Svein Eriksen

Lives in Norway Norway
Joined on Dec 7, 2003
About me:

No plan

Comments

Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article 2017 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (275 comments in total)
In reply to:

a777: Question remains plain simply: how to compare lenses of fz1000 and some ultrazoom DSLR lenses (18-300 for example)? Is fz1000 much better? Because DSLR lenses have more reach, better eq aperture and the pack sizes quite comparable.
But only comprasion that we have - strictly between compacts, or strictly between DSLR lenses. But what if I already have APS-C DSLR and thinking about ultra-flexible reach?

APS-C is about 3 times the area of 1 inch sensors. That should give APS-C about 1-1.5 stops advantage provided sensor tech is equal. FZ1000 is f/2.8-4 while 16-300 (and many other superzoom lenses) is f/3.5-6.3. This should give 16-300 + APS-C-sensor a clear advantage compared to FZ1000 at the wide end, but no advantage at all in the tele end were the FZ1000 lens is about 1⅓ stops faster.

The RX10 III with a f/2.4-4.0 is obviously closer to 16-300 at wide angle, and even more competitive with tele 600m equivalent.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 07:34 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (275 comments in total)
In reply to:

a777: Question remains plain simply: how to compare lenses of fz1000 and some ultrazoom DSLR lenses (18-300 for example)? Is fz1000 much better? Because DSLR lenses have more reach, better eq aperture and the pack sizes quite comparable.
But only comprasion that we have - strictly between compacts, or strictly between DSLR lenses. But what if I already have APS-C DSLR and thinking about ultra-flexible reach?

Tamron 16-300mm is 24-450mm equivalent on 1.5 crop so it more than matches the FZ1000 zoom range. I've never used the 16-300mm, but I compared the FZ1000 with an older Tamron 18-270mm on a 70D and IMO the FZ1000 gave better image quality if you look at sharpness and CA. Any modern dSLR is better on high ISO and DR though,

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 17:29 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)
In reply to:

FLruckas: They should really make a version of these cameras in a Canon mount....

I'd strongly consider one then.....

Sigma use the same signalling lines and protocol as the EF-mount and same flange distance (physically the mounts are incompatible) so it would be really easy to make a Canon version.

Having a Canon version would enable all Canon users to try Sigma/Foveon by getting a new body in stead of having to switch systems. That's potentially a pretty big market for Sigma, but would of course reduce the chances of selling Sigma mount lenses.

I'm not sure that would be a big loss since the Sigma lenses are already available in EF-mount, and are quite competitive with Canon glass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_SA-mount

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 21:26 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: "Where the TG-4 used a 16MP BSI CMOS sensor, the TG-5 has dropped to 12MP, in order to improve image quality (according to the company)." -DPR

According to the company, but others are skeptical. :-)

The design of most waterproof models reduce IQ (compared to a similar P&S), including "real" resolution.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 14:44 UTC
On article Looking back: Canon's eye-controlled focus (208 comments in total)

I had the Eos 5 and the eye control focus worked well for me. Probably the most advanced camera I've ever owned (for the time).

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 20:22 UTC as 75th comment
In reply to:

tobicy68: Can't wait for the Tamron 100-400mm that's rumored to come out as well. Possibly a smaller version of this lens and balances pretty well on APSC bodies.

There were news of a Tamron 100-400 on many sites in July. Only a patent for now, but looks interesting if you want good reach in something smaller than the usual 150-600 or Nikon/Sony/Canon 80/100-400.
http://www.cameraegg.org/tamron-sp-100-400mm-f4-5-6-3-vc-lens-patent/

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 19:12 UTC
On article Remembering Fan Ho: 1931-2016 (35 comments in total)

Ted Forbes on Fan Ho
https://youtu.be/tmnXHPjhSIM
and https://youtu.be/1CXXgRrQGqM

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 19:38 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: I don't understand a guide number of '60m'. (I assume that means '60 meters'.) From my manual flash days, I think I remember that a GN was a unit-less number. You found the GN of the unit for the ISO of the film you were using, determined (or guessed :-) ) the distance to the subject, and then divided the distance into the GN to find the f/stop.
Do I have this wrong?

You're right, at least partly. The GN (used in ads) were usually for 35mm coverage and ISO 100, but it was for meters or feet depending on the region. You would often find the feet GN in the US and the meter one in Europe and other countries using the metric system.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 18:53 UTC

Finallly a replacement for the CP 8800! Hope AF speed is improved!

Wonder why I cant get these lenses for the Nikon 1 series.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 07:54 UTC as 121st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

tesilab: Isn't the narrow widest aperture already diffraction limited?

You can probably measure slightly lower resolution with a 16MP MFT-sensor at F6.3 because of diffraction, and sligtly more (diffraction) with a 20MP sensor. But I doubt you can see the difference to e.g F4 with the naked eye on ordinary pictures.

It would have been nice with a F4 lens, or F5 or even F5.6, but the lens would have been bigger, heavier and more expensive. I'd liked at least F5.6, but I still believe Panasonic have made a pretty good decision with this lens to keep size down.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: the first pic ,A great American tradition
is very bad even for small sensor,no detail at all
why? F8 diffraction?

It's probably not much diffraction as the TG4 use a 3EV ND-filter to get to F8, so the shot is really at F2.8. But it's easy to get flare with the TG4, and there is some in that picture. Flare reduce contrast and apparent sharpness/resolution.

Anyway, real resolution seems quite low for a 16MP sensor camera in all images. I compared it to my really old Nikon superzoom with 8MP and the Nikon images had about the same level of details.

Still, you'll probably get 6 to 8MP of "real" resolution and that's more than enough for typical use of this camera.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2015 at 15:03 UTC
On article Have your say: Best Consumer ILC of 2015 (17 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Ma: No Samsung NX1 in any of the categories?

NX1 came out last year.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2015 at 16:46 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

exm3racer: Got mine a few weeks ago and have taken it on a couple vacations. RAW was the major selling point for me as I only shoot Raw on my D600 and use LR/PS. Pretty happy overall, looking to see what comes next in this segment.

Biggest surprise for me was the macro mode, it takes killer close up photos. It's like I just got a macro lens. And it does wide angle macro, very cool! Image quality while using macro is much better than I expected... as long as you don't crop too much.

Good things:
(ran out of characters)

Improvements I'd like to see - realize these may add to a more costly product, but I'd be willing to pay for them:

rear screen needs to be anti scratch
Lens flare easily - better lens coating
Would like CPL
More aperture increments
Better ISO performance starting at 800
Don't know if it's possible but I'd love a viewfinder
Lens is OK sharp and sharpens nicely if you are shooting RAW, but could be better.
Burst shooting in RAW
something approaching RX100 in quality..

You can get CPL with the adaper. Not ideal, but it works.
http://www.olympusimage.com.sg/product/compact/accessory/conversion_lens/clat01.html

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 19:19 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoguy622: The addition of RAW support is great, but why not also add a shutter priority mode?

Meanwhile I just bought a refurbished Nikon 1 J4 with the waterproof housing for $275.00. Hopefully it won't be too bulky.

If the Nikon's too big I'll stick with my Canon D20 and wait until someone adds raw and a full suite of manual controls to a waterproof camera.

Why is this so hard!

I wish they provided manual control of the (3EV) ND-filter in stead of a "fictional" aperture. DOF isn't that narrow even for macro with the smallest aperture, but at least one more real aperture would have been nice.

Also, I think the ND-filter is a good solution for getting slow(er) shutter speeds without diffraction problems.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 17:46 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)

What about lens flare? I got a TG-4 and it's easy to get flare in backlit/contrasty scenes. I haven't seen any comments about this. Would be interesting to see some examples on high contrast scenes if dpreview still got the camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 16:28 UTC as 75th comment
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoguy622: The addition of RAW support is great, but why not also add a shutter priority mode?

Meanwhile I just bought a refurbished Nikon 1 J4 with the waterproof housing for $275.00. Hopefully it won't be too bulky.

If the Nikon's too big I'll stick with my Canon D20 and wait until someone adds raw and a full suite of manual controls to a waterproof camera.

Why is this so hard!

The problem with shutter priority is probably that the TG-4 has only three apertures. You can't really do shutter priority well without more apertures to choose from. I guess it could work by using Auto-ISO to compensate for the missing apertures, but it would be confusing if changing shutterspeed also forced a change in ISO.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 16:20 UTC
In reply to:

MayaTlab0: I have a question : is the metamerism score really that relevant, i.e., can we find examples of pictures that show some correlation with the score ?
Regarding dynamic range, it's quite easy to see the effect of measured DR performance in pictures (and even more so since you added a specific page and test shots - thank you for this !), but is it as easy with the metamerism score ? I know this is very anecdotal, but so far the camera I spent the least amount of time correcting its colours either in LR or C1 was my 5DIII. My EM1 has a higher score, and yet, in comparison... well I tend to spend quite a lot of time correcting colours.

Interesting question. It would be nice if someone with enough knowhow could make an article about this, and the consequences of low metamerism score.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 19:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review (477 comments in total)
In reply to:

whtchocla7e: 2/3" sensor... Did you really listen to customer feedback now, Fuji?

Retro camera, retro sensor

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 14:45 UTC
On article Travel tripods: 5 carbon fiber kits reviewed (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Philidors shadow: I have an earlier Gitzo GT1541T Traveler and Markins Q3 Traveler head. The Gitzo is for practical purposes perfection itself (the Markins isn’t far off either). No other photographic item I own is as good at its job, as beautifully designed and made, or as satisfying to contemplate. If you’re at all susceptible to good industrial design a Gitzo Traveler will make you happy.

P.S. I positively despised using travel tripods before I got the Gitzo, though I acknowledge Gitzo may have some worthy competitors today.

I've also got the previous Traveler-model (the older head didn't have quick release) and the Markins head. It don't fold quite as compact with that head, but the Q3 Traveler head has seperate pan knob and is generally a much better head - heavier though, and it increase the price.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 16:19 UTC
On article Panasonic FZ1000: Not just another superzoom... (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rachotilko: There's one point I missed in this otherwise well articulated opinion : the historical perspective. Several ears ago, "bridge" meant something completelly different than the "superzoom" of today. Compared to today's superzooms:

- the sensor sizes were bigger, at least 1/1.7"
- the reach was much more limited (to around 300-400mm)
- lenses were faster
- optics manufacturing quality was not of cheap feeling and reputation.

I'm talking about devices like Sony F717, F828, Fuji cameras (S6500fd, S9XXX, S100fs, S200exr), Panasonic FZ30, FZ50, Minolta AXXX, etc.

Sadly, this category of devices died out - the last one of them was probably Fuji X-S1 (but that one was unfortunatelly hampered by the overambitious lens design). Their extinction coincides very well with the advent of mirrorless, but also with arrival of their low-cost (but high zoom) siblings - the superzooms.

It seems that the true "bridge" category is back. But the ingredients are still the same.

@Rachotilko: I completely agree on your "historical" perspective, and there's always been some overlap between superzooms and the (original) bridge class.

I wouldn't categorize one of todays superzooms with 1/2.3" sensor a bridge model though, but Canon's G-series and G1 X are bridge cameras IMO (even though the G1 X II lacks a viewfinder). Other current bridge models are Nikon P7800, Fuji X20 and RX100 III.

The FZ1000 is both a superzoom and a bridge model, and currently the only one IMO. RX10 is of course a bridge model, but I wouldn't call anything with less than 10x zoom a superzoom, but there are of course no official categories.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 17:15 UTC
Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »