noirdesir

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

Comments

Total: 893, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

photophile: erm....ounces ? pounds ?? WHY ?? Don't people learn scientific units of measurements in school anymore ? Linearaity and scale in base 10 people!! Eye of newt and toe of frog next.

Most base units are in their accurate value meaningless, for example a second:
"The SI definition of second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".

The kilogram (1 l of water) and at least the spacing of kelvin (100 degrees between freezing and boiling) are at least in reasonable approximation meaningful mass and temperature scales. A mole, again, at least in approximation, is also useful definition (though it contains the definition of a kg).

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

photophile: erm....ounces ? pounds ?? WHY ?? Don't people learn scientific units of measurements in school anymore ? Linearaity and scale in base 10 people!! Eye of newt and toe of frog next.

deep7:
One might argue that almost all people that like, prefer or are completely unbothered by the imperial unit system are merely trying to rationalise what they cannot change or simply have zero appetite for change in this regard.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

S Yu: This isn't particularly fast for an SSD, even an old SATA interface could handle this, this might have been called fast 3 years ago, but it's on Gen.2 USB3.1 and isn't using half its bandwidth.

caking:
You've mixed up GBit and GByte. USB 3.1 gen 2 can do 10 Gbit/s or 1.25 Gbyte/s. This compares to the 2 to 3 GByte/s the best consumer SSDs can do. For external storage devices, only TB3 (40 Gbit/s) has enough bandwidth for these 3 GB/s or 24 Gbit/s.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

S Yu: This isn't particularly fast for an SSD, even an old SATA interface could handle this, this might have been called fast 3 years ago, but it's on Gen.2 USB3.1 and isn't using half its bandwidth.

As Chaitanya already said, it as fast as 'old' SATA interfaces because it, gasp, uses a SATA interface as all affordable external SSDs do. You can speed things up by using two SATA connections and a RAID controller to more fully use USB 3.1 gen 2 speeds.

What I haven't really seen is an NVMe drive (or anything else using PCIe internally) in an enclosure connected via USB. This of course is possible with TB, but I've yet to see a USB version.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

photophile: erm....ounces ? pounds ?? WHY ?? Don't people learn scientific units of measurements in school anymore ? Linearaity and scale in base 10 people!! Eye of newt and toe of frog next.

If it's a mechanical balance, it can be oz-only or a combined, base 16 scale ( https://d3ld6frh4bdurh.cloudfront.net/products/370/370-ups810_large.jpg ). Digital ones seem to default to showing things like 1 lb 5 oz ( http://www.zesco.com/pimages/hi_res/713/713-d-052.jpg ). Which means you have to the mental divide by 16, carry the rest to get from 35 oz to 2 lb 3 oz.

If that is the only calculation you have to do in your daily life, it's quite doable. But to stay in the kitchen, fluid ounces, pints and probably gallons are also common conversions. And inches and feet most likely are also commonly needed units (factor of 12).

Still, my guess would be that most people get by by only ever dealing with a limited number of units (furlong?) and not needing to convert between different categories (eg, cubic inches to fluid ounce). And differences between British and U.S. units with the same name are probably at least as often gotten wrong or being ignored than they are correctly applied.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 16:21 UTC
In reply to:

photophile: erm....ounces ? pounds ?? WHY ?? Don't people learn scientific units of measurements in school anymore ? Linearaity and scale in base 10 people!! Eye of newt and toe of frog next.

Dheorl:
And when shopping ingredients for a recipe that requirest, eg, 2 oz per person, I can just grab a 20 oz package when I want to feed 10 people? Well, not really, the packages are labelled in lbs.

And imagine if money were using historical, interesting, non-decimal units. Imagine a beer would cost two 'dollars', but ten beers would 1.5 'shilling' and 100 beers would cost three 'duram', and a thousand beers 1.2 'mash'. You would go crazy.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 11:05 UTC
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bruno E: "We're also hoping that even if Canon-style on-sensor PDAF ends up being unachievable, Nikon will take the opportunity to improve the D850's autofocus in live view and movie mode."

Maybe stupid question, but what is hindering a DSLR to autofocus like a mirrorless camera in liveview mode? Shouldn't that be part of the Sony sensor anyway?

If a tilted viewfinder (with full PD AF) is the only thing you wanted, why didn't you state this as your motivation in your first post?

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 10:47 UTC
In reply to:

photophile: erm....ounces ? pounds ?? WHY ?? Don't people learn scientific units of measurements in school anymore ? Linearaity and scale in base 10 people!! Eye of newt and toe of frog next.

Well, if a unit system uses enough different bases, there is a chance that one of them is 12. Praising the imperial system for hitting your preferred base of 12 occasionally is like lauding a shotgun for occasionally making a straight shot over high precision rifle that reliably pulls somewhat to the left.

And routing for a 12 base numeric system is about as useful as hoping all people worldwide to start speaking only one global language. The 12 base system is as likely to take over the world as is Esperanto. Sure, Esperanto might make more sense than other 'global' languages like English, but the installed base for English (and other like Mandarin, Spanish) is just to big for Esperanto to ever go anywhere.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 12:56 UTC
In reply to:

NicoPPC: Would you mind give the weight also in metric ?

While the U.S. has moved to base 10 currency denominations not long after independence (away from the pounds, shillings, and pence system with base 12 and base 20) in that 100 cent make one dollar, they still like to treat coins to some extent as if they were separate units with the quarter, dime and nickel naming when most other countries tend to simply call such coins by their value (ie, a 5 cent, 10 cent or 25 cent coin).

While such names exist in other countries as well (the ten Pfennig coin in Germany was sometimes called a 'Groschen'), they tend to be on the outs, and the introduction of the Euro created new coins with no historical names attached to them.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 20:54 UTC
In reply to:

NicoPPC: Would you mind give the weight also in metric ?

As I said above, even just picking one unit and using decimals instead of combining lbs with oz, would be helpful.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: The fact that you can shoot everything at two stops ISO less on 4/3rds....for example, 1600 ISO at f11 in full frame compared to 400 ISO at f5.6 on the Olympus, to get exactly, and I mean exactly..... the same Depth of field, and shutter speed, evens out the score in image quality. The Olympus is much, much lighter and enjoyable under hiking conditions though

The only real downside is dynamic range (as long as there is plenty of light).

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 00:00 UTC
In reply to:

photophile: erm....ounces ? pounds ?? WHY ?? Don't people learn scientific units of measurements in school anymore ? Linearaity and scale in base 10 people!! Eye of newt and toe of frog next.

Using different units is one thing. When converting currencies we have to deal with that all the time. My biggest problem is the different base systems, if everything were base 12, at least it would be easier to remember (and its close enough to 10). And what really kills me is that these different base systems discourage decimal points.

Things would already be much better with listing something as 2.3 lbs or 5.7 ft.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2017 at 23:58 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Y'know, I've long since accepted the fact that when you take away all of the super features that you pay for in more advanced (and expensive) DSLR's - when you get right down to it - the IQ coming from these more modest "entry-level" (I really hate using that term) can stand up to the best of 'em.

Some of the nicest images (read for "clarity" and "color balance" here) have come from so called entry level cameras. I realize our opinions on cameras and what we're looking for are all subjective, but for me, "it's the IQ stupid."

My only foray into Canon products at the moment are 4 cameras from their M series, which I thoroughly enjoy (but they sadly, need "MORE" EF-M lenses to make the system a growing and increasingly competitive one). But this new SL2 (regardless of how it is viewed - i.e. "entry level," "beginner," or what have you) has me very interested. I may pull the trigger on one in the next several weeks.

There is a practically endless number of cases in every language where the same word or expression is used to mean multiple, different things. Can you really say with a straight face that there exist people that:
(a) know what Leica M mount lenses are and
(b) would misunderstand a sentence that starts with "Canon [] cameras from their M series" and continues with "need more M lenses" to mean lenses with the Leica M mount?

And looking at how many Likes your comments in this thread and the comments of people (incl. Ben) criticising your "M lenses" diatribe have garnered, it really looks that you are the odd man out here.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 23:55 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Y'know, I've long since accepted the fact that when you take away all of the super features that you pay for in more advanced (and expensive) DSLR's - when you get right down to it - the IQ coming from these more modest "entry-level" (I really hate using that term) can stand up to the best of 'em.

Some of the nicest images (read for "clarity" and "color balance" here) have come from so called entry level cameras. I realize our opinions on cameras and what we're looking for are all subjective, but for me, "it's the IQ stupid."

My only foray into Canon products at the moment are 4 cameras from their M series, which I thoroughly enjoy (but they sadly, need "MORE" EF-M lenses to make the system a growing and increasingly competitive one). But this new SL2 (regardless of how it is viewed - i.e. "entry level," "beginner," or what have you) has me very interested. I may pull the trigger on one in the next several weeks.

You said: "Please don't imply that Canon makes M lenses". That to me is an accusation to mislead. It also meant that you made the connection to Leica M mount lenses, that nobody else had made up until that point.

And that nobody else would have made if not for you mentioning it. Canon's mirrorless cameras carry names such as M, M10, M3, M5, M6. Calling them Canon's 'M-series' is far from incorrect. And referring to the lenses for these bodies as the 'M lenses' in the fricking SAME sentence that talks about Canon's M-series cameras might be using an unusual term, but in this context isn't incorrect either. It is merely an short form for 'EOS-M' lenses. Call it creative license if you want. Creative license only turns in incorrectness if it misleads or causes misunderstandings. Nobody knowing anything about Canon's M bodies would ever have thought that it takes Leica M mount lenses or that Canon lenses with Leica M mount would be relevant here.

Except for you obviously.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 21:52 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Y'know, I've long since accepted the fact that when you take away all of the super features that you pay for in more advanced (and expensive) DSLR's - when you get right down to it - the IQ coming from these more modest "entry-level" (I really hate using that term) can stand up to the best of 'em.

Some of the nicest images (read for "clarity" and "color balance" here) have come from so called entry level cameras. I realize our opinions on cameras and what we're looking for are all subjective, but for me, "it's the IQ stupid."

My only foray into Canon products at the moment are 4 cameras from their M series, which I thoroughly enjoy (but they sadly, need "MORE" EF-M lenses to make the system a growing and increasingly competitive one). But this new SL2 (regardless of how it is viewed - i.e. "entry level," "beginner," or what have you) has me very interested. I may pull the trigger on one in the next several weeks.

Nope, you weren't 'correcting', you were accusing of intent to mislead. Something quite different. And there is only reason why you thought somebody could have been mislead (ie, thought Ben was referring to Leica M mount lenses): For a split second, you yourself thought he was referring to Leica M mount lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 20:40 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Y'know, I've long since accepted the fact that when you take away all of the super features that you pay for in more advanced (and expensive) DSLR's - when you get right down to it - the IQ coming from these more modest "entry-level" (I really hate using that term) can stand up to the best of 'em.

Some of the nicest images (read for "clarity" and "color balance" here) have come from so called entry level cameras. I realize our opinions on cameras and what we're looking for are all subjective, but for me, "it's the IQ stupid."

My only foray into Canon products at the moment are 4 cameras from their M series, which I thoroughly enjoy (but they sadly, need "MORE" EF-M lenses to make the system a growing and increasingly competitive one). But this new SL2 (regardless of how it is viewed - i.e. "entry level," "beginner," or what have you) has me very interested. I may pull the trigger on one in the next several weeks.

Agreed, definite no. The M in EOS-M stands for mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Y'know, I've long since accepted the fact that when you take away all of the super features that you pay for in more advanced (and expensive) DSLR's - when you get right down to it - the IQ coming from these more modest "entry-level" (I really hate using that term) can stand up to the best of 'em.

Some of the nicest images (read for "clarity" and "color balance" here) have come from so called entry level cameras. I realize our opinions on cameras and what we're looking for are all subjective, but for me, "it's the IQ stupid."

My only foray into Canon products at the moment are 4 cameras from their M series, which I thoroughly enjoy (but they sadly, need "MORE" EF-M lenses to make the system a growing and increasingly competitive one). But this new SL2 (regardless of how it is viewed - i.e. "entry level," "beginner," or what have you) has me very interested. I may pull the trigger on one in the next several weeks.

HowaboutRAW:
You know 100% that Ben Hermann was not trying to imply that Canon made lenses for the Leica M mount. You also know that 99% of all readers of his comment would not have been mislead in any way by the phrasing of his comment. Some people, including you, might for a split second have thought that Ben was talking about Leica M mount lenses. But after pondering it for a moment, 99% of people, including you, realised that thinking that Ben made any reference to Leica M mount lenses makes zero sense.

There might a tiny group, generously rounded up to 1% by me, that on the one hand are aware of Leica M lenses, but on the other hand no little enough about photography equipment that they might have thought, prompted by Ben's comment, that Canon made Leica M lenses. But the overlap of groups aware of Leica M mount lenses and those not being aware that Canon doesn't make any Leica M mount lenses is exceedingly tiny.

You got tripped for a second and now blame Ben for it.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 15:27 UTC

Lenstip also published their results today:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=507

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 21:55 UTC as 46th comment
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bruno E: "We're also hoping that even if Canon-style on-sensor PDAF ends up being unachievable, Nikon will take the opportunity to improve the D850's autofocus in live view and movie mode."

Maybe stupid question, but what is hindering a DSLR to autofocus like a mirrorless camera in liveview mode? Shouldn't that be part of the Sony sensor anyway?

What exactly does "When you need Live View" mean? The only reasons to need Live View are:
1) Magnified focus
2) Focus without alignment issue (ie, same optical path)
3) DOF preview without darkening viewfinder
4) Exposure preview (chimping without chimping)
5) Using a tilted/articulated 'viewfinder/display'

Of those five reasons, only the fifth one would profit from a secondary, lower resolution sensor, as the lower resolution, different DR, and separate optical path of this secondary sensor would comprise all those Live View advantages.

And how am I misunderstanding you, when you confirm that the only real advantage of your, secondary sensor Live View is having a tilted 'viewfinder'?

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 08:32 UTC
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bruno E: "We're also hoping that even if Canon-style on-sensor PDAF ends up being unachievable, Nikon will take the opportunity to improve the D850's autofocus in live view and movie mode."

Maybe stupid question, but what is hindering a DSLR to autofocus like a mirrorless camera in liveview mode? Shouldn't that be part of the Sony sensor anyway?

I think the question is what is the advantage of using this lower resolution secondary sensor (eg, the current 180'000 pixel metering sensor) over the optical viewfinder? To actually start 'recording', either a still image or a video, you would still need to flip the mirror up. It wouldn't remove any focussing inaccuracies of the PDAF or manual optical viewfinder focussing since it would still be a different optical path than the sensor and thus needs to be perfectly aligned and its lower resolution would limit focus accuracy either using CDAF or magnified manual focussing. It might help with exposure and DOF preview (but the lower resolution and probably different DR of the secondary sensor) would work against that.

The only advantage I can see would be get a tilted 'viewfinder' if the camera has a tilted back LCD.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 12:32 UTC
Total: 893, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »