Snark: the NEX-5 isn't a DSLR either, since it doesn't have a reflex mirror. Doesn't make it suck, though -- not everything has to be a SLR to be a good camera.
Question about it -- I saw pictures of the thing and it looks so darn hard to use. No viewfinder, no real way to hold it, and badly unbalanced if you put any sort of ambitious lens on it. Obviously it takes good images, but how's the actual experience of shooting with it?
Think you're trolling, because there are no SLR's or DSLR's with "crappy tiny sensors" around. Their sensors are all pretty close to the same size. There were two DSLR's with non-interchangeable lenses with crop factor 4 a lonnnng time ago, but I don't think you mean those.
The sensor sizes on modern DSLR's are no smaller than half the diagonal of 35mm film, and that sensor size (the Four Thirds format) is perfectly adequate to make great images. All the other sensors are bigger.
The only camera I know of with a particularly bad sensor was one of the Sony models (not sure which one), and it wasn't so bad -- maybe 2/3-1 stop worse at high ISO than it should be given its size.
Actually, it turns out you can put a nice sharp lens on a non-crappy tiny sensor and make beautiful large prints. Panasonic made a business of doing this for a long time, and I have beautiful 16x20" prints from a crop factor 5 camera (the Panasonic FZ50). The Panasonic LX3 is even better, since it has a less-ambitious lens on it (24-60 f/2-2.8 rather than 35-420 f/2.8-3.7 equivalent). but Yes, I'm picky. They're not quite as sharp as my SLR, but they're pretty darn good. I'd put them up against results from a Canon kit lens any day (and have, and they're sharper).
The crop factor is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15, I'd guess. I'm pretty sure that the Canon 70-300/5.6 isn't sharp enough to outresolve the tiny little pixels on the sensor, so you'd be left with a greatly magnified but fuzzy mess.
This guy would have had to remove the iPhone's own lens, otherwise he couldn't focus at all -- the lens is projecting an image behind it, and there's no way the iPhone can then focus on it.
I've never heard of the Canon 35-80; I imagine that's just an old and cheap lens he had lying around.
Minor correction: the 4/3 format is *not* the EVF-driven mirrorless system. Four Thirds is a perfectly ordinary SLR system that works in the standard way (and is the one I use, incidentally.) You're thinking of "micro Four Thirds", which uses the same sensors as regular 4/3 (crop factor 2), but has no mirror and uses an EVF. Ordinary 4/3 lenses can mount to micro 4/3 cameras with an adapter (which is just a spacer to fix up the mount-sensor distance)
The author of the link referred to way back there was clearly from the US, and most likely from the Southeast -- where there are a lot of mildly venomous rattlesnakes and two related venomous species. None of them will kill you before you can get treatment, barring exceptional circumstances. They're not/nearly/ as bad as the stuff you guys have in Australia.
I'm originally from the Southeast, and the reason there are so many snakebite cases there is because drunk rednecks go fuck with them -- poke them with sticks, grab their tails, etc. Yes, it happens, and that's why people get bit.
In the Southwest, where I live now, we have more snakes, but fewer cases per capita of snakebite. Why? Because people don't go fuck with them.
Snakes are as harmless as occasional driving, or any of the myriad other activities we undertake each day. Most (I've heard 60%) of snakebite cases involve a drunk victim; most of them involve someone intentionally aggravate a snake.
You bet the life of your children on lots of things that are a hell of a lot more dangerous than rattlesnakes. And if you're not willing to risk it, then you should just keep them out of the forest rather than shooting animals willy-nilly.
There's also a chance it would be less deadly, since it has to use some of its metabolic output to be immune to whatever defense the skeeterboffins at UA have cooked up.
Anyone habitually shooting snakes is a douchebag of the highest order. They're wild animals that are pretty much harmless unless you go out of your way to piss them off, and most of the poisonous American varieties are rattlesnakes that will warn you so you don't step on them accidentally.
I was wondering about that, too. International scientific collaborations use it without problems (although CERN recently cooked up an in-house system that apparently doesn't work as well).
The two cameras have the same processing, too -- including NR. They both have user control over in-camera NR (off/low/normal/high), but if you pick the same setting you get the same results.
Olympus literally took the guts of an E-620, put them in a nicer body with more features, and sold it as the E-30. (And this is a good thing, as they take good images.)
The more uses of electricity we have that can be done "whenever", the better the future looks for power sources like wind and solar. Hopefully power companies will start charging different rates for on-peak and off-peak residential usage (like they already do for major industrial users), and the market will take care of it.
In reviewing digital SLR's, they had a column for "Maximum usable ISO" or similar. Fair enough, that's important. But they had large differences between models with the same sensor size.
With only a very few exceptions, FX/full-frame cameras (Nikon, Canon, Sony high-end) have a 2-stop advantage over Four Thirds (Olympus, Panasonic) and about a 1.5-stop advantage over APS-C (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax), for any given definition of "usable". There are a few models that outperform cameras with similarly-sized sensors by 0.5 stop or so -- the Nikon D300, say -- and a few that underperform by a little bit, like some of the Sonys.
But the thing that struck my eye was the 1- or 2-stop difference (I forget which) between the Olympus E-30 and E-620. These two cameras have the *same sensor and processor*, and produce very, very similar output.
"Abstinence-only" refers to radical Christians in the USA who believe that, rather than offering comprehensive sex education to children, we should instead teach them that any sexual activity before marriage is sinful and exceptionally dangerous, and that teaching them about contraception will only encourage them to have sex, so we shouldn't do that.
They're not just practicing abstinence, they're insisting the rest of us do so too, and depriving children of access to education -- often, to crucial information that will keep them safe. And THAT is the problem.
And in a sense we're already there on the capture end -- you can plunk down $300-$400 and get a digital SLR (or Micro Four Thirds "thing that is like a SLR but with no reflex mirror") that shoots at precisely this resolution. The only thing stopping them from storing video at these framerates is the ability to get all the data off of the CMOS sensor and onto the memory card fast enough. 4000 x 3000 x 30 fps x 12 bits per pixel is 4.3Gbps, which is hard. But Olympus already makes a cheap digital SLR that will do this resolution at 5fps, and that limit is caused by the mechanical motion of the shutter and mirror. Nikon will give it to you at 12fps or something if you're willing to plunk down the $$$, and again -- that limit is for the mechanical elements.
Make a 4000x3000 video where each frame consists of a mosaic of 16 successive frames of a 1000x750 video, and then release a third-party plugin that will pull out the frames and play the original video.
Yes, essentially, because of the way the 3D works -- you're using alternating frames for left, right, left, etc. This means that stuff close to the "viewpoint", where there's a significant difference between the left and right images, winds up only at 12fps.
I know a few people who got severe headaches from watching Avatar because of the 3d; I imagine that improving the framerate will go a long way toward fixing this.
Slashdot Mirror
Snark: the NEX-5 isn't a DSLR either, since it doesn't have a reflex mirror. Doesn't make it suck, though -- not everything has to be a SLR to be a good camera.
Question about it -- I saw pictures of the thing and it looks so darn hard to use. No viewfinder, no real way to hold it, and badly unbalanced if you put any sort of ambitious lens on it. Obviously it takes good images, but how's the actual experience of shooting with it?
If Olympus built cell phones I'd buy one, since all the cell phones I have used suck both at being phones and at being cameras.
Think you're trolling, because there are no SLR's or DSLR's with "crappy tiny sensors" around. Their sensors are all pretty close to the same size. There were two DSLR's with non-interchangeable lenses with crop factor 4 a lonnnng time ago, but I don't think you mean those.
The sensor sizes on modern DSLR's are no smaller than half the diagonal of 35mm film, and that sensor size (the Four Thirds format) is perfectly adequate to make great images. All the other sensors are bigger.
The only camera I know of with a particularly bad sensor was one of the Sony models (not sure which one), and it wasn't so bad -- maybe 2/3-1 stop worse at high ISO than it should be given its size.
Actually, it turns out you can put a nice sharp lens on a non-crappy tiny sensor and make beautiful large prints. Panasonic made a business of doing this for a long time, and I have beautiful 16x20" prints from a crop factor 5 camera (the Panasonic FZ50). The Panasonic LX3 is even better, since it has a less-ambitious lens on it (24-60 f/2-2.8 rather than 35-420 f/2.8-3.7 equivalent). but Yes, I'm picky. They're not quite as sharp as my SLR, but they're pretty darn good. I'd put them up against results from a Canon kit lens any day (and have, and they're sharper).
Especially because I can buy a real SLR for $200 used.
The crop factor is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15, I'd guess. I'm pretty sure that the Canon 70-300/5.6 isn't sharp enough to outresolve the tiny little pixels on the sensor, so you'd be left with a greatly magnified but fuzzy mess.
This guy would have had to remove the iPhone's own lens, otherwise he couldn't focus at all -- the lens is projecting an image behind it, and there's no way the iPhone can then focus on it.
I've never heard of the Canon 35-80; I imagine that's just an old and cheap lens he had lying around.
Minor correction: the 4/3 format is *not* the EVF-driven mirrorless system. Four Thirds is a perfectly ordinary SLR system that works in the standard way (and is the one I use, incidentally.) You're thinking of "micro Four Thirds", which uses the same sensors as regular 4/3 (crop factor 2), but has no mirror and uses an EVF. Ordinary 4/3 lenses can mount to micro 4/3 cameras with an adapter (which is just a spacer to fix up the mount-sensor distance)
The author of the link referred to way back there was clearly from the US, and most likely from the Southeast -- where there are a lot of mildly venomous rattlesnakes and two related venomous species. None of them will kill you before you can get treatment, barring exceptional circumstances. They're not /nearly/ as bad as the stuff you guys have in Australia.
I'm originally from the Southeast, and the reason there are so many snakebite cases there is because drunk rednecks go fuck with them -- poke them with sticks, grab their tails, etc. Yes, it happens, and that's why people get bit.
In the Southwest, where I live now, we have more snakes, but fewer cases per capita of snakebite. Why? Because people don't go fuck with them.
Snakebite is harmful.
Snakes are as harmless as occasional driving, or any of the myriad other activities we undertake each day. Most (I've heard 60%) of snakebite cases involve a drunk victim; most of them involve someone intentionally aggravate a snake.
You bet the life of your children on lots of things that are a hell of a lot more dangerous than rattlesnakes. And if you're not willing to risk it, then you should just keep them out of the forest rather than shooting animals willy-nilly.
There's also a chance it would be less deadly, since it has to use some of its metabolic output to be immune to whatever defense the skeeterboffins at UA have cooked up.
Re: the link:
Anyone habitually shooting snakes is a douchebag of the highest order. They're wild animals that are pretty much harmless unless you go out of your way to piss them off, and most of the poisonous American varieties are rattlesnakes that will warn you so you don't step on them accidentally.
I was wondering about that, too. International scientific collaborations use it without problems (although CERN recently cooked up an in-house system that apparently doesn't work as well).
That's what the military contracting industry has been doing for years...
Grandparent is alluding, I think, to the rate of plastic surgery in Los Angeles.
LA is probably the most wasteful city in our wasteful nation.
It's not that bad -- I've done it before.
X Windows over plain old wifi.
If your hands are cold and dead after watching porn you're doing it wrong.
Isn't this how markets are supposed to work? Sounds like Germany has a good thing going.
The two cameras have the same processing, too -- including NR. They both have user control over in-camera NR (off/low/normal/high), but if you pick the same setting you get the same results.
Olympus literally took the guts of an E-620, put them in a nicer body with more features, and sold it as the E-30. (And this is a good thing, as they take good images.)
If DPRK is going to pull anything, it's going to be on the release date of Starcraft II, when *nobody* in ROK is paying attention.
Thus the present need for the auto-sentries -- otherwise they'll be oblivious when Kim Jong-Il is in their base, killin their doods.
The more uses of electricity we have that can be done "whenever", the better the future looks for power sources like wind and solar. Hopefully power companies will start charging different rates for on-peak and off-peak residential usage (like they already do for major industrial users), and the market will take care of it.
In reviewing digital SLR's, they had a column for "Maximum usable ISO" or similar. Fair enough, that's important. But they had large differences between models with the same sensor size.
With only a very few exceptions, FX/full-frame cameras (Nikon, Canon, Sony high-end) have a 2-stop advantage over Four Thirds (Olympus, Panasonic) and about a 1.5-stop advantage over APS-C (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax), for any given definition of "usable". There are a few models that outperform cameras with similarly-sized sensors by 0.5 stop or so -- the Nikon D300, say -- and a few that underperform by a little bit, like some of the Sonys.
But the thing that struck my eye was the 1- or 2-stop difference (I forget which) between the Olympus E-30 and E-620. These two cameras have the *same sensor and processor*, and produce very, very similar output.
Sometimes they don't know what they're talking about, though.
I know digital photography pretty well, and a lot of the stuff they say in their digital camera reviews is just plain wrong.
You're missing political context here.
"Abstinence-only" refers to radical Christians in the USA who believe that, rather than offering comprehensive sex education to children, we should instead teach them that any sexual activity before marriage is sinful and exceptionally dangerous, and that teaching them about contraception will only encourage them to have sex, so we shouldn't do that.
They're not just practicing abstinence, they're insisting the rest of us do so too, and depriving children of access to education -- often, to crucial information that will keep them safe. And THAT is the problem.
And in a sense we're already there on the capture end -- you can plunk down $300-$400 and get a digital SLR (or Micro Four Thirds "thing that is like a SLR but with no reflex mirror") that shoots at precisely this resolution. The only thing stopping them from storing video at these framerates is the ability to get all the data off of the CMOS sensor and onto the memory card fast enough. 4000 x 3000 x 30 fps x 12 bits per pixel is 4.3Gbps, which is hard. But Olympus already makes a cheap digital SLR that will do this resolution at 5fps, and that limit is caused by the mechanical motion of the shutter and mirror. Nikon will give it to you at 12fps or something if you're willing to plunk down the $$$, and again -- that limit is for the mechanical elements.
This could enable longer videos, sure.
Make a 4000x3000 video where each frame consists of a mosaic of 16 successive frames of a 1000x750 video, and then release a third-party plugin that will pull out the frames and play the original video.
Yes, essentially, because of the way the 3D works -- you're using alternating frames for left, right, left, etc. This means that stuff close to the "viewpoint", where there's a significant difference between the left and right images, winds up only at 12fps.
I know a few people who got severe headaches from watching Avatar because of the 3d; I imagine that improving the framerate will go a long way toward fixing this.
The abstinence-only people deserve to rot in a hell of their own creation just like the Chinese censors.
Just because one thing is bad doesn't make another bad thing less bad.