RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Camera’

Report: Canon is lowering profit forecast 20% due to shrinking camera sales

20 Apr

According to a report [partial paywall] from Nikkei Asian Review, Canon is planning to lower its profit forecasts for the 2019 fiscal year by 20 percent — amounting to approximately 50 billion yen — due to shrinking camera sales.

What’s to blame for this downturn? According to Nikkei, the digital camera and semiconductor markets are shrinking due to the increasing capabilities of smartphone cameras. Below is the full translated section of the report:

‘Canon will lower its forecast for the fiscal year ending December 2019. Consolidated operating profit (US GAAP), which indicates the mainstay of the business, is likely to decrease by 20% over the previous fiscal year to just over 270 billion yen. About 50 billion yen lower than the previous forecast. The shrinking of the digital camera market and the deterioration of the semiconductor market due to the functional improvement of smartphones (smartphones) will hit hard.’

This report echoes the drop in global camera sales reported by the Japanese Camera & Imaging Products Association (CIPA) earlier this month.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Report: Canon is lowering profit forecast 20% due to shrinking camera sales

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Review of the Nikon Z6 Mirrorless Camera [video]

19 Apr

The post Review of the Nikon Z6 Mirrorless Camera appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Caz Nowaczyk.

In this review of the Nikon Z6 mirrorless camera, Tony and Chelsea Northrup test out this camera in different scenarios to see how it performs.

It has a few issues that you may want to know about, but are they serious enough to steer away from this camera?

Photography

  • Ergonomically, it feels good to hold.
  • Autofocus is an issue. While shooting wildlife, the camera hunted for focus and caused many missed shots. Even during a portrait shoot, the Z6 sometimes narrowly missed focus. As a result, they had to over-shoot to ensure they got at least one shot in focus.
  • Autofocus also failed in backlit scenarios, so manual focus was used.
  • The camera advertises shooting at 11 frames per second, but when shooting moving objects such as birds, you will need to drop that down to around 5 frames per second.
  • Because the sensor doesn’t close when changing lenses, there is more possibility of getting dust on the sensor (an issue with mirroless cameras in general).
  • There are no native lenses for the Z mount so you need an adapter.
  • White balance is the worst they have seen in any camera, and it had to be set manually.
  • Exposure compensation had to be constantly adjusted to get the right exposure. The camera would often underexposure backlit portraits – often by a number of stops.

If you are a photographer, you may be better off buying a used Nikon D750 with the same lenses, with no need for an adapter. You’ll get the same image quality, without the focusing issues, plus two card slots.

Video

  • When using video, rolling shutter is prevalent.
  • The image stabilization isn’t good when shooting video, so often needed to be switched off. It was jarring when walking, which is problematic due to the native lenses not having image stabilization either.
  • Focusing points go all the way to the edge of the frame.
  • While the Z6 doesn’t have eye detection focus, Nikon has promised it in a future Firmware upgrade.
  • While the Z6 has the best video autofocusing of any Nikon camera, they are still way behind other competitors.
  • The video looks great when shooting in low-light scenarios. So much so that it outperforms it’s competitors in this area, including the Canon EOS R, Nikon Z7, Nikon D850, and Sony A7R III. This makes it one of the best low-light video performance cameras ever made.
  • Auto White balance can be very problematic and often required setting it manually.
  • No flip screen for filming yourself.

If you already own the Nikon D750 or D850, you already have the best Nikon cameras, so save your money and stick to those.

If you must go mirrorless, perhaps try competitor brands such as Sony and Fuji.

 

You may also find the following articles helpful:

  • The New Panasonic Lumix S1 and S1R – Could these Full-frame Mirrorless Cameras be Cameras of the Year?
  • Why We Have Such a Love-Hate Relationship with Mirrorless Cameras
  • Gear Review: The Lumix G9 Mirrorless Camera
  • The 19 Most Popular Compact System and Mirrorless Cameras with Our Readers
  • Which Crop Sensor Sony a6000 Series Camera Should You Buy?

 

The post Review of the Nikon Z6 Mirrorless Camera appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Caz Nowaczyk.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Review of the Nikon Z6 Mirrorless Camera [video]

Posted in Photography

 

Choosing a camera Part 2: is a bigger sensor better?

19 Apr

When looking at pixel size, we saw that there’s little difference between having a few large pixels and having lots of small ones, once you consider the whole image. This is because sensors have the opportunity to capture the same amount of light per-whole-image, regardless of how many pixels they have.

However, when looking for a new camera, there often is a way of getting more light and therefore better image quality: a larger sensor. This is because, at the same exposure settings, a large sensor is given the same amount of light per unit area, but has a greater sensor area capturing this light.

Key takeaways:

  • Two cameras* with the same exposure receive the same light per square mm, and larger sensors have more square mm.
  • Every object in your scene will be projected onto more square mm of the larger sensor if those two hypothetical cameras have the same field of view.
  • This means every object is described with more photons of light, which gives the potential for a cleaner image.
  • Differences in sensor performance mean one camera may over- or under-perform expectations but these differences are usually smaller than the differences made by changing formats.

The effect of sensor size:

In this instance we’re comparing the Nikon D810 and the Nikon D7000, which have the same sized pixels but different sized sensors. The D810 has a full-frame sensor that’s around 2.3x larger than the APS-C chip in the D7000.

ISO 1600
D810 whole frame
[Raw File]		 D7000
[Raw File]		 D810 (resized: 16MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 3200
D810 whole frame
[Raw File]		 D7000
[Raw File]		 D810 (resized: 16MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 6400
D810 whole frame
[Raw File]		 D7000
[Raw File]		 D810 (resized: 16MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 12800
D810 whole frame
[Raw File]		 D7000
[Raw File]		 D810 (resized: 16MP)
[Raw File]

As you might expect, the two cameras look similarly noisy at the pixel level because they received the same amount of light per square mm and each pixel is the same number of square mm.

But when you downscale the D810’s images (as you would if you wanted to view or print at the same size), the benefit of its bigger sensor starts to appear.

Compare the D810’s output to the D7000 image from one ISO setting lower and you’ll see they look very similar, but with the D810 still a fraction ahead. This is consistent with the 1.2EV difference that the sensor size difference would lead you to expect.

Size differences outweigh performance differences

If shot from the same position, using a lens with the same angle-of-view, every object in the scene will be captured by a greater area on a bigger sensor, so with the same exposure a larger sensor will have more photons shone on it to describe the scene. As such it will tend to look cleaner if you view them at the same size.

There will be some differences in how well each sensor design can turn these photons into a digital signal (even though most modern sensors are excellent), but there are fairly large gaps between most popular sensor sizes, and these size differences tend to be greater than the differences made by sensor performance.

Now this might sound like bigger is always better. But it’s not that simple…

Click here to read Part 3:
The trade-offs of sensor size

*Assuming you’re shooting the same thing ie. both cameras are in the same position and shooting with the same framing.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Choosing a camera Part 2: is a bigger sensor better?

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Here’s why I’m not quite ready to let the Pixel 3 replace a dedicated camera

18 Apr
Modern architecture abounds in Palm Springs, mid-century and otherwise.
Olympus Pen F ISO 200 | 1/1600 sec | F6.3 | Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm F2.0

On the topic of “When will smartphones make most dedicated cameras obsolete?” I tend to be in the “We’re pretty much there already” camp. In my own day-to-day photography, and even for some special occasions where I expect to take more than a few photos, I’ll stick with my smartphone rather than bringing along a dedicated camera.

That wasn’t the case on a recent trip to Palm Springs. I shot with both the Pixel 3 and a Micro Four Thirds camera (the Olympus Pen F, specifically). Here’s where each of them shine, and why I’m glad I had a dedicated camera at my side.

My photographic priority in Palm Springs was the city’s veritable smorgasbord of mid-century modern buildings. Banks, hotels, liquor stores – all housed in stunning modern buildings that are extremely Instagrammable. You know you’ve hit the architectural jackpot when you’re excited to photograph the town BevMo!.

Literally the roof of a BevMo! liquor store.
Olympus Pen F ISO 200 | 1/800 sec | F5.6 | Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm F2.0

There are obvious benefits to any smartphone, including of course the Pixel 3. It’s always with you, even by the pool, photos are automatically backed up to your image library, everything is immediately shareable. But the Pixel 3 presents a few unique advantages: it handles high-contrast scenes particularly well, and the multi-shot Night Sight mode captures a level of detail well beyond what we’re used to seeing from smartphones, even in the daytime.

The Pixel 3 does a fine job balancing scenes like this one, and its IP68 waterproof rating means it’s safe poolside.
Google Pixel 3 XL ISO 59 | 28mm equiv. | F1.8

There are some disadvantages though, which figured into my decision to bring along the Olympus Pen F and 12mm lens. First, the Pixel’s main camera wasn’t quite wide enough for the kind of photography I wanted to do. Photographing mid-century modern buildings from the sidewalk along a busy road doesn’t make it easy to just back up to get the whole thing in the shot.

Using panorama mode for a wider shot isn’t a great option either – image quality is pretty poor. This year’s smartphones are addressing this problem with wide-angle lenses, so if Google ever decides to add another rear camera, who knows what will be possible!

Stuff like this is just lying around everywhere in Palm Springs!
Olympus Pen F ISO 200 | 1/1250 sec | F4.5 | Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm F2.0

Editing Pixel 3 Raws isn’t my favorite experience at the moment, either. Editing Pen F files is familiar and comfortable to me, while handling Pixel Raw files seems to be a quirky process in its current state. When I use Camera Raw I start with a very flat, overexposed image, and when I edit Raw photos in Snapseed I encounter a couple of bugs along the way (and don’t love the small-screen edit experience). It’s more than good enough for something I’ll post on social media, but I wanted a little more control with my Palm Springs photos.

I also found myself taking advantage of a few Pen F features that were handy, if not necessarily must-haves. A viewfinder really came in handy under the bright mid-day sun. I also like a tilting LCD to compose shots from higher and lower angles. Also, the digital level was pretty huge for me, a person with (apparently) a crooked brain who is unable to keep horizons straight.

If every Bank of America looked like this I’d be a member tomorrow.
Olympus Pen F ISO 200 | 1/1250 sec | F4.5 | Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm F2.0

To be sure, there are some third-party workarounds that would have adapted the Pixel 3 to my purposes better. I could have brought a wide-angle attachment lens along and used a camera app with a level. There are trade-offs when using either of these options, though.

I also prefer the anonymity of the Pixel 3. One morning I walked from the center of town a mile and a half to the visitor’s center, a futuristic-looking building that used to be a gas station and is one of the most recognizable structures in town.

Roof of the Tramway Gas Station, currently home of the Palm Springs Visitor’s Center.
Olympus Pen F ISO 200 | 1/1250 sec | F6.3 | Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm F2.0

I was quite conspicuous on this journey for several reasons. For starters, nobody walks a mile to get anywhere in 80°+ heat if they can help it. I’m also incredibly pale and probably a danger to motorists walking under a beaming sun on the side of the road. I also had a Real Camera in my hand, and on top of that, am a lady.

Being a lady alone in public doing something out of the ordinary is, in my experience, an invitation for commentary, usually of the harmless “What are ya doin’ there with that big ol’ camera little missy??” variety. Well-meaning I’m sure, but my male colleagues don’t quite experience the same interruptions.

Palm Springs: they aren’t kidding about those palms.
Olympus Pen F ISO 200 | 1/1000 sec | F4.5 | Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm F2.0

I wish I’d been shooting with the Pixel when I saw the Photo That Got Away. Traffic in the street was stopped at a red light, and I was walking parallel to a pickup truck towing a camper van with a majestic purple mountain on the side. Behind it was a backdrop of actual majestic mountains. It was perfect, except the driver was staring right at me staring at him.

Maybe I would have gotten away with it shooting with the phone. As it happened, it just felt too conspicuous, almost invasive, to pull the camera up to my eye and take a picture. The light turned green and I thought about that photo through the rest of the trip.

In any case, I made it to the visitor’s center, which is a lovely building but I actually ended up taking my favorite picture around the back of it. Funny how that happens.

I walked a mile and a half through the desert to take this photo of a bench, I guess.
Olympus Pen F ISO 200 | 1/1250 sec | F6.3 | Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm F2.0

I liked the experience of carrying the Pen F at my side. It put me in a mindset of taking photos that’s harder to get into when I’m using my phone. But I don’t think we’re far from a future where the Pixel 3 satisfies almost all of the photographic needs I had on a trip like that, and there are real benefits to shooting with the Pixel 3 that traditional cameras don’t provide now. The Pixel automatically backed up all of the trip photos I took with it to my Photos library, where they were instantly shareable, searchable and photo-book-printable. The Pen F sure didn’t do any of that.

When I can get 90% of the image quality from a smartphone that I would from a traditional camera, and the experience of using it as a photographic device – from capture through editing – is 90% as good, I’ll be ready to leave the camera at home when I go on a trip like the one I just took. That day probably isn’t far off at all.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Here’s why I’m not quite ready to let the Pixel 3 replace a dedicated camera

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size

18 Apr

We’ve already looked at the role played by pixel size and the benefits of a larger sensor. But, before you rush out to buy the camera with the biggest sensor you can, it’s worth bearing in mind that you won’t always see its full advantage.

Key takeaways:

  • For the same field-of-view, a larger format will have shallower depth-of-field at the same F-number.
  • Shallow depth-of-field can be a creative benefit, up to a point, but you sometimes need a certain depth-of-field.
  • You can stop down a large sensor camera to match the depth-of-field of a smaller one, but you end up with comparable image quality if you do.
  • All formats are a series of compromises and there is no correct balance to strike.

The depth-of-field trade-off

As we’ve seen, if you can achieve the same exposure settings, a larger sensor will have a chance to absorb more light and hence give better image quality. But achieving the same exposure value usually requires you to use the same f-number.

With the same f-number, a larger format will also have shallower depth-of-field, which will sometimes be desirable but other times not. Depending on your tastes and shooting style, shallow depth-of-field (and the additional light that usually comes with it) can be a valuable creative tool. But only up to a point, and not in all circumstances.

A ‘full-frame’ sensor tends to require large lenses but can capture lots of light. This extra light capture comes with shallow depth-of-field (for better or worse).

In situations where you need more depth-of-field it’s possible to stop down the lens on a large sensor camera, but doing so will reduce the amount of light available to your camera: at which point you’ll see the advantage over a smaller-sensor system begin to diminish (while still having to deal with the larger format’s size, weight and cost).

Bigger is usually better, but how much better do you need?

Also, the examples we’ve used were shot in relatively low light. In bright daylight, the image quality of many systems will readily exceed ‘good enough:’ even simple one-shot smartphones do a reasonable job in good light. And once you’re reached ‘good enough,’ any further improvement may not be worthwhile, or even perceptible. So, while a larger sensor will give the potential to receive more light and capture every tone with greater fidelity, that difference won’t always offer a visually appreciable benefit.

A smaller sensor can’t usually capture as much total light or compete in absolute image quality terms, but it can generally be smaller and more convenient as a result.

In the most simple terms, all systems involve trade-offs between size, price and image quality. The challenge is to understand the magnitude of these trade-offs, and choose the one that makes most sense for you and the types of photos you want to take.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Choosing a camera Part 1: should I worry about pixel size?

17 Apr

Pixels are the fundamental building blocks of digital photography: they are the individual elements that capture the light to make up your image. Higher pixel-count cameras promise better resolution but it’s often said that their smaller pixels result in noisier, less-clean images.

So does this mean you should look for fewer, bigger pixels when you buy your next camera?

Probably not. That’s because the idea that small pixels are noisier is only really true when you examine your images at pixel level. We’ve long passed the point where you only had enough pixels to fill your monitor. And even people making large prints will find that a 24MP camera provides far more resolution than needed for printing at A3 (11.7 x 16.3″).

Looking at the bigger picture

At which point, taking a more holistic, whole-image-level perspective on picture quality probably makes at least as much sense as worrying about the noisiness of your individual pixels.

Smaller pixels each receive less light than large ones, so will always individually be noisier (because for most photography, most of the noise comes from the amount of light you sample). But as soon as we have to scale our images to view or print them, this difference becomes much less significant or disappears entirely.

Key takeaways:

  • Larger pixels get more light during any given exposure, so are less noisy when viewed 1:1
  • Combining multiple small pixels cancels out most (or all) of this difference when viewed at the same size
  • For most applications you’ll end up downsizing your images, so there’s usually a resolution advantage but little (if any) downside to having more pixels

The effect of pixel size:

The Nikon D850 and the Sony a7S are both relatively modern full frame sensors, but they have very different pixel counts. Because they have the same sized sensor, this means the individual pixels on the 12MP a7S are much larger than the D850, which has a sensor made up of 48 million pixels.

The a7S is often described as being great in low light, but this is only true if you pixel peep.

Let’s see how they compare when scaled to the same size:

ISO 6400
D850 Full size
 [Raw File]		 a7S
 [Raw File]		 D850 (resized: 12MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 12800
D850 Full size
 [Raw File]		 a7S
 [Raw File]		 D850 (resized: 12MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 25600
D850 Full size
 [Raw File]		 a7S
 [Raw File]		 D850 (resized: 12MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 51200
D850 Full size
 [Raw File]		 a7S
 [Raw File]		 D850 (resized: 12MP)
[Raw File]

At the pixel level the a7S is much less noisy, as you’d expect with its larger pixels. But, at all but the very highest ISO settings, that advantage disappears when you compare them both at the same scale. The difference is that you usually retain some of the additional detail that the D850 captured.

We see this same pattern across almost all cameras. The only times we have seen any disadvantage to small pixels is in the very smallest pixels used in smartphones (and those often use multi-shot modes to overcome this) or in sensors that use unconventional sensor technologies.

The thing that’s much more likely to make a difference to your image quality is sensor size. We’ll look at this in the next part of this article series…

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Choosing a camera Part 1: should I worry about pixel size?

Posted in Uncategorized

 

DOTMOT Paper Camera project precisely replicates DSLR camera, lens and flash

17 Apr

DOTMOT, a motion and design studio based in South Korea, has published a project called Paper Camera. This is one of a number of paper art projects from DOTMOT, which has previously published work that includes paper shoes and buildings.

The Paper Camera project features a colorful DSLR camera body, two interchangeable lenses, lens cap, and a flash. The lenses and flash can be attached and detached from the paper camera body, which includes careful attention to a number of small components. Of course, the device is non-functional.

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_3017889571″,”galleryId”:”3017889571″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

The Paper Camera kit’s creation is featured in the video above, giving viewers a glimpse of the cutting, glueing, and assembly process. However, the project is ultimately a one-of-a-kind work of art; DOTMOT isn’t offering the kit for sale.

Photo credit: Photos provided by DOTMOT, used with permission.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on DOTMOT Paper Camera project precisely replicates DSLR camera, lens and flash

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Parrot Anafi Thermal drone brings FLIR camera, lighter weight and higher price

16 Apr

Drone company Parrot has announced Anafi Thermal, an updated version of the Anafi folding quadcopter it launched last year. The new Parrot Anafi Thermal features a 4K HDR camera with a 21MP Sony sensor alongside a FLIR Lepton thermal sensor, enabling operators to capture both RGB and thermal images. The drone can be used with the Pix4DModel app to generate 3D images from the thermal data.

The newly added FLIR camera features a 160 x 120 resolution and the ability to detect a temperature range from 14F / -10C to 752F / 400C. The thermal sensor is embedded with the 4K RGB camera on a three-axis stabilized gimbal. Drone operators can use the thermal camera and FreeFlight 6 app to detect heat loss and isolate subjects, according to Parrot, making the drone useful for industrial use and rescue missions.

The aforementioned FreeFlight 6 app can be used to merge both RGB and thermal images; ‘visual representations’ of temperature contrasts and thermal leaks are superimposed on the final image. The cameras also offer 3x digital zoom.

The Anafi Thermal drone weighs 315g / 11.1oz, which is 10 grams lighter than the 2018 model. The quadcopter can handle wind speeds up to 50km/h / 31mph and it has a top flight speed of 55km/h / 34mph. Operators can utilize three batteries that offer a cumulative flight time of 78 minutes (26 minutes per battery); the power cells support recharging from any source using USB-C.

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_4938417913″,”galleryId”:”4938417913″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

The companion Parrot Skycontroller 3 remote control operates over WiFi with a range of 2km / 1.2mi. Built-in sensors enable the drone to operate on autopilot. Operators can set flight parameters that include altitude, geofences, and custom FlightPlan routes.

The Parrot Anafi Thermal drone will be available starting in May. According to The Verge, this model will have a $ 1,900 price tag, which is substantially higher than the non-thermal model’s $ 700 cost.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Parrot Anafi Thermal drone brings FLIR camera, lighter weight and higher price

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The Etch-A-Snap (probably) the world’s first Etch-A-Sketch camera

16 Apr

Meet the Etch-A-Snap, the Frankenstein’d creation of self-taught programmer Martin Fitzpatrick. As the name alludes to this creation is the result of mashing together a Pocket Etch-A-Sketch, a Raspberry Pi Zero, and onboard camera module, a couple servo motors and a number of other goodies to create what is ‘probably’ the world’s first Etch-A-Sketch camera.

The photos captured with the onboard camera are shrunk down to a 240×144 pixel image and converted to a 1-bit black and white color palette. Once processed, the resulting image is then processed and subsequently converted into plotter commands. Those commands, which look a bit like an Etch-A-Sketch drawing on their own, are then converted into an analog Etch-A-Sketch image through two 5 v stepper motors that are mounted into a custom 3D printed frame.

The Etch-A-Snap is powered by four ‘AA’ batteries and three 18650 LiPo cells, making it a self-contained unit that can be carried around (although not easily, based on the looks of it). According to Fitzpatrick, it can take anywhere from 15 minutes to one hour to create a sketch, depending on the complexity of the photo. He says the device now runs at 20 pixels per second, a dramatic improvement over the two pixels per second it was running at in earlier tests.

In addition to the above clips, Fitzpatrick has also shared a number of photos and videos on Two Bit Arcade explaining the process. If you’re feeling brave, he’s also provided all of the materials and assets he used to create the device at the bottom of the post. It isn’t for the faint of heart though from the looks of it, not to mention you’ll need access to a 3D printer.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The Etch-A-Snap (probably) the world’s first Etch-A-Sketch camera

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Video: ‘The completely bonafide and entirely unfalsified history of the camera’

14 Apr

YouTube channel ‘The Royal Ocean Film Society’ by filmmaker Andrew Saladino has published a tongue-in-cheek video detailing ‘the completely bonafide and entirely unfalsified history of the camera.’ Viewers are greeted with an amusing, biting narrative about human nature and how it supposedly contributed to the creation of photography.

The Royal Ocean Film Society channel is known for its animated video essays covering a variety of topics. According to Saladino, this video was ‘partially inspired’ by the short film ‘A Lecture on Man’ from Richard Williams.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Video: ‘The completely bonafide and entirely unfalsified history of the camera’

Posted in Uncategorized

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »