kpaddler

Joined on Nov 8, 2013

Comments

Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

A tiny mighty camera. It took place of my other cameras on many trips and never regretted it. Printed lots of 16x20s from it....Eventually I opted for LX7

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 13:47 UTC as 46th comment
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: "...One day, it seemed as if I had the wrong lens mounted the entire day. Every time I switched lenses I'd see a shot that would have worked perfectly with the previous lens...."

And there is the wisdom of 50mm lens, it sees what your eyes see, and the rest is up to your legs...

"... you still have binocular vision even up to a huge ~110 degree field of view (up to about an 8mm rectilinear lens),..."

No, our brain only process the central ~60 degree around the axis, where vision of both eyes intersect, the rest is periphery. e.g. we can only perceive symbols in the center 60 degrees, same with perspective. For the rest of 114 degrees, our brain just makes up abstracts and if needed commands the eye or head movement. And of that central 60 degree, we process the center ~45 the best.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 14:34 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (494 comments in total)

"...One day, it seemed as if I had the wrong lens mounted the entire day. Every time I switched lenses I'd see a shot that would have worked perfectly with the previous lens...."

And there is the wisdom of 50mm lens, it sees what your eyes see, and the rest is up to your legs...

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 17:31 UTC as 105th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Daryl Cheshire: Maybe I missed something but would it make sense to comment on how it takes JPGs?
If you shoot raw, you bypass some of the processing and you do it yourself in post.
I'd like to know how it handles pictures that have been processed by the camera.
If you post process it, wouldn't that showcase your photohop skills rather than how they came out of the camera? I know some of the photos came with a post processing disclaimer.

Maybe you misunderstood what raw is. A raw image is as "straight out of camera" as it can get. You can just hit button and convert the image as it was recorded. There is no obligation to change anything.

Beside, you misunderstood what photography is. Did you think in film era, you pressed the button and a week later just slide popped out? There were plenty of manipulations during the processing. Unless the art of "nouueau photographe" is a new wanna be thing for the pretentious...

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 14:50 UTC
On article Close-up: Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Why on earth buy a MFT camera this size and weight? Crazy.

Because a mft bundle still is half the size and weight of dslr ff.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

Alfred S: Nice new lenses,... but the other side of the coin is : it is not so great for existing owners that want these features, as they'll likely take a decent loss to move up to a lens with about the same optics. It would have been nice to see some firmware updates for the existing lenses to increase compatibility. Of course that wouldn't work for the increased weather proofing, but perhaps the dual IS.

@Alfred

There is minimal change in at least 3 of the 4 and no need to change unless you think in digital age you change your stuff evey 18mnts, in case of 12-35, 35-100, it seems just face lift, and 45-200mm only really added seals....

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 15:47 UTC
In reply to:

Narretz: Since I don't really need all the features, and prefer a more blocky body style, I'm excited for the next GXy. Should be a real treat. And obviously the 12-60 or 12-100mm by Olympus, depending on the test results.

By the way, I'm still disappointed Panasonic doesn't open up DFD for Olympus lenses. The bokeh characteristics can probably be acquired the same way as their own lenses.

And I also wish Oly and Pana would work together regarding Dual / Sync IS.

@magnar

This is not a shortcoming of panny, 12-14bits fall short in representing the full spectrum. I have done a side by side test of can/nikon 14bits and a 5 yr old phaseone 16bit back. The extra bit provides a lot more information. You see the difference in situations like dawn and dusk, especially. With 12-14bit sensors, you get luminous values but the colour is really missing. You could increase the saturation instead to fake the colour but you also throw everything else off...

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

bleeboo: "With its ability to shoot 1080 footage at up to 180 frames per second and UHD 4K at up to 60 fps, the GH5 is able to offer an extended range of slow-motion capture: up to 7.5x slow-mo in 1080 and 2.5x in UHD 4K. The camera can also shoot down as low as 2 frames per second for sped-up footage."

But, and of course this question will probably not be answered quickly because it probably doesn't...does the GH5 let you use auto-focus when utilizing that "7.5x slow-mo in 1080 and 2.5x in UHD 4k"?

The GH4 shut down auto-focus when shooting 1080p at 96fps, which was a PITA.

My guess is Panasonic will take AF away when shooting the GH5 in slo-mo modes as well.

@bleeboo

"it doesn't explain why auto-focus is available on the GH4, and probably the GH5, in 4K 30p...and likely 4K 60p reference the GH5."

For Gearheads!

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

Narretz: Since I don't really need all the features, and prefer a more blocky body style, I'm excited for the next GXy. Should be a real treat. And obviously the 12-60 or 12-100mm by Olympus, depending on the test results.

By the way, I'm still disappointed Panasonic doesn't open up DFD for Olympus lenses. The bokeh characteristics can probably be acquired the same way as their own lenses.

And I also wish Oly and Pana would work together regarding Dual / Sync IS.

A GX* 24mp 16bit is the end of my wishes, I know the 16bit part will not likely happen. But I can dream....

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 15:17 UTC
In reply to:

bleeboo: "With its ability to shoot 1080 footage at up to 180 frames per second and UHD 4K at up to 60 fps, the GH5 is able to offer an extended range of slow-motion capture: up to 7.5x slow-mo in 1080 and 2.5x in UHD 4K. The camera can also shoot down as low as 2 frames per second for sped-up footage."

But, and of course this question will probably not be answered quickly because it probably doesn't...does the GH5 let you use auto-focus when utilizing that "7.5x slow-mo in 1080 and 2.5x in UHD 4k"?

The GH4 shut down auto-focus when shooting 1080p at 96fps, which was a PITA.

My guess is Panasonic will take AF away when shooting the GH5 in slo-mo modes as well.

I think the main reason they don't use AF in any serious work is that there is no way in world for AF system to know what you are trying to focus on. Quite often even that clear fast moving object in the frame is not the subject...so any fascination with AF in motion picture is only in the domain of amateurs capturing their dogs (or similar), and then delete the file...

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

LarryK: Hey, thanks Panasonic for obsoleting three of my lenses.

Fortunately, I had already moved on to Olympus's superior counterparts, glad I did.

...not your fault, the intelligence was in short supply in the year you were born

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 01:56 UTC
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Better Bokeh than Nocticron or new 25mm Pro 🤔

I don't quite agree, Nocticron hits perfect balance between subject dof and bokeh for this cropping, also I wouldn't expect a 25 to be in this running at all....

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 15:53 UTC
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: I think bokeh is silly and useless and a sign of laziness.

If the photographer would just spend 5 seconds looking for an adequate background, then it wouldn't have to be blurred almost out of existence.

Whenever I see a photograph that is crisp and sharp everywhere, my own eyes can scan the whole frame as though it is the best 2 dimension representation of our 3D world. Whatever I'm not looking directly at is a little blurry, when I look at it then it resolves and is sharp.

Whenever I see a photograph with far too much bokeh in it, such as anything made with this lens wide open; I can't resolve any of the detail at all except for the subject. So it is not an accurate representation of the world, and it's just silly. Like a toy.

If I felt that I needed to make the background blurry to accentuate the subject, then I could do that in post with photoshop. Maybe not as good, but really is anyone even looking that hard? Put my doctored pic against this lens and most wouldn't even know.

@brev00

"...not sure the relevance of this critique in this area of DPReview. ..."

Trying a new keyboard....

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 15:46 UTC
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: I think bokeh is silly and useless and a sign of laziness.

If the photographer would just spend 5 seconds looking for an adequate background, then it wouldn't have to be blurred almost out of existence.

Whenever I see a photograph that is crisp and sharp everywhere, my own eyes can scan the whole frame as though it is the best 2 dimension representation of our 3D world. Whatever I'm not looking directly at is a little blurry, when I look at it then it resolves and is sharp.

Whenever I see a photograph with far too much bokeh in it, such as anything made with this lens wide open; I can't resolve any of the detail at all except for the subject. So it is not an accurate representation of the world, and it's just silly. Like a toy.

If I felt that I needed to make the background blurry to accentuate the subject, then I could do that in post with photoshop. Maybe not as good, but really is anyone even looking that hard? Put my doctored pic against this lens and most wouldn't even know.

@bio

"...You can't even tell what's behind people.."

background!

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 19:35 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1360 comments in total)

Is it me or others see it too? The image quality scores about 70% for jpg (80% raw). And this camera still scores an 85. You must have really really liked the buttons, straps, packaging, and general fumbling-ability of the camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 20:00 UTC as 114th comment | 4 replies
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2405 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: Your summary is simplistic and incorrect when it is considered in absolute terms.

If you argue that when you downsample/upsample images to one size and compare them, then yes, the larger sensors fair better, not surprising. If that is what you argue, then do so, but there is little value in that when you are trying to explain "brightness" of different sensors, but this is opposite of educating people.

A yellow flower with light value of x at 100iso, f2.8, 1/125sec, will produce exactly, 100% same light value on sensor regardless of sensor size or focal length.

I'm objecting to your summary paragraphs, not what you know.

"Shot noise is a function of the amount of light you captured. The examples in the article I linked to illustrate this fairly well."

Sorry, **absolutely not accurate or true**. Digital noise in photography is the stray lights that hit the adjutant pixel where they were not intended for, and spoils the signal. This occurs particularly in high density sensors(I'm sure you know that). That is why larger sensors with lower density pixels are cleaner(you know that too). But you keep separating sensor size<->pixel count from the output quality. Brightness has nothing to do with sensor size in absolute terms.

And the consumers don't buy a 40mpxl camera so they can turn it into a 10mpxl camera. It is not a bad idea, but you should spell this suggestion out, or what you say in absolute terms is just incorrect.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 01:47 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2405 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: Your summary is simplistic and incorrect when it is considered in absolute terms.

If you argue that when you downsample/upsample images to one size and compare them, then yes, the larger sensors fair better, not surprising. If that is what you argue, then do so, but there is little value in that when you are trying to explain "brightness" of different sensors, but this is opposite of educating people.

A yellow flower with light value of x at 100iso, f2.8, 1/125sec, will produce exactly, 100% same light value on sensor regardless of sensor size or focal length.

I'm objecting to your summary paragraphs, not what you know.

"*though doesn't eliminate manufacturing tolerances in terms of sensor alignment, lens mount alignment or lens construction."

No, this is not about manufacturing process or quality of lens, it is rather a law of physics of optics. A smarter approach is to say you never heard of it, and go read about it, you don't need to take my word for it.

I'm not going to dig everything up for you, but this is one of the "behind the lens" flaw concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_focus.
(ever wondered why f16 doesn't give you an even focus?)

There are similar physic's explanations for colour diffraction, distortions, etc....

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 00:58 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2405 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: Your summary is simplistic and incorrect when it is considered in absolute terms.

If you argue that when you downsample/upsample images to one size and compare them, then yes, the larger sensors fair better, not surprising. If that is what you argue, then do so, but there is little value in that when you are trying to explain "brightness" of different sensors, but this is opposite of educating people.

A yellow flower with light value of x at 100iso, f2.8, 1/125sec, will produce exactly, 100% same light value on sensor regardless of sensor size or focal length.

I'm objecting to your summary paragraphs, not what you know.

Yes, downscaling cleans the image, but then, you are talking about high density sensor. If downscale nikon d700 files you don't gain much because it is already very clean, you just end up with a smaller resolution. But if you downscale d800 you do get better file and still decent resolution.
I think we beat that horse to death...

No, actually any aberration between film/sensor and lens is far more important than what is in front of the lens. Essentially, there is next to zero percent tolerance behind the lens for flaws. That is one of the reasons for all the fancy glass so to converge the light on one plane, and in the old days they were so concern about how flat the film sat in the frame, hence the vacuum assisted film holders. Basically it is this, whether an object is 10m or 8m away from sensor/lens is not insignificant. But if a rear element is 15mm or 50mm from a film/sensor is a big factor of difference between formats( ~300%) and the effect can be measured.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 19:53 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2405 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: Your summary is simplistic and incorrect when it is considered in absolute terms.

If you argue that when you downsample/upsample images to one size and compare them, then yes, the larger sensors fair better, not surprising. If that is what you argue, then do so, but there is little value in that when you are trying to explain "brightness" of different sensors, but this is opposite of educating people.

A yellow flower with light value of x at 100iso, f2.8, 1/125sec, will produce exactly, 100% same light value on sensor regardless of sensor size or focal length.

I'm objecting to your summary paragraphs, not what you know.

I don't know what "optimized" distance in photography is, but it is a moot point because we are not talking about taking pictures of slides in science lab, the distance varies for what we do...and I'm not sure if that is even true about optimized distance in "front" of a lens.

One of the factors that has not been mentioned, and generally ignored in photography because it is really a small factor, is this. The projected light from behind the lens to the medium should be as small as possible to avoid natural light fall off, as well as to minimize the natural diffraction of projected light beam before it hits the medium. This is the main reason historically for Leica M cameras that had the brightest and sharpest images, they had the shortest light path of any camera system. And that's why a hasselblad in comparison was so disadvantaged- the light had to travel through a football field to hit the film :-) But that short distance is not so rare theses days with mirrorless cameras....

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 15:05 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2405 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: Your summary is simplistic and incorrect when it is considered in absolute terms.

If you argue that when you downsample/upsample images to one size and compare them, then yes, the larger sensors fair better, not surprising. If that is what you argue, then do so, but there is little value in that when you are trying to explain "brightness" of different sensors, but this is opposite of educating people.

A yellow flower with light value of x at 100iso, f2.8, 1/125sec, will produce exactly, 100% same light value on sensor regardless of sensor size or focal length.

I'm objecting to your summary paragraphs, not what you know.

@ Richard

" you'll combine the samples from multiple pixels in the larger sensor and get a cleaner image."

I don't see how you combine pixels or grains, each pixel/grain will be project or print itself perdpi or magnification. They don't stack up behind each other to create a brighter image

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 14:46 UTC
Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »