ptox

Joined on Dec 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 232, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

tkbslc: Even if you want to talk equivalence, I still don't see how FF is coming out ahead.

Canon 5D3 with 24mm f2.8 is $3050 and over 1200g
Panasonic GH4 with 12mm f1.4 is $2600 and 900g.

Canon 6D with 24mm f2.8 is $2000 and 1050g
Panasonic G7 with 12mm f1.4 is $2000 and 750g (Also comes with free kit zoom)

Sony A7II with Batis 25mm f2 is $3100 and 940g
Panasonic GX85 with 12mm f1.4 is $2100 and 760g

Terkwoiz: and the light that falls on those sensors passes through what ? ...

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Even if you want to talk equivalence, I still don't see how FF is coming out ahead.

Canon 5D3 with 24mm f2.8 is $3050 and over 1200g
Panasonic GH4 with 12mm f1.4 is $2600 and 900g.

Canon 6D with 24mm f2.8 is $2000 and 1050g
Panasonic G7 with 12mm f1.4 is $2000 and 750g (Also comes with free kit zoom)

Sony A7II with Batis 25mm f2 is $3100 and 940g
Panasonic GX85 with 12mm f1.4 is $2100 and 760g

Terkwoiz: "And no, the panny 12mm 1.4 can't hang with this Sony combo, are you kidding? The Sony IQ would crush it."

How do you know? Have you got an advance copy of the production lens?

No? Then you have no idea. So why are you making things up?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

String: LOL, 384 replies in less than a day and the majority of them from FF users slagging the system and no interest in m43... Oh I so love DPR!

But thanks anyway guys because we m43 users never knew the system was so big/heavy, expensive and not able to even take mediocre images before you pointed it out... for the 1000th time.

Terkwoiz just wants the best IQ!

I assume you shoot with a Phase One, then?

Come on. What you meant was: "I just want the best IQ... in a price/size/feature range that makes sense to me."

Which is what we all want.

What you fail to realize--even with String making the point clear as day--is that what makes sense to you does not make sense to everyone else.

I mean, duh. What's with the solipsism?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

PerL: OK - so I found the comparison I was after.
This Pana 12 1.4 weighs 355g and costs 1300 dollars.
The eqv Canon 24 2.8 for FF weighs 281g and costs 550 dollars. (B&H)
The much faster eqv Nikon 24 1.8 for FF weighs 355g and costs 700 dollars.
Fast primes simply seems to be weak point for small formats, and you have to pay a significant extra cost if you want to go there. And there is no size advantage - rather the opposite - despite the small sensor.

You don't even know how well the lens performs!

You have no basis for the claim that it's not worth the money!

<smashes head against desk>

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

quangzizi: Hum let see:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_24_2p8_is&products=nikon_24_1p8g_ed&products=panasonic_12_1p4

Canon 24 2.8: 7 bladed - 11 elements in 9 groups - No sealing - Plastic construction - Heck, even the 24 1.4 only have 8 blades - 13 elements in 10 groups

Nikon 24 1.8: 7 bladed - 12 elements in 9 groups - No sealing - Plastic construction

Nikon 24 2.8: 1990s lenses - 7 bladed - 9 elements in 9 groups (no ED or any special element, questionable coating compared to modern lense) - No sealing - Plastic construction

Panasonic 12: 9 bladed - 15 elements in 12 groups - Weather sealing - All metal construction

Ah let me throw this in as well. Panasonic gives you a metal hood.

Any objection here?

tko: Don't be tiresome. If one picked MFT for _its_ small size and weight, there are plenty of options... obviously including the tiny (and quite good) Oly 12mm f/2.

(I know that's a couple of thoughts beyond what's right in front of your face, so if you need a bit of time before replying sensibly... no worries.)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

@Trk Yeah, purple fringing sucks.

But I still don't get why you're already convinced this lens won't be worth the money. It might be the sharpest and best-corrected lens in the entire history of lensmaking... for all any of us knows at this point.

With 15 elements, I'd at least expect it to be optically corrected to a higher degree than most m43 lenses.

But in the end, all that matters is the image -- not how it got made.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

@Trk I shot the 25mm f/1.4 for years. Your comment still makes no sense.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

Why on earth would this lens have "brutal aberrations similar to" a lens designed over five years ago for a different focal length and which is sold for (around) half the price? That makes no sense.

As for having a hard time selling... d'you suppose a multi-billion dollar company does market research first? D'you suppose they've gained confidence from the success of the 42.5 Nocticron?

They're not going for volume here. They're going for people who are already heavily invested in m43 and who are practising the art/craft/whatever of photography instead of hemming and hawing about equivalence.

You know, photographers. Not gearheads.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:45 UTC

PLEASE: everyone who is thinking of posting a snarky / patronizing / concern-trolling comparison with another system's lens JUST. NOT. BOTHER.

The math is simple. We all get it. We've all got it for years.

And unless you have a quality report on this new lens, you simply have no idea how well it works, relative to those others. Not that you care...

Thanks but no thanks -- we're sticking with m43!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:11 UTC as 89th comment

PLEASE: everyone who is thinking of posting a snarky / patronizing / concern-trolling comparison with another system's lens JUST. NOT. BOTHER.

The math is simple. We all get it. We've all got it for years.

And unless you have a quality report on this new lens, you simply have no idea how well it works, relative to those others. Not that you care...

Thanks but no thanks -- we're sticking with m43!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:05 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

AshMills: Who makes these now Stanley Kubrick has died?

FDD5: not to your education, apparently

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Looks pretty similar to the film set they use to film the moon landing.

Clint Dunn: given that there are 7+ billion of us, it stands to reason that a large absolute number will fall on the left and right of every bell curve you can think of... of course that's obvious for basic measurements like height, but as I get older it's become apparent that the same is true for behavioral traits like unaccountable paranoia. :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

ales82: I cannot spot the landing pod of the rover. It could be behind some rock, but is it possible the rover moved that far? If so, it's very nice. If I remember right, these rovers were supposed to move something like a 30 meters or so.
I hope they will send more missions to Mars and other planets too!!!

The rover's been on Mars for 1400+ Earth days. As of April 17 2015 it had travelled over 10 kilometers from its landing site. The next Mars rover is scheduled for 2020.

HTH

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 17:58 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: The question is how good of a copy does the author have?
Over on FM there is a great thread that shows there is a huge variation in these lenses regarding the corner softness - some of the new E-mount versions have very very poor corners while a few have very very good corners.

I have the -III VM version with very very good corners and a few people have a new E mount version with very very good corners.

So this lens, if you can find a good copy, does very well in the corners. Not pin sharp, but sharp enough for sure. I can't quite tell if the author has one of the good copies or one of the bad copies.

Still, if corners are at most doubleverygood, I won't be impressed; IMO it's not worth getting out of bed for anything less than very very very very good corners, and even then only if the center is also very very very very very very very very very very good. YMMV.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: "The multiple perspectives captured mean you can generate 3D images or video from every shot at any desired parallax disparity"

Except that single point cameras are essentially useless for 3D video, because the occlusion is only correct from the single viewpoint. Moving the viewpoint means that you now need background that was blocked from the single viewpoint.

The end result is that the images look like bad automatic 3D conversions, until a skilled artist retouches all occluded areas.

Blah, blah, blah. Read the article, watch the video -- specifically, the fifteen seconds' worth of the 2014 interview that prove your assumption wrong... if you can bear to spare the time.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2016 at 17:37 UTC
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (722 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bernard Carns: Luminous Landscape did the same thing a few months ago and it stinks.

Now the main page will be blow your eyes out bad like the phone webpage.

Welcome to better.

NOT!

BC

Simon Joinson: yeah, right. which site are we on again?

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 22:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: Well, there you have it. A huge camera with a tiny sensor, capable of 25x zoom. For the tourists.

MikeF4Black: "1 inch, measured in any way imagineable, is tiny."

Except, y'know, relative to every other superzoom bridge style camera in existence, with one exception .. in which case, as other people have pointed out, it's about six times less tiny than the next best thing.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

ptox: Yeah, and how much -- that is, how little -- of the sensor is covered by the lens at its widest focal lengths?

As we saw with the FZ1000, the easiest way to get this kind of zoom range is to produce a smaller imaging circle at the wider end, then upsample to generate the expected 20MP image. In the FZ1000's case, out of 13MP of data.

I wish DPReview would publish FL-to-sensor-coverage graphs of these ultrazooms. That'd be an illuminating (ha) metric.

Okay... but in the FZ1000's case, at its widest setting the lens's image circle _doesn't_ cover the entire sensor. Otherwise the corners wouldn't be black.

Digital distortion correction is old hat, you're right. But it's a question of degrees. It's true that the center suffers less correction than the corners, so images can still look good... but advertising these camera/lens combinations as generating an unqualified 20 megapixels strikes me as somewhat dishonest.

Where's the line? I don't know... but for me, anyway, it's somewhere (well) above 13.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

ptox: Yeah, and how much -- that is, how little -- of the sensor is covered by the lens at its widest focal lengths?

As we saw with the FZ1000, the easiest way to get this kind of zoom range is to produce a smaller imaging circle at the wider end, then upsample to generate the expected 20MP image. In the FZ1000's case, out of 13MP of data.

I wish DPReview would publish FL-to-sensor-coverage graphs of these ultrazooms. That'd be an illuminating (ha) metric.

noirdesir: It's sad but true.

There's a pretty good thread on the subject from August 2014 -- http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54173076

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 17:51 UTC

Yeah, and how much -- that is, how little -- of the sensor is covered by the lens at its widest focal lengths?

As we saw with the FZ1000, the easiest way to get this kind of zoom range is to produce a smaller imaging circle at the wider end, then upsample to generate the expected 20MP image. In the FZ1000's case, out of 13MP of data.

I wish DPReview would publish FL-to-sensor-coverage graphs of these ultrazooms. That'd be an illuminating (ha) metric.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 16:32 UTC as 91st comment | 4 replies
Total: 232, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »