the new 45mm 3.5 and 90mm 3.2 be the same lens designs ?

Delivering lenses with equivalent focal lengths of 24, 35 and 70 mm does not strike me as something motivated by anything beyond the plain usual: They are commonly used (equivalent) focal length. Maybe 70 mm less so but that is probably due to the intention of keeping the lens still reasonably compact.

But we will soon enough know when the full technical details of these lenses are available. However, whether you would then see me being right as merely having made a lucky guess or as having appropriately assessed the probability (by virtue of having identified what are the more relevant factors), is something that is beyond my ability.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 01:33 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

LFPCPH: I have been thinking. The Hasselblad Xpan camera had 45mm 4.0 and a 90mm 4.0 lenses. Could the new 45mm 3.5 and 90mm 3.2 be the same lens designs ?

I think optical design has progressed noticeably since the X-Pan lenses where developed. I also don't think that the X-Pan lenses will do particularly good on digital (the WA ones). Incorporating AF might also have lead to a different optical design.

Overall, I would place a pretty high bet on them not being optically identical.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 19:34 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

JapanAntoine: Very impressive how small they managed to design this camera!
I wonder if they haven't done a bit too much though, especially on the mount design as it makes it super close to the sensor... but hey, with leaf-shutter lenses and all these nice ideas, I won't complain!
Can't wait to see one next to a Pentax 645Z :-D

A symmetric WA lens has to have lens elements close to the image plane and is the opposite of telecentric. If a larger distance between the last lens element and the image plane is has be achieved, a retrofocus design is required which will be more telecentric. But the opposite isn't true, ie, a WA lens doesn't have to be symmetric to (a) have lens elements close to the image plane and (b) be shorter than a retrofocus lens that has to clear a mirror box. Retrofocus lenses allow for a larger distance between lens and image plane, but they don't require it. And you can design a retrofocus (WA) lens that is shorter than a classical retrofocus SLR design (when allowing a shorter distance between lens and image plane) but still relatively telecentric. It won't be as short as a symmetric design but still shorter than an SLR lens.
2) Equally important is that if a very short flange distance allows you to have very short lenses, it doesn't force you to do so.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 13:31 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

JapanAntoine: Very impressive how small they managed to design this camera!
I wonder if they haven't done a bit too much though, especially on the mount design as it makes it super close to the sensor... but hey, with leaf-shutter lenses and all these nice ideas, I won't complain!
Can't wait to see one next to a Pentax 645Z :-D

If you put an H series (DSLR) lens and put it via an adaptor on the X1D, the angle of incidence won't be any different than on a H6D. You have just replaced the mirrorbox with an empty tube. When designing native lenses, you naturally wouldn't just take an H series lens and weld an empty tube to it, you wouldn't get a more compact system if you did so.

Therefore native lenses would be designed by removing the restraint to have a lot of empty space between the last lens element and the image plane and with the goal to make the lens shorter. There are 2 things to consider here:
1) A shorter lens and a shorter distance between the last lens element and the image does not have to mean that the lens is less telecentric and has steep angles of incidence. In fact, if you can put the last lens element very close to the sensor (in fixed lens cameras like the Ricoh GR or Sony RX1 that distance is less than 10 millimetre) that last element can actually help in make the lens more telecentric.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 13:29 UTC
In reply to:

tlinn: And still no History palette. I will never understand this omission. There is no downside to this feature. If you don't need it you don't have to use it. Even plug ins have History palettes these days.

My way of trying out multiple settings of the same tool is just to move the slider back and forth a couple of times. And when I want to compare things side-by-side, I create a variant that then gets deleted again once I have made my decision. So, usually I spent a few seconds with a given tool and then move to the next one. For some settings like WB, I often adjust one image of a series and then apply that to the complete series. Then, as I go through the images one-by-one, I might re-tweak the WB for an image and then apply that new WB setting to the whole series.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

tlinn: And still no History palette. I will never understand this omission. There is no downside to this feature. If you don't need it you don't have to use it. Even plug ins have History palettes these days.

Re: 3) Aperture is a bit better than C1 in that all adjustments are in one single column, ie, you can see all edits in one single list (and don't have to go through multiple tabs). In a sense, this is a list, just one that shows slider positions graphically instead of 'history list' that shows numbers.

I am not as familiar with C1 yet, but in Aperture when I copied adjustments from an image, I'd get a window with a list of the adjustments.

I don't want to say that a history doesn't have its uses. It does show ones own decision tree. But my main point is probably that relying on the history betrays that one is still following the editing workflow from before parametric image editors to some degree where (a) the order of adjustments applied mattered and (b) creating versions was expensive (in terms of disk space). And in regard to order, I pretty much always apply adjustments in the order they are listed in the tool list because I think this order makes a lot of sense.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

tlinn: And still no History palette. I will never understand this omission. There is no downside to this feature. If you don't need it you don't have to use it. Even plug ins have History palettes these days.

"It is a way to learn the behavior of an editor by stepping through a list of all your edits and seeing the visual results."
You can already do this now, just reset/disable each adjustment tool one by one. Or quick and dirty via cmd/ctrl-Z, ie, move a slider, see what changes, undo it again. Then move to the next tool.

Re: 2) Thankfully undo works over many steps. Just hit undo multiple times until you are back to where you want to be. And why is creating variants ridiculous? They cost very little in terms of disk space. If I had to choose between an application that offered variants and one that offered a history, I'd find the former much more useful.

Maybe I just don't apply as many adjustment steps as you do. My guess would be that very rarely go above ten. While I am editing an image, I am pretty much fully aware what adjustments I have already applied.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

tlinn: And still no History palette. I will never understand this omission. There is no downside to this feature. If you don't need it you don't have to use it. Even plug ins have History palettes these days.

That's what I use undo for. Undo is the tool recover from mistakes. And if you talk about uncovering mistakes that are older, how do you know to which point in the history you have to go back to, how do you know there even is such a state? It's trial & error, the same trial & error could be applied to just going through your adjustment sliders and disabling what you think might be the mistake.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 17:37 UTC
Total: 560, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »