Esa Tuunanen

Lives in Finland Parikkala, Finland
Joined on Jan 26, 2003

Comments

Total: 100, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (207 comments in total)

7i version was my first ever camera in 2003.
Originally looked at Canon Powershot G, but mechanical zoom and better wide angle attracted me to Minolta.
After that it was no turning back with that high guality mechanically zoomed lens starting from at the time very good wide angle. Also camera had good grip and controls didn't need going to menus and could be done with eye on viewfinder.
Also unlike in others macro worked in tele end of lens for decent working distance.
Sure it was real "battery tester" with toward 1A peak disharge current.

Then DiMAGE A2 was the real watershed.
Good Li-Ion battery, stabilization, both front and rear dials for even better controls and that EVF with 4x number of pixels than in others.
With A200, along with other prosumers seriously dumbed down to make room for stripped controls entry level DSLRs it took something like 5 years for as good EVFs to reappear!
Bought my A2 ~half years after its discontinuation/release of A200.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2017 at 12:20 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

luigibozi: I would love to have an E-mount Foveon FF sensor camera...
Doesn't matter the brand

While having full pixel resolution and no light loss in CFA (colour filter array) Foveon is as much compromise:
Red light has basically the least chance of being registered by bottommost red photosite.
Green light causes signal to both blue photosite on top of it and red below it.
Also blue light causes signal in green photosite and likely some even in red photosite.
As result most of the signal of "colour channels" is pure contamination/pollution.
After that's been filtered away with heavy processing to get colours corresponding to human vision sensitivity sucks magnitude more compared to Bayer CFA.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 09:48 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1378 comments in total)
In reply to:

Music Hands: So I've read DPR reviews, specs and some user comments about both EM1 II and GH5. Both have greatly improved autofocus. I enjoy my EM5 II, but miss faster AF - and really want better low-light quality images.

As either of these $2000 bodies would meet my video needs - less important to me than landscape and some action stills - which would you select? And why? What are the critical choice factors between these two state-of-art MFT bodies?

Having tried both in hand two days ago in photography expo there's other area to consider.
If you like more compact size/weight E-M1 II has clear advantage.
Even after using GH3 (after too small GH2) for many years GH5 feels big&heavy: It's approaching DSLR size and 725g is heavy for mirrorless body. Compared to E-M5 it's massive:
http://j.mp/2n7rzdt

Myself looking to upgrade from GH3 because stabilization is nice for landscapes and E-M1 II is very tempting with finally acceptable size grip, proper size battery and modern video capabilities.
Though its shutter button felt awfully sensitive compared to what I've gotten used to.

Expo had formerly Nikon using bird photographer showing some photos taken with E-M1 II.
http://jaripeltomaki.com/
Would expect him to rank AF&"action" shooting performance high in camera choise.
He mentioned using Pro Capture buffering up to 14 frames working well to compensate reaction speed of human.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 22:15 UTC

Looks like Fuji is stuck in year 2003.
That resolution EVFs were old junk already in 2004.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2013 at 10:19 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Tom Caldwell: I played the little video over and over again and failed to see why it might be quicker or more effective when used to manual focus than contrast detect focus peaking. Maybe auto-focus phase detect might be lightning fast but any manual focus relies on humans twiddling a lens to focus it. Furthermore I am supposing it only works on the centre of the screen - you have to point the camera directly at he object you wish to focus. Contrast detect focus peaking shows points in focus over the entire screen area and also can show the dof actually in focus if the photographer pays attention.

CarVac, that video makes clear it definitely isn't fast and twiddling free method for even semi accurate guessing of how much you have to move focus. (at least unless target is extremely simple)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2013 at 10:37 UTC
On article Toshiba scales down sensor for mobile (1 comment in total)

Color noise reduction when sensor doesn't know anything about color and only records luminance...
Yeah, right.
Maybe they'll next claim they've got Santa and elves working in their factory.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2012 at 17:22 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Sonylover1: I dont get it?
Is Canon joking with us?
How can the new 35/2 cost three times the old one - is it sooo good?

And I hope they send for free the new lenscaps!

Might be that it's hard to built stabilization into fast lens and retain good image quality.
Correction of lens aberrations (which retrofocus design has plenty) at fast aperture needs very precise optical design and then you put this "wobbly" element in there which keeps changing path light rays go through lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2012 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

JWest: Those new lens caps are so clever! Why has no other manufacturer come up with this idea before? We're lucky that an innovator like Canon is around to lead the way.

You better drop those Canon coloured filters from your eyes and go to optician for getting real eyeglasses.

Canon is anything than innovative.
Centre pinch lens caps have been around for long time!
I haven't even had other type of lens caps in cameras/system lenses from Minolta, KonicaMinolta, Olympus and Panasonic.

In fact quick googling shows also Nikon, Pentax and Sony having center pinch lens caps making Canon last one to introduce them!

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2012 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

JesperMP: I am in the camp of "dont care about beautiful or ugly as long as it takes pictures".

Now after thinking about it, I think that Nikon missed out on one opportunity.
The big viewfinder hump (which seems to be what people dislike so much) is big enough that it could have been tiltable ! And since it would be integrated into the body it would be much more rugged than the add-on VFs some other mirrorless offers as options.
Now THAT would have been a distinct advantage no other current camera has.

Roland, that utilitarian size LCD was the reason why A2 had such good menu free controls in smaller size than lot worser controls entry level DSLRs.
Today's cameras look like their main use is watching movies instead of taking photos.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2012 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: Don't know why everyone is carrying on about the V2. It actually looks like a decent shooter with an ergonomic body. And it has super fast processing, a large buffer, great build quality, etc. It's not as pretty as a Fuji XE1 or X100, but few cameras are. Certainly a Pany G5 or GF5 aren't going to win any design awards either. To me the V2 looks all business. Besides I rarely take photos OF my camera but WITH them.

Fotokeena, form follows functionality.
Only things to look at in camera for photography (instead of some darn fashion decoration) is how ergonomical grip you can get from it, and if controls are positioned properly.
Modern higher end DLRs all have similar grip and control layout of front and rear dial precisely because that's most ergonomical for human hand.
Unlike those gripless piece of two by four retro designs made to comply with limitations of analog mechanical tech.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2012 at 08:50 UTC
In reply to:

whyamihere: The functional bits are already out there to combine for an awesome camera: Fuji's X-Trans sensor that removes the need for filters, well-engineered lenses from several manufacturers, mirrorless designs, EVFs that match OVFs.

What nobody seems to be thinking about these days is ergonomics. If anyone handed me the camera above and asked me to shoot with it, I'd probably chuck it after 10 minutes merely out of frustration. There are 12 frickin' dials on the thing, mostly single purpose.

For example: The dial under the mode dial on this concept - why doesn't that adjust aperture in A mode or shutter speed in S mode? Why does it only adjust one value? What's with all the switches on the front? I'm sure there's a more sensible way.

I'm not trying to pick on the person who designed this. This is more of a general rant on camera design in general. I've used several cameras by many manufacturers, and there was always one plain-as-your-face silly ergonomic decision. I think that comes first.

Yep, if cars were designed like cameras demanded by these retroists they would be and work like horse wagons!
Most of people's camera design cravings feel exactly like this joke about standards and horse's a**
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

Those fixed function dials/knobs were needed only because of there being no way to show settings in viewfinder in photography's horse wagon era.
With electronic displays everything can be shown flexibly in viewfinder so flexible use front and rear dial system of high end DSLRs is the most space effective control method for accessing lots of controls easily.

X-Trans only changes antialiasing filter to very complex demosaicing (with blue&red channel resolution decrease) because of its irregular colour filter array.
It's this kind design which should be the goal:
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2011-08-19

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

Dvir Rosenfeld: Seeing the above picture reminds me of the old saying: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".

Bullseye.
Most want what marketroids and fashion tells them to want...
Some others haven't even gotten to later film era but are still stuck in World War II era's two by four analog mechanical...

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

t3hh: From technical POV we already have some very good digital cameras on market but the main challenge is the interface that not only make the experience to be pain in the ass but also actively getting on the way of taking good pictures. cameras are overloaded of design features that used to help us but now are obsolete.

Best example for me is the Fuji X100 which is one of the best digital cameras ever made with decent manual control and nice sturdy overall handling. surely a camera made for people who love taking pictures. but even if you go with full manual settings you still have the EV-wheel that overrides all your manual effort. why the hell do you need EV wheel on manual camera??????

My point? We don't need technical revolution in our camera market. but we sure need a design revolution. My ideal camera is presented in ricoh forum:
http://ricohforum.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=8477&start=70#p51944

> why the hell do you need EV wheel on manual camera?
Because retro people haven't gotten over analog mechanical World War II era and insist wasting limited real estate on camera's surface to fixed function dials.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 20:31 UTC
In reply to:

JohnFredC: The problem with larger sensors is the size of the lenses. As long as manufacturers persist with camera form factors where the lens protrudes from the front of the camera, the sensor size will determine pocketability. This continuing reliance on historical camera design impedes progress in the areas debated so enthusiastically in this thread.

The first mfg who combines a larger sensor (1" would be swell) with a folded optics design (similar to the Sony T-series, for instance) and a decent zoom range (6x-10x), smart camera interface via large touch screen, and SLR-style mechanical controls ergonomically placed, will change the camera paradigm forever, and get my money almost immediately.

Problem of folded optics design is that it severely limits the size of optics. Even with small sensors you don't see much of zoom range and good f-ratios in folded optics compacts.

And further bigger sensor needs bigger optics.
First because of longer focal lengths and hence aperture size. (or there's no light gathering advantage)
Secondly most lens aberrations start increasing about exponentially when distance to image circle's center grows, which leads to optical design with more/bigger lens elements to keep them under control.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

gasdive: What I'd like to see is a 4"x5" sensor with about 50 MP. With a folding bellows lens it wouldn't be much bigger than a thick paperback book. The IQ would put DSLRs back in the toy camera corner they came from. With a good screen such as you get on a small tablet the focus would be easy to set manually. Much better than autofocus.

You sure don't have the slightest idea how much that size sensor would cost...

Manufacturing of single silicon wafer can easily cost up to thousands and there's problem of manufacturing being imperfect so unless you had perfectly working manufacturing process it might need quite a few wafers to get a single sensor without too many and big flaws.

And most kind lenses would be simply huge for that size image circle and required focal lengths.
Also while your single track brain doesn't understand it bigger format's shallower DOF and consequent need to stop it down negates light gathering advantage.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

Alvar: Yeah, I never understood why did they lock compacts with 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors. They are simply unacceptable upwards 400 ISO. If they want to keep the size they should at least give a good 1600 ISO and fast lenses. Compacts are mostly good in the day and in the night only with flash wich is a pain.

Precisely.
Diffraction and lens aberrations along with strong noise removing has blurred pixels of compacts so badly there hasn't been real improvement in image details in many years.
You could easily decrease amount of pixels in small sensors by at least 1/3 without any decrease in real information of image... More likely amount of real information in images would just increase because of better dynamic range and less excessive NR.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Humboldt Jim: Can we assume that a 1" sensor system can be stopped down to ƒ16, or even 22 without diffraction problems?

Humboldt, with their current excessive MarketingPee numbers compacts are basically always limited by diffraction.

Here's calculator for Airy disk size at different f-ratios and pixel sizes for some cameras.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: In many posts people have difficulty understanding how crop factor works, somebody suggested that small sensors have inherent advantage when it comes to system size. That's a false belief. Here is an example, take a small FF lens, e.g. 35-70 F/3.5: http://www.camera2hand.net/images/topic_images/pd123774_2.JPG
use 6x digital zoom on the long end to get an equivalent reach of superzoom on 6x crop P&S (e.g. Canon S5) of 35-420mm. Provided you have a sensor manufactured at the same technology node, you get the same image quality at the long end as the P&S camera but many times better quality on the short end. The FF camera system can be the same size as P&S.

There is no such thing as "digital" zoom, only BS zoom of cropping!
Whole point of optically zooming in (increasing focal length) is getting smaller details and that's something cropping won't ever do.

And there's no such thing as full frame format, only 35mm or 135... Which was the smallest reasonably performing format with analog film tech.
For cropping from larger format image to give similar image details to ultrazoom compact its sensor would have to have pixel size similar to that compact. Making them equally insensitive/noisy and crappy in dynamic range.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 15:08 UTC
Total: 100, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »