TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1347, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Peiasdf: "...It’s a bit of a surprise that the IMX260 isn’t an Exmor RS sensor, as we’ve been documenting a lot of Sony design wins based on its 1st and 2nd generation Exmor RS technology. It seems the full chip PDAF functionality, which requires dual readout from each pixel, was implemented with a multi-chip solution rather than a stacked (CIS + ISP) solution."

So gained dual-pixel AF but have to give up being stacked. Bigger pixels reduce read noise but not being stacked increase read noise.

Stacked sensors mostly improve readout speed, less so regarding read noise. That's more impacted by backside illuminated tech. See the 3 1 inch sensors from Sony. First was frontside illuminated, second one backside illuminated (lower read noise at higher ISO's), third version stacked for higher speeds (similar read noise).

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 19:34 UTC
In reply to:

Catalin Stavaru: I am surprised that people do not realize why the 4:3 aspect ratio was chosen.

It is because in the same lens circle you can fit a larger area rectangle with 4:3 ratio than a rectangle with 3:2 or (even worse) 16:9 ratio.

For a circle of radius R, the area of a rectangle with 4:3 ratio is 1.92 * R^2. The area of a rectangle with 3:2 ratio is 1.84 * R^2. The area of a rectangle with 16:9 ratio is 1.709 * R^2. The area of a square is 2 * R^2, the maximum attainable.

So a rectangle with 4:3 ratio has 5% larger area than one with 3:2 ratio and 12% larger area than a rectangle with 16:9 ratio for the same lens circle.

So the 4:3 ratio maximizes the area occupied by the sensor in the lens circle.

Of course, Apple probably realized this first, then Samsung followed, but who cares :)

It probably has more to do with what's available from Sony. Samsung was already using 4:3 aspect ratio sensors in phones when Apple still had to build its first phone.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 19:27 UTC
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: Just out of interest, how much better does this actually work than Lightroom's built-in noise reduction? I've always found the Nik and Topaz plugins appealing, especially Nik Silver Efex and Topaz Denoise, but do the $50 really give you so much cleaner and detailed images than what Lightroom can do on its own? How big is the difference?

Would love to get some feedback on that.

Much better than the built in Lightroom NR, that is, once you learned to create the best profiles matching your camera and for the types of shots that you want to treat.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 21:37 UTC
In reply to:

M. Mitchell: Why use big and heavy full frame lenses on an APS-C camera?

"I think I'm missing the point here."
Clearly...
Of course I'm not discussing lenses covering equivalent focal lengths, because this was about 1 lens doing 2 different jobs on both formats. Yes, a 70-200mm gives the equiv. of 105-300mm on APS-C, but that's a desired coverage on that format too and it's not noticeably larger than an APS-C only variant of the same quality would be.

"45 1.8 is also smaller than 50 1.8 ."
Really, did I not explain this 5 times before? Not to mention the shorter flange distance convoluting the discussion for shorter focal lengths here.

As for the Panasonic 100-400, it's just 2cm (just 11%) shorter than the Canon, while not as bright at the long end. And the latter covers a format 4 times the size. For an APS-C format 2.3 times smaller, would that be 6% difference? If that's the best example for a tele lens, I rest my case... after one more example:
Panasonic 300mm f/4: 9.3x22.7 cm, 1270 gram, µ4/3
Canon 300mm f/4: 8.9x22.1 cm, 1190 gram, FF

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

Cdog: Also, "would not suddenly offer a mirrorless pro camera"?
Suddenly? What's so sudden. Mirrorless has been around for over 10 years.

Mirrorless cameras only constituted five percent of total camera shipments in 2013.[1] In 2015, mirrorless-cameras accounted for 26 percent of interchangeable-lens camera sales outside the Americas. (wikipedia)

Canon are you reading this? The rest of the industry is.

More guessing.

Not to mention the much greater value of the average camera sold... (+49% yoy for mirrorless in january this year, you can do more guessing to see who contributed and continues to contribute the most there).

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

Cdog: Also, "would not suddenly offer a mirrorless pro camera"?
Suddenly? What's so sudden. Mirrorless has been around for over 10 years.

Mirrorless cameras only constituted five percent of total camera shipments in 2013.[1] In 2015, mirrorless-cameras accounted for 26 percent of interchangeable-lens camera sales outside the Americas. (wikipedia)

Canon are you reading this? The rest of the industry is.

" it's analyzing shipping statistics"

Guessing instead of analyzing. Because half the loss in market share and absolute sales of DSLR's since 2013, constitutes from the loss of DSLR shipments in Europe (-42% from 2013 to 2015), a whopping 2 million units, mirrorless has gone up with 70k units there. So much for explaining the shift through the "SLT leak", knowing that Sony had such a relatively small market share to begin with.

@thx1138:
"DSLR market share is increasing even though overall camera sales are declining due to collapse of P&S market."

"Even though" should really read "because of", if you mean share of the *total* camera market. The only reason the DSLR share has increased, is *because* of the collapse of the P&S market. Compared to 2012, 40% less DSLR units were shipped in 2015, an ever shrinking number, as also witnessed in the january 2016 numbers (another minus 12% units yoy, while +22% for mirrorless). The DSLR share of ILC's has obviously been shrinking.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

Cdog: Also, "would not suddenly offer a mirrorless pro camera"?
Suddenly? What's so sudden. Mirrorless has been around for over 10 years.

Mirrorless cameras only constituted five percent of total camera shipments in 2013.[1] In 2015, mirrorless-cameras accounted for 26 percent of interchangeable-lens camera sales outside the Americas. (wikipedia)

Canon are you reading this? The rest of the industry is.

So basically you're convoluting the stats to make mirrorless seem worse?

Cattle, black, etc.

Tagged as denial post of the week.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

M. Mitchell: Why use big and heavy full frame lenses on an APS-C camera?

"But that's not entirely true? It's possible to design lenses that are smaller, the nikon macro dx lenses and the 35 dx is good example. Only reason canikon isn't doing it is because they don't want people stuck in DX system too long, their endgame is to get as many users to their FF system as possible."

I seem to be talking to a wall here, but I already said that it makes a difference for short focal lengths, such as the one you mention but I also said several times, that this was about longer focal lengths (mostly 70mm+).

Equivalents change nothing about the fact that lenses can serve a purpose on each format, even if the framing and everything changes. Thus 1 lens design, 1 true focal length, can fill different(!) holes in both APS-C and FF lens lineups, without being compromised (such as needlessly large) by the fact that it covers a larger image circle too. Anyone seeing an automatic contradiction there, is following a fallacy.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 13:05 UTC
In reply to:

M. Mitchell: Why use big and heavy full frame lenses on an APS-C camera?

"I thought you were the one who wanted to compare them, or did I understand it wrong? "
Yes and I gave 3 examples that are in the same ballpark, size wise, while covering formats up to 4 times larger. My comment regarding comparing different real focal lengths, was aimed at your "nikon aps-c 55-200 " example. You still seem to be confusing FOV with the subject at hand: real focal length.

The original premise was that these lenses are needlessly large for APS-C cameras. My point is that tele lenses of such REAL focal lengths, wouldn't be smaller if they had thrown FF coverage out of the window. Yes, of course FOV is different, yes, of course that results in different compression, etc etc. That's all completely besides the point. They serve different holes in the FF and APS-C lineups, but those are functional positions nonetheless. If you want 85mm portrait lens for APS-C, covering the equiv of around 130mm on FF, these aren't needlessly large, FF coverage or not.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 12:58 UTC
In reply to:

M. Mitchell: Why use big and heavy full frame lenses on an APS-C camera?

You're comparing different real focal lengths now, see my earlier point there. A 70-200 keeps the same real focal length on both FF and APS-C. Like I said they may provide different FOV's, but they still serve both formats, since for the FOV and apertures offered, there's practically nothing to gain when designing for a smaller sensor alone with longer focal lengths. Hence why those actively designing for both formats, never bothered with long APS-C only lenses.

Lenses similar to the Olympus 75-300 in size while covering a FF circle are the Nikon 70-300, Canon 75-300 (both able to resolve more, faster transmission, similar distortion and similar or less vignetting still on APS-C according to DXOmark) and the Sony 75-300 for example.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 11:40 UTC
In reply to:

R Vaquero: Samsung releases its new iPhone

Like I said, if you think the S6 and especially the S6 Edge, look like an iPhone, time for an optometrist.
If anything, the regular S6 has as much or more resemblance with the Ativ S from 4 years ago.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/08/samsung-ativ-s-leak.jpg
https://bfor.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Samsung-Galaxy-S6-Back-Front.jpg

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 17:52 UTC
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: I've preordered the 85/1.4, and I'll reserve judgement for then. But I don't understand why this new lens is nearly 200 grams heavier than the fabulous 85/1.4 ZA for AMount. Heavier still than the original Minolta 85/1.4.

Glad these lenses are here. But I hope Sony makes a larger sized camera grip (and battery) soon. When the a7RII overheats, and it overheats a lot, it also cuts the battery life by 75%. It's just terrible to hold and use these cameras for client work. Last week shoot had to swap between two a7RII cams every twenty minutes. Seriously, each camera must have overheated ten times throughout each day... on a two day out of town shoot. Very frustrating and embarrassing in front of client.

Were they running the latest firmware? I haven't heard reports since. Best fix is an external recorder though and then trigger recording through the external recorder.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

M. Mitchell: Why use big and heavy full frame lenses on an APS-C camera?

You misread my comments and generalized them. I made them in the context of these specific lenses, these focal lengths. To be more specific: longer focal lengths.

For shorter focal lengths, a difference can be made, hence why they do bother (well, to be honest, less so lately) with APS-C only lenses of shorter focal lengths.

Have a look at the Samsung 85mm f/1.4, APS-C only lens. It's similar in size and weight to the FF versions found on other mounts too.
Taking it a step further, the smallest current µ4/3 75-300 (Olympus) lens is similar in size (difference between 1 to 5 mm) and weight (within 30 grams) compared to the smallest FF 75-300mm lens, even though he latter has slightly faster apertures and covers an image format that is 4 times larger in size.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: I've preordered the 85/1.4, and I'll reserve judgement for then. But I don't understand why this new lens is nearly 200 grams heavier than the fabulous 85/1.4 ZA for AMount. Heavier still than the original Minolta 85/1.4.

Glad these lenses are here. But I hope Sony makes a larger sized camera grip (and battery) soon. When the a7RII overheats, and it overheats a lot, it also cuts the battery life by 75%. It's just terrible to hold and use these cameras for client work. Last week shoot had to swap between two a7RII cams every twenty minutes. Seriously, each camera must have overheated ten times throughout each day... on a two day out of town shoot. Very frustrating and embarrassing in front of client.

I wonder what prompts your A7RII's to overheat for stills, because I've mostly seen reports on that happening in (certain bodies, others wouldn't) 4K internal video mode, before the last firmware update. Especially if it happens to both bodies, where others can't make it happen once. Maybe in glitch caused by a certain combination of settings?

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 14:53 UTC
In reply to:

M. Mitchell: Why use big and heavy full frame lenses on an APS-C camera?

And there aren't any APS-C only lenses covering the same real focal length (no to be confused with equiv or same FOV), because there's no point. They would be practically the same size and weight. Thus, these lenses serve both formats well and are appreciated accordingly, only offering a different FOV.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 11:24 UTC
In reply to:

M. Mitchell: Why use big and heavy full frame lenses on an APS-C camera?

Ask for example D300(s), 7D(II) and soon D500 shooters why they use 85mm and 70-200mm lenses on their APS-C cameras. Because, why not?

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2016 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: The upcoming Sigma SA-E and EF-E adapters will be potential game changers. I sincerely doubt that Sony's new 85mm F/1.4 can compete optically with the Sigma 85mm F/1.4 ART, despite costing nearly twice as much. Sigma's upcoming 70-200mm F/2.8 will also be a plausible alternative.

First, there is no Sigma 85mm Art lens yet, just the EX. Second, the 10 year old Sony ZA 85mm already compares well with the Sigma 85mm, (sharper wide open). I'd think that the new G Master 85mm was designed to at least outperform the cheaper and much older ZA, by a margin.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2016 at 22:33 UTC
Total: 1347, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »