abortabort

abortabort

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 756, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony a6000 Review preview (717 comments in total)
In reply to:

midimid: Wait - 'there's no real portrait prime' on E-mount? Isn't there a 50mm 1.8 from the original lineup? And a 55mm 1.8 on FE?

@ Carnex - Actually the reviewer did thanks.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 12:50 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (717 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I can't believe that this is rated 3% lower than a Canon 70D, etc., but you'll notice the only non-subjective con is about flash exposure. "Lens range not as developed as rival systems" -- you mean like the EOS-M system? I suppose only about 25 of my 130+ lenses would quickly autofocus on an A6000.... ;-)

This is a disturbingly good camera at a very good price. Take a look at the IQ side-by-side against the full-frame A7. I'd buy one immediately except I have a NEX-7, an A7, and a wife who'd be unhappy if I bought another camera right now.

@ iudex - Really? I don't see any of the other systems having constant aperture f4 zooms like the 24-105mm equiv and 28-158mm equiv do you? These are also popular FL lenses... Guess EVERYONE is behind Sony then?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 12:47 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (717 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: I wonder how a smallish EVF with 462 x 346 effective RGB pixels can be "respectable" for a camera that offers 24 MP, let alone so many years after the first mirrorless camera has appeared on the market. Even the best EVF available today still lacks the clear image of a good optical SLR finder that allows precise manual focus without the nuisance of having to switch into a zoom-in mode. But an EVF like the current Olympus finder and probably the Fuji X-T1 finder, too, is at least a step in the right direction. New electronic finders should improve on that, not deteriorate.

Yes, pity that there are no good optical viewfinders at a $650 price point, so your points are hardly valid. Sure a 1DX OVF is leagues ahead (well at least in terms of clarity, shooting information is a different story) but you won't see an OVF like that on a $650 camera... well ever.

Also as has been noted your math is wrong, it is an 800x600 panel.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 12:43 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (717 comments in total)
In reply to:

midimid: Wait - 'there's no real portrait prime' on E-mount? Isn't there a 50mm 1.8 from the original lineup? And a 55mm 1.8 on FE?

Oh I see, Fuji are more 'serious' because their 'portrait' lens is a whole 1mm longer than Sony's... Ok got it!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 12:34 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2979 comments in total)
In reply to:

armandino: I was in the market for a used RX100 MKI as $400-500 is what I would really pay for a compact with a 1" sensor. At some point I started think that my pricing idea was for some reasons off if Sony asks so much for a little compact and people are willing to pay for it...
then last Friday I grabbed the last NEX 3 in a Costco nearby for $300 new with a 16-50mm on it. Less than half of an RX100 MKII!!!
Sorry guys but this little gem needs to come down in price quite a bit before I will start considering it

I recently sold a mint condition RX100 MkI for $300, best I could get for it and this was before rumours of MkIII started surfacing. I could have bought a MkII for $450 brand new a couple months ago with free genuine case.

NEX-3n has less controls, lower screen quality, lower quality lens, has better sensor but needs to to keep up with faster lens of RX. MkII has hotshoe and can take an EVF, 3n cannot. RX has faster focussing and better video, higher burst rate, leaf shutter, bigger buffer, smaller, better more advanced menus, better made and has better resale (usually).

While I am sure you are happy with your 3n (and it was cheap), it doesn't automatically beat the RX100 series (any of them really). Also I think you may have wasted $200 on that 16mm, they really are not good at all and not better than 16-50mm.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 12:48 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2979 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Well, the IQ for the studio test scene at lower ISOs is virtually identical to the APS-C Sony A3000, but by ISO 800 there's a clear difference favoring the A3000. Still, not bad. I'd rather go with an A6000, which is about the same price as the RX100M III....

The Canon G1 X Mark II does worse than the RX100M III on low ISO (less sharp, but with halos from oversharpening). It's about the same on higher ISOs as the RX100 III, but looks cleaner because it is a lot less "painterly" (less raw color noise, weaker JPEG smoothing).

And at ISO 800 on the RX you'll be reaching for ISO 3200 on the a6000/a3000 etc with kit lens.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 12:27 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2979 comments in total)
In reply to:

iudex: As far as I remember dpreview wrote in the G1x II review that they expected more as regards the picture quality, given the sensor size and that it is larger than RX100s sensor. But comparing this RX100 Mk II with the G1x Mk II there is visible difference in picture quality and G1x is noticeably better. So in my opinion the sensor size still counts a lot. On the other hand for all those critisizing Mk III have a look at Nikon 1 with the same sensor: the RX100 is visibly better.

Is that at 1:1 or down sampled to 12MP?

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 12:07 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: I don't believe it is theft. He is not 'stealing' an image, he is using an image that is FREELY available to him and then manipulating it for his own personal use. What the photographer is selling in these cases is prints.

It is like having 'samples' at the grocery store and if someone 'tries' one and then doesn't buy the product, are they stealing? What if instead of tasting the meat sample, they take it home and put it in a sandwich that they enjoy and sates them, are they stealing because they don't feel the need to buy more of the product beyond the 'free sample', even though they have modified it to get further enjoy it.

What if they took the sample and cropped it rather then removed the watermark - is that less outrageous?

Next question, someone BUYS a high resolution copy of the image and then crops it themselves before putting on facebook, is that theft? If not, than doing the same thing to a 'free sample' is also not stealing.

@ inevitable - I would could that enterprising, not theft.

Yes the 'free sample' is intended for that purpose, but it is still a free sample. I mean putting it on Facebook is no different than giving family and friends a link to the source page as long as I am not trying to sell it myself.

At any rate I think that these types of photographers are the real crooks, which I am sure will go over well in this community ;)

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 04:36 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: I don't believe it is theft. He is not 'stealing' an image, he is using an image that is FREELY available to him and then manipulating it for his own personal use. What the photographer is selling in these cases is prints.

It is like having 'samples' at the grocery store and if someone 'tries' one and then doesn't buy the product, are they stealing? What if instead of tasting the meat sample, they take it home and put it in a sandwich that they enjoy and sates them, are they stealing because they don't feel the need to buy more of the product beyond the 'free sample', even though they have modified it to get further enjoy it.

What if they took the sample and cropped it rather then removed the watermark - is that less outrageous?

Next question, someone BUYS a high resolution copy of the image and then crops it themselves before putting on facebook, is that theft? If not, than doing the same thing to a 'free sample' is also not stealing.

Yeah but in this case it is a picture of you, being sold to yourself by someone else. They aren't selling royalties to the image, they are selling you prints of the image. So how about this scenario, someone buys a print of the image (you usually CANNOT buy a high resolution version to print yourself, you are at the mercy of the photographer and their huge markups for prints) and then they scan it so they can upload the image to facebook... Is that theft? As I say, in these cases you cannot buy the image, only prints of the image.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 04:32 UTC

I don't believe it is theft. He is not 'stealing' an image, he is using an image that is FREELY available to him and then manipulating it for his own personal use. What the photographer is selling in these cases is prints.

It is like having 'samples' at the grocery store and if someone 'tries' one and then doesn't buy the product, are they stealing? What if instead of tasting the meat sample, they take it home and put it in a sandwich that they enjoy and sates them, are they stealing because they don't feel the need to buy more of the product beyond the 'free sample', even though they have modified it to get further enjoy it.

What if they took the sample and cropped it rather then removed the watermark - is that less outrageous?

Next question, someone BUYS a high resolution copy of the image and then crops it themselves before putting on facebook, is that theft? If not, than doing the same thing to a 'free sample' is also not stealing.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 07:50 UTC as 69th comment | 8 replies
On Sony announces pricing and availability for Alpha 7S article (131 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: Not sure whats the big deal with being a low light king. every pro photo and video shoot I'm on has controlled lighting..Sony is awesome for pushing the envelope in cameras but need to higher someone from Panasonic to work on there codec...

Hahaha, yes Sony really need a lot of advice from Panasonic about video codecs ;) But they do need to take a leaf out of their book in actually implementing better ones in cheaper cams, though XAVC-S is a good start.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2014 at 07:18 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 and E-M1 get firmware updates article (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Perfect Timing! Bought my E-M1 from Park Cameras in Burgess Hill just yesterday; today, I charged the battery and started playing, wondering about the 1.0 firmware in the system - and then here comes this! Serendipity, you are my love!

Brian

And Ricoh still beats Fuji because their cameras actually work from factory but they bring improvements long after they are discontinued.

Sony added peaking and a substantial UI overhaul to the original NEX series. Added PDAF support for ALL lenses in the last NEX update including every model that had PDAF on sensor, including well discontinued models.

Canon 7D added significant features including buffer and audio 3 years after release.

Pentax improved buffer on the K-5. Pentax updated the original Q to get focus peaking and made a significant difference in focus speed and not the Fuji 'unusable to barely usable' type of update, the 'decent to blazing fast' type.

A850/A900/A700 all got significant updates.

Fuji release more FW updates because they need more fixes. Yet people lap it up. Wow they added peaking later!! Oh wait, Sony did that 4 years ago. Olympus and Pentax have done the same before Fuji.

It is newbies who think that what Fuji do is a) rare and b) a good thing.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 02:23 UTC
On Samsung NX30 Review preview (411 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raw Jaw: "Flip-out LCD helpful for video and tripod work"

Sorry, but this 'Pro' comment indicates to me the reviewer has no knowledge of what a fully articulating LCD can be used for.

The real value of the NX30's fully articulating LCD is for handheld vertical stills from floor level to overhead, (eg. Toddlers to Stage Performers).

This is critical for Event Photography and is something a DPReviewer should know about or learn about before picking up a camera to review it.

Raw Jaw - You are an idiot. Go write your own 'expert' reviews champ.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2014 at 03:39 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: This is almost enough to make me move over from Apple. Such a great concept.

Shame the mini display port isn't Thunderbolt so you could run various adaptors, other than just a screen.

This 'concept' has been around for quite a few years now... Actually long before the iPad.

I wish Apple would make an iPad Pro with OS X and Wacom, but they don't. The Surface Pro series is the closest I can get... Works well for me.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 07:15 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: I guess Microsoft thinks that if they tell us we don't need iPads and MacBooks anymore then we won't buy them...

Sure ok

Actually I bought a SP over both a MBA and iPad, regardless of being a Mac devotee.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 07:13 UTC
In reply to:

drh681: Finally.
this is where they should have started.
does anybody like the fact that it will run full up photoshop?
or that it comes with a pen(stylus)?

Where they should have started? Oh you mean that you just didn't 'get' that the Surface Pro 1 and 2 could run full PS and LR etc until they demonstrated it for you....

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 07:12 UTC
In reply to:

WhiteSwan: I still wouldn't trade my MacBook Pro with it's 16 gig of RAM for this.

Nor would I, but it compliments my Quad core i7 16GB dual HDD MBP quite nicely, way better than the 3 iPads I have owned ever could.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 07:11 UTC
In reply to:

Mikity: Not bad, but...
I still think they missed their market. People who want a proper laptop will continue to buy one. Folks who prefer a tablet will grab an iPad or something like it, since it's quite a bit lighter and smaller.

Well I have a workstation and a laptop and still want more out of a tablet than what iOS and Android will offer. This is why I use Windows tablet even though I am a Mac user through and through.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 07:10 UTC
In reply to:

notnaff: Great device for on the road/long term travel photo editing. Stylus support & USB 3 for backups.

Yes. Pity people are only just now realising this. People who have been kludging with iPads going 'oh wow I can sort of, with a lot of dicking about, manipulate some photos on the go, wow isn't this great!'.

In fact I believe this is the first time DPR have even mentioned the Surface Pros... Too bad it has taken until the third gen for them to 'get it'.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

DVT80111: Full version of Photoshop on a tablet, finally.

Well there were intel based tablets before the first surface that could run Photoshop, no 'special' version required. Hell the was even the Axiom Mac tablets that could run PS etc...

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 07:00 UTC
Total: 756, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »