Thom finally resurfaces, with comments sure to be controversial, at least here ...

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,391
Like?
Thom finally resurfaces, with comments sure to be controversial, at least here ...
6 months ago

Quoting the last part of his article focusing on ... focus.

...

Which brings us to the Million Dollar Question: what is it that does differentiate cameras in the coming cycle? Price. Size. Weight. How the camera interacts with the user. Integration into the users’ other digital world. Oh, and one more thing: focus performance.

That last one really struck home in my recent Galapagos trip. I had three complete systems with me: Nikon D7100, Fujifilm X-T1, and Olympus EM-1. What was my overall response to these cameras? It all boiled down to one and only one thing: focusing.

Let me start out by saying that none of the three were perfect. The Nikon DSLR requires a lot of attention to detail to extract focus performance. AF Fine Tune. Setting the proper focus area mode for the task at hand. Getting the Track-On crossover point right for the subject. And more. However, I’m used to all those things and can usually dial in focus to where I need it. Still, on the fastest and most sporadic moving birds near at hand in the Galapagos, I sometimes struggled to get high hit rates on focus. On the more predictable birds (e.g. Albatross), no real problems. However the truly bad news is that we really haven’t had a significant increase in focus performance in DSLRs for at least seven years, maybe more. The focus issues I struggle with on a DSLR today are what I struggled with in previous generations of DSLRs.

The Fujifilm and Olympus were a different story. I’d say that the Fujifilm struggled partly because of lens, partly because its phase detect system isn’t yet up to the performance level of DSLRs. The lens part is because all we really have at the moment for telephoto work of the kind I was doing is the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8. It’s not a snappy lens when it comes to focus. So when you’re trying to dial in a bird that’s coming at you at warp speed, even if the Fujifilm manages to attain focus initially, it struggles to maintain it. Getting continuous sequences of in-focus birds was near impossible.

The Olympus had a different problem. I don’t think lenses are its problem in this situation. Most have been designed for fast movement commands from the camera (e.g. MSC). More often than not I was able to get fast, sure initial focus. The problem was more this: if the motion wasn’t too fast or too random, the camera would get slightly more winners than losers in the continuous focus realm. But past a certain point in each type of motion, the camera would fall out of focus and not catch up.

I mention all this because of one thing that I realized upon resurfacing back to the Internet: the real issue with digital photography these days has moved mostly from cameras to lenses and focusing. The sensors and ASICs are ALL up to the job of producing great looking shots, at least if you put a great lens up front and get it to focus correctly. Almost always, the reason I don’t get the shot I want devolves to lens (including focus issues) or not dialing in the right settings quickly or consistently. That’s it.

To some degree, that’s why the Nikon 1 is so intriguing. It’s the only small camera that has DSLR-like focus abilities. And before I get attacked by the fan boys repeating camera company marketing claims of “fastest focusing camera” hyperbole, let me point out that focusing on a static subject should be fast. If a camera can’t do that, don’t buy it. It’s subjects in motion that are the killer. Even for DSLRs. But DSLRs are still at a level that hasn’t been achieved by anything else, though the Nikon 1 sure comes close. (Part of the Nikon 1’s “comes close” is that it doesn’t have any real ways to tune/adjust the focus system as you shoot without dipping into menus, and even then the choices are minimal.)

All this was reinforced during image review during the workshop. The number one thing that we’d talk about was composition, which is as it should be in a workshop. The number two thing was almost always not quite nailing focus or getting a exposure or focus-related setting slightly wrong. I rarely needed to talk about what the sensor/ASIC were doing, even on the 1” sensor cameras that were being used on the trip (mostly AW1’s). And then is was usually about dealing with the extreme dynamic ranges you encounter in a place like the Galapagos, and strategies for dealing with that in post processing. Even a D800 with its large dynamic range capabilities can’t necessarily do full justice to white bird on black rock in bright sun. The only difference between the low dynamic range cameras and high ones was that you might be able to preserve more lava detail in the latter, but only with post processing.

Funny how when you go out and shoot you have different problems than when you’re sitting at your desk writing about photography ;~). If the camera companies want to break through to a new set of users, I’m almost sure that focus is what has to improve. Speed and accuracy of focus, especially for moving subjects. Even on DSLRs. Second place would be keeping the user in constant and direct control of what the camera is doing using the most simple and straightforward manner (in other words, don’t add more buttons!).

Sure, keep up the sensor improvements, but that’s not where you’re going to win any new customers these days.

Perhaps if the camera companies were actually out shooting with their cameras, they’d realize the problems they really need to address.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/its-the-focus-nikon-should.html

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon D7100 Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Lyle From Canada
Senior MemberPosts: 1,359
Like?
Re: Thom finally resurfaces, with comments sure to be controversial, at least here ...
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

Not sure anything he said here is controversial at all. Seems pretty true across the board.

-- hide signature --

Fuji x-pro1 with 14, 18, 23, 35, 60, 55-200, fuji x100s and WA adapter, fuji x10

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
larryhokie
Regular MemberPosts: 397Gear list
Like?
Re: Thom finally resurfaces, with comments sure to be controversial, at least here ...
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

I see nothing controversial in what he's saying.

-- hide signature --

Larry

 larryhokie's gear list:larryhokie's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Pentax K-5 Olympus PEN E-P3 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Al Valentino
Senior MemberPosts: 4,377Gear list
Like?
Re: Thom finally resurfaces, with comments sure to be controversial, at least here ...
In reply to larryhokie, 6 months ago

No controversy. Seems like an honest assessment of the current limitations

-- hide signature --

Fuji Silver XE1 w/14, 35, 18-55, 55-200, Rokinon 8mm Fisheye & Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro

 Al Valentino's gear list:Al Valentino's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,391
Like?
OK, "sure to be controversial" doesn't seem to have panned out. That's a good sign.
In reply to Lyle From Canada, 6 months ago

Lyle From Canada wrote:

Not sure anything he said here is controversial at all. Seems pretty true across the board.

I agree, but if you look at forum comments made a month or two ago, reasonable comments such as Thom made would have been savagely attacked by a few, and highly criticized by some of the more moderate Fuji fans. People were routinely saying that the X-T1 had the fastest AF performance, not adding Fuji's caveat that it required using one exceptionally wide angle lens. Tony Northrup's initial mistakes didn't win him many fans, but when he revised his video review, he was still tarred and feathered because there were an lot of owners claiming that their X-T1s has excellent AF tracking performance. In fact it was far from excellent but the examples given just showed that the X-T1's tracking could get the job done if the subjects that it had to track didn't present challenges. One that I recall was of a toddler taking a few steps, another was of movement across the frame, not away from or coming closer to the camera. Hardly the same as a sprinter or a motorcycle racing towards the camera.

Some forum members recognized this, but they were in the great minority at the time. I guess that the initial overly defensive posture has become more reasonable, helped in great part by the sage comments from several respected forum members, notably Ray Sachs. At least that's what I see based on the first several replies in this thread.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: Thom finally resurfaces, with comments sure to be controversial, at least here ...
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

Not sure where the controversy is. The XT-1 is improved, but its still behind DSLRs in speed.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: OK, "sure to be controversial" doesn't seem to have panned out. That's a good sign.
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

photoreddi wrote:

Lyle From Canada wrote:

Not sure anything he said here is controversial at all. Seems pretty true across the board.

I agree, but if you look at forum comments made a month or two ago, reasonable comments such as Thom made would have been savagely attacked by a few, and highly criticized by some of the more moderate Fuji fans. People were routinely saying that the X-T1 had the fastest AF performance, not adding Fuji's caveat that it required using one exceptionally wide angle lens. Tony Northrup's initial mistakes didn't win him many fans, but when he revised his video review, he was still tarred and feathered because there were an lot of owners claiming that their X-T1s has excellent AF tracking performance. In fact it was far from excellent but the examples given just showed that the X-T1's tracking could get the job done if the subjects that it had to track didn't present challenges. One that I recall was of a toddler taking a few steps, another was of movement across the frame, not away from or coming closer to the camera. Hardly the same as a sprinter or a motorcycle racing towards the camera.

Some forum members recognized this, but they were in the great minority at the time. I guess that the initial overly defensive posture has become more reasonable, helped in great part by the sage comments from several respected forum members, notably Ray Sachs. At least that's what I see based on the first several replies in this thread.

Not true.

People were critical of commentary by such "experts" as Tony Northrup who said the X-T1 couldn't focus at all, period. Every other level headed person knows that marketing is marketing and recognized that the X-T1 is improved, but 'the best' it probably isn't.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bill Robb
Senior MemberPosts: 3,332
Like?
Re: OK, "sure to be controversial" doesn't seem to have panned out. That's a good sign.
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

What Thom seems to be saying is that in one of  the outlier niches of photography, some cameras are better than others. No surprise there. I think what was really telling was his thoughts that DSLR AF hasn't improved much in the past 7 years or so. Coming from Pentax, which finally this year got decent auto focus, I am surprised. It sounds like Pentax has been a decade behind everyone else in AF technology.

On sensor PDAF is brand new tech. No surprise is isn't up to separate sensor PDAF. The original PDAF was pretty rudimentary by today's standards, but we all thought it was fabulous in the 1980s.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,391
Like?
Re: OK, "sure to be controversial" doesn't seem to have panned out. That's a good sign.
In reply to Dorkington, 6 months ago

Dorkington wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Lyle From Canada wrote:

Not sure anything he said here is controversial at all. Seems pretty true across the board.

I agree, but if you look at forum comments made a month or two ago, reasonable comments such as Thom made would have been savagely attacked by a few, and highly criticized by some of the more moderate Fuji fans. People were routinely saying that the X-T1 had the fastest AF performance, not adding Fuji's caveat that it required using one exceptionally wide angle lens. Tony Northrup's initial mistakes didn't win him many fans, but when he revised his video review, he was still tarred and feathered because there were an lot of owners claiming that their X-T1s has excellent AF tracking performance. In fact it was far from excellent but the examples given just showed that the X-T1's tracking could get the job done if the subjects that it had to track didn't present challenges. One that I recall was of a toddler taking a few steps, another was of movement across the frame, not away from or coming closer to the camera. Hardly the same as a sprinter or a motorcycle racing towards the camera.

Some forum members recognized this, but they were in the great minority at the time. I guess that the initial overly defensive posture has become more reasonable, helped in great part by the sage comments from several respected forum members, notably Ray Sachs. At least that's what I see based on the first several replies in this thread.

Not true.

People were critical of commentary by such "experts" as Tony Northrup who said the X-T1 couldn't focus at all, period. Every other level headed person knows that marketing is marketing and recognized that the X-T1 is improved, but 'the best' it probably isn't.

Did he say this in the initial video or in the revised video, after he made changes to menu options recommended in forum replies? In the second video (IIRC) the X-T1's AF tracking performance improved considerably, attaining a much better hit rate than before, and surpassing one of the other tested cameras. That's NOT consistent with saying "the X-T1 couldn't focus at all, period." The rest of what you say I agree with, not just now but a month or two ago when I pretty much said the same thing. But that wasn't the forum consensus at the time.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: OK, "sure to be controversial" doesn't seem to have panned out. That's a good sign.
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

photoreddi wrote:

Dorkington wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Lyle From Canada wrote:

Not sure anything he said here is controversial at all. Seems pretty true across the board.

I agree, but if you look at forum comments made a month or two ago, reasonable comments such as Thom made would have been savagely attacked by a few, and highly criticized by some of the more moderate Fuji fans. People were routinely saying that the X-T1 had the fastest AF performance, not adding Fuji's caveat that it required using one exceptionally wide angle lens. Tony Northrup's initial mistakes didn't win him many fans, but when he revised his video review, he was still tarred and feathered because there were an lot of owners claiming that their X-T1s has excellent AF tracking performance. In fact it was far from excellent but the examples given just showed that the X-T1's tracking could get the job done if the subjects that it had to track didn't present challenges. One that I recall was of a toddler taking a few steps, another was of movement across the frame, not away from or coming closer to the camera. Hardly the same as a sprinter or a motorcycle racing towards the camera.

Some forum members recognized this, but they were in the great minority at the time. I guess that the initial overly defensive posture has become more reasonable, helped in great part by the sage comments from several respected forum members, notably Ray Sachs. At least that's what I see based on the first several replies in this thread.

Not true.

People were critical of commentary by such "experts" as Tony Northrup who said the X-T1 couldn't focus at all, period. Every other level headed person knows that marketing is marketing and recognized that the X-T1 is improved, but 'the best' it probably isn't.

Did he say this in the initial video or in the revised video, after he made changes to menu options recommended in forum replies? In the second video (IIRC) the X-T1's AF tracking performance improved considerably, attaining a much better hit rate than before, and surpassing one of the other tested cameras. That's NOT consistent with saying "the X-T1 couldn't focus at all, period." The rest of what you say I agree with, not just now but a month or two ago when I pretty much said the same thing. But that wasn't the forum consensus at the time.

Said it in the first video. Then he got reamed for it, and he made a second. He still harped on the 60mm "portrait" lens being slow. All while showing on the screen the lens being marketed as a macro lens, heh.

It just depends on the language used. Some reviews get really loose with terminology, and set up cameras for failure (I assume to get hits). Others (like Thom's) are level headed and very fair.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,391
Like?
Re: OK, "sure to be controversial" doesn't seem to have panned out. That's a good sign.
In reply to Bill Robb, 6 months ago

Bill Robb wrote:

What Thom seems to be saying is that in one of the outlier niches of photography, some cameras are better than others. No surprise there. I think what was really telling was his thoughts that DSLR AF hasn't improved much in the past 7 years or so. Coming from Pentax, which finally this year got decent auto focus, I am surprised. It sounds like Pentax has been a decade behind everyone else in AF technology.

On sensor PDAF is brand new tech. No surprise is isn't up to separate sensor PDAF.

The original on-sensor PDAF was developed by Fuji for the F300EXR. It was a total flop. The initial claim was that it was deactivated when the light level dropped, but I (and many others) so now AF speed increase even in the brightest light over the older F70EXR and F80EXR. On sensor PDAF improved greatly over two years ago with Nikon's V1 and J1. Their PDAF is actually surpassed only by the most expensive DSLRs (such as the D3s and D4) and the AF performance is actually much better in some ways. The ability to AF each photo in a high speed burst (in full resolution RAW+PEG) has steadily increased from 10f/s (V1) to 15f/s (V2) to 20f/s (V3). I'm not aware of any DSLRs that can shot at 15f/s or 20f/s because the mirror needs to be lowered after each shot in order to reacquire focus, and the mirror can't move that quickly.

.

The original PDAF was pretty rudimentary by today's standards, but we all thought it was fabulous in the 1980s.

The N8008's AF worked well enough to replace my Nikon F in the late 1980's, but I never thought that it was fabulous. Maybe that's because my lenses were all pretty slow and the N8008 probably had a much less powerful AF motor than the "pro" film bodies.

The only lenses that I still had by the time I bought a DSLR (D50) was an old "push pull" 75-300mm and the 50mm micro Nikkor. For some reason I never liked the push pull mechanism on that lens, but years later I bought an old 70-210mm Nikkor (a similar push pull zoom) and didn't mind it at all.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Maximus176
Regular MemberPosts: 181Gear list
Like?
Re: OK, "sure to be controversial" doesn't seem to have panned out. That's a good sign.
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

photoreddi wrote:

Lyle From Canada wrote:

Not sure anything he said here is controversial at all. Seems pretty true across the board.

I agree, but if you look at forum comments made a month or two ago, reasonable comments such as Thom made would have been savagely attacked by a few, and highly criticized by some of the more moderate Fuji fans. People were routinely saying that the X-T1 had the fastest AF performance, not adding Fuji's caveat that it required using one exceptionally wide angle lens. Tony Northrup's initial mistakes didn't win him many fans, but when he revised his video review, he was still tarred and feathered because there were an lot of owners claiming that their X-T1s has excellent AF tracking performance. In fact it was far from excellent but the examples given just showed that the X-T1's tracking could get the job done if the subjects that it had to track didn't present challenges. One that I recall was of a toddler taking a few steps, another was of movement across the frame, not away from or coming closer to the camera. Hardly the same as a sprinter or a motorcycle racing towards the camera.

Some forum members recognized this, but they were in the great minority at the time. I guess that the initial overly defensive posture has become more reasonable, helped in great part by the sage comments from several respected forum members, notably Ray Sachs. At least that's what I see based on the first several replies in this thread.

Ahem

http://www.thebigpicturegallery.com/blog/2014/4/fuji-xt1-autofocus-speed

tracking focus on quick but big birds the 55-200 Xt1 never missed a shot. i was out shooting lambs bombing around fields the other evening and got plenty of keepers. Where the 55 -200 struggles is in lower light, and at full zoom it's operating at F4.8. bMaybe the new lenses with F2.8 throughout the range will give better performance.

Nick

 Maximus176's gear list:Maximus176's gear list
Nikon D3 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bill Robb
Senior MemberPosts: 3,332
Like?
Re: OK, "sure to be controversial" doesn't seem to have panned out. That's a good sign.
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

photoreddi wrote:

Bill Robb wrote:

What Thom seems to be saying is that in one of the outlier niches of photography, some cameras are better than others. No surprise there. I think what was really telling was his thoughts that DSLR AF hasn't improved much in the past 7 years or so. Coming from Pentax, which finally this year got decent auto focus, I am surprised. It sounds like Pentax has been a decade behind everyone else in AF technology.

On sensor PDAF is brand new tech. No surprise is isn't up to separate sensor PDAF.

The original on-sensor PDAF was developed by Fuji for the F300EXR. It was a total flop. The initial claim was that it was deactivated when the light level dropped, but I (and many others) so now AF speed increase even in the brightest light over the older F70EXR and F80EXR. On sensor PDAF improved greatly over two years ago with Nikon's V1 and J1. Their PDAF is actually surpassed only by the most expensive DSLRs (such as the D3s and D4) and the AF performance is actually much better in some ways. The ability to AF each photo in a high speed burst (in full resolution RAW+PEG) has steadily increased from 10f/s (V1) to 15f/s (V2) to 20f/s (V3). I'm not aware of any DSLRs that can shot at 15f/s or 20f/s because the mirror needs to be lowered after each shot in order to reacquire focus, and the mirror can't move that quickly.

.

The original PDAF was pretty rudimentary by today's standards, but we all thought it was fabulous in the 1980s.

The N8008's AF worked well enough to replace my Nikon F in the late 1980's, but I never thought that it was fabulous. Maybe that's because my lenses were all pretty slow and the N8008 probably had a much less powerful AF motor than the "pro" film bodies.

In that era, Canon's AF ran circles around everyone.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just a Photographer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,014Gear list
Like?
Re: Thom who?
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

Wasn't that the person who put lie upon lie and untruth on untruth to finally say that the AF of the X-T1 was unusable? The person who said this camera couldn't focus, but that his Oly was his perfect partner.

The person who could not even attach the strap to his camera?

The one that called the 60mm Macro lens the portrait lens?

The expert that doesn't read the manual?

Not even worth mentioning this guy anymore.

 Just a Photographer's gear list:Just a Photographer's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,391
Like?
Ahem?
In reply to Maximus176, 6 months ago

Maximus176 wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

Lyle From Canada wrote:

Not sure anything he said here is controversial at all. Seems pretty true across the board.

I agree, but if you look at forum comments made a month or two ago, reasonable comments such as Thom made would have been savagely attacked by a few, and highly criticized by some of the more moderate Fuji fans. People were routinely saying that the X-T1 had the fastest AF performance, not adding Fuji's caveat that it required using one exceptionally wide angle lens. Tony Northrup's initial mistakes didn't win him many fans, but when he revised his video review, he was still tarred and feathered because there were an lot of owners claiming that their X-T1s has excellent AF tracking performance. In fact it was far from excellent but the examples given just showed that the X-T1's tracking could get the job done if the subjects that it had to track didn't present challenges. One that I recall was of a toddler taking a few steps, another was of movement across the frame, not away from or coming closer to the camera. Hardly the same as a sprinter or a motorcycle racing towards the camera.

Some forum members recognized this, but they were in the great minority at the time. I guess that the initial overly defensive posture has become more reasonable, helped in great part by the sage comments from several respected forum members, notably Ray Sachs. At least that's what I see based on the first several replies in this thread.

Ahem

http://www.thebigpicturegallery.com/blog/2014/4/fuji-xt1-autofocus-speed

tracking focus on quick but big birds the 55-200 Xt1 never missed a shot. i was out shooting lambs bombing around fields the other evening and got plenty of keepers. Where the 55 -200 struggles is in lower light, and at full zoom it's operating at F4.8. bMaybe the new lenses with F2.8 throughout the range will give better performance.

I'm sure that the new f/2.8 lenses will perform better but I don't think that your "Ahem" is really warranted, since what Thom wrote seems to be consistent with your comment about "quick but big birds". He also did well with big birds but his X-T1 had less consistent results with speedy, erratic small birds. This was included in the quote from the OP :

Still, on the fastest and most sporadic moving birds near at hand in the Galapagos, I sometimes struggled to get high hit rates on focus. On the more predictable birds (e.g. Albatross), no real problems.

...

I’d say that the Fujifilm struggled partly because of lens, partly because its phase detect system isn’t yet up to the performance level of DSLRs. The lens part is because all we really have at the moment for telephoto work of the kind I was doing is the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8. It’s not a snappy lens when it comes to focus. So when you’re trying to dial in a bird that’s coming at you at warp speed, even if the Fujifilm manages to attain focus initially, it struggles to maintain it. Getting continuous sequences of in-focus birds was near impossible.

As well as your X-T1 performed shooting the Greyag geese, most of the photos show them slowing down, using their extended wings to brake their speed for the landing. That's not exactly what Thom is referring to when he writes about a bird approaching at "warp speed". I think that you have to understand that when he concludes with "Getting continuous sequences of in-focus birds was near impossible" he was still referring to birds flying at "warp speed". I also have the 55-200mm and agree with Thom's assessment. It's not slow, but neither is it "a snappy lens". My 70-200mm f/2.8 is speedy and snappy, and I assume that Fuji's forthcoming 50-140mm f/2.8 lens will also be speedy and snappy, and that if you get one, it will perform much better than the 55-200mm lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,391
Like?
Thom who? WRONG!!!
In reply to Just a Photographer, 6 months ago

Just a Photographer wrote:

Wasn't that the person who put lie upon lie and untruth on untruth to finally say that the AF of the X-T1 was unusable? The person who said this camera couldn't focus, but that his Oly was his perfect partner.

You've got your names bass-ackwards. You're talking about Tony, NOT Thom. You also seem to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between being wrong/mistaken (and willing to admit it) and lying.

.

The person who could not even attach the strap to his camera?

The one that called the 60mm Macro lens the portrait lens?

And yet many current forum members are saying that they're buying the 60mm macro lens in part because it makes for a relatively decent portrait lens. Extremely shallow DOF isn't always needed, especially for non-pros that want to keep their kit cost effective, and a portrait lens doesn't need to have exceptionally fast AF, so the slow 60 squeaks by ...

.

The expert that doesn't read the manual?

Not even worth mentioning this guy anymore.

But you did and will probably continue to do so, not giving him (Tony, not Thom) any credit for listening to this forum's complaints and redoing his video review, which while not perfect, was a much more credible review than the first one. I'm familiar with your opinions, opinions which are far from unique in this forum, and that's why the thread title ended with "sure to be controversial, at least here ..."

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fotophool
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,790
Like?
Re: Thom who?
In reply to Just a Photographer, 6 months ago

Just a Photographer wrote:

Wasn't that the person who put lie upon lie and untruth on untruth to finally say that the AF of the X-T1 was unusable? The person who said this camera couldn't focus, but that his Oly was his perfect partner.

The person who could not even attach the strap to his camera?

The one that called the 60mm Macro lens the portrait lens?

The expert that doesn't read the manual?

Not even worth mentioning this guy anymore.

You're more than a little confused.

Thom Hogan

Not Tony what's-his-name.

fotophool

My Flickr Pics

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just a Photographer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,014Gear list
Like?
Re: Thom who? WRONG!!!
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

photoreddi wrote:

Just a Photographer wrote:

Wasn't that the person who put lie upon lie and untruth on untruth to finally say that the AF of the X-T1 was unusable? The person who said this camera couldn't focus, but that his Oly was his perfect partner.

You've got your names bass-ackwards. You're talking about Tony, NOT Thom. You also seem to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between being wrong/mistaken (and willing to admit it) and lying.

.

The person who could not even attach the strap to his camera?

The one that called the 60mm Macro lens the portrait lens?

And yet many current forum members are saying that they're buying the 60mm macro lens in part because it makes for a relatively decent portrait lens. Extremely shallow DOF isn't always needed, especially for non-pros that want to keep their kit cost effective, and a portrait lens doesn't need to have exceptionally fast AF, so the slow 60 squeaks by ...

.

The expert that doesn't read the manual?

Not even worth mentioning this guy anymore.

But you did and will probably continue to do so, not giving him (Tony, not Thom) any credit for listening to this forum's complaints and redoing his video review, which while not perfect, was a much more credible review than the first one. I'm familiar with your opinions, opinions which are far from unique in this forum, and that's why the thread title ended with "sure to be controversial, at least here ..."

You were right the person I thought you were talking about was indeed Tony.
My mistake for thinking it was one and the same person.

I can be harsh to people that deserve this treatment. If they put down controversial statements or are just plainly not telling the truth. Then they can expect to be challenged by others.

The 60mm can indeed be used as a portrait lens for those who are on a smaller budget.
But from professional photographers you may expect, that they know the difference between more dedicated portrait lenses and macro lenses. Just like a lorry is not a sportscar though you can still both drive them from A to B.

 Just a Photographer's gear list:Just a Photographer's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Clayton1985
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,904
Like?
Re: Thom finally resurfaces, with comments sure to be controversial, at least here ...
In reply to photoreddi, 6 months ago

Did Thom just write 2000 words to say that mirrorless AF needs to continue improving to close the gap between DSLRs and mirrorless?

Gee, thanks....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fotophool
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,790
Like?
Re: Thom finally resurfaces, with comments sure to be controversial, at least here ...
In reply to Clayton1985, 6 months ago

Clayton1985 wrote:

Did Thom just write 2000 words to say that mirrorless AF needs to continue improving to close the gap between DSLRs and mirrorless?

Gee, thanks....

Did you just misread what Thom wrote?

Yes, you did.

Read it again.

Oh, hell, let me spoil it for you.

In a nutshell, today's lenses and sensors from most manufacturers have reached the stage where only minor incremental improvements can be expected.

The next area where all systems can still make significant advances is in their auto-focus abilities.

You're welcome.

fotophool

My Flickr Pics

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads