Revenant

Joined on Jul 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 2653, showing: 521 – 540
« First‹ Previous2526272829Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DDWD10: It's alright, but I really think Panasonic will have to implement some form of PDAF to bring it to the next level. It will pay off in video AF too.

Imaging Resource has just published an interview with a group of Panasonic executives, in which they're asked about on-sensor PDAF. It doesn't seem like they're considering using it anytime soon.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

gonzalu: After I paid $799 for my RX-100 III , I am NOT paying $30 bucks for a feature that should be included. If it were say, $4.99? Maybe...

Basically, if you pay for a product, you get the product you payed for. If you thought something essential was missing from the product, then maybe you shouldn't have bought it, or you could have waited until the price came down to a more reasonable level.
Free upgrades and add-ons are a nice bonus, but it's not something the manufacturer owes us.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 18:50 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Instead of trying to milk their customers out of every penny, with clunky apps, Sony should include filters like this in a firmware update to their cameras.
This is just another gimmick that's not worth 30 cents.
Anyone can achieve such results with bracketing.

Put it in the firmware, Sony.
You owe it to your customers, who pay big money for your cameras.
You are not a little software house trying to make a living out of making little programs to just survive.
You are manufacturing expensive cameras!!
Shame on you, Sony.

So just because you've purchased a product that you think is too expensive, the manufacturer owes you something more than what you paid for?

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

random78: Olympus often seems to get more limelight in the history of Micro-Four Thirds and mirrorless. However I think the real breakthrough product was the Panasonic G1. Obviously it was the first mirrorless camera, but also it had three important features which ensured that mirrorless will be taken as a serious camera system rather than a glorified P&S. First it offered an EVF experience which was a credible alternative to OVF. The EVFs before G1 were extremely poor whereas G1 had an amazing EVF for that time. Second it had a pretty fast AF in single shot. Third it had a full set of controls expected by DSLR users. The E-P1 from Olympus didn't have any of these features. I am pretty sure that if it was the first mirrorless instead of G1, it would have been dismissed by most reviewers as a 'P&S' camera with a large sensor which did not have what it takes to meet the needs of a 'serious' photographer. G1 ensured that people viewed mirrorless as mini-DSLR, rather than big P&S.

I'm not so sure that the fact that Panasonic was first to market with a MFT camera, necessarily means that they took a more leading role in the development of the MFT standard. The original announcement of MFT stated that both companies would develop products compliant with the standard, and nothing in the announcement suggested that one of the companies took a more leading role than the other.

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2008b/nr080805fourthirdse.jsp

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
On article Olympus working on 8K video for Micro Four Thirds (219 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: An 8k sensor in 4:3 aspect ratio has 44.2+ MP. µFT won't be the most economical form factor for such resolutions, taking lens cost into account (because of the excessive resolution requirement).

The hi-res mode takes four exposures shifted one pixel-width horizontally and vertically. The sensor is then shifted half a pixel-width to a new starting position, and then takes four new exposures shifted one pixel-width horizontally and vertically. This results in both full colour information for every pixel position (because of the four exposures), as well as the capture of more detail (because of the half pixel-width shift).

However, you can only capture more detail, if in fact the image cast on the sensor by the lens contains that detail. So, if the hi-res mode does result in images showing more real detail (and it does), this means that the lens is resolving that detail. No amount of clever processing can reveal detail that isn't resolved by the lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

random78: Olympus often seems to get more limelight in the history of Micro-Four Thirds and mirrorless. However I think the real breakthrough product was the Panasonic G1. Obviously it was the first mirrorless camera, but also it had three important features which ensured that mirrorless will be taken as a serious camera system rather than a glorified P&S. First it offered an EVF experience which was a credible alternative to OVF. The EVFs before G1 were extremely poor whereas G1 had an amazing EVF for that time. Second it had a pretty fast AF in single shot. Third it had a full set of controls expected by DSLR users. The E-P1 from Olympus didn't have any of these features. I am pretty sure that if it was the first mirrorless instead of G1, it would have been dismissed by most reviewers as a 'P&S' camera with a large sensor which did not have what it takes to meet the needs of a 'serious' photographer. G1 ensured that people viewed mirrorless as mini-DSLR, rather than big P&S.

"Most of the technology came from Panasonic."

Not really. Panasonic joined later, and wasn't involved in the development of Four Thirds. Kodak was, however, and they made the first few sensors, before Panasonic stepped in as supplier. And, as mentioned by Robert Schroeder, the L1 was a version of the E-330; there was also a Leica version with the same internals.

Panasonic has played a more important role in MFT, of course, but to say that most of the technology comes from them doesn't really apply to Olympus' cameras (or lenses, for that matter). Olympus developed 5-axis IS, among other things, and mostly uses Sony sensors in their 16 MP and 20 MP bodies (the E-M1 being the exception, using a Panasonic sensor). Panasonic made the early 12 MP sensors, but those weren't as good as the later ones by both Panasonic and Sony.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 10:40 UTC
On article Olympus working on 8K video for Micro Four Thirds (219 comments in total)
In reply to:

aramgrg: “we can assure you that there is no problem in developing sensors at 33 million pixels for filming in 8K"
Interesting... I though it is not you need to assure that, but Panasonic or Sony. This is simple cheap talk from Oly.

Olympus could very well be involved in the development of such a sensor, even if they don't have the manufacturing capability themselves.

Nikon designs some of the sensors they use (eg. for the D3/D4/D5), but outsource the production (they used to be made by Renesas). OmniVision doesn't have any fabs of their own, and neither did Aptina (before it was acquired by another company).

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
On article Olympus working on 8K video for Micro Four Thirds (219 comments in total)
In reply to:

tinternaut: As long as the sensor technology is either the same or slightly better, I don't see a problem with pushing the pixels. Not sure I see the point of 8K though....

Extracting stills from video would take all the fun out of photography for me. YMMV.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

soundknight21: Well, that just proves that Apple customers get ripped by 60%. But I suppose they also get "what they want".

I have also read that they make 40% of their profit from repairing their equipment.

51% of all turns are right turns.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 01:08 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GX850 real world samples (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michiel953: What does this device cost? The image quality is way below par. Despicable.

"You mean good photography doesn't merit a good, long, serious look?"

That's not what I meant, and I think you understood my point.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 15:33 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GX850 real world samples (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michiel953: What does this device cost? The image quality is way below par. Despicable.

Well, photography and the subject matter are what counts in the end for most consumers. IQ problems that require pixel-peeping or a "good, long, serious look" to be discovered, simply won't be perceived by the majority of people, who enjoy looking at pictures rather than pixels.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 14:59 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I have to go confirm that data, but it doesn't look right. It shows mirrorless units falling 5 fold from 10000 to 2000 between 2011 and 2016. Previous the cipa-derived discussions has always shown mirrorless shipments constant over the last five years.

dSLR shipments have fallen, but not 6 fold between 2010 and 2016.

It shows dSLRs and mirrorless falling about the same as compacts, which is clearly false. Compacts *have* tanked something like 10 fold, but not the other types.

Yes, that sounds about right. Basically, the vast majority of digital camera buyers didn't really need a dedicated camera. They just wanted a convenient and easy way of taking and sharing pictures, and bought the only devices that let them do just that. The arrival of the smartphone gave them an even better option, more convenient and easier to use, and they never looked back.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I have to go confirm that data, but it doesn't look right. It shows mirrorless units falling 5 fold from 10000 to 2000 between 2011 and 2016. Previous the cipa-derived discussions has always shown mirrorless shipments constant over the last five years.

dSLR shipments have fallen, but not 6 fold between 2010 and 2016.

It shows dSLRs and mirrorless falling about the same as compacts, which is clearly false. Compacts *have* tanked something like 10 fold, but not the other types.

Richard, as pointed out, you're interpreting the graph wrongly. Moreover, you misread the CIPA data. 2011 ILC shipments was 15.7m, and 2016 ILC shipments was 11.6m units. Take another look at CIPA's tables, and you'll see that your numbers refer to the value (in 1000s of yen), not the unit volume.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 23:58 UTC
In reply to:

CTaylorTX: The graph title is "Camera Production by Type" Is this supposed to be world wide production or sales?

I'm calling "BS" on this one. Look more closely at the 2012 graph bar. The entire DSLR + Mirrorless category totals ONLY 20,000 units. World wide? Say, what?

Heck, LensRentals.com ALONE probably carries over 200 new bodies in a given year, which would be 1%. I am not buying it unless I see more complete data.

The numbers for dedicated cameras (not smartphones) are based on CIPA data, and they represent worldwide shipments (not retail sales).

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 23:50 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: CIPA reports that inter-changeable lens camera shipments fell 11.4% in 2016 and may fall another 3.4% in 2017. Perhaps by 2018 the ICL market will reach a more or less stable floor. They will represent perhaps 70% of the surviving dedicated camera market. What I don't understand is where security cameras fit in the numbers, since the WiFi + smart phone controlled ones seem to sell widely. Are dashcams and rear-view cams also part of the "fixed lens" or "compact" numbers?

Meanwhile, smart phone use for pictures and video has exploded geometrically. People prefer them for everything. Anyone development "apps" or gear for photography or video will naturally orient to that market.

CIPA only reports shipments for regular cameras, not mobile devices, security cameras, dashcams, webcams, action cams, dedicated video cameras, industrial cameras or anything else that isn't a regular stills-oriented camera.

Basically, all the talk about the declining camera market refers to devices that are used to take photos in the traditional way.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 23:35 UTC
On article Nikon D5600 review: making connectivity a snap? (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

Skyscape: I'm amazed that many experienced editors still cannot comprehend the difference between "its" and "it's". Just bizarre.

Touché!

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Martian Keyboard: The folded optics like this and that used in binoculars perhaps could make a
comeback, and even be used in phones.
Maybe this article will spurn more interest and development in folded optics.

Folded optics never went away. Most waterproof compacts use folded optics to be able to zoom internally.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 09:54 UTC
On article Nikon D5600 review: making connectivity a snap? (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benfr69: It would be just nice that Nikon just put a second command dial and a pentaprism viewfinder on their 3xxx and 5xxx series. That is what has always rebuked me on the entry-level models and I personally think that if Pentax can do it, why can't Nikon.
The sole reason I left Pentax for Nikon was AF performance, even on the older models. But I hate the fact that on the Nikon entry level line the controls just suck. Nikon used to put twin command-dials and pentaprism viewfinders on their upper entry-level segment (D70-D80-D90), I wonder why they stopped.

The D60 was a true entry-level model, and it was followed by the D3000. The D5000 slotted in between the D60/D3000 and D90/D7000 levels, and was a new tier in the line-up.

Anyway, regardless of how we see the position of these models in the line-up, I agree with the point that those two features should be added to the D5xxx line.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 09:05 UTC
On article Nikon D5600 review: making connectivity a snap? (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

Skyscape: I'm amazed that many experienced editors still cannot comprehend the difference between "its" and "it's". Just bizarre.

Of course they comprehend the difference, it's just sloppy writing and proofreading.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 18:36 UTC
On article Nikon D5600 review: making connectivity a snap? (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benfr69: It would be just nice that Nikon just put a second command dial and a pentaprism viewfinder on their 3xxx and 5xxx series. That is what has always rebuked me on the entry-level models and I personally think that if Pentax can do it, why can't Nikon.
The sole reason I left Pentax for Nikon was AF performance, even on the older models. But I hate the fact that on the Nikon entry level line the controls just suck. Nikon used to put twin command-dials and pentaprism viewfinders on their upper entry-level segment (D70-D80-D90), I wonder why they stopped.

The D90 was enthusiast-level, not entry-level. It was succeeded by the D7000. The D5000 didn't really have any predecessor in Nikon's line-up.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
Total: 2653, showing: 521 – 540
« First‹ Previous2526272829Next ›Last »