Dpreviewmember

Dpreviewmember

Joined on Apr 27, 2011

Comments

Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article All about control: Huawei P9 camera review (69 comments in total)

NOKIA 950 seems to have better IQ.
NOKIA1020 and the ancient 808 far better IQ, all with full manual controls, RAW+JPEG, IOS for 950/1020, real flash for 1020/808.
So what is the novelty about this Huawei again ? ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 23:18 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
On article All about control: Huawei P9 camera review (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: When would smartphone manufactors build-in at least an 1/1.7" sensor...size does matter...you can't overcome laws of physics with newer processing algorithms and faster cpus...Sony for instance decided it right back into 2012 with their very first RX100 iteration - the 1" sensor is so much better than a usual 1/1.7" which all other prosumers and highend compacts have had back at this day...and now smartphones...12.16..20 or more MP...it doesn't matter...the sensor size is still a mess, JPEGs in 1:1 100% mode look really mushy & like watercolors....they'd never compete with digicams if they wouldn't get a better, bigger sensor for better light gathering ability, low light performance and image quality after all....i am tired of all these smartphone cameras...it's been 2016 - and still no RX100 IQ into a smartphone besides the CM1 Lumix from Panasonic.

Manufactors should do it right that way - bring it on, or just fade away. The typical smartphone cam can never compete with an 1" sensor

I have the Nokia1020 and Fujis HS20EXR / HS50EXR cameras.
NOKIA 1020 does a good job with software image oversampling technique on a 1/1.5" sensor, "real flash", great optical stabilization and full manual control, so nothing really new with this Huawei phone right ?

1020 sensor gives better results than iPhone6 and 1/2" EXR sensor on my Fujis, specially in low light situations iPhone6/Fujis don't come close. Not for zoom of course, 1020 software trick is good but can not compete with the amazing 600mm and 1000mm reach of Fuji's quality big glass.

Right now, with these current phones, I see no point in buying small sensor point and shoot cams, except super zooms and tough P&S for sports.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 23:08 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

unbelievable: I kindly have to disagree on calling the RX10 III an ideal hiking camera. It definitely ticks quite some proper boxes: reach, image quality, weather resistance. But at 1kg+ it is simply too heavy (at least for me, considering that my total long trail pack weight is 7.6kg including backpack, tent, sleeping gear, clothes, raingear, snow clothes, cooking stuff, electronics, navigation stuff, medkit, etc).
Having had several lightweight superzoomes (FZ20, FZ7) but let down by image quality I moved on to enthusiasts camera (rx100, xz1, lx3). These are capable of making acceptable pics, but unfortunately do sacrifice reach to the extent that you can capture a bird in just 2 pixels.
In my opinion the optimal hiking camera is currently the tz100. It has respectable reach, decent image quality and most and for all, it is truly portable (small and lightweight). It neither excels nor fails in any field

Don't miss the 24mm that much, 28mm is perfectly fine, when I want something truly wide I stick the 9mm f8 body-cap which has low distortion if you know how to point it. This body-cap has an IQ far better that any add-on converter lenses I tried on the Fuji fixed lenses and is extremely compact and light.
If I really want to travel light, as when biking, then I switch to the 14-42mm ez pancake lens, very light and small.

I didn't believe people that told me that humongous fixed lens bridges were not really bringing any advantage for hiking and traveling over smaller M43 until I switched to this system. Not going back definitely ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 21:11 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

unbelievable: I kindly have to disagree on calling the RX10 III an ideal hiking camera. It definitely ticks quite some proper boxes: reach, image quality, weather resistance. But at 1kg+ it is simply too heavy (at least for me, considering that my total long trail pack weight is 7.6kg including backpack, tent, sleeping gear, clothes, raingear, snow clothes, cooking stuff, electronics, navigation stuff, medkit, etc).
Having had several lightweight superzoomes (FZ20, FZ7) but let down by image quality I moved on to enthusiasts camera (rx100, xz1, lx3). These are capable of making acceptable pics, but unfortunately do sacrifice reach to the extent that you can capture a bird in just 2 pixels.
In my opinion the optimal hiking camera is currently the tz100. It has respectable reach, decent image quality and most and for all, it is truly portable (small and lightweight). It neither excels nor fails in any field

Agree, I used to hike and travel with the Fuji HS50EXR 24-1000mm but was too heavy and ended up not taking it anymore with me and using my phone instead.
Now I found a better and less expensive solution in the OMD-M10 + 14-150 II, don't have the humongous reach but again I rarely used anything beyond 400mm so no real problem there. As a bonus much better IQ.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 23:10 UTC

Apple should follow Meike and Ztylus ideas and sell something even better,
a case with lens accessories, sold separately of course, that :

- connect to the phone port, no bluetooh lags.
- still offers a port for charging etc.
- extra battery, like their current battery-case.
- camera grip + button + tripod tread.
- accessory attachment systems for kickstands, holders, LED lights and lenses.
Something like Microsoft's case for NOKIA 1020 combined with Meike or Ztylus ideas.

What are they waiting to make some extra money ?

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 17:22 UTC as 7th comment

Hummm....

If you are just interested in the case, no QX, it could make sense.
A good case with little lenses that are better fixed than the common clip ones on the market. Just don't expect any miracles in IQ.
In that case here is another option :

http://ztylus.com/collections/revolver-kit

Does the proper RX100 or Ricoh GR also cost U$65 ?

Can't compare apples with oranges man.

Just a thought ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 17:08 UTC as 8th comment

Olympus TG-Tracker or Ricoh WG-M2 ? That is the question !

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2016 at 01:02 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: 204 degrees angle of view !!! Neon Green !!! Awesome looks !!! $350.00 !!! Geo-tagging !!! F2.0 !!! Tell me, who can beat that?

Yeah, it seems the camera allows a reduction of fisheye angle to the one used in underwater situations if you don't like the strong distortion 👍

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2016 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: 204 degrees angle of view !!! Neon Green !!! Awesome looks !!! $350.00 !!! Geo-tagging !!! F2.0 !!! Tell me, who can beat that?

Yeap, agree.
I was just waiting for this cam to replace my beaten Pentax WG-1

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 00:55 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: Looks great except I would rather pay hundreds of $ more & have a sensor bigger than a cell phone! How big of a print can you make with this size?

It seems finally camera makers got it right with a reasonable pixel count that is compatible with sensor size : 1/2.3" is about maximum 8MP effective resolution.

Cell phones are usually not as good with dynamic range, specially important if you are filming a scene with shadows and strong light, happens a lot in outdoors sports. I'm sure this camera will handle this situations far better than ANY current cell phone and handle changes in light far better too.
Plus a 204 degree good quality lens, better than any of the 24-28mm equiv tiny phone lenses, even the f2 one on iPhones. I tried different ultra-wide fish-eye adapters on both iPhone6 and Nokia1020 (1/1.5"sensor) and none are better than a current good compact camera.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 00:49 UTC

Is this camera so much better than a 1/2" sensor bridge with powerful lens and manual zoom, like the Fuji HS50exr 24-1000mm equivalent, to justify such high price tag ?

Or a smaller, lighter and less expensive M4/3 like Panasonic G series or Olympus OMD with 28-300 equivalent telephoto zoom combo ?
(Shorter zoom range but probably better IQ )

I gladly traded the longer reach of the HS50exr by the much lighter and better IQ of OMD-10 + zoom in my recent hikes and travels

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 03:24 UTC as 45th comment
On article Fujifilm FinePix S1 real-world sample gallery posted (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dpreviewmember: Fuji doesn't understand the market for bridge cams !

After shotting a lot with my Fuji HS20 and HS50 bridge cams, only in 8MP mode, (16MP EXR 1/2" sensor) I wouldn't expect anything but awful IQ for the S1's 16MP 1/2.3" even at 50% crops as is definitely confirmed by these samples. Unless you are an impressionist artist and enjoy mushy pictures ;-)

Why camera manufacturers don't realize that 16MP is a lot for a sensor of this size, 8MP would give better IQ specially in low light, faster processing of files and would be perfect for small to medium size prints as well as showing on 2MP fullHD and 4K TVs/monitors, which is what most buyers of this kind of cam actually do. So why insisting on MP counts ?

It is curious that they seem to understand this for premium cameras but not for bridges, maybe is because they want to increase the zoom even more with digital zoom (in camera crop).
Look for example the Olympus Stylus-1, XZ-1 and XZ-2 with their 1/1.7" sensor, as well as Fuji's X10, 20 and 30. They respect the sensor MP limit to 12MP on these premium cams but yet insist on 16MP on smaller sensor bridges. That is what doesn't make any sense to me.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2015 at 15:54 UTC
On article Fujifilm FinePix S1 real-world sample gallery posted (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dpreviewmember: Fuji doesn't understand the market for bridge cams !

After shotting a lot with my Fuji HS20 and HS50 bridge cams, only in 8MP mode, (16MP EXR 1/2" sensor) I wouldn't expect anything but awful IQ for the S1's 16MP 1/2.3" even at 50% crops as is definitely confirmed by these samples. Unless you are an impressionist artist and enjoy mushy pictures ;-)

Why camera manufacturers don't realize that 16MP is a lot for a sensor of this size, 8MP would give better IQ specially in low light, faster processing of files and would be perfect for small to medium size prints as well as showing on 2MP fullHD and 4K TVs/monitors, which is what most buyers of this kind of cam actually do. So why insisting on MP counts ?

Agree, Nokia 1020 1/1.5" sensor performs this trick with quite good results. What I'm saying is that going to 16MP in a 1/2" sensor does not gives better IQ that the same sensor with 8MP since the effective ressolution of this sensor is about 10MP, so you don't gain anything extra except noise by increasing the MP count beyond the limits imposed by physics. Unless of course some sort of oversampling is used like Nokia's Pureview or Fuji's EXR trick, the latter being not so effective as the former.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 00:53 UTC
On article Fujifilm FinePix S1 real-world sample gallery posted (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

OneLeggedCat: "and one of the very few with Raw support" ... Wut?

fuji finepix Hs50exr as well as older models also shoot Raw and with bether IQ than S1

Link | Posted on May 23, 2015 at 00:42 UTC
On article Fujifilm FinePix S1 real-world sample gallery posted (41 comments in total)

Fuji doesn't understand the market for bridge cams !

After shotting a lot with my Fuji HS20 and HS50 bridge cams, only in 8MP mode, (16MP EXR 1/2" sensor) I wouldn't expect anything but awful IQ for the S1's 16MP 1/2.3" even at 50% crops as is definitely confirmed by these samples. Unless you are an impressionist artist and enjoy mushy pictures ;-)

Why camera manufacturers don't realize that 16MP is a lot for a sensor of this size, 8MP would give better IQ specially in low light, faster processing of files and would be perfect for small to medium size prints as well as showing on 2MP fullHD and 4K TVs/monitors, which is what most buyers of this kind of cam actually do. So why insisting on MP counts ?

Link | Posted on May 22, 2015 at 13:33 UTC as 6th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

rgames1: Interesting but I'm skeptical that the variation in number of photons can cause anywhere near the amount of noise produced by the camera electronics.

The argument is made by comparing to tubes collecting raindrops. However, nowhere in the article does it say how many photons are captured in the shadow pixels, so the comparison is never backed up with any data. Making the argument requires that that number be established then compared to the variation in number of photons.

So, how many photons are captured by each pixel in the shadows? Further, what is the variation in that number? My strong suspicion is that the variation in number of photons in any part of the image is still extremely small compared to the number captured but that information is nowhere to be found. That information is implied by the analogy but never quantified.

The answer to those questions will show whether or not the analogy is valid.

rgames

Maybe they could invent some 8MP system of 3 small 1/2.5" sensors and lenses for cell phones, one for each RGB color and then the smartphone processor combines them to form one image. having a larger area per pixel and much better signal to noise values. The electronic shutter in my phone reaches 1/16000s so why not also take a picture with the lenses closed first to get the noise and immediately get the photo subtracting the black one with the noise ?

Link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 02:28 UTC
In reply to:

rgames1: Interesting but I'm skeptical that the variation in number of photons can cause anywhere near the amount of noise produced by the camera electronics.

The argument is made by comparing to tubes collecting raindrops. However, nowhere in the article does it say how many photons are captured in the shadow pixels, so the comparison is never backed up with any data. Making the argument requires that that number be established then compared to the variation in number of photons.

So, how many photons are captured by each pixel in the shadows? Further, what is the variation in that number? My strong suspicion is that the variation in number of photons in any part of the image is still extremely small compared to the number captured but that information is nowhere to be found. That information is implied by the analogy but never quantified.

The answer to those questions will show whether or not the analogy is valid.

rgames

Rgibbons and Rishi, I understand that in astro-photography the very long exposures bring thermal noise mainly. But here I was talking exposures of even 1/2s, not really long at all. My camera shows clear image degradation in choices such as : go to ISO3200 + 1/2s or go with smaller ISOs + longer exposures ?
I believe in my HS20 Fuji cam it must be a fault in the 1/2" EXR sensor design. I compared the 16MP EXR mode with the 8MP EXR mode both at ISO3200. All tests where made in manual mode, allowing the camera to cool down for the exact same times, complete darkness, cold night, LCD turned off, same conditions except ISO, MPixels and DR% mode:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399142031/photos/2706187/hs20exr-iso3200-dr100-16mp
Also I noticed the OIS system adds to the electronic noise.
So in my particular small sensor EXR camera electronic noise seems by far more important and noticed even for regular exposure photography. Maybe M4/3 and larger sensor cameras are a different story ?

Link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 02:19 UTC
In reply to:

rgames1: Interesting but I'm skeptical that the variation in number of photons can cause anywhere near the amount of noise produced by the camera electronics.

The argument is made by comparing to tubes collecting raindrops. However, nowhere in the article does it say how many photons are captured in the shadow pixels, so the comparison is never backed up with any data. Making the argument requires that that number be established then compared to the variation in number of photons.

So, how many photons are captured by each pixel in the shadows? Further, what is the variation in that number? My strong suspicion is that the variation in number of photons in any part of the image is still extremely small compared to the number captured but that information is nowhere to be found. That information is implied by the analogy but never quantified.

The answer to those questions will show whether or not the analogy is valid.

rgames

Sorry Rishi but I have to agree with rgames1 in this case, at least with small sensor cameras like mine the thermal and/or circuit noise is way more evident than the random nature of gathered light.
This electronic noise is larger the longer the exposure so in practical terms each sensor-camera-lens combination probably have an optimal exposure time versus available light.
A simple sensor test (see my gallery) can prove that :
just put the cover in your lens, let the camera inside the bag in a completely dark room and take pictures at different ISO and shutter times. Since there is no light at all the illuminated pixels are pure electronic noise.
My small sensor cameras look like a starry night.
Noise is random contrary to signal, so if the camera took a burst of pictures of in succession and added them the signal to noise ratio would be larger, similar to old CD disk players from the 90s when their advertising would say things like "16 times oversampling".

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 23:41 UTC
In reply to:

steve_hoge: Can't tell from the photos - is it possible to thread filters onto this lens?

Hummm, I was hopping the Cla14 was shorter than the 13 but at the same time allowed the Tcon17 to fit without hitting the lens at full tele position.

The builtin ND filter is 3 ? I have a Variable ND that it very convenient in different situations and someone wrote in a review that the cla14 doesn' t add vigneting with filters.

Thanks for your input !

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

steve_hoge: Can't tell from the photos - is it possible to thread filters onto this lens?

not directly, you have to buy the Cla13 or Cla14 adapters, both seem to have a 55mm thread for filters and tele/wide converters.

However, I can't find what is the difference between these two adapters !
Reviews are not clear about that, suggesting you should buy one for the wide angle converter Cla14 and the Cla13 for the Tcon17 tele. Why the Tcon17 wouldn't fit in the Cla14 if it's 55mm ?

If someone knows please share that info.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 02:05 UTC
Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »