TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1536, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Shiranai: Wannabe bla bla. The iPhones portrait mode is great, no question. But results are still far away from a DSLR if you compare full resolution.
Neither can it come up with the resolution even the lowest entry DSLRs deliver, nor with the low light performance or the dynamic range.
And the portrait mode has obvious problems with complex scenes, for instance as soon as flying hair is involved. Every picture friends posted so far, I could tell which ones were coming from the iPhone.

I'm not missing any point here, since a good deal of people still enjoys seeing pictures on something larger than a tiny cellphone camera screen. And that won't change any time soon.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

Shiranai: Wannabe bla bla. The iPhones portrait mode is great, no question. But results are still far away from a DSLR if you compare full resolution.
Neither can it come up with the resolution even the lowest entry DSLRs deliver, nor with the low light performance or the dynamic range.
And the portrait mode has obvious problems with complex scenes, for instance as soon as flying hair is involved. Every picture friends posted so far, I could tell which ones were coming from the iPhone.

On a high resolution screen, even in daylight shots the iPhone 7 smudges low contrast detail (grass, earth tones) into a paintery effect. A decent DSLR has benefits there too. Shooting RAW on the iPhone does help in this regard.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 06:52 UTC
In reply to:

jim seekers: Killing myself Laughing, this guy sounds like a 5 year old kid, my wife has a iPhone 7 Plus and I have a Samsung Galaxy S7 and we both prefer the image Qaulity in Stills and Video from the Samsung Galaxy S7.
The iPhone 7 Plus can't blur a background as beautiful as my Sony RX1R ii with is gorgeous Zeiss F2 T* Lens.

Depends. The S7 still has a more efficient module in low light (up to a stop difference) thanks to a larger sensor and slightly larger aperture. RAW in low light beats the iPhone 7. Just like the successor of the S7. The iPhone 7 also applies more NR in daylight shots, which smudges low contrast detail in OOC jpegs more (stronger paintery effect).

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 06:32 UTC
In reply to:

TrojMacReady: Does the quoted 8.3EV for jpegs include the maximum use of ALO (in other words, is that the input DR or output DR)? Because that basically lifts shadows too to compress a larger DR from the scene into a smaller final DR as used in jpegs and other viewable formats.

Yes, thanks Richard for clarifying your comments. I'm aware of the native limitations of jpegs, but the optional in camera tone curves that allow to compress large dynamic range scenes into single jpegs, indeed means that when shooting jpegs, you can still experience the downside of a relatively lower DR in RAW.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 14:41 UTC

Does the quoted 8.3EV for jpegs include the maximum use of ALO (in other words, is that the input DR or output DR)? Because that basically lifts shadows too to compress a larger DR from the scene into a smaller final DR as used in jpegs and other viewable formats.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 21:39 UTC as 169th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Joed700: I was a PC user started with Windows 3.1 and switched over the Mac in 2009. Never look back. I haven't been paying attention to Mac vs PC issues for a while now, but every time I look at a PC laptop screen, I wonderful why it always has a blue tint to it. Maybe is my eyes, but for photo editing work, no thanks!

It's called calibration. There are so many calibrated screens for sale, that this has become an absolute non-issue.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 23:19 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: As long as the full frame cameras keep the F mount, thecameras will be a wild success. They instantly bring along 1 out of every 3 users, and support the most extensive lens catalogue in a the marketplace. Change it and all bets are off, this is not the time to alienate users. F mount is their strongest asset, there are no advantages to changing it since both bodies and lenses can already be made size competitive with full frame mirrorless.

For DX/APSC, just follow Canon with a mount that's downsized for the smaller sensor. This allows cheaper cameras for people who don't have system wide investments in Nikon gear.

Exactly. You'll get something similar to the Pentax K-01, but then with a bump on top to fit the electronic viewfinder (provided you want one). At which point you're back at the size of a DSLR.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:27 UTC
On article OnePlus 5 camera sample gallery (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

noisephotographer: I just looked at the exif data and although the exif data state 4.1mm for both cameras (which must be wrong), the exif data states that the equivalent focal lengths are 24 and 32mm... So just a 1.33x zoom + digital zoom..
I would say that selling a 32mm camera as a tele camera is nearly a crime. ;)

My initial post earlier in this thread that first mentioned the Exif reports and suggested 1.33x zoom, thus the rest being digital to achieve 2x zoom, appears to be confirmed by OnePlus. Dutch tech website Tweakers.net reached out to OnePlus based on those findings and the company confirmed that the phone indeed achieves a maximum 1.33x factor "lossless zoom". Therefore it does the rest through software manipulation (digital zoom+ upsampling).
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftweakers.net%2Fnieuws%2F126213%2Foneplus-haalt-methode-voor-cheaten-benchmarks-uit-op5.html&edit-text=&act=url

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 21:52 UTC
On article OnePlus 5 camera sample gallery (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

zerosum: Anyone please, what's the FOV of the wide and tele lenses here?

I would like to stay positive, but if this the final output of this camera, well then the previous model had a much better IQ and this is miles away from the latest from Samsung, LG or Apple.

Probably, you got a bad sample. I learnt the other day they put almost all the available R&D budget on the new camera module this year, because that was their primary goal- to come up with something competitive IQ wise.

I would have to ROTFL if this is it.

Correct. If the Exif doesn't fool us, Oneplus is trying to with their 2x " optical" zoom claims.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 00:19 UTC
On article OnePlus 5 camera sample gallery (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

zerosum: Anyone please, what's the FOV of the wide and tele lenses here?

I would like to stay positive, but if this the final output of this camera, well then the previous model had a much better IQ and this is miles away from the latest from Samsung, LG or Apple.

Probably, you got a bad sample. I learnt the other day they put almost all the available R&D budget on the new camera module this year, because that was their primary goal- to come up with something competitive IQ wise.

I would have to ROTFL if this is it.

Irfanview reports both modules to have a real focal length of 4.1mm but with different crop factors resulting in 24mm equivalent and 32mm equivalent respectively. If that is correct (a big "if" ), Oneplus may be using digital zoom by default in addition to give a greater sense of magnification for the tele module. Which would also explain the additional artifacts (on top of the expected extra noise and/or noise reduction because of the smaller module and slower lens) that look like the result of upsampling.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 18:40 UTC
On article OnePlus 5 camera sample gallery (107 comments in total)

It appears that these cameras are sampling multiple frames to achieve better image quality, similar to the Pixel, S8, U11 and the iPhone 7 IIRC. But based on these samples it also does a worse job at avoiding ghosts that are a result of the aforementioned image stacking, see for example the 4th image, the guy in the striped shirt and tan shorts on the left (hardly a fast moving subject).
And although the stacking also helps the other 4 phones mentioned to improve their ability to capture (and compress) a large dynamic range from the scene into a single image, the Oneplus is struggling here too, judging by the same 4th image and 5th image (tele module), where highlights are clipped quite severely.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 18:33 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

Chris2210: DxO still hasn't reviewed the iPhone 7+ over 8 months after its launch. Although the primary module is the same as on the 7, the additional sensor is used for image enhancement along with the zoom and the depth effect [surprisingly effective, although it is often fooled by transparent objects]. It can't do all these things at the same time of course, but it is reasonable to assume there is some advantage in detail/noise/dr from a secondary exposure. While I'm perfectly happy to accept there may be better camera phones out there* it is a somewhat surprising omission.

[*I don't NEED to have the best smartphone camera - I've quite a number of devices for more serious photography, but I do like iOS generally even though I don't think Android users are somehow in league with Satan].

The figures combined with the aperture difference, account for a total difference that you find between FF and APS-C of the same generation/efficiency. For many that is a much more than marginal difference when talking about larger sensor cameras (hence why FF exists still), but for light deprived small sensor cameras, that's arguably an even greater " loss" . And a lower noise floor at extended (lower) ISO's is only helpful in bright daylight or long exposures, similar to exposing any of the other cameras half a stop " to the right" . That's not really a benefit for the iPhone module either.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
On article Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM sample gallery (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry McA: Looks impressively sharp maybe even sharper than the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 Mark III. I still don´t like the Sony jpeg colours though.

While OOC jpegs are always faster to share, you don't have to edit RAW files manually, you CAN. You can set up your own profile and batch process them too, which would be a few mins for the whole batch.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: DxO still hasn't reviewed the iPhone 7+ over 8 months after its launch. Although the primary module is the same as on the 7, the additional sensor is used for image enhancement along with the zoom and the depth effect [surprisingly effective, although it is often fooled by transparent objects]. It can't do all these things at the same time of course, but it is reasonable to assume there is some advantage in detail/noise/dr from a secondary exposure. While I'm perfectly happy to accept there may be better camera phones out there* it is a somewhat surprising omission.

[*I don't NEED to have the best smartphone camera - I've quite a number of devices for more serious photography, but I do like iOS generally even though I don't think Android users are somehow in league with Satan].

Up to a stop difference in S/N (*:iPhone 7 vs S7, the S8 appears to increase this gap with constant stacking) for the sensor, isn't that marginal when the largest limiting factor for these small sensor cameras is exactly that, the light gathering capabilities (outside the obvious, a long zoom range). The smaller aperture lens adds to this gap and in RAW, but the overzealous noise reduction applied to the jpeg engine (loss of all low contrast detail and a paintery effect as a result) makes things even worse.

* http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Apple%20iPhone%207,Samsung%20Galaxy%20S7(IMX260)

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 20:27 UTC
In reply to:

FlyinDoc: I can't believe they didn't ask a word about why Sony is ignoring lenses for APSC. They haven't released one for nearly 4 years!

The lack of quality zooms for APSC is embarrassing. Makes the XT20 for example, a much better buy than the A6300.

Fuji treats their customers as kings, going above and beyond to provide the best support, ergonomics, usability, updates and lenses. Whatever they ask for. They think like photographers.

Sony treats their camera customers just like any other consumer electronic buyer. They don't seem to understand buying into their system and keeping them loyal.

Maybe Sony will do that in the future for their pros, but it increasingly looks like they are going to treat APSC E mount like Canon treats their APSC mirrorless.

Like I said, the fact that there are now (more) tele choices added that fulfill a (different but functional) role on both formats, doesn't mean that there are no glaring holes left. There are, such as a roughly 50-150mm.

But both 70-200mm (f4 and f2.8) lenses, the 70-300mm, the 85mm options 90mm macro and 100mm STF, etc, they all help the APS-C format too. Just in a different way. It's the same way Canon and Nikon build their tele range for the APS-C/FF systems. Just with more choice, because of the time and numbers advantage. The point is though, that the statement suggesting there are no holes filled in the APS-C lens lineup with FE tele lens releases, just isn't true.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

FlyinDoc: I can't believe they didn't ask a word about why Sony is ignoring lenses for APSC. They haven't released one for nearly 4 years!

The lack of quality zooms for APSC is embarrassing. Makes the XT20 for example, a much better buy than the A6300.

Fuji treats their customers as kings, going above and beyond to provide the best support, ergonomics, usability, updates and lenses. Whatever they ask for. They think like photographers.

Sony treats their camera customers just like any other consumer electronic buyer. They don't seem to understand buying into their system and keeping them loyal.

Maybe Sony will do that in the future for their pros, but it increasingly looks like they are going to treat APSC E mount like Canon treats their APSC mirrorless.

@ flyindoc

Obviously, the same lens fulfills different purposes on differently sized formats, since the real focal length of a 70-200mm lens doesn't change. But a 70-200 is functional and in demand on both formats (D500, 7DmkII and other APS-C shooters really use them a lot still) and offers no smaller size if it only covers an APS-C circle. Obviously, a 50-140mm can be made smaller, different focal length.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

FlyinDoc: I can't believe they didn't ask a word about why Sony is ignoring lenses for APSC. They haven't released one for nearly 4 years!

The lack of quality zooms for APSC is embarrassing. Makes the XT20 for example, a much better buy than the A6300.

Fuji treats their customers as kings, going above and beyond to provide the best support, ergonomics, usability, updates and lenses. Whatever they ask for. They think like photographers.

Sony treats their camera customers just like any other consumer electronic buyer. They don't seem to understand buying into their system and keeping them loyal.

Maybe Sony will do that in the future for their pros, but it increasingly looks like they are going to treat APSC E mount like Canon treats their APSC mirrorless.

"But those lens designs are for FF not aps-c sensors. They need lenses designed for the sensor size."

This has been said too many times already, but for lenses around 75mm or longer, there is no real size or weight difference, thus it would be silly to design those for APS-C only. Most of the gaps, were in the tele range and some of those have now been filled. The point remains for the faster/quality mid/ walkaround zooms though.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

rrccad: Not too outlandish when canon is already stating they are coming out with a 120mp camera.

Actually, they already announced that september 8th 2015.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 01:52 UTC
In reply to:

pkcpga: Looking more like an iPhone with a screen that slightly waterfalls over two sides.

And here's you claimed "deteriorated blue pixels due to burn-in":
http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/57626052/a9aa27eb7fc4472c877f81bb306e8e9a

No visible burn in (which is normally visible as horizontal and/or vertical lines and/or logo's etc.) and as for color balance, 25% grey patch, average red pixel level according to histogram: 87.5, green: 91.8, blue: 90.8.

In other words, pretty balanced still, with red being worse than blue or green.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 00:32 UTC
In reply to:

pkcpga: Looking more like an iPhone with a screen that slightly waterfalls over two sides.

If you weren't hindered by your endless and false assumptions, maybe you could start making sense.

First of all, how does owning an S2 for 6 years mean I have no experience with other OLED panels? It's hard trying to reason with someone lacking any willingness to show any signs of reason.
The S2 was my first OLED panel, my current one is an S7 as a phone, my girlfriend has the Note 4 and an old S, plus S3 and we have the S2 tablet.

Second, the saturation has always been low in all channels, as it is now, but this is actually panel with little use (replacement), hence zero burn in either. Good try though.

Third, the test here wasn't about accuracy of the S2, it was about over or undersaturation, your claim remember? And it doesn't take any instrument other than a pair of eyes (RGB histogram comparison works too), to see that this is undersaturated, not oversaturated in this mode. And Displaymate never measured that mode. Next attempt to change your words please.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 00:23 UTC
Total: 1536, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »