57even

57even

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on Jul 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 482, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deliverator: Digitalloyd, after looking at the sample photos stated:

"Never before have I seen per pixel quality this good, from any camera.".
[including medium format]

High praise, indeed.

So you have to join in to prove that you can do it to? I don't get the logic. And besides, I don't own a Pentax.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 17:57 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deliverator: Digitalloyd, after looking at the sample photos stated:

"Never before have I seen per pixel quality this good, from any camera.".
[including medium format]

High praise, indeed.

Are you really that insecure?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 17:47 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: I would love to see the Pentax brand survive, knowing that a lot of the old Pentax engineers still work there and have continued to try and put their unique creative DNA into the brand. Having owned several Pentax cameras since the original *istD, it would be tragic to see that disappear.

They have been somewhat stymied in the past by disinterested management at Hoya and venture capitalists, and finally seem to have found a sympathetic home at Ricoh, which is great. By all accounts, their old QC issues which led to my defection are a thing of the past.

Having said that, this offering is clearly aimed at existing Pentax users. I can't see Nikon and Canon users defecting to Pentax. The only direction of migration for existing FF DSLR users seems to be in the mirrorless direction.

This may not matter to Pentax. If they can sell this camera, and the 645Z, at a profit, and stem the declining sales of APSC DSLRs in general, then these products will probably be regarded as a success.

Yes, but this is more about preserving market share and preventing defection to other brands.

In terms of attracting new users, market penetration, brand and marketing budget all mitigate against them. This is not a criticism of the brand, just the realities of consumerism.

To be honest, I was very happy (and still am) with APSC. The bigger growing segment is mid-size mirrorless, and the D500 is on back order everywhere.

I am not sure this is Pentax's most efficient market share strategy, but the product margins and lens sales will probably offset that in a limited business model.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 14:39 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deliverator: Digitalloyd, after looking at the sample photos stated:

"Never before have I seen per pixel quality this good, from any camera.".
[including medium format]

High praise, indeed.

I could say the same about my new Bosch power drill, but I don't sit and admire it. I don't own a 'sexy' car either, but one that is extremely utilitarian. I have also owned lots of Nikons.

It's not a criticism, just an observation.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 10:14 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deliverator: Digitalloyd, after looking at the sample photos stated:

"Never before have I seen per pixel quality this good, from any camera.".
[including medium format]

High praise, indeed.

Digilloyd needs to get some perspective, and possibly a life.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 00:33 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deliverator: Digitalloyd, after looking at the sample photos stated:

"Never before have I seen per pixel quality this good, from any camera.".
[including medium format]

High praise, indeed.

"D810 Nikon. (which isn't ugly)"

Yeah, it is. It's an amorphous black lump. It's a good tool, but in the style department, it's a flatbed truck.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 20:19 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)

I would love to see the Pentax brand survive, knowing that a lot of the old Pentax engineers still work there and have continued to try and put their unique creative DNA into the brand. Having owned several Pentax cameras since the original *istD, it would be tragic to see that disappear.

They have been somewhat stymied in the past by disinterested management at Hoya and venture capitalists, and finally seem to have found a sympathetic home at Ricoh, which is great. By all accounts, their old QC issues which led to my defection are a thing of the past.

Having said that, this offering is clearly aimed at existing Pentax users. I can't see Nikon and Canon users defecting to Pentax. The only direction of migration for existing FF DSLR users seems to be in the mirrorless direction.

This may not matter to Pentax. If they can sell this camera, and the 645Z, at a profit, and stem the declining sales of APSC DSLRs in general, then these products will probably be regarded as a success.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 20:31 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2454 comments in total)
In reply to:

pjbw127: X-Pro3. I have used tilting screens since 2006.
I can't live without this feature.
(Dear Fujifilm: It doesn't have to swivel though my 2006 camera's does!)

Because its a different market to the XT1, XT10 and X70... duh!

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 13:38 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2454 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaxson: Well done Fuji.

Pentax take note! You should be leading this field, with years of prior experience in sensor stabilisation, but instead you've thrown that away and delivered that god aweful 'Movie SR'.

One simply can't ignore video capabilities in todays DSLRs or mirrorless devices.

That's funny, I've managed to ignore it completely.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 02:07 UTC

Amazing how some people construe this as a negative.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 15:45 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

rurikw: So if they can solve the problems with heat and longevity and put this stuff into our cameras there will be only one more problem to solve? How to get rid of Bayer interpolation without the drawbacks of the Foveon sensor?

It won't matter.

The sensor is 10X more sensitive (ie has 10X the photosite capacity). That means you can make pixels far smaller.

Combining pixels in camera in 2X2 or 3X3 grids would give each pixel a full colour readout with very low noise and no need for interpolation.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 13:42 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2454 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: Is something wrong with my monitor or this Fuji is indeed worse than D5500 and A6000 by wide margin??? Noise is worse, detail is less IQ is just NOT THERE AT ALL

Yes, there is something wrong with your monitor. Is it a Sony?

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 13:18 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2454 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: I don't think that the images are horrible, as some are saying, I just think that they aren't that good.

I expected better DR OOC from a Fuji sensor, but it seems that even with a little PP, you can't get away from the fact that this is a 24 Mp crop sensor camera.

I find the latitude to be rather small and noise creeps in easily when pushing the shadows, a la D300 or some older camera.

The ISO is quite good, I wouldn't expect a clean ISO6400 or 12800 from a crop camera anyways.

What I find bad is the color, especially the white balance. It' too cold outside and too warm inside and in artificial light. Even the PP'd outside shots are still too cold, unrealistic.

Some shots are fairly soft, due to the lens, the ISO400 shot under the bridge is toast from the PP. I feel that this is not a camera I would be confortable shooting with since I shoot manual and I have to PP a lot to get the exact look I want.

But if you're in the market for a top Fuji, you don't have much choice.

How on earth can you judge DR from a shot with a default tone curve?

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 13:14 UTC

Maybe, but on all camera review sites there is often a big disconnect between what people actually need, and the specifications of a camera that is reviewed. It's very easy to get camera envy for 42 megapixel cameras, but unless you print images at a decent size, it's a lot of money for no gain.

If people can relate their needs accurately to a camera's specifications, then it makes sense to choose according to those needs, but the biggest reason for wanting some feature seems to amount to the fact that some other camera has it, not that it's particularly useful or necessary given the intended usage.

It also gives rise to a permanent level of dissatisfaction, because some other camera is always better in some respect. On the other hand, it may not be fun to use, which - if you take pictures as a hobby - is far more important.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2016 at 02:51 UTC as 76th comment
On article Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo (367 comments in total)

I met Toshihisa Iida, along with Dave Hobby and Zack Arias at a Fuji event in London a few years ago. The auditorium was full, and this was before the XT1 was even announced. Afterwards, some of us piled into a nearby pub basement for a chat with the speakers.

Toshihisa was enthusiastic, candid, funny, and extremely fluent in English. No doubting the commitment to the brand and its future, or their determination to follow a different path.

They were surprised by the reception to the X100, but it highlighted a core market that everyone was ignoring in the race to have the broadest appeal.

For those that love Fuji cameras, there is no competition. For those that don't, there are many alternatives. Fuji had no intention of ignoring their core customer base, even as they worked on diversifying the range and expanding their appeal. With the XT, XE, XA and Xpro, and a well planned lens range, they have done so. Now it is just a matter of refinement.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 16:16 UTC as 39th comment
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (560 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: Here is an interesting thought.

If they had invented mirrorless cameras first, would anyone be bothering to patent a camera with a mechanical mirror, a bunch of prisms, a secondary mirror, and a separate AF sensor...?

While it's true that mirrorless can't quite match SOME of the best DSLRs for sports shooting, yet, DSLRs are more or less at a standstill in terms of development. They are already extremely refined to the point of being about as good as they can possibly be for their respective price bracket.

Mirrorless is barely out of nappies as a digital format. It has a lot of development potential and is moving as fast as EVF and sensor AF technology can forge ahead. Be interesting to be here in another 5 years and see what this guide says then... ;-)

I guess you should try them for yourself. I have owned several DSLRs and only two MILCs. The latter are far more accurate and consistent, whatever the scene. Neither are current generation either. That matters to me.

Some DSLRs, and only the top ones, have an edge over the best MILCs when it comes to tracking at changing distances, but when was the last time you tried a consumer SLR? They suck.

As far as tracking lateral movement, MILCs are already just about there, and far better in most respects than most consumer DSLRs. That only took around 5 years.

In a few years, the top end of the range will catch up to Canon 1Ds and Nikon D4s. As for the stop motion issue, refresh rates are getting better too, and at least you don't have the mirror blackout.

Burst speed is already higher, moreso in some cases.

Besides, I don't shoot fast sports for a living, so I don't really care. I worry far more about accuracy. I can get enough keepers for most motion-based shooting to get by.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 13:34 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (560 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: Here is an interesting thought.

If they had invented mirrorless cameras first, would anyone be bothering to patent a camera with a mechanical mirror, a bunch of prisms, a secondary mirror, and a separate AF sensor...?

While it's true that mirrorless can't quite match SOME of the best DSLRs for sports shooting, yet, DSLRs are more or less at a standstill in terms of development. They are already extremely refined to the point of being about as good as they can possibly be for their respective price bracket.

Mirrorless is barely out of nappies as a digital format. It has a lot of development potential and is moving as fast as EVF and sensor AF technology can forge ahead. Be interesting to be here in another 5 years and see what this guide says then... ;-)

Interesting. Matrix meters only maintain focus lock on the subject, something they have been doing for quite a while so its hardly an innovation. However, MILCs have a lot more AF sensors across more of the frame and do this rather better on the whole.

As for low light sensitivity and predictive AF, they have already matched a D7000 for speed. On the other hand, the D7000 had more complaints about AF accuracy that any other I can remember. Until the D800 possibly. Or the Canon 5Dmk2. Or...

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 08:59 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (560 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: Here is an interesting thought.

If they had invented mirrorless cameras first, would anyone be bothering to patent a camera with a mechanical mirror, a bunch of prisms, a secondary mirror, and a separate AF sensor...?

While it's true that mirrorless can't quite match SOME of the best DSLRs for sports shooting, yet, DSLRs are more or less at a standstill in terms of development. They are already extremely refined to the point of being about as good as they can possibly be for their respective price bracket.

Mirrorless is barely out of nappies as a digital format. It has a lot of development potential and is moving as fast as EVF and sensor AF technology can forge ahead. Be interesting to be here in another 5 years and see what this guide says then... ;-)

And they all assume their cheap plastic Rebel will focus like a 1Ds.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 00:43 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (560 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: Here is an interesting thought.

If they had invented mirrorless cameras first, would anyone be bothering to patent a camera with a mechanical mirror, a bunch of prisms, a secondary mirror, and a separate AF sensor...?

While it's true that mirrorless can't quite match SOME of the best DSLRs for sports shooting, yet, DSLRs are more or less at a standstill in terms of development. They are already extremely refined to the point of being about as good as they can possibly be for their respective price bracket.

Mirrorless is barely out of nappies as a digital format. It has a lot of development potential and is moving as fast as EVF and sensor AF technology can forge ahead. Be interesting to be here in another 5 years and see what this guide says then... ;-)

The cameras you see on the touchlines of NFL games also have better AF than 95% of other DSLRs. Mirrorless has already caught up with most of them.

Nor do those cameras on the touchlines have better AF than they did 8 years ago. In another five years, they will still have the same AF and mirrorless will probably have overtaken them.

What will your reasoning be then?

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2015 at 11:03 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (560 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: Here is an interesting thought.

If they had invented mirrorless cameras first, would anyone be bothering to patent a camera with a mechanical mirror, a bunch of prisms, a secondary mirror, and a separate AF sensor...?

While it's true that mirrorless can't quite match SOME of the best DSLRs for sports shooting, yet, DSLRs are more or less at a standstill in terms of development. They are already extremely refined to the point of being about as good as they can possibly be for their respective price bracket.

Mirrorless is barely out of nappies as a digital format. It has a lot of development potential and is moving as fast as EVF and sensor AF technology can forge ahead. Be interesting to be here in another 5 years and see what this guide says then... ;-)

The D7200 is based on an AF system first seen in the D3 and D300 in 2008 and not fundamentally changed since.

So where is the 'new' technology? It still has all the issues inherent in an indirect focus system and is just a refinement of previous technology going back far longer than that.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 22:35 UTC
Total: 482, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »