Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 22, 2008


Total: 207, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Kenko launches new premium Teleplus HD Pro converters (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

IamJF: Oh - didn't they got the Memo? Mirrorless is the new thing at CaNikon 😎

Myabe you missed a memo - mirrorless is NOT the only thing at Canikon.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2019 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

IdM photography: Who still buy lenses for a DSLR?

Unlike in your stupid analogy, DSLRs are in key ways better than MILCs, and as a result many actually prefer DSLRs. DSLRs don't limit my photography in any way, so why would I need a MILC?

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2019 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

Bigsensorisbest: Why are they making new lenses for obsolete dying mounts? Why not for the new mirrorless months?

Because those mounts are NOT "obsolete" OR "dying."

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2019 at 14:25 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2410 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fastguitars: Well lets see. The Sensor is found in "older" models, and the Viewfinder is not new, and not very good.
Yep, thats a $3000 camera.
Enjoy it.

A QUARTER FRAME (in 35mm terms) sensor camera for $3,000. LMFAO, suckers line up! So much for how smaller formats were always going to be so much cheaper because of the sensor costs/yields/insert additional "crop factor" propaganda here!

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2019 at 21:48 UTC
On article Lens sample gallery: Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 Di OSD (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Funkyd3121: No VC

No VC? Good! Don't want it.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2019 at 03:54 UTC
In reply to:

thenoilif: Good to see a big beautiful healthy polar bear. Too many images I've been seeing lately of malnourished specimens.

Yes, well most of them are doing just fine. The notion that polar bears are "threatened" is a myth, and the heart-tugging images constantly shoved under your nose a naked attempt to support greedy NGOs and support their political agendas.

Their environment is not "declining rapidly," and polar bears are thriving. They lived through much warmer periods than today and will continue to do just fine as long as hunting restrictions don't get lifted. We may be the biggest threat to polar bears, but through excessive hunting, NOT through any imagined "environmental" issue.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2018 at 23:10 UTC
In reply to:

Razor512: I was wondering, since polar bears are not very fast, and are also quite friendly, would it work to photograph them with a lens like the 105mm f/1.4? it is cheaper, but has better quality than the zoom lens.

Why stop there? Just go with a 14-24 f/2.8, and see what his breath smells like just as he starts eating you.

Unless I was in a vehicle with a driver ready to make a fast getaway, I wouldn't shoot polar bears with anything less than my Sigmonster 300-800 f/5.6 (at the long end). Unless, of course, I was happy with the bears being little specs in my photos. ;-D

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2018 at 23:03 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

paulfulper: I prefer a full frame with low MP like 6-8 MP so it's extremely sensitive to low light , maybe 1million ISO ?

@MGradyC, let me correct that for you "There are, in fact, newer "gapless" APS-C PIXELS that collect more light than older FF PIXELS because of their improved microlens arrays that guide almost 100% of the light falling on the sensor into a pixel well."

And "gapless" microlenses are being used on FF sensors as well, so your argument has nothing to do with the discussion above, which was about different pixel sizes on the SAME format with similar sensor tech.

Second, even with "gapless microlenses," the TOTAL light captured on APS-C still wouldn't be more than FF unless those microlenses multiplied the total captured light by a factor of more than two, since FF sensors are more than twice the size as APS-C sensors. And they don't do that, so...(see the correction above).

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2018 at 16:44 UTC
In reply to:

statetaxman: The tax that B&H (and others) will have to collect going forward is the applicable sales tax rate of the destination state, not NYS.

Aside - I'm a little surprised that a reputable site such as Dpreview would suggest buying items 'sooner than later' as a means of avoiding paying tax. Even before this Wayfair decision, buyers were required by law to remit the applicable tax in their home (destination) state, even if the item were purchased from an out-of-state seller such as B&H without any tax collected by the seller. This decision changes the ability of the state to require the seller to collect and remit the tax, not whether the transaction was already subject to tax. With that suggestion, aren't you advocating for purchasers to not pay tax that is clearly due in every state with a sales/use tax? I don't mean to be preachy - I'm sure there are transactions for which I haven't paid use tax in my life, but still an odd thing to recommend.

mfinley, if you buy on the internet from a retailer in another state and they do not collect the sales tax for your state of residence, then undoubtedly your state of residence requires you to pay the tax - you'll note this (if you bother to look) when filing your income tax returns. So the "rule" IS in effect, if you're talking about YOUR obligation to pay the taxes. Only the retailer's obligation to COLLECT the taxes and remit them to the state is in question.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2018 at 16:57 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

rickeclectic: A LOT of comments here so I will be brief.
1. Read up. The physics of smaller sensors require smaller pixels or fewer pixels. Smaller pixels result in more noise. This is getting better but any technology for smaller sensors will also apply to larger sensors so the gap will remain.
2. If you don't blow pictures up and / or you display pix on regular computer or phone displays, then you may not ever notice the differences, since the displays often have only marginally better or sometimes lower resolution than some of the pix.
3. Photo stacking and pixel shifting have great promise to "multiply" resulting image resolution, but its still a few years from being really solid. This one has the most promise for small sensors in my opinion, but it doesn't work for moving objects.

Do what pleases you. I like HIGH resolution and get the most, biggest pixels I can afford that is still portable. For me that is a Sony NEX7 and good lenses. Wish I could afford the A7Riii, but I can't.

No, smaller SENSORS result in more noise, not smaller pixels.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 19:51 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: You missed the biggest advantage of smaller sensors: larger depth-of-field.

A large depth-of-field makes it easier to focus, especially for video.

dSLRs are unusable for video because everything is out-of-focus. You need to build a rig to manually focus.

Also: a larger depth-of-field is more useful for group shots, where a shallow depth-of-field is really only for single-person portraits.

@vFunct - No, to capture the same DOF of a 10mm 1" format lens on a FF camera, you would use a 27mm lens, with an f-stop of 2.7x the f-stop of the 1" lens.

And clamoring on about how you "can't get" the equivalent of f/11 (i.e., f/29.7 in FF terms), which is the highest f-stop on (by way of example) a Nikon 1 10mm lens, (a) might not be true (some FF lenses actually include an "f/32" stop) and (b) is meaningless, since by that time you've long strayed into the territory of "what DOF gives you, diffraction takes away."

Meanwhile there IS no "f/1" 1" format 10mm lens, which would be what you need to match an f/2.8 FF 27mm lens, subject isolation for you, if THAT is what you want.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 19:37 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): β€œThe single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”

@Wye Photography, your response is right up there with "this page intentionally left blank." ;-D

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 18:59 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: This article is a bit of an ad for smartphone users, but nevertheless:
Only 1 or 2 posters on here have correctly noted that pixel density is the crucial variable which will determine image quality. Not sensor size.

The amount of light per unit area hitting any camera sensor is exactly the same. And Sum total light falling on a larger sensor is irrelevant if the pixels are so densely packed that their 'occupancy' ratio is identical to whatever other camera sensor size.
If a new canon rebel was released with say, an 8 megapixel sensor it's low light capabilities would be broadly identical to a 20 megapixel full frame sensor.

@Iloveaircraftnoise, that is pure nonsense. If the pixels are the same size, you have a lot more of them collecting light on the bigger sensor, and therefore a lot more light captured in total - which reduces the visible noise.

You're still arguing the meaningless "per pixel noise" argument. You compare the (entire) images at the same size output, not the individual pixels, if you want a meaningful comparison.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 18:20 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

paulfulper: I prefer a full frame with low MP like 6-8 MP so it's extremely sensitive to low light , maybe 1million ISO ?

@MGradyC, newer sensors may indeed be better tech, but the real issue was never photosite size, but the total sensor size. You're still wallowing in the world of meaningless "per pixel noise," as if it means something. The total amount of noise in the whole image is what matters, and given the same sensor size, that doesn't increase if you have smaller pixels and similar sensor tech. Different sensors may be "optimized" for certain uses, and this may add confusion to the issue, but you're not capturing any more light (and thereby getting any reduction in noise) in the total image (with bigger pixels) when the sensor size is the same.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 18:04 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wiggle Foot: Sensor size still matters if you are concerned with diffraction interference. As the aperture becomes smaller, a smaller sensor will suffer the effects of diffraction interference sooner than a larger sensor will. An online search for "diffraction interference calculator for photographers" will lead to you tools you can use to learn more about this topic, and to determine the smallest aperture you can use before diffraction interference begins to take effect.

@Daniel Le Taylor, yes, but most of the DOF possibilities are simply unavailable for smaller formats without processing fakery.

@MGradyC, careful - he said "equivalent FOV and DOF;" that means the F-number would be adjusted to give the same DOF on each format. But the reality is, you probably can't find the lenses for POS or smart phone sized sensors to match, say, an f2.8 FF lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 17:52 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wolphography: For a fixed output size (like a print of given dimension), a picture needs to be enlarged more if captured with a smaller sensor.
This will not change due to computational photography.
Not requiring as much enlargement for bigger sensors intuitively appears to be an inherent advantage for picture quality. For film, this used to be quite easy to understand.

Does this inherent advantage hold for differently sized digital sensors?

Even in case of identical sensor resolution, there might be more to it, like less 'amplification' of lens imperfections, so it seems that less enlargement required might be another inherent advantage of larger sensors?

Yes, the inherent advantage holds, though you aren't expressing it accurately. The issue is one of the needed additional lens resolution required to resolve the same details at a smaller size, as noted in my reply to Fixx above.

This was also true in film days, but then it was unclouded by the differing pixel size/counts available in different formats, and this further disadvantaged smaller formats, since the "pixels" of film (i.e., the grain) didn't change in size as you reduced the size of the piece of film, meaning you got less available "sensor" (i.e., film) resolution AND the disadvantage of needing a much more high-resolution lens for the smaller format to make up for the lack of format real estate.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 17:32 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fixx: I would think large format makes is easier to make sharper glass, or rather, as light covers larger reception area, glass does not have to be as good as small format to achieve same sharpness.

No, it's not easier to make sharper glass, the reverse would be true.

But, you've got the overall situation right, it takes sharper lenses to get equivalent resolution on smaller sensors. Taking APS-C vs. FF, for example, you need 150% of the linear resolution on the APS-C lens to get the same resolution in the final image that you can get with a FF sensor. MFT vs. FF, you'd need 200% of the linear resolution.

In short, you need more "line pairs per mm" of lens resolution when you have less "mm" of sensor real estate. And while it may be easier to make lenses sharper with smaller image circles, it's not so easy to make them sharp enough to equal the performance of the available lenses for larger sensors.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 17:24 UTC

Where's the pocket for my Sigmonster?! LOL

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 19:26 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

MikeDPR: LR Cloud version is cleared targeted toward casual (i.e. smartphone) shooters. But I'm not sure these people are the type that spend extra money on such things. Maybe couple bucks on apps but not monthly subscription. Adobe is trying to create a new market but will fail hard IMO.

If it does, it couldn't happen to a nicer company...

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 18:50 UTC

Yeah, they'll "keep investing in" Lightroom CC Classic." Just like they would continue to have Lightroom perpetual license "indefinitely." Take your rental software model and shove it, Adobe.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 18:47 UTC as 152nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 207, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »