mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com
vv50

vv50

Lives in Antarctica Antarctica
Joined on Jul 6, 2009

Comments

Total: 274, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic Lumix CM1 coming to the US post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time

you're laboring under the delusion that you're the first one who came up with this or it hasn't already been prototyped before. and like every armchair scientist, you don't put your money where your mouth is. so unless there's a product using this concept, with a performance and price tag that competes with what's out there, you're just pulling numbers out of thin air.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 03:23 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix CM1 coming to the US post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time

you seem to know everything about sensor quality and cost from reading this graph, why don't you educate the engineers that do this for a living with your brilliant cost saving idea, then. while you're at it, explain to them that there's nothing special needed to make the sensors work together.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 00:50 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix CM1 coming to the US post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time

you can also argue that multiple small batteries yielding the same total volume would be cheaper than an equivalent larger battery. how many cameras actually do that?

your simplistic assumptions do not hold up to the real world.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 23:19 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix CM1 coming to the US post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time

"smaller sensors are cheaper to make than larger ones" is not the same as "many small sensors in the same camera are cheaper than a large one".

"a monochromatic sensor yields more resolution and is less susceptible to optical issues" is not the same as "several monochromatic sensors in the same camera yields more resolution and is less susceptible to optical issues"

your fallacious generalization has no proof.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 22:42 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix CM1 coming to the US post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time

your point is that your idea hasn't been implemented because manufacturers can be dumb or shortsighted?

consider the opposite thought - "a single sensor would work better than an array of sensors. it would probably be able to get more resolution and be cheaper to make, manufacturers producing this would earn profits today because they can be smart and farsighted. "

the difference between that statement and your idea is that yours has no proof.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 22:57 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix CM1 coming to the US post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time

you haven't proved your argument

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix CM1 coming to the US post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time

"They can be very dumb/shortsighted" - and that's why you're the genius who's going to out-invent all the camera manufacturers

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 02:41 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1270 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: I shouldn't say anything, but you can work with whatever lens you can mount.

If you've got a prime that doesn't distort too much or suffer from really bad fringing you can make due with it for a lot of situation, almost no matter what the focal length. As long as you don't need 7 feet for the minimum focus distance.

If you have a 90mm f/2.8 Macro and it's your only lens you'll learn to make it sing for you, even if the angle of view seems a little tight.

Or the opposite; people walk around with an iPhone with a lens that has the same effective angle of view of a 30mm lens on a 135-based camera and most people never give it a second thought. That's what they have and they use it.

why stop there? get a lens that covers 4 x 5 and take some great photos, maybe someday you'll be able to afford a more capable camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 02:23 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I don't understand why smartphones need to get thinner and thinner. Just look at all those people who bought iPhones and the double the thickness with a case. My cheap smartphone is much thinner.

manufacturers make many kinds of phones, period. there are many to choose from. for people who want this set of features, it's available for them. if it's not for you, there's no need to bray and compare what you own just to justify your purchase.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 02:17 UTC
On Kodak announces IM5 Android smartphone post (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris Noble: I get a kick when I see "Kodak" or "Zeiss Vario Sonnar" (hint: Sony lenses) or any other of the myriad of 20th-century brand names which have been licensed to Asian manufacturers, and then reviewers who assume there is some inherent product quality simply because the name has been licensed.

what you say about the range of Asian quality isn't incorrect. however, you can't speak for someone else's thoughts when the question is a simple yes or no.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 02:10 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1270 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: I shouldn't say anything, but you can work with whatever lens you can mount.

If you've got a prime that doesn't distort too much or suffer from really bad fringing you can make due with it for a lot of situation, almost no matter what the focal length. As long as you don't need 7 feet for the minimum focus distance.

If you have a 90mm f/2.8 Macro and it's your only lens you'll learn to make it sing for you, even if the angle of view seems a little tight.

Or the opposite; people walk around with an iPhone with a lens that has the same effective angle of view of a 30mm lens on a 135-based camera and most people never give it a second thought. That's what they have and they use it.

nothing you said is wrong, but nothing you said confirmed or rejected the idea of an upgrade path

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 23:26 UTC
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cathy2015: Hi, I am planning a trip on January 12th and I don't know what I should use as a camera for the trip: my good old Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5 or my new iPhone 6 plus. Even though the iPhone 6 plus is much newer, it seems to me that the good old Lumix is still a better camera.

What would you use as your camera for great pictyres if you were me: the iPhone 6 plus or the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5?

I really have no clue about cameras and I have no idea what all the spec mean :(

I'd appreciate some opinions (please).

Thanks,

Cathy

F - you're not responding to Cathy, she didn't ask you any of those questions.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 18:17 UTC
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cathy2015: Hi, I am planning a trip on January 12th and I don't know what I should use as a camera for the trip: my good old Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5 or my new iPhone 6 plus. Even though the iPhone 6 plus is much newer, it seems to me that the good old Lumix is still a better camera.

What would you use as your camera for great pictyres if you were me: the iPhone 6 plus or the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5?

I really have no clue about cameras and I have no idea what all the spec mean :(

I'd appreciate some opinions (please).

Thanks,

Cathy

cathy - what kind of trip are you taking? what did you end up using for your trip?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 14:10 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1270 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: for the sake disagreeing, there are people who already have old lenses with them that they're itching to use on a full frame digital camera. it's not even about the image quality.

if the so-called upgrade path is problematic and people struggle doing it, you are proving the myth to be correct.

just because there are people are doing it, it doesn't mean that point two is wrong

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 14:05 UTC
On Kodak announces IM5 Android smartphone post (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris Noble: I get a kick when I see "Kodak" or "Zeiss Vario Sonnar" (hint: Sony lenses) or any other of the myriad of 20th-century brand names which have been licensed to Asian manufacturers, and then reviewers who assume there is some inherent product quality simply because the name has been licensed.

so you think there's an inherent lack of product quality simply because the name has been licensed to Asians?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 13:59 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I don't understand why smartphones need to get thinner and thinner. Just look at all those people who bought iPhones and the double the thickness with a case. My cheap smartphone is much thinner.

what's your obsession with asking for things you don't really want? if you aren't interested in a 12mm phone with optical zoom, what are you even doing here?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 13:42 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I don't understand why smartphones need to get thinner and thinner. Just look at all those people who bought iPhones and the double the thickness with a case. My cheap smartphone is much thinner.

you get your priorities straight. if you're interested in an optical zoom, then get one which features it. you said it doesn't matter to you how thick the phone is.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 06:38 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I don't understand why smartphones need to get thinner and thinner. Just look at all those people who bought iPhones and the double the thickness with a case. My cheap smartphone is much thinner.

nowhere did it claim that 12mm is extraordinary, many of last year's phones are less than 12mm thick. why go out of your way to comment on this trait, even making comparisons to your own phone?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 04:17 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1270 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey_Green: Looking at my lenses now makes it hard to imagine I would go and buy them together with FF camera. It would have not made much sense economically, and I would have missed all those shots I took (and the fun I had) when they were mounted on Dx cameras. So myth or not, it worked quite well for me.

it's true that your situation would make sense during your time, but that doesn't necessarily apply anymore given the price changes and newer lens offerings when this article was written. if your manufacturer offered your desired high-end lenses in only one format at the time of your purchase, then you'd bite the bullet even when your body is on a smaller format.

the opinion of the post is still relevant - if your manufacturer is already providing a choice between getting the lens in your current format that works for you today, as opposed to the same lens in the larger format, then the reason that you pick the bigger and heavier lens is because you believe that you will eventually need to move to the larger format.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 23:55 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I don't understand why smartphones need to get thinner and thinner. Just look at all those people who bought iPhones and the double the thickness with a case. My cheap smartphone is much thinner.

you brought it up, it seems to be a factor to you.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 23:39 UTC
Total: 274, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
About us
Sitemap
Connect