Clint Dunn

Clint Dunn

Lives in Canada Vancouver, Canada
Joined on Dec 2, 2008

Comments

Total: 283, showing: 161 – 180
« First‹ Previous7891011Next ›Last »
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended article (282 comments in total)

The RX1 looks awesome and I would love to own one. With that said, I am not in the 'smaller is better' camp. My perfect RX1 would be the size/weight of an M9 and with interchangeable lenses. I'm telling you, if Sony did that they would would have an instant classic.

Fuji came close with the XPro1.....if it would have been full frame......instant winner.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 21:59 UTC as 48th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danel: I'm sure the camera will produce excellent image quality, but its really a camera that will only appeal to a small niche market. I don't understand why Sony went through the R&D to make this camera unless they somehow though it might embellish the Sony brand in the camera world.

Define niche market.....I think they will sell a good number of these. Really, how many do they need to sell given the $3k price tag?? Much of the engineering that went into the RX1 will carry over to other cameras/models.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 21:56 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

fierlingd: I mean a full frame package like that is pretty appealing, but wonder how well it will sell or appeal to the leica crowd.

(They should have ditched the "cyber shot" naming though lol! no need to mention specific comments on that naming choice..)

Agreed, there is nothing 'high end' or 'prestigious' about the CyberShot moniker. The RX1 will definitely not hurt Leica sales...on new cameras at least. With that said, there are probably a lot of people who would normally buy into the used M9 market that may opt for the RX1 instead (myself being one of them:)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 21:53 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

zinedi: Tell me why some manufacturers are competing in biggest/smallest item horse-race? Max. Mpix number (with IQ trade-off), smallest design (with handling trade-off), etc. Why they simply don't listen to our needs, wishes?
Fuji is trying and showing the way - thank you Fuji, Sony - you are wrong - my opinion only.

Vidar: The RX1 is only 24Mp....certainly not 'cramming ' MP onto a full;frame sensor in my opinion....at least not in this day and age. The D800 has 36mp...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 21:50 UTC

Wow...I totally forgot about ACDSee....haven't used it since the very first version.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2012 at 22:47 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

StyleZ7: Half of all comments with unnecessary flame :(
There will always be people who need such lenses, becase they won't be changing them during theyr travels or events.
The quality such a lens + low to mid ragnge body provides, is totally ok for purposes, they will be using the pictures later, and there's no need to tell them something else.

Or to put it another way....I guess I am just being self centered and thinking about what I want:) Personally I could care less about superzooms, I would like to see reviews for the pro line of lenses:) I guess maybe someone new to photography that doesn't know much and wants to spend their money wisely would like this review.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

StyleZ7: Half of all comments with unnecessary flame :(
There will always be people who need such lenses, becase they won't be changing them during theyr travels or events.
The quality such a lens + low to mid ragnge body provides, is totally ok for purposes, they will be using the pictures later, and there's no need to tell them something else.

No one is saying that lenses like these aren't needed...sure they can be useful as an all in one travel lens. My point is that most experienced photographers already know that these lenses are basically mediocre...so just buy one and be done with it. If you're spending several thousand dollars on a 70-200 2.8....well maybe you are taking more care and searching for the absolute best....and that is when I read reviews, not for some cheap super zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: Great review. Too bad it's of a lens that I would not look at twice let alone buy. Slow superzooms = compromises, nothing to learn here, end of review.

How about the new Fuji line of lenses, or the new Zeiss 15mm 2.8 ZE, or any of a number of other far more interesting lenses.

AP7 - Expensive lens does = better lens...usually...so yes you are right. My point was this....if I'm spending $2400 on a lens like the Zeiss 15mm ZE, I obviously have much higher demands than if I am buying a cheap zoom. If I want a cheap zoom I already know the compromises I am making, I just buy one, no review needed.

If I am buying a $2400 lens I read reviews to make sure I am buying the absolute best lens I can. Sorry you cannot comprehend this.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 17:24 UTC

Great review. Too bad it's of a lens that I would not look at twice let alone buy. Slow superzooms = compromises, nothing to learn here, end of review.

How about the new Fuji line of lenses, or the new Zeiss 15mm 2.8 ZE, or any of a number of other far more interesting lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 16:11 UTC as 17th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Retzius: I havent read the review but Im gonna guess it is bad wide open, good stopped down to f8, and recommended only if you need an all in one lens.

Funny Retzius, I was thinking the same thing.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

eyefuse: Interesting deal.

But did you notice that it looks like a Sony CarlZeiss design. New style?

Yes, Eyefuse...didn't you know that you should read all 300 comments before offering your thoughts...sheesh.
Come on...give Henry his little victories...it makes some people feel good to belittle others.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2012 at 20:43 UTC

Not so sure about Sigma. I bought a 24mm 1.8EX DG back in 2000 for my Canon Elan II. The lens worked great on that and my EOS 3, but when I went digital it didn't work properly on my 20D nor my 5D, or later on my 1DS2. Now that I have a 5D2 the lens seems to work again but all the previous DSLR's the AE didn't work properly.

I sent countless emails to Sigma over the years to get the lens rechipped but they never responded to any of my emails. I think I'll stick with Canon thanks.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2012 at 16:02 UTC as 36th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

HubertChen: How does this work. One guy cries ugly and all chime in? What if the first guy had said beautiful ? I kinda like the cosmetics. Simple and elegant. I wonder why the viewfinder is still above the lens and not in the edge. This would be a more convenient placement. The rest looks like a knock off of the Sony NEX camera, which I found to be lovely when shooting ( once I got over it that it is so different then my DSLR ). What seems interesting is that some bottoms are left of the Display. Does this mean I know can use both thumbs when adjusting the camera while shooting. This would be interesting :-)

Hubert....we are all chiming in saying it's ugly...because it's ugly. Seriously, not that hard to comprehend. Besides, I don't know about you but I have never bowed to peer pressure, especially on the internet with people I don't even know.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why do you people care so much what the camera LOOKS like? It's not a woman in a bikini for crying out loud. I swear some people's priorities are so goofed up. If it takes quality pictures & gives you an enthusiast-oriented control layout and features, I would think that would be what actually MATTERS.

I don't know how competitive it will be, I prefer the Olympus PENs to the other 1-series by a long shot, but it's nice to see Nikon waking up & realizing that the appeal of mirrorless is largely a case of "I own a DSLR & want a QUALITY smaller backup" and not just "I'm a soccer mom & want a better camera for taking pictures of my kids but I want it to be easy to use."

LRH

It matters how it looks because an ugly designed camera just isn't inspiring to use....sounds silly but it's true. This V2 might be faster, more advanced than say a Leica M9 or my XPro1, but I would never leave the house with the Nikon...just sayin'.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

Nerdlinger: I'll never buy one, but really what is all the "ugly" comments about? It is not ugly, just go look at the Hasselblad Nex Lunar camera...now that is UGLY....REAL UGLY. This looks ok to me.

All the 'ugly' comments are because....it's ugly. Maybe you disagree but than clearly you have bad taste:)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

audijam: i actually like the retro look but definitely don't like the 2020 hyper-inflation price tag with 2004 performance.............................sigh~

Retro look...really??? I didn't think comparing the design from something from early 2000's qualified as 'retro'...but whatever.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

PerrimanSmythe: I don't think it's ugly. It's a matter of taste, anyways.
I like the video specs, and I have F-mount lenses, so I could buy this one as a fun/carry anywhere camera and also use it with my 70-300 for super-tele. I guess, it'll also work ok with VNX and CNX, am I right?
The only thing that bothers me is that sensor got more Mpix, but it's still small. The V1 sensor, based on DxO mark, was no good. Let's see what this sensor is capable of.

You're right...it is a matter of taste....and apparently you don't have any:)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

topstuff: The moaners are pretty predictable, but I think they miss the point.

Amazing best in sector AF. Very fast operation. Tiny lenses.

And IQ which is perfectly excellent for most uses, especially the use of ipads and LCD panels which so many people use these days to view their images. For such people ( and there are many ) the little Nikon is perfect.

Besides, the original 1 series has sold pretty well. This will build on that.

People carping on about wanting a bigger sensor in a Nikon mirrorless are missing the point - this camera is not for them and was never intended to be for them.

And if you tend to use an ipad to view your images, then complaining about the small sensor and IQ is pretty moot.

DOF was my only criticism of the small sensor, now ameliorated to some extent by the new fast portrait lens.

Its not a bad offering. Bravo Nikon.

Still wish it has a flip up rear LCD though, as per OMD and NEX

It's ugly and performance wise aimed at the soccer Mom crowd. This thing is about as inspiring as a Reliant K car.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 16:00 UTC

Let's see.....Nikon chose a 1" sensor for the 1 series so they can make a small camera....the only advantage to using a smaller sensor. They then make V2 a bigger camera with the same tiny sensor...I don't get it. Oh yeah...it's ugly too.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 15:57 UTC as 113th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bydloman: - So ugly it hurts
- Small sensor for an absolutely NOT pocketable camera
- Not even cheap
- Not a single decent lens for the system ATM

Thanks but no thanks.

What an eyesore. Not for me, but I'm sure the soccer Mom crowd will buy-in.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 15:50 UTC
Total: 283, showing: 161 – 180
« First‹ Previous7891011Next ›Last »