KLO82

Lives in Bangladesh Bangladesh
Joined on Oct 29, 2010

Comments

Total: 113, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-T100 Review (357 comments in total)
In reply to:

FrequencyDancer: Is it really a 15-45 lens on a 1.5x crop body?

That's very odd, it makes 22.5-67.5 the equivalent focal lengths.

The 15-45 on the Canon is to make it a 24-72 equivalent because it's a 1.6x crop.

Is there any chance this is actually a 1.6x crop camera?

Or do Fujifilm really think 22.5mm is the ideal starting point for beginners?

The cynic inside me reckons they've done this so it looks like it has the same lens as the Canon, at least to the beginner comparing them in a store or comparison website.

Probably a smart move, but sneaky too!

I was just reading Sony XZ2 review in Photographylife. It's selfie camera is 23mm equivalent. May be Fuji wanted do to emulate smartphones in this case.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2018 at 08:53 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-T100 Review (357 comments in total)
In reply to:

FrequencyDancer: Is it really a 15-45 lens on a 1.5x crop body?

That's very odd, it makes 22.5-67.5 the equivalent focal lengths.

The 15-45 on the Canon is to make it a 24-72 equivalent because it's a 1.6x crop.

Is there any chance this is actually a 1.6x crop camera?

Or do Fujifilm really think 22.5mm is the ideal starting point for beginners?

The cynic inside me reckons they've done this so it looks like it has the same lens as the Canon, at least to the beginner comparing them in a store or comparison website.

Probably a smart move, but sneaky too!

My guess is that they wanted to make it more (group) selfie friendly. But I don't know for sure.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2018 at 17:59 UTC
On article Sony reveals faster, higher-res OLED viewfinder display (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

vscd: EVF? I use the unlimited resolution of my OVF ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity#"Normal"_visual_acuity

"The significance of the 6/6 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test, subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity with a healthy visual system is typically better."

Here 6/6 is same as 20/20 mentioned previously.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2018 at 07:39 UTC

Specification seems top notch, even by today's standard except it is a film camera.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2018 at 16:46 UTC as 53rd comment
On article Sony reveals faster, higher-res OLED viewfinder display (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

KLO82: Many people are saying that it is only 1600 pixels long end, and our monitors are much higher resolution now. But you are forgetting how much viewfinder magnification can be before it becomes too big to see with one eye. We view our monitors with two eyes so it can cover a much larger angle of view, so those need higher resolution. Also we use our monitors to view more than one photos and windows at the same time. But for EVF, no need for much resolution. A 0.74x EVF can be 1600 pixels on the long end without showing any resolution limitation.

Large EVF, for example the EVF of Sony A9 is 0.78x. This is equivalent to watching a 18" wide monitor from 32". But with real monitors, we view from a much closer distance than that. A 18" wide monitor will be viewed from 25" (equivalent to 1x magnification) or closer. The EVF is not made larger because then we will not be able to view the entire display at a time with a single eye. [Fuji XT2, which has a 0.77x viewfinder even has the option to make the magnification smaller]. So as looking at the EVF is equivalent to looking at a smaller display from the same distance or to view same sized display from a larger distance compared to normal monitors, the EVFs will need less resolution compared to normal monitors.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2018 at 10:41 UTC
On article Sony reveals faster, higher-res OLED viewfinder display (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

KLO82: Many people are saying that it is only 1600 pixels long end, and our monitors are much higher resolution now. But you are forgetting how much viewfinder magnification can be before it becomes too big to see with one eye. We view our monitors with two eyes so it can cover a much larger angle of view, so those need higher resolution. Also we use our monitors to view more than one photos and windows at the same time. But for EVF, no need for much resolution. A 0.74x EVF can be 1600 pixels on the long end without showing any resolution limitation.

_sem_: you missed the point about one or two eyes. What I am saying is when you see with two eyes, you can see a larger angle of view, and hence the apparent display size should be larger to cover that angle. With one eye, you can not make the apparent display size same as the display for two eyes. Hence you will need less pixels for the smaller apparent display. Think of it in terms of angle of view covered.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 15:04 UTC
On article Sony reveals faster, higher-res OLED viewfinder display (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

KLO82: Many people are saying that it is only 1600 pixels long end, and our monitors are much higher resolution now. But you are forgetting how much viewfinder magnification can be before it becomes too big to see with one eye. We view our monitors with two eyes so it can cover a much larger angle of view, so those need higher resolution. Also we use our monitors to view more than one photos and windows at the same time. But for EVF, no need for much resolution. A 0.74x EVF can be 1600 pixels on the long end without showing any resolution limitation.

@Juzam: Higher PPI, but not higher total amount of pixels.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 13:57 UTC
On article Sony reveals faster, higher-res OLED viewfinder display (378 comments in total)

Many people are saying that it is only 1600 pixels long end, and our monitors are much higher resolution now. But you are forgetting how much viewfinder magnification can be before it becomes too big to see with one eye. We view our monitors with two eyes so it can cover a much larger angle of view, so those need higher resolution. Also we use our monitors to view more than one photos and windows at the same time. But for EVF, no need for much resolution. A 0.74x EVF can be 1600 pixels on the long end without showing any resolution limitation.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 11:33 UTC as 23rd comment | 7 replies
On article Sony reveals faster, higher-res OLED viewfinder display (378 comments in total)

Perfect for a 0.74x EVF (assuming all 1600 pixels on the longer side will be used for composing the image).

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 11:10 UTC as 25th comment
On article Sony reveals faster, higher-res OLED viewfinder display (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

vscd: EVF? I use the unlimited resolution of my OVF ;)

@Karroly: "An average human eye has a resolution of one minute of arc." You are talking about 20/20 visual acuity which is the lower limit of normal visual acuity. It is a myth that 20/20 acuity is "perfect vision"/ average resolution of eye - which is not true.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 04:16 UTC

To Dpreview: please do a feature/ video on the type of distortion where the edge of the frame looks stretched - which is different from the perspective distortion shown in this video. We usually associate this type of distortion to wider than 28mm (in FF terms) focal length.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 05:20 UTC as 58th comment | 1 reply

It seems Sony's philosophy is to excite people with new technologies, whereas Canon thinks that we have reached at a point where there is nothing that will change your photography radically - there are only incremental updates. Also Canon wants to provide features that are just "good enough", they don't want to provide anything more than that. Like- "if 61 AF points is enough, why provide hundreds of AF points?" And from my understanding, Sony checks photography websites like Dpreview and knows very well what excites enthusiast photographers, and they act accordingly. Their most talked about products are targeted at enthusiasts. Canon sells a lot of low and mid-low end ILCs like 800D, 200D, M50 etc which are not meant for enthusiasts who visit Dpreview.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 14:59 UTC as 134th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony a7 III Review (2194 comments in total)
In reply to:

SignumX: So funny all these "Well, why in the world would I need this great camera as I have X camera?" comments. Why, oh why would you even bother to write a comment like that that hasn't anything to do with the article or the other camera for that matter.
I just find it really interesting and amusing...

Well I wrote such a comment comparing it with 5DIII. In the article Barney Britton compared A7III specifically with 5DIII and D750 which were previous popular all rounder ILCs. So was it OK on my part? To me it seems very logical to compare the current camera someone is using with the latest ones to understand if the current one will really expand his photographic ability. There is nothing wrong with that.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2018 at 19:09 UTC
On article Sony a7 III Review (2194 comments in total)
In reply to:

KLO82: I have no doubt it is an extremely capable camera, I would buy one if I was not already invested in Canon, but after looking at the sample gallery I could find only one image that I might not be able to capture with my old tech 5DIII. Image 50 shows lightening the shadow at close to base ISO, which may not have same good result from 5DIII (but to be honest it may have not been pushed that much, so who knows). All the models dancing and jumping - those photos were mostly shot at f5.6 - it seems easy to focus at that aperture due to large DoF. Now if we pixel peep, specially the high ISO files I am sure A7III is better, but for normal sized outputs I have doubt if we really can see much difference. May be all the newer technology made it (slightly) easier for the photographers to get their intended photos, and of course the Sony provides more bang for buck.

@Mark K: Yes it is a different camera, but tell me which of the images of the sample gallery you would not be able to capture with your 5DIII.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2018 at 12:42 UTC
On article Sony a7 III Review (2194 comments in total)
In reply to:

KLO82: I have no doubt it is an extremely capable camera, I would buy one if I was not already invested in Canon, but after looking at the sample gallery I could find only one image that I might not be able to capture with my old tech 5DIII. Image 50 shows lightening the shadow at close to base ISO, which may not have same good result from 5DIII (but to be honest it may have not been pushed that much, so who knows). All the models dancing and jumping - those photos were mostly shot at f5.6 - it seems easy to focus at that aperture due to large DoF. Now if we pixel peep, specially the high ISO files I am sure A7III is better, but for normal sized outputs I have doubt if we really can see much difference. May be all the newer technology made it (slightly) easier for the photographers to get their intended photos, and of course the Sony provides more bang for buck.

I am not saying that. This is for those people who think that upgrading to this camera will radicalliy change their photography - I am trying to put that thought into perspective. Or for those people who think their current camera is limiting their ability.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2018 at 10:20 UTC
On article Sony a7 III Review (2194 comments in total)

I have no doubt it is an extremely capable camera, I would buy one if I was not already invested in Canon, but after looking at the sample gallery I could find only one image that I might not be able to capture with my old tech 5DIII. Image 50 shows lightening the shadow at close to base ISO, which may not have same good result from 5DIII (but to be honest it may have not been pushed that much, so who knows). All the models dancing and jumping - those photos were mostly shot at f5.6 - it seems easy to focus at that aperture due to large DoF. Now if we pixel peep, specially the high ISO files I am sure A7III is better, but for normal sized outputs I have doubt if we really can see much difference. May be all the newer technology made it (slightly) easier for the photographers to get their intended photos, and of course the Sony provides more bang for buck.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2018 at 09:17 UTC as 173rd comment | 6 replies
On article Nikon dominates World Press Photo 2018 camera breakdown (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

KLO82: It seems that an FF body with:
1. f2.8 or f4 zooms
2. many direct controls, specially AF controls
3. decent AF
4. very responsive/ fast
5. robust
- is the recipe for a photojournalist's camera.

Forgot to add weather sealing.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 16:32 UTC
On article Nikon dominates World Press Photo 2018 camera breakdown (385 comments in total)

It seems that an FF body with:
1. f2.8 or f4 zooms
2. many direct controls, specially AF controls
3. decent AF
4. very responsive/ fast
5. robust
- is the recipe for a photojournalist's camera.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 16:12 UTC as 31st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

PHtorino: Oh come on! Another smartphone with some bla bla bla specsheet! Until they make one with at least the m43 size sensor, they should not be having any place in any photography forum or discussion. I am so bored with this.

These smartphone cameras are equivalent to m43 sized sensor paired with f5.6 lens - to put it into perspective.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 09:18 UTC
On article Canon EOS M50 Review (1312 comments in total)
In reply to:

FoxShutter: I don’t know why some comments mention here downsizing. Due to the lack of a USB charging this camera needs a battery charger attached , which is a half of the size of the camera itself . Taking in count the awful battery life, also a bunch of batteries is required on a constant basis. So , good luck travellers!
Additionally, I don’t know any modern camera ,except all of M series Canons ,that lacks minimum shutter speed in auto ISO. Fuji , Sony , Ricoh etc . all have it for at least 2-3 years . Even 1” Sony RX100M4 has it!
Canon JPEGS are nice but the cameras are really outdated by modern standards.

It is not like Canon do not know that we need minimum shutter speed with auto ISO. It is just that they intentionally do not provide this just to cripple these models. This is what that is driving many people mad at Canon.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 16:09 UTC
Total: 113, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »