Total: 109, showing: 41 – 60

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Will the image quality up to ISO800 and focus speed/accuracy of this little camera
be so much different from OMD-M10 (or OMD-M5ii) + 14-150mm v2 combination ?
To balance price and size - weight I mean.
I know the CLA-14 or 13 adapter must also be bought to add filters and converters,

Does the CLA-14 works with the TCON-17 tele-converter or still need to buy the CLA-13 for that. I know that both have a 55mm frontal tread so I don't understand the difference.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 16:40 UTC as 9th comment
On article Olympus Stylus 1s camera announced in Japan (94 comments in total)

Zeisschen: I don't think that those tiny sensored good weather cameras have any future.

Yeap ! I had the chance to try a Samsung NX300, APS-C sensor, with 20MP in a very small body and good kit lenses (kind of Sony Nex cameras). Was impressed by it's focus performance in good light and IQ, plus a smartphone GUI with touch screen.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2014 at 23:49 UTC
On article Olympus Stylus 1s camera announced in Japan (94 comments in total)

Zeisschen: I don't think that those tiny sensored good weather cameras have any future.

Good point !

My guess is that the most cameras in the field were smart phones ;-)

Always ready to shoot & share with instant cloud sync, if you are inclined to do so. Hard competition for small sensor cameras these days.

I think that I would prefer to buy, and carry, a OM-D M10 + EZ kit (same price as Stylus-1 & marginally larger), or a fast prime for more portability and top IQ, or even with the larger 14-150mm (300mm eq.) to have the same range as the Stylus-1.

That would be a true improvement in IQ from my Nokia 1020, the Stylus-1 not (not considering zoom versatility).

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 16:33 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (326 comments in total)

Jogger: We basically don't need any dedicated compact camera that doesnt have a large sensor, isnt a superzoom, or isnt ruggedised. Flagship phones are already using 1/2.3 sensor and some have even larger.

Hahaha, yeah iAPX I know it looks confusing man !
Thing is they decided to create a new system of units, inches
in sensor size does not equal real inches, go figure. They do have some ridiculous excuse for creating that confusion, something realted to the size of tube of an old video camera.
Here we go : 8.8mm x 6.6mm has an 11mm diagonal,
or 0.4331 real inches x 1.5 = 0.65 "sensor inches" approximately equals 2/3 = 1/1.5 = 0.6666666.....
They created a new unit, named it the same as an existing one and didn't defined an exact conversion factor.
Definitely not created by engineers. ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 20:23 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (326 comments in total)

Jogger: We basically don't need any dedicated compact camera that doesnt have a large sensor, isnt a superzoom, or isnt ruggedised. Flagship phones are already using 1/2.3 sensor and some have even larger.

jhinkey is right, even the Nokia 1020, that in certain conditions can take photos as good as the X20, does not have the dynamic range (DR) of the X series, or similar cameras, don´t even reach the DR of HS20EXR or HS50EXR with 1/2" sensors. Enthusiast cams are still better than my 1020 for low light and high dynamic range scenes.
The trick I use on the 1020 so it doesn´t clip the highlights is to use -0.7 correction which partially solves the problem. Of course most people can´t tell them apart, only if you check the images very carefully on a good monitor.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 23:23 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (326 comments in total)

Jogger: We basically don't need any dedicated compact camera that doesnt have a large sensor, isnt a superzoom, or isnt ruggedised. Flagship phones are already using 1/2.3 sensor and some have even larger.

Jogger is right, Nokia 1020 has a 2/3" sensor with 1x 38MP or up to 4x zoom but just 5MP, 27mm at f2.4, most of the commonly used manual settings of X30 + lots of apps like a great Panorama better than Fuji´s and excellent video/sound performance. Much more pocket friendly even with the camera grip accessory.
But not even close to 12fps at 12MP, no Fujinon manual zoom lenses, no use of filters, external flash and converters. So I think there are still many possible buyers depending of what people find more important or essential.
I didn´t see anything about the Olympus Stylus-1 with 28-300mm constant f2.8, I´m sure it is able to produce better bokeh then the X10/20/30 since allows the use of more than 112mm with f2.8 and excellent detail and IQ up to ISO800.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 23:11 UTC
On article Pentax K-3 Review (515 comments in total)

Dpreviewmember: it's just me or the OMD M1 jpegs, up to iso 3200 & 6400 look nicer than K3 and X-T1 in the image comparison tool, contrary to what the review conclusion says.
Is it referring to Raw ?

I guess some people don't understand what they read.
My question was related to jpegs, that's because I, as well as several other people, shoot jpegs mostly for a number of reasons. Having others things to do than to play with raw being one of them. So elaborating on the question : If you would buy a camera to shoot mostly jpegs, judging by the jpeg quality, would the Oly OMD M1 be a better option ?

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 22:57 UTC
On article Pentax K-3 Review (515 comments in total)

it's just me or the OMD M1 jpegs, up to iso 3200 & 6400 look nicer than K3 and X-T1 in the image comparison tool, contrary to what the review conclusion says.
Is it referring to Raw ?

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 23:01 UTC as 121st comment | 8 replies
On photo Old West in the Old and Abandoned Barns challenge (2 comments in total)

Thanks, I liked the atmosphere of real scene and the photo did capture most of it.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 05:03 UTC as 1st comment
On photo DSCF7492 in jcmarfilph's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

this photo seems like a great choice for using the "red only" effect letting all the rest in black and white. Is it possible to do that after taking the photo with the HS50 ?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2013 at 21:40 UTC as 1st comment
On article Want to remember something? Don't take a photo (183 comments in total)

totally agree with 57even point, the important thing is to travel with plenty of time available. First enjoy the moment and place, then take your time and enjoy it further with your camera. Photography has actually improved the way I spend my vacations.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2013 at 20:37 UTC as 74th comment
On article Homemade rig captures extreme macro shots of snowflakes (186 comments in total)

Thanks Alexey for the beautiful photos and for taking the time to explain how to make them, something we rarely see here on DPR.
You are an artist and a teacher.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2013 at 11:11 UTC as 35th comment
On article Hands-on with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (143 comments in total)

rpm40: Can anyone direct me to a good comparison of the 1020/808 against traditional compacts? I looked at the dpreview image comparisons for the nokia 808 against a variety of compacts (particularly the Nikon p330 which I am interested in) and the results looked pretty bad. Honestly, equal or worse to 1/2.3" sensored compacts. I suspected that the results weren't a fair representation of what the nokia can do, especially with all the praise I've heard.

So what's the verdict? Can a nice point and shoot like the s110, p330, xz-2 etc. still handily beat these large sensor phones?

If you don't need to add filters, lens converters, and other accessories, then the Lumia 1020 will be what you always wanted. I was also looking for a good compact for interiors and low light photos, decided on the Olympus XZ-2, but now that I have the 1020 I don't need a compact anymore. For all other situations when a camera is better than the phone (super-macro, super-tele, ultra-wide, filters) I have a 1/2" Fuji HS20, but for low light the Nokia blows it away in image quality and detail at high ISOs. Hope that answers your question.

A dream combination will be to have the 1020 as a compact, always with you, and a good DSLR or M4/3 like the Olympus OM-D M-1 + 2 or 3 quality lenses ;-)

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 21:51 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (143 comments in total)

Here is a great comparison by Evan Tchelepi Canon D800 28 mm lens versus the Nokia 1020. Has 100% zooms to see all details and defects :

http://evan-theelectricalengineer.blogspot.in/2013/10/nikon-d800e-vs-nokia-lumia-1020.html

Conclusion is simple, a phone will never have the versatility/image quality of the D800 with good quality \$\$\$ lenses but this phone renders excellent detail with low noise 38MP photos, in many situations as good as the D800 with that kit lens on. A phone is more convenient to carry around plus is always there.

I have a Lumia 1020 and picture quality is much better than that of my HS20EXR for most situations, specially in low light. Awesome technology !
Win8 Amber smooth, so far I'm loving it. Also have iPhone and Symbian Belle phones which don't miss at all except for a few features. Nokia camera apps are all there with extensive features, now RAW support will come with the Black firmware update. Nothing to complain about this top quality camera-phone.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 21:41 UTC as 15th comment
 Total: 109, showing: 41 – 60