noirdesir

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

Comments

Total: 915, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Leica is a luxury brand. Meaning, it is to be bought to be showed off not to be used for its IQ.

Leica is bit like Bang & Olufsen, producing high-end products that partly sell based on the brand name. But it's special editions straddle the line between the need of very rich people getting a kick out of having a limited-edition camera with fancy materials and design and pure collectors pieces.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

blacklion: Did this Leica have any connection to Leica which makes survey tools, binoculars, optical sights?

They are completely separate companies with different owners (there could be some ownership overlap between the non-camera companies, I don't know for sure). There is some legal construct in regard to sharing the trademark (and the leica.com, leica.de domains). But that's it. The original company split into different parts, though some of those parts were other companies that Leica/Leitz had bought and combined with its own assets.

There are now even four companies: Leica Camera, Leica Microsystems, Leica Geosystems and (new) Leica Biosystems (might be a spinoff of Leica Microsystems). There is also the optical and electronics company Ernst Leitz Canada (ELCAN) which was once a subsidiary of Leica/Ernst Leitz and for a time produced a handful different Leica lenses (possibly also based an acquisition by Leica/Leitz).

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

newe: I guess prices have not been totally set:

"The iPhone X will be available in 64 and 256GB versions and set you back at least $999"

So it seems that it could be a fair bit more....$1000 for Instagram and Facebook...lol

On all iPhones starting with 64 GB, the move to 256 GB adds $150.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: The quoted screen resolution - does it take into account the notch at the top for the face sensors, and the rounded corners? In other words, what's the actual resolution (and aspect ratio, for that matter) of largest _rectangle_ the iPhone X can display? I don't want my photos - or movies - cropped and crimped!

Brian

The listed pixel numbers are for the full rectangle (ie, ignoring rounded corners and the notch), and they really have to be because you need an image with those dimensions to full fill the screen. But the listed screen diagonal, 5.8", is the actual diagonal after subtracting the corners (the diagonal ignoring the rounded corners would be 5.95").

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonandmore: :
Sensor size is the single key most important thing for improved image quality.

To the best of my knowledge, the iPhone 7 Plus' sensor sizes are ~1/3in for the main sensor, ~1/3.6in for the telephoto lens. T I N Y dudes!!!

How can we find out the size of the new sensors on the 8? I am extremely sceptical of Apple's claim of these newer "larger" sensors that absolutely seem to have the exact same specs as the 7.

We just need an image with full EXIF data, as the latter contains the actual focal length. Combine that with the equivalent focal length and you get the sensor size.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 12:44 UTC
On article iPhone X: What you need to know (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoac: I wonder what the ‘X’ signifies? Could it be eXcellent eXcel eXceed eXalt eXotic eXcite eXact eXquisite eXemplary eXpress, or perhaps eXtreme eXtortionate eXpensive eXorbitant eXcessive eXclude eXcreta eXplode eXpire eXpletive?

OS X followed Mac OS 9
Final Cut Pro X followed FCP 7
Logic Pro X followed Logic Pro 9
iPhone X follows iPhone 8

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 12:42 UTC
On article iPhone X: What you need to know (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: What exactly does Apple mean by bigger sensor? What size are we dealing with now in the 6 and 7 series, and what will the 8 and 10 series be?

Does anyone have actual dimensions? Thanks

As soon as we have EXIF data (with the actual focal length) we can back-calculate the sensor size based on the published equivalent focal length (and even if we don't get the latter, we could determine it from the measurable AOV).

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 12:39 UTC
In reply to:

newe: Very soon Apple will have $2,000 phone. And Appsheeples will go into debt to get the phone. They'll buy it because they have nothing better to do. Should be outlawed.

Take a look at this article: http://www.asymco.com/2017/07/31/how-much-will-the-new-iphone-cost/

The average selling price of an iPhone has remained remarkably level over the years. What Apple has done is adding higher price tiers on top about every three years. With the SE, they have also added a new price tier at the bottom. Initially, it was just re-adding the $400 tier, now they have gone down to $350.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 12:48 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Who cares the IQ of a phone camera?
It is still a very low quality small sensor only suitable for casual use.

And what is wrong with wanting the best image quality in my casual images? Don't you care about the image quality of your casual images?

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 12:38 UTC
In reply to:

noisephotographer: Apparently it might be the largest camera sensor in any current smartphone camera. The iPhone 7 had 18.15 mm² (4032x3024x1.22²) and 1.83x18.15mm² ≈ 33.2 which should be approximately a 1/1.95" sensor (1/1.9" has 34mm²). I don't understand why Apple does not advertise this.

@noisephotographer
The table you've linked to fully confirms my conclusion that there is no precise definition. Almost every entry below 1" has an 'approximately' (~) sign in front of the actual sensor size. At first I thought this maybe could be explained away by the standard only defining the diagonal (and thus actual sensor sensor size can vary as the aspect ratio varies), but the table doesn't have a "~" sign in front of the aspect ratio, meaning this table is already internally inconsistent.

And the website hosting that table is nothing else but a one-man Wikipedia, not even giving any references.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 12:31 UTC
In reply to:

noisephotographer: Apparently it might be the largest camera sensor in any current smartphone camera. The iPhone 7 had 18.15 mm² (4032x3024x1.22²) and 1.83x18.15mm² ≈ 33.2 which should be approximately a 1/1.95" sensor (1/1.9" has 34mm²). I don't understand why Apple does not advertise this.

I fully know that inch-based sensor sizes don't represent the actual sensor diagonal, they refer to the 'tube' diameter from the analog TV days within which the actual sensor sat. I had just hoped that the conversion ratio (of about 1.5) was, within rounding errors, constant.

The problem with looking the actual ratio for each sensor size at places like Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is written by people like me who use math to fill in the gaps and/or take numbers from different sources that are not consistent. By now, I am very much leaning towards there never having been exact ratios and sensor manufacturers simply converting their actual sensor diameter by a factor close to 1.5 and then selecting the nearest common size class. Meaning, the same inch-based sensor from different manufacturers having slightly varying actual diameters.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

noisephotographer: Apparently it might be the largest camera sensor in any current smartphone camera. The iPhone 7 had 18.15 mm² (4032x3024x1.22²) and 1.83x18.15mm² ≈ 33.2 which should be approximately a 1/1.95" sensor (1/1.9" has 34mm²). I don't understand why Apple does not advertise this.

The more I calculate sensor sizes do I realise that the "1/inch" system seems to be only an approximation with slightly varying definitions. My current working hypothesis is that the "1/inch" size classes are just that, classes and that actual sensor diagonal can vary by maybe +/- 5% from the typical value (where the typical value would be about 1.5x smaller than the nominal one).

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

Bambi24: so
-captures 85% more light
-larger sensors
-tele lens from f/2.8 to f/2.4
-tele now has optical IS too
-4k @ 60 fps
-h.265 encoding
-fully weather sealed

brutal

1'' compact camera headshot

It has a higher water-resistant rating (IP67), corresponding to immersion into up to 1 m deep water. I don't think any of the cameras or lenses that a "fully weather sealed" have such a rating, but if you have a "fully weather sealed" camera, you could give that 1 m immersion a try.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 22:53 UTC
In reply to:

bloodycape: What the sensor size on the the the cameras for the 8 Plus and X? If it's still 1/3" then it's not going to be much better than the 7s and behind the S8 and Note 8 line, and of course the Pixel line(and even 6p/5x).

All available data is consistent with the iPhone 7 having the same sensor as the 5s, 6, and 6s: 1/3" (see link below). Having an area that is 1.83x larger means having a diagonal that is (1.83)^0.5 larger, which turns things into 1/2.2".

For the conversion from nominal 'inch' values into mm, I've relied on Wikipedia's table on "Image sensor format" but I have just discovered an inconsistency there, as the 1/3" sensors are said to have a diagonal of 6 mm and 1/2" sensors one of 8 mm. That is not the 1.5x factor it should be, I don't know which of two values is incorrect.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-takes-early-step-towards-iphones-with-above-12-megapixel-rear-cameras.2064949/page-3#post-24965317

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

DigitalPlatonist: I wish you could get optical image stabilization for both rear cameras without having to swallow the gimmicky and privacy-reducing facial recognition technology.

If somebody can hack the front-facing camera, I have much bigger problems than selfies of me.

And BTW, neither TouchID or FaceID stores biometric data, it only stores a hash of them.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

DigitalPlatonist: The iPhone X screen is larger mostly in the long dimension, which helps for some things, but not for viewing photos and videos.

A 16:9 subset of its 2436x1125 5.8" (diagonal) screen is 2000x1125 4.96" and (compared to iPhone 7/8 at 1334x750 4.7", and 7/8 plus at 1920x1080 5.5").

The use case is a phone that is still just about suitable for one-handed use while maximising the screen area.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

newe: Apple has taken over dpreview and making extra posts to go with their extra price for this "investment"

Exactly, somebody is a bad looser (where a 'loosing' can be as little as any positive coverage on something they don't like or maybe merely something they did not choose) and needs to blame the loss on foul play.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

bloodycape: What the sensor size on the the the cameras for the 8 Plus and X? If it's still 1/3" then it's not going to be much better than the 7s and behind the S8 and Note 8 line, and of course the Pixel line(and even 6p/5x).

That 85% more light would translate into 1/2.2" if it refers to sensor size (f-stop for the wide-angle lens is the same at f/1.8).

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Can somebody explain me why this lens is so big and heavy? I have a 100mm f2,8 macro lens, so 20mm longer FL, also weather-sealed, also 1:1 reproduction, it´s a DSLR lens for fullframe, but it´s only 340g. So this APSC-only mirrorless lens weighs more than double the weight, 120% more to be precise. What is wrong?

All else equal (ie, including the same optical design), a mirrorless lens needs to be about 20 mm longer (to compensate for the shorter flange distance). That alone ads some weight. And with short tele macro lenses, the optical design can be quite similar.

Plus we have OIS, which (a) requires additional parts and (b) usually requires an optical design that puts a small lens close to the optical centre and any additional restraint on the optical design makes it more complex.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:26 UTC

Is this using the A9 sensor? And if not, in what performance specs does it differ?

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 22:32 UTC as 32nd comment | 5 replies
Total: 915, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »