abortabort

abortabort

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 885, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (360 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cheng Bao: Very smart move.

Imagine a lady who has dozens of dresses or suits, she need dozens of difference color of her camera to match her dress, then the sales of pentax Q will be tenfold.

So I take it you just have the one black dress then?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 00:56 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (360 comments in total)
In reply to:

SW Anderson: Note to Dpreview editor. The first use of "Affect" in the press release is a typo or wrong word choice. Farther on, it's correctly written as "Effect."

Secondly, the "Discuss in forums" link goes to Dpreview's Pentax DSLRs forum, not the Pentax Compact Camera forum where Q's are discussed.

Maybe these errors are just Monday things. ;)

Wouldn't you place (sic) after it then?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 00:55 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (360 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Where is the point for a 1/1.7" sensor, when there is offer with 1"™ sensors (that are largely under 1 inch), and APS-C sensors.

Uhm, in what dimension do you expect a 1" type sensor to be 1"?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 00:53 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (360 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: With a sensor this tiny, why on earth wouldn't every zoom be at least a constant f/2.8? What a worthless toy.

Well the two zooms available for it are f2.8-4 and constant f2.8... like that one stop converts this from 'serious tool' to 'useless toy'.

I had the original and consider it a 'useful toy', now waiting for deals on the Q7.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 00:52 UTC
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (360 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: The original Q was nicer, it had a metal body.

This one is nicer as it has a bigger sensor (more importantly wider angle of view) and a lot cheaper than the original was (on launch). Also has a second dial by the looks of it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

SirSeth: Why the cost? Just curious. It seems like a good lens but I thought Ricoh was trying to bring affordable medium format to morals.

Well the 25mm is about the same price and this adds a more flexible range and IS. Also the WA's are pretty expensive for MF, but the rest of the range is relatively low cost.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 00:12 UTC

Daft question... Is there actually a photo of the camera + lens combo?

Also, does the NX mini (or lenses) have any kind of physical shutter?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 12:05 UTC as 25th comment
On Sony brings Cyber-shot DSC-WX220 and W810 to the US article (27 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joriarty: 20MP, 1/2.3" CCD ("for beautifully detailed images", according to Sony!) with a f/3.5 to f/6.5 lens and 0.52 fps continuous shooting (DPReview generously rounded that one up). Oh dear. If that's the same sensor as the HX200, it's horrendous.

A second hand Canon S90 can be had for less than the W810. No contest there.

Bonus trivia: Amazon's pre-order page says: "Due to high demand we anticipate being unable to fulfill all customer orders with our first allocation."

Ha.

Uhm, prepare to cough up that nut! It's a CCD sensor, not found in Xperia smartphones...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 11:58 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Why they are still making long-flange (mirrored) version of their camera instead of going full mirrorless?

Sorry Rishi, are you saying you can't compare focus tracking until you get a 24mm ~f1 lens to compare to a 35mm f1.4 on the 1DX? Because I don't think that is really going to happen very soon.

Maybe a more appropriate 'test' would be to test the same two actual FL lenses, preferably from the same manufacturer (say Sigma 35mm f1.4), at the same distance. While framing won't be the same most else will be.

Otherwise, using something like the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 should be 'fairly' close to a 24mm f1.4 on the same camera (if a f1.4 is what you are waiting for?). The difference in DoF between a 24mm f1.4 and f1.8 is rather minor to be honest. Besides when viewing at 1:1 (to pixel peep the tracking effectiveness) you are essentially reducing the circle of confusion to the point of being rather tiny, which is a punishing test for any camera, even at f1.8.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: I don't get it. The SX400 is 'only' 30x with a tiny sensor. When you can get a much smaller 'pocketable' camera with more or less the same small sensor and zoom range, why would people buy this? I mean for the market that buys a super zoom like this, holiday snappers, would they really want a big chunker like this? Lens isn't faster, nor longer... Seems 'cheap' is the only thing potentially going for it, but then it is so cut price in so many other areas as well.

True on both counts, but I suspect that the majority of this target market probably prefer the smaller size no?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 10:04 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: I don't get it. The SX400 is 'only' 30x with a tiny sensor. When you can get a much smaller 'pocketable' camera with more or less the same small sensor and zoom range, why would people buy this? I mean for the market that buys a super zoom like this, holiday snappers, would they really want a big chunker like this? Lens isn't faster, nor longer... Seems 'cheap' is the only thing potentially going for it, but then it is so cut price in so many other areas as well.

True on both counts, but I suspect that the majority of this target market probably prefer the smaller size no?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 10:04 UTC

I don't get it. The SX400 is 'only' 30x with a tiny sensor. When you can get a much smaller 'pocketable' camera with more or less the same small sensor and zoom range, why would people buy this? I mean for the market that buys a super zoom like this, holiday snappers, would they really want a big chunker like this? Lens isn't faster, nor longer... Seems 'cheap' is the only thing potentially going for it, but then it is so cut price in so many other areas as well.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 07:59 UTC as 52nd comment | 3 replies
On Fujifilm updates X-mount lens roadmap to end of 2015 article (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

BPD7: This is one reason I chose Fuji over Sony and am leaving Canon

Because they have equivalent lenses coming in the future that Sony already have?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 11:11 UTC
On Fujifilm updates X-mount lens roadmap to end of 2015 article (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

BPD7: This is one reason I chose Fuji over Sony and am leaving Canon

Because they have equivalent lenses coming in the future that Sony already have?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 11:11 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: What are the rumored dimensions of this 22MP sensor? If it were flat how many millimeters would it measure on a side?

16GB of internal storage seems small, if the camera shoots raw and is 22MP, unless that's separate dedicated storage.

2/3" according to other rumours. Though this is at odds with the lens' supposed spec, which given it's FL and 'equiv' FL seems more towards a 1" sensor size, possibly slightly bigger.

Also there will be tele conversion lenses (which can now be seen in photos apparently).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 17:03 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: Another piece of junk.

Who wants to buy a tiny sensor super noisy blurry zoom toy camera nowadays?

All super zoom cameras should move on to 1" sensor like RX10 etc.

Yes and it will really have 1250mm equiv lens for $250...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 09:24 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

abortabort: So where were the 'equivalence' charts when reviewing the A7/R cameras? putting down the lens range compared to m43's... which if converted to m43's 'equivalence' would make a supposedly very poor lineup look like the most amazing lineup ever assembled in the mirrorless space... But since that didn't happen, here is the lineup again in m43's equivalent:

17.5mm f1.4
27.5mm f0.9
12-35mm f2
14-35mm f1.7-2.8
35-100mm f2

Yes, DSLRs have fuller systems and look even better in pure numbers, but the point of this is comparing a supposedly very average mirrorless system with another supposedly very full and rich system... According to your review.

Yes, when it comes to criticisms compared to FF DSLRs they are probably more apt, especially when comparing to the lens ranges and likely AF (especially tracking). But DPRs review focussed mostly on comparing to m43's and Fuji X - Not once did equivalence come up when talking lens lineups.

What is to say that the market for FF mirrorless is really any different to m43's? These are clearly not aimed to match DSLRs. In terms of size, body wise they are about the same as other high end mirrorless and lens wise they are are similar or smaller than their equivalent counterparts (not that any really exist).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 16:48 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

abortabort: So where were the 'equivalence' charts when reviewing the A7/R cameras? putting down the lens range compared to m43's... which if converted to m43's 'equivalence' would make a supposedly very poor lineup look like the most amazing lineup ever assembled in the mirrorless space... But since that didn't happen, here is the lineup again in m43's equivalent:

17.5mm f1.4
27.5mm f0.9
12-35mm f2
14-35mm f1.7-2.8
35-100mm f2

Yes, DSLRs have fuller systems and look even better in pure numbers, but the point of this is comparing a supposedly very average mirrorless system with another supposedly very full and rich system... According to your review.

I don't mind which way they do it, it's irrelevant when talking in terms of equivalence... that is after all the whole point ;)

My point is if they are going to compare to other mirrorless systems rather specifically (it is after all more in that camp than anything else) then equivalence should have played a part, especially when talking about available lens lineups (or announced lineups). They do it for fixed lens cameras that are otherwise competing in the same market space, why not interchangeable lens cameras? Again especially when 'knocking' the lens lineup speaking directly of the mirrorless competition.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 16:07 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

abortabort: So where were the 'equivalence' charts when reviewing the A7/R cameras? putting down the lens range compared to m43's... which if converted to m43's 'equivalence' would make a supposedly very poor lineup look like the most amazing lineup ever assembled in the mirrorless space... But since that didn't happen, here is the lineup again in m43's equivalent:

17.5mm f1.4
27.5mm f0.9
12-35mm f2
14-35mm f1.7-2.8
35-100mm f2

Yes, DSLRs have fuller systems and look even better in pure numbers, but the point of this is comparing a supposedly very average mirrorless system with another supposedly very full and rich system... According to your review.

Also, apologies to all for the crazy amounts of reposts, this seems to be a bug that hitting 'post' on my phone doesn't return to the comments section.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 15:55 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

abortabort: So where were the 'equivalence' charts when reviewing the A7/R cameras? putting down the lens range compared to m43's... which if converted to m43's 'equivalence' would make a supposedly very poor lineup look like the most amazing lineup ever assembled in the mirrorless space... But since that didn't happen, here is the lineup again in m43's equivalent:

17.5mm f1.4
27.5mm f0.9
12-35mm f2
14-35mm f1.7-2.8
35-100mm f2

Yes, DSLRs have fuller systems and look even better in pure numbers, but the point of this is comparing a supposedly very average mirrorless system with another supposedly very full and rich system... According to your review.

Sorry, but a) this is not how the review was stated (nor tested) and b) the camera was directly compared against other mirrorless systems, including m43's. When taken on equivalence the small number of lenses is already incredibly healthy and not one of those is available in m43's native AF lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 15:52 UTC
Total: 885, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »