TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1522, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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
In reply to:

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

Which part of reading is so hard? I don't have to search for reviews, when I have had an S2 here for 6 years. The film preset is UNDERsaturated. Why would I have to come with proof, when you're the one making baseless claims?
Mode selections, with "film" being understaturated, international model, de US version only had 3 to choose from apparently:
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/59350479/5c38da70b7cb41fda6fa27e7166bd407

Same image on a calibrated display and using the "film" preset on the S2:
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/59350479/2e423610cf3847aa8e85d658399e34a8

And none of those monitors are in the same top end category, with the Sony OLED 30" 4K reference monitor coming in at 2 to 4 times the cost, compared to LCD monitors with comparable resolution and size from those manufacturers. No wonder Sony has lower positioned LCD versions competing with those. The Sony OLED Trimaster spanks them all in the DR department though.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

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

You made a claim about "all OLED screens", hence the reminder that OLED as a technology is the benchmark. But I also addressed the point about just phones, which you conveniently ignored.

"Don't try to pretend you are some color management scientist/engineer. "

So far the only pretentious one was you, making false claims without proper research, then doing some research and clamoring victory while calling us names, without validating your full initial claim, nor realizing that all the results references were considered "accurate to very accurate", thus at the same time refuting your earlier claim. Never mind the "oversaturated" part, which is flat out false and has been for 6 years.

But it's interesting to see you making assumptions about others now. You'd think you learned not to make baseless claims in this very thread. Besides that, you don't have to be a "color management scientist or engineer", to know these things. We're in a photography related forum here...

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 17:48 UTC
In reply to:

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

Oh look, the iPhone finally caught/ did a bit better in some areas, worse in others still. Fact is, for several years ( S / Note range), the OLED screens won that battle and for years they have been considered the benchmark and very accurate still ("pro grade"). So there goes your claim: "but ALL OLED screen that exists now are overly saturated and have green/gray cast."

So instead of calling other people names, think harder and do more research before you make silly claims about things you demonstrated to have very little knowledge of.
For reference also the S7:
Average color error in basic: 1.5 JNCD
WB: 6,480 K

iPhone 7:
Average color error: 1.1 JNCD (a bit better, but both considered pro grade)
WB: 6,806 K ( a bit worse)

The 6s and 6 both did worse than the S7/Note 7 and S6/ Note 5 respectively.

Contrast is no match.

There's a reason why the top end studio monitors (for film and picture studio editing), have been OLED for years (hint: Sony Trimaster, up to $45k per screen).

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

Photographic Memory: Existing Note 4 user here, was a Note 7 pre-order customer…

The reasons I WON'T be getting the S8(or +):
Facial Recognition (intrusive)
IRIS Scanner (intrusive)
Fingerprint Scanner (intrusive)
Bixby (Hal, Oblivion)
No IR Blaster (DSLR, not TV Remote)
No SPen (Note user NECESSITY)
Enclosed Battery

What are the Pro's, then?
Screen
360
Processor
Camera
Water Resistance

Your Note 4 already has a fingerprint scanner in the home button, the button you have to use a lot. So I don't see how one that you don't have to use at all, can be listed as a con.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I think it's a little unfair to claim that the upgrades are limited to software. I mean the underlying hardware is what enables that software to work, no? Plus software/tech is an increasingly important part of the package. For example the A5100 and A6000 have the same sensor as I understand it, but the A6000 has nearly double the frame rate.. That's all thanks to the A6000's software and processor.

It may also simply be that the ISP of the older Snapdragon 820 / Exynos 8890 does not support sampling multiple frames and combining them at these fast rates that Samsung demands, like the new 835/8895 do. Then again, the Google Pixel is pretty fast in default HDR+ too...

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

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

He can't and just proved he hasn't had knowledge of Samsung OLED implementations for the past 6 years. Since the S2 already had 4 presets, varying from oversaturated to UNDERsaturated and inbetween. That's calibration, not the technology. The 7 year old Galaxy S could already be accuratedly calibrated towards sRGB using a 3rd party app plus root access.
Their OLED screens have had top accuracy scores in "Basic" (before that in "film/movie") for at least 3 to 3.5 years now. And their WB settings are usually closer to 6500K than Apple's (too cold) to boot. On top they have offered a setting calibrated towards the Adobe RGB profile too. Their contrast is much better, with black being pure black, resulting in better readability in direct sunlight and much less eyestrain (while keeping good contrast) at extremely low brightness in low light. Better viewing angles too, thanks to far less loss of brightness under an angle. Add faster response time, helpful for VR purposes. All OLED benefits.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I don't see a single innovation. Ultra-wide screen has been done on Chinese phone before and recently on LG G6. Hardware buttons replaced with Apple 3D Touch pressure-sensitive on screen buttons. Same camera, same multi-frame HDR, same 4GB RAM and 64GB storage (Chinese get 6GB and 128GB storage), same mono speaker, same size battery.

Beside the screen that's both glare inducing and cutting into corners of photo, how is this an improvement?

It's in the text of this article and the first comparisons seem to prove that the multi-frame shooting under the hood really improves detail and lowers noise remarkably well.
100% crops below (warning, phone camera artifacts ahead...):
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/59345497/3afbefabe0e2453a9ec38760886b1e9a
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/59345497/c0e4944b68d443cdb9518c558b113f0b

Both taken as f/1.7, ISO 250, 1/25/s.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 21:35 UTC
In reply to:

Stephen Scharf: A meangingless spec-based (or spec-chasing) comparison. I'm disappointed; this article doesn't discuss the real advantages of MF at all...

The objective arguments and comparisons aren't objective and scientific enough, so let's do better and counter them with subjective claims.

Is that earth's rotation messing with my (subjective!) senses, or are my eyes rolling that vehemently...

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 02:09 UTC
In reply to:

G G: Saying that larger sensors have an advantage in terms of signal to noise and dynamic range is somewhat of a fallacy. For a given sensor technology, both are related to pixel site size, not to sensor size.

No, there is very little correlation on an image level between pixel size vs DR and sensitivity, but a relatively large correlation when it comes to sensor size vs DR and sensitivity.
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

left eye: The A7RII is being singled out as on balance the best of all, but I'm reading many who do/have owned it say results are not as great as these articles suggest.

Maybe photon graphs show something special, but I continue to see soft images from the A7RII - which I believe is not only lens limitations but BSI - which places photodiodes closer to the surface and so more prone to capturing light arriving at neighbouring diodes [many believe the A7R / D810 sensor to be sharper].

Fuji reduced the micro-lenses to further reduce the possibility of light bleeding [and PF] from neighbouring cells.

Look...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr13_2=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=800&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.31925272444213815&y=-0.29602759803108253

Looks like a case of confirmation bias to me. There is plenty of evidence available (including objectively measured) to prove that it's not "soft" by any means. Even in that very studio scene, if you look past focus differences, field curvature etc.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 11:53 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I just do not understand why the A7RII gets sooo much low-light/high ISO praise! I have an A7RII and its images are very noticeably noisier than my D800E's and D610's images. I mean, it's not even close. To say the A7RII's images look like an APS-C's (D7200) images isn't much of an exaggeration.

Also, Fuji glass vs. Nikon glass... this will nearly always be a nod for Fuji. Not to mention Medium Format glass vs. Full Frame glass... Of course the nod goes to Medium Format.

Fuji sensor vs. Sony/Nikon sensor, well, personal taste. I love them both for different subjects. Skintone easily goes to Fuji whereas vivid color easily goes to Sony/Nikon.

If I had an extra 15 grand lying around specifically for photo gear, I'd love to grab this new Fuji system.

I'm also interested in the promised comparison. Especially when I read that the D800E is preferred even at 2 stops higher ISO's....

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 02:09 UTC
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I just do not understand why the A7RII gets sooo much low-light/high ISO praise! I have an A7RII and its images are very noticeably noisier than my D800E's and D610's images. I mean, it's not even close. To say the A7RII's images look like an APS-C's (D7200) images isn't much of an exaggeration.

Also, Fuji glass vs. Nikon glass... this will nearly always be a nod for Fuji. Not to mention Medium Format glass vs. Full Frame glass... Of course the nod goes to Medium Format.

Fuji sensor vs. Sony/Nikon sensor, well, personal taste. I love them both for different subjects. Skintone easily goes to Fuji whereas vivid color easily goes to Sony/Nikon.

If I had an extra 15 grand lying around specifically for photo gear, I'd love to grab this new Fuji system.

"if i put the fuji 50S in the mix it is above the others "

At high ISO or where the Sony kicks into its secondary amplification mode, it's not. Note though that above ISO 1600 the Fuji stops amplifying the signal, hence the flat liner (can't be compared really, because the internal amplification stops there). The RAW converter does the boosting from there. Similar to many other Fuji cameras.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 02:06 UTC
In reply to:

frosti7: Anyone here upgraded from S6 to S7?

IMHO Galaxy S7 had worse image quality then S6,, too artificial and over processed.
I just hope that S8 wont make it worse.

I know the site I linked to measured both S6 sensors and the measurements fell within 0.3 EV, which is less than the margin for measuring error stated, never mind possible sample variance. Hence why I said for all practical purposes, where (when we do ignore the margin for error), 0.3 EV difference or less in noise normally wouldn't really be visible.

And I'm also well aware of the pictures you linked to, which show exactly what I meant with difference in color profile and contrast curve (the one with ISOCELL clearly has a higher blackpoint for example). Those are out of camera jpegs and won't tell us much about sensor performance to begin with. The differences in contrast curve and color profile shown there, were also addressed in a firmware update.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

frosti7: Anyone here upgraded from S6 to S7?

IMHO Galaxy S7 had worse image quality then S6,, too artificial and over processed.
I just hope that S8 wont make it worse.

The Samsung and Sony sensors almost identical for all practical purposes (within margin of measuring error of 1/3 EV) The main difference, if any, is in the resulting contrast curves and or color profiles, visible in OOC jpegs, but easily corrected in RAW. See S6 RAW comparisons at the time of release. Most other differences are from slight lens variations.

The IMX240 sensor does not have more DR and less read noise than the IMX260, au contraire, the S7 sensor has up to about half a stop extra DR from about ISO 100 onwards (similar at base ISO), resulting in better low light performance from just the sensor alone:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Samsung%20Galaxy%20S6(IMX240),Samsung%20Galaxy%20S7(IMX260)

Dual pixels don't necessarily result in less photosensitive area, for as long as it's compensated for in other areas (wiring under the sensitive area, adjusted and gapless microlenses, etc). Ceteris rarely paribus, so to say.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 01:39 UTC
Total: 1522, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »