TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1438, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

TrojMacReady: The A99II is missing from the actual content.

Contradicted by both Sony and the release date in the US, which is two weeks away still.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 18:44 UTC

The A99II is missing from the actual content.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 17:16 UTC as 80th comment | 5 replies
On article Next level: iPhone 7 Plus camera review (185 comments in total)

I wouldn't call skintones natural. There's still the infamous yellow veil in most daylight shots, which also affects skintones (the liver disease look). It's probably there to make every shot look like it's peak golden hour. In lower light, AF is much slower than on the S7. Like a factor 2 or 3. This is where dual pixel AF has clear benefits still.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 23:36 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

G1Houston: Apple's point is that there are too many card formats and new and better ones keep coming, so it does make sense for the users to use an adapter instead to swap/update the reader(s) when needed.

An odd argument when having a reader built in does in no way stop people from using other external readers either.

The only real reason is margins, at the cost of convenience.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 23:51 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Good. SD cards are slow and unreliable, and higher-end XQD cards aren't widely supported yet, so we need the industry to move forward to wireless.

The best way to do that is to remove the SD card slot, so people stop using that crap.

First, no camera will come close to those Wifi speeds when transferring to a computer.

Second, there are and have been SD cards with read and write speeds of up to 280 MB/s and 250 MB/s respectively
http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-280-mbs-uhs-ii-32gb-sdhc-memory-card/

With the built in camera wifi of say a D5 or D500, you won't even get 1/10th that speed.

Best to leave the capitals at home if you haven't been paying attention to the subject the past years.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 23:37 UTC
On article Google Pixel XL real-world sample gallery (103 comments in total)

The "per pixel" sharpness goes up several times with the HDR set to auto. Gone is most of the smearing and thanks the temporal NR through stacking, noise is relatively low still.

Impressive.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2016 at 17:47 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Yassine Eraman: The only thing i want in the smartphone camera is the optical zoom (without add ones) like what in the iphone 7 plus or as Asus zoom, but I really want to see one day optical zoom x10 in a phone with thickness less than 12mm and for sure a bigger sensor (1/7") and of course the full access to camera !!

The Galaxy S4 zoom was pushing it with a 10X optical zoom, 15mm thick body and 1/2.3" sensor. And that was already at the obvious cost of lens speed.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2016 at 12:47 UTC
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (871 comments in total)

50% price hike in 4 years for a similarly specc'd model here. Holy cow....

The problem I see with the touchbar is tactile feedback. It's not going to be like physical keys and we learned to type blindly, so we no longer have to stare at our keyboards.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 19:33 UTC as 212th comment
In reply to:

Carsten Thomsen: Continue from previous post:
6. Apple is slightly hot on the Red and Green Channels, Google is more Cool, and more neutral.
7. When I view the two imagines full screen, to get an overall feel of things, Apple colors are much more punchy. Even when dropping the Exposure by 0.5 EV. This is probably due to the wider color gamut.

My conclusion: If sharpness is the only criteria, Google wins by a small margin. But Apple has a more conservative (abberation free) approach to image processing, and with the wider gamut is gives a more pleasant picture for my taste.

On a recent vacation I shot the 7 Plus exclusively, and time and again I when compared the recorded shot on the screen with the "real world" just captured, I was astounded by the accuracy of color rendering and exposure.

I would suggest the DP Review offers more insight and guidance to the processing going on in high end smart phones, it is a totally new game.

The Apple processing algorithm is a bit dodgy. Here in a studio, colors and WB come out ok, but in outdoor daylight, it adds the famous yellow veil to mimic the golden hours in almost every shot that involves a sky. Add to that a a very low blackpoint for a bit of a washed out look.

Here's an example:
http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/259626-image/previews-mosaics-5.jpg

It's how you pick them out in every "blind" comparison on the net.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

Eric Calabros: iPhone killer? Are you joking? XL image is full of moire, oversharpening artifacts and horrible chroma noise everywhere. iPhone7 is softer but way cleaner, natural and WB is accurate.

The iPhone 7 lens looks marginally better than the one on the Plus model, but still miles behind the Pixel.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

Eric Calabros: iPhone killer? Are you joking? XL image is full of moire, oversharpening artifacts and horrible chroma noise everywhere. iPhone7 is softer but way cleaner, natural and WB is accurate.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr20_0=google_pixelxl&attr20_1=apple_iphone7plus&attr21_0=50&attr21_1=1173&attr22_0=daylight&attr22_1=daylight&attr26_0=raw&attr26_1=raw&attr293_1=wide&normalization=full&widget=423&x=-0.5389898052068812&y=0.3047494120844708

The lens on the iPhone 7 Plus is abysmal in comparison.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 15:13 UTC
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: So they are scaling 5,472 to 4k (well 3840 across, 4096 isn't present, which is fine for pretty much everybody I assume), how does that work for aliasing and moire, as their previous efforts at small amounts of down-scaling haven't been great?

http://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m5/specifications

Defaults. The default sharpening on the A6300 4K and A7SII output is still too high, the A7RII shows much less moiré still (less default sharpening) in APS-C 4K mode than those 2. It uses about 1.2X oversampling in this mode.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=panasonic_dmcgh4&attr29_1=sony_a7rii&attr72_0=4k&attr72_1=4k-apsc&normalization=full&widget=200&x=0.10504219638395096&y=-0.4092298289974674

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2016 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: So they are scaling 5,472 to 4k (well 3840 across, 4096 isn't present, which is fine for pretty much everybody I assume), how does that work for aliasing and moire, as their previous efforts at small amounts of down-scaling haven't been great?

http://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m5/specifications

No need to look at old stuff, when we have recent examples.

A7S vs A7SII:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=sony_a7s&attr29_1=sony_a7sii&attr72_0=4k-apsc&attr72_1=4k&normalization=full&widget=200&x=-0.39320620047270627&y=-0.5057996330170482

A6300 vs Gh4:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=sony_a6300&attr29_1=panasonic_dmcgh4&attr72_0=4k&attr72_1=4k&normalization=full&widget=200&x=-0.39320620047270627&y=-0.5057996330170482

RX100 IV vs GH4:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=sony_dscrx100m4&attr29_1=panasonic_dmcgh4&attr72_0=4k&attr72_1=4k&normalization=full&widget=200&x=-0.3917321333231638&y=-0.4711591599889469

It's certainly going to be much better than the A7S, going by the improvements made since. Especially the A6300 (the most recent in the list above) shows promise for the current product releases: most detail, least amount of moiré and least amount of aliasing.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2016 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: So they are scaling 5,472 to 4k (well 3840 across, 4096 isn't present, which is fine for pretty much everybody I assume), how does that work for aliasing and moire, as their previous efforts at small amounts of down-scaling haven't been great?

http://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m5/specifications

Which "previous effort" are you going by?

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

goldenstandard: This is really interesting. From what I can tel, this isn't a patented technology, so hopefully this will become standard smartphone tech moving forward...
Also, the gray-scale g that's close to the center of the graphic is just a mistake, right?

It's patented:
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/05/single-shot-hdr-exciting-sony-patent-describes-image-sensor-per-pixel-exposure/

And it's been used in previous sensors too:
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.nl/2014/04/sony-presents-2nd-generation-13mp.html

https://www.chipworks.com/sites/default/files/Sony_IMX214_CMOS_Image_Sensor%20(2).pdf

And for video:
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.nl/2013/01/sony-explains-hdr-video-mode-in-its.html

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 11:35 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: Dear Sony,

Please don't "pull a Canon" and try using the same sensor over and over again for a decade, just because the competition hasn't caught up with you WRT all the other bells and whistles you're offering.

Yes, the original 24 MP sensor was impressive, but Fuji has already surpassed it for high ISO with its new 24 MP sensor, and Nikon has long since been getting more out of the "same" 24 MP sensors.

TLDR; I hope that "front-end LSI" is more than just fancy new tech-jargon, otherwise the 6500 is going to be a no-deal for anyone who is more concerned about still image quality than video features or other bells & whistles. As a landscape and nightscape timelapse photographer, all I want is image quality and solid construction. I'd rather have an affordable, weather-sealed compact body that delivers incredible image quality, than anything else. (I'd get an Olympus if the M43 sensor were any better at ISO ~6400 and long exposures more than ~30 sec...)

I'm rooting for you, Sony!

That's not more detail, because with NR added to the A6300 files, I can achieve the same detail and similar or lower noise levels. The ISO 6400 files show the same pattern as the ISO 25600 files (or any ISO for that matter), more noise (and a color shift) in deep shadows for the Fuji, less noise in midtones. If you can't see that, your blackpoint calibration of your monitor needs some adjusting. Either way, pick your poison.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: Dear Sony,

Please don't "pull a Canon" and try using the same sensor over and over again for a decade, just because the competition hasn't caught up with you WRT all the other bells and whistles you're offering.

Yes, the original 24 MP sensor was impressive, but Fuji has already surpassed it for high ISO with its new 24 MP sensor, and Nikon has long since been getting more out of the "same" 24 MP sensors.

TLDR; I hope that "front-end LSI" is more than just fancy new tech-jargon, otherwise the 6500 is going to be a no-deal for anyone who is more concerned about still image quality than video features or other bells & whistles. As a landscape and nightscape timelapse photographer, all I want is image quality and solid construction. I'd rather have an affordable, weather-sealed compact body that delivers incredible image quality, than anything else. (I'd get an Olympus if the M43 sensor were any better at ISO ~6400 and long exposures more than ~30 sec...)

I'm rooting for you, Sony!

In the darker parts, there is quite a bit more noise in the Fujifilm files. It doesn't take hawk eyes to see that too. The rest is due to the difference in processing. Once you set the color NR to the defaults, it's practically a wash.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a6300&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt2&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=318&x=-0.14262857142857155&y=-1.045508982035928

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 10:49 UTC
In reply to:

jorg14: Well.... makes me realize what a good deal the $385 I paid for a brand new a6000 was.

"That's what happens when they use the same sensor over and over again"

This sensor is less than 10 months old...

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 22:15 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: Dear Sony,

Please don't "pull a Canon" and try using the same sensor over and over again for a decade, just because the competition hasn't caught up with you WRT all the other bells and whistles you're offering.

Yes, the original 24 MP sensor was impressive, but Fuji has already surpassed it for high ISO with its new 24 MP sensor, and Nikon has long since been getting more out of the "same" 24 MP sensors.

TLDR; I hope that "front-end LSI" is more than just fancy new tech-jargon, otherwise the 6500 is going to be a no-deal for anyone who is more concerned about still image quality than video features or other bells & whistles. As a landscape and nightscape timelapse photographer, all I want is image quality and solid construction. I'd rather have an affordable, weather-sealed compact body that delivers incredible image quality, than anything else. (I'd get an Olympus if the M43 sensor were any better at ISO ~6400 and long exposures more than ~30 sec...)

I'm rooting for you, Sony!

"Yes, the original 24 MP sensor was impressive, but Fuji has already surpassed it for high ISO with its new 24 MP sensor"

This may come as a surprise, but that "new sensor" Fuji is using, is the exact same sensor used here. They only use their own color filter array and what appears to be some RAW smoothing (as part of the demosaicing) on top, which some see as a benefit. Other do not. Either way, keeping all the aforementioned in mind, they are still pretty similar in low light:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a6300&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt2&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=318&x=-0.14408571428571448&y=-0.8890197284003419

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

ButtonEyes2016: I am so glad I left Sony's mirrorless system. After the Next-6 and the a6000, Sony has become greedy. The price on this is outrageous and the benefits for the additional $400 over the a6300's price aren't worth it. I'll stick with Nikon, thanks.

At least Nikon doesn't pull any greed tricks. No, no, don't mention the D3400, it ruins my argument.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 07:27 UTC
Total: 1438, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »