norjens

norjens

Works as a Engineering
Joined on Oct 1, 2018

Comments

Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10
On article DPReview TV: Our favorite $1000 camera kits (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Bad timing. At the right time, you can get a FF body + kit zoom under $1,000 (not counting tax and shipping, which this video didn't count either).

Right now, the cheapest new FF body + kit zoom is the Canon EOS RP with a 24-105mm for $1,299 US. However, during some of Sony's sales, the A7 (and once even an A7II) with a kit zoom has actually been under $1,000... now, the A7II is the bottom of the line and it's currently $1,598 with 28-70mm. That's actually $1.05 more than the Nikon Z5 with 24-50mm, which makes no sense to me -- the Z5 has very similar guts, but every difference between it and the A7II favors the Z5. I understand why companies have sales, but Sony has been wildly overpricing their low-end old models when they're not on sale.

BTW, I generally prefer to use adapted old manual lenses, and many cost under $25 each; they can be excellent lens options for a low-cost kit.

The FF bodies you can get with a lens at that price have ~10 years old sensor tech in them. Meanwhile the X-T30 shoots 26 sharp megapixels with very good low light performance (check the site's comparison gallery), and it does it fast.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2021 at 01:05 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T4 (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

baggy1: In a world of full frame camera's I don't see the appeal of this apart from the price.

That doesn't mean APS-C is better, I'm just saying there are advantages and disadvantages to both. It's up to you which compromise you prefer.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2020 at 10:49 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T4 (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

baggy1: In a world of full frame camera's I don't see the appeal of this apart from the price.

3) Mechanical shutter. A bigger sensor requires the mechanical shutter to both travel faster and be bigger, so the energy increases exponentially for the same shutter speed. You can get a higher quality (less shutter shake, lower noise...), faster shutter action, for less cost and size penalty with the smaller sensor.

4) Better IBIS performance for the same size and technology. There's a good reason that m43 cameras have been at the forefront of IBIS technology, and the old Olympus IBIS is still among the best. It's simply much harder to make it work well for a heavier sensor relative to the mass of the body. The X-T4 IBIS is better than the GFX 100 IBIS, despite the same company making both and the GFX body having much more room to work with. Different companies use different IBIS technologies, but all else being equal, IBIS performance favors the camera that has a lower sensor weigth relative to camera weight, size and electrical power given to the IBIS system.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2020 at 10:48 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T4 (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

baggy1: In a world of full frame camera's I don't see the appeal of this apart from the price.

I don't agree with sunkenbransh that those are 'equivalent', but let's not get into that.
The appeal of APS-C is:
1) Access to smaller, high quality lenses and bodies. The X-T4 with 56mm f/1.2 lens may not be any smaller and lighter than a Nikon with equivalent 85mm f/1.8 lens, but you're not going to find a Nikon FF that can compete with the X-E3 and 27mm f/2.8 or 35mm f/2 for size and quality. Having that setup which fits in a jacket pocket in the same system as your main setup is very appealing.

2) The smaller sensor has faster read-out: Less rolling shutter, in photography and especially in video. This is a major advantage of the X-T3 and even the older X-T2 over the Sony a7iii, for some people.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2020 at 10:43 UTC
In reply to:

Meerkato: Guys, can you please help me understand the appeal of the medium format lenses and system in general?
If we are looking at equivalency with FF, it seems like MF lenses (or this one at least for sure) covers narrower focal range, has worse F values, is heavier, bigger, and more expensive than comparable FF alternatives (24-70 2.8 in this case).
So to me it seems like that going from APSC to FF offers performance increase for higher price, but going to MF means lower performance for higher price - at least when talking about lenses. I know you cannot get 100MP with FF like with Fuji, so let’s stay with lenses.
Am I missing something? Is it that MF has such a small customer base that they can’t make it at economies of scale?

@ilza
Where do you have it from that more R&D goes into FF lenses, other than going into more numerous lenses? Optics for medium and long focal lengths were pretty much mathematically "solved" more than a decade ago. There's still choices and advancements being made, but the design is more a matter of making the right compromises and manufacturability than something that costs a lot of money by itself. Complex =/= expensive.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2020 at 23:41 UTC
In reply to:

Bigsensorisbest: Yes! Longest I've waited for a lens, perfect for people shots

Zooms are great for people photography, because you can
1) Shoot different portrait sizes from the same distance in places where you can't choose your distance.
2) Keep your desired subject framing while moving closer/further for the right perspective and choice of background.

Primes certainly have advantages as well, excellent learning tools and are sometimes required when you can't use a flash, but focal length is by far the most important characteristic of a lens. I'd rather have my head+shoulders portrait taken with an old 135mm f/6.3 lens, with all the flaws and none of the features of vintage glass, than with the Canon RF 50/1.2.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2020 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

Bigsensorisbest: Yes! Longest I've waited for a lens, perfect for people shots

@IdM
Relying on shallow depth of field for your subject isolation is what is lazy. How about taking the time and effort to choose and/or prepare a background that is supportive instead of distracting? The best portrait I've taken to date was full length at the equivalent of 50mm f/5.6. The lens could do f/2.8, but was stopped down for the purpose of not washing out the background too much. With a lens that is sharp to begin with, you really just need a tiny bit of focus separation to make the subject pop. If something is still distracting from your subject with a bit of blur in it, then why is it in the frame?

The f/1.2 single eyelash focus is fun for a few weeks with new gear, and an easy method to impress non-photographers with what your big lenses can do. It can also work really well as a creative tool for certain looks, but don't use it as a crutch to cover up insufficient lighting (get a flash or tripod) or poor choice of background.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2020 at 23:06 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: I very much understand that the balance of image circle, resolving power requirements, very small market size, and practical limitations on the physical size and weight allowable makes designing medium format lenses a huge challenge in terms of the compromises made...

...but it's always interesting to see how much of a throwback they are when it comes to specs. They read very much like the early 35-70mm/f3.5 zoom lenses that would have been so revolutionary when they appeared in the 1970s and 80s.

The market size doesn't make a lens harder or easier to design. Market size is what it is, while sales volume is determined by pricing, marketing, "fit", and quality.

It's not a more challenging compromise than for other formats, they simply choose to make a different choice of compromise: Prioritizing image quality above everything else. That means taking it easy on the zoom range, among other things. No modern lens is in any way comparable to those old zooms.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2020 at 22:48 UTC

*Coming to smartphones in 2024
*Coming to cameras in 2038
We all know it ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2020 at 13:45 UTC as 28th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

A J Fresnel: "Hydroplanes skim across the water at speeds in excess of 300 kph."

What is a kph? From the context, probably speed. Is this an imperial unit? In the SI system, this would be kilo pico hour, but it does not make sense to combine two prefixes to a unit, this would just be nano hour...

Mechanical engineer here:
The only true SI unit for speed is m/s, while kilometers per hour is in common use as a practical unit for how people move through their day.
Both km/h and kph are perfectly acceptable ways to abbreviate it, as both are equally "incorrect" and practical. Any use case that demands very correct use of terms is going to use m/s anyway.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2019 at 00:17 UTC
Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10