MayaTlab0

Lives in France France
Joined on Feb 27, 2011

Comments

Total: 652, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fluppeteer: They both have strong highlighting around the edge of the bokeh, they both show some LoCA, they both have significant mechanical vignetting. No lens is perfect, but I'm not that impressed even at $430, never mind $5895. I'm curious whether the 35mm Tamron or 40mm Sigma are visibly better in similar circumstances - it's always hard to tell what was caused by processing (sharpening, especially, can outline bokeh) or a more-than-obviously awkward test case.

They both have far less field dependent aberrations of the kind that participate in producing this edginess towards the corner of the frame for sure.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2020 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

s1oth1ovechunk: If you didn't get 4/4, you're well within one standard deviation of random chance. If you did get 4/4 you are either lucky or perceptive, it's impossible to tell which.

Basically this sample size is meaningless unless we can aggregate across multiple people randomly...

For 3 out of these 4 images (the ones with blur basically), it's dead easy to pick lens A from B : one simply has to look at the CA characteristics of the bokeh balls.
I then took a gamble : ie that the Leica would control some of these aberrations a bit better. For the other picture I just looked at the WB and vignetting of the other three pictures and took another gamble : that the file would exhibit the same characteristics.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2020 at 14:55 UTC
In reply to:

4sofnature: Quite heavy for a 85 f/2. I hope Canon's claim of 8 stop of dual IS is true.

Paolo Roversi has.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2020 at 20:31 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: Does it focus internally?

No. It's like the 35.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2020 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

Siobhan_K: Isn't "computational lighting" part of the smartphone photography revolution--you know, like Apple's iPhone "portrait lighting" modes, which they insist "put a studio of lights in your pocket" without requiring a set of Profoto B10s and modifiers?

I guess I don't understood why people--in this case, Profoto--imagine that "computational photography" will just stall its voracious advancements at an arbitrary point that happens to be most relevant to their business or their understanding of the imaging craft. "Gasp, what *is* photography if it isn't a transcription of actual light, channeled through a lens, to a light-sensitive media?!? Apple would never try to computationally simulate *actual* lighting!" says Profoto. "Hold my beer," say the 800+ engineers working on iPhone imaging in Cupertino.

More options and capabilities are always welcome, so thanks for that, Profoto--I just don't see why "computational imaging" won't eat this like it devours everything else, and soon.

I agree with you.
That said I can't help but notice how important the shooting process is to the end result when I've assisted some photographers, particularly at the higher end of the spectrum. What makes a Sarah Moon photo a Sarah Moon photo isn't just Sarah Moon being in the room but her dedication to create a particular atmosphere, a certain "flow" from beginning to end and to which everyone participating is subjected.
In the same vein that a lot of editorials are still shot on film or with decades old continuous lights, or that films are increasingly trying to move away from green screen shooting back towards more interactive shooting environments, I wouldn't be surprised to see strobes perdure even after the avent of convincing computational photography alternatives.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2020 at 10:09 UTC
In reply to:

MayaTlab0: A set of ambitious, moderately fast and not too cheap primes to go with it (akin to Nikon's f1.8 lineup, and very much unlike the 35mm RF), with intense care devoted to background blur quality and transitions.

It's a great cheap and cheerful lens and well priced. It's also not benefitting from the advances we've seen lately in wide angle lenses in terms of field dependent aberrations (and therefore bokeh off centre) and was clearly designed with other priorities in mind. I have nothing against it other than that it isn't what I'm looking for in 2020 in a wide angle. We'll see what the 50 and 85 are like.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2020 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

MayaTlab0: A set of ambitious, moderately fast and not too cheap primes to go with it (akin to Nikon's f1.8 lineup, and very much unlike the 35mm RF), with intense care devoted to background blur quality and transitions.

These are specs :D. Devil is in the actual image quality.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2020 at 17:45 UTC

A set of ambitious, moderately fast and not too cheap primes to go with it (akin to Nikon's f1.8 lineup, and very much unlike the 35mm RF), with intense care devoted to background blur quality and transitions.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2020 at 16:26 UTC as 151st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

Yet you write :
“I'll tell you what I see.. the D800E images look flat and limp next to the M9 images which look rich, natural, and give a nice sense of 3D Pop.” As a sidenote let’s recall that the D800E’s SMI score is 77, higher than the M9.

In other words : contrary to your first proposition, the M9’s weak CFA did NOT cause it to develop “duller, more muted colors” and the “infamous CMOS-look”.

Ergo : you contradict yourself.

This is all logic, using your very own statements and the correlations you yourself established.

I’m a dude BTW. Yet another demonstration that you can’t help yourself making erroneous assumptions out of thin air with alarming dedication.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2020 at 07:33 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

Now let’s continue :

First proposition :
“they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.”
In other words : weak CFA causes (yep that’s a causal relationship you just established) “duller, more-muted colors” and the “infamous CMOS-look”.

Second proposition :
As we’ve already established, Leica’s CCD cameras, per the correlation you yourself established in your own words, have a weaker CFA than all other cameras mentioned in this thread so far. As a sidenote, let’s recall that by your own logic both the 5D and A7RIII, both CMOS cameras, having the highest SMI scores of the cameras mentioned above, should have among the “strongest” CFAs.

Conclusion : Leica’s CCD cameras should be producing “duller, more-muted colors in images” reminiscent of the the “infamous CMOS-look”.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2020 at 07:32 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

Second proposition : the Leica M8’s SMI score, per DXO, under CIE-D50 illuminant is 68. The Leica M9’s SMI score is 76. The D800E’s 77. The A7RIII’s and 5D’s 84.
In other words : the Leicas have the lowest SMI scores of all cameras mentioned in this thread so far.

in other words : “Mimi is a cat”

Conclusion : Leica’s CCD cameras have the “weakest” CFA of all cameras mentioned so far - or at least a very weak one.

in other words : “Mimi has four legs”.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2020 at 07:32 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

Syllogisms are the most basic form of logic and are taught here in primary school as it’s considered that children of that age are capable of grasping the notion.

first proposition, quoting you : “CFA strengths for the first gen CMOS cameras can be inferred from their SMI color accuracy scores”. This establishes a correlation between CFA “strength” (I’m using your own terminology here even though it’s nonsensical) and SMI scores.

Now I wonder why you’ve added “first gen CMOS” instead of just “cameras”. If you find it objectionable that I consider that you’re considering all cameras, you’ll have to explain why only first gen CMOS cameras can see their colour accuracy evaluated by SMI scores and not other cameras. I have no doubt that your creative mind will find the most random and improbable excuse for it.

In other words : “all cats have four legs”.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2020 at 07:32 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

" For whatever reason the Leica M9 is one of those low SMI scoring CCD outliers".
Don't try to squirm your way out of it and gaslight people by finding the most ridiculous reason for it : you've been caught red handed contradicting yourself in your own words, Kellyanne Conway.
BTW the M8 and M8.2 score even lower : 68. Damn !

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2020 at 06:46 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

Your problem isn't data anyway, it's basic, 6 years old logic. I notice that you've lamely "folded" in regards to my comment above showing that DXO's SMI scores directly contradict what you just claimed. So I ask again : what say you to the fact that DXO's SMI score for the Leica M9, ie 76, is lower than the CMOS cameras I mentioned above (including the D800E), despite you claiming that "the scores for CMOS cameras are noticeably lower" and equating SMI scores with CFA "strength" (meaningless term) ? Does it mean that the M9 has the weakest CFA of all ? Oh no the horror ! Or maybe that you can't think straight and don't know sh...t about this subject ?

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2020 at 00:51 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

He provided provisios because he's intelligent, and modest, which you aren't (otherwise you wouldn't be insulting the subject of that article). I agree, that test is somewhat limited (as Jack already answered to you in that regard). But what makes you believe that DXO's, which seem perfectly comfortable with publishing obviously rubbish vignetting profile curves such as the one for the Nikon 24-70 VR, which apparently defy the laws of physics (https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikkor/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-F28E-ED-VR-mounted-on-Nikon-D800E---Measurements__814), is anywhere near as rigorous as Jack ?

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2020 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

"my data is the only data". In other words "My God is the only God". LOL. Please continue, you're on a homerun. I'm giving you 11/10 for that incredible series of trolls, you've surpassed yourself.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2020 at 00:09 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

BTW, let's have another massive laugh : "Great image comparisons between the CCD-based M9 and CMOS-based D800E". Well, per DXO's measurements of the SMI number, which you seem to hold in such great esteem (you shouldn't), and which you certainly over-interpret to fit the narrative you'd like to peddle, the M9 SMI's score is 76, while the D800E is 77 (so : HIGHER), both lower than the 5DII which you mock for having a SMI score of 80 (still HIGHER), itself lower than a very CMOSish A7RIII at 84.
So much for saying earlier "Also look up the SMI color accuracy scores for current CMOS cameras versus the CCD cameras of yore... the scores for CMOS cameras are noticeably lower."
Advice : get your fantasy at least somewhat straight and coherent before opening your big mouth.
You mocked the very subject of that article : "Let the record show that he folded once shown the data". Maybe it's you who should. Or should be forced to.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2020 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

Otherwise you act as if we can't actually measure if at the end of the whole processing chain (what you continue and will continue to fail to understand is that it's a set of variables that result in the colours you get and not quite as easy as attributing the cause of all your concerns to a devilish CFA), colours are accurate or not. Too bad we can to a degree. It's funny that you continue to irrationally worship SMI scores and peddle them like a parrot in multiple posts as the Thricromatic scores way less there than the standard back : http://www.strollswithmydog.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-trichromatic-linear-color-iii/
If reading the three articles published on that subject above should tell you anything, it's that "it's complicated" and that calling a CFA "weak" or "strong" is nonsensical.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2020 at 23:14 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

We've all successfully debunked your constant stream of idiocies for years. That you can't understand why it's idiotic is your problem. That Dpreview can't understand that immoderate respect for everyone's capacity to express their opinion, regardless of their capacity to substantiate it or not, can be detrimental to the quality of the information that's being exchanged, is theirs. In a parallel dimension you'd be an anti-vaxxer (and a very pretentious one at that... "seminal" LOL) and VaccinReview would continue to give you a pedestal.
"If it is your opinion that this hasn't happened, well then please show the data" Typical case of reversing the onus of proof "if God doesn't exist, why can't you prove it ?"

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2020 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: Although CMOS sensors enabled better high ISO performance for cameras, their occluding circuitry also initially made them less light sensitive than CCD sensors. As such, they ushered in an era of weaker color filters which led to duller, more-muted colors in images. This ultimately became known as the infamous “CMOS-look” which to a large extent is still with us today.

This is not to say CMOS sensors can’t be made with strong CFA’s. It’s just that typically they are not. The pressure to increase pixel density and reach ever higher ISO’s keeps CMOS CFA’s weak and color performance middling. But because of this historical color gap there continues to be a size-able fan base for the older CCD technology. Sure, CCD falls apart at elevated ISO, but at base ISO many CCD cameras still produce colors that most CMOS cameras struggle to match.

As has already been said to you countless times already, but with no effect as trolls tend to have selective memory, that "CFA" spectrogram you constantly refer to doesn't actually support your opinion.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2020 at 22:34 UTC
Total: 652, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »