ecka84

ecka84

Lives in Lithuania Lithuania
Joined on Sep 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 205, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Ohh ... just use S5 Pro sensor and be done with it :)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 06:16 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

haplens: Sony seems to be insisting on using full frame lenses with APS-C mirrorless bodies as well. To hell with that!, we wanna use a APS-C due to its compactness, if they insist users to use FE mount lenses which are bulky, more expensive and heavy weight (compared to APSC lenses), and not producing APSC lenses, the whole point of APSC is gone! Im not a sony hater and I own an a6000, but this really is sick! Sony why don't you get some lenses for APSC only??

Lose, Lose.
40% is the crop sensor area compared to FF.
Today's kit lenses are very good, so there is almost no need to upgrade. The "Sweet Spot", in this day and age, is very overrated. It only works for ancient lenses with unusably horrible borders and corners. If you compare the results of the same modern FF lens on both formats, you'll see that on FF you get sharper image with better contrast and less aberrations even in the center. In fact, the crop image center may look as bad as FF image corners. You cannot just take the middle part of the image and enlarge it without losing/sacrificing anything. I mean, you want to "feed" all 20mp of your crop camera by only using 40% of the light from FF projection, and get a better image. That's impossible.
Same goes for F-numbers. F2, F4, doesn't matter, on crop you are only getting 40% of it, compared to FF. High ISO is not the only difference or any difference at all. It is rather a consequence of the different amounts of light being used.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

haplens: Sony seems to be insisting on using full frame lenses with APS-C mirrorless bodies as well. To hell with that!, we wanna use a APS-C due to its compactness, if they insist users to use FE mount lenses which are bulky, more expensive and heavy weight (compared to APSC lenses), and not producing APSC lenses, the whole point of APSC is gone! Im not a sony hater and I own an a6000, but this really is sick! Sony why don't you get some lenses for APSC only??

@webrunner5
But, with your L lenses (or any other expensive FF optics) on a crop body, you are not getting the whole goodness you paid for - the oomph, the quality, the whole picture. You are only getting 40% of the cake, while the rest of it just rots till you get the FF ... maybe ... or maybe you don't, if you feel like it is enough, which means that all your precious FF lenses are overkill and you've spent thousands on tools you can't fully utilize. This is sad. Lose-Lose.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 04:36 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (209 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rishi Sanyal: Sorry, gallery and link should be working now.

The RAW links are still messed up.
3 copies of DSC000221(81.8MB) and 5 copies of DSC005431(41.3MB)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 01:21 UTC
In reply to:

haplens: Sony seems to be insisting on using full frame lenses with APS-C mirrorless bodies as well. To hell with that!, we wanna use a APS-C due to its compactness, if they insist users to use FE mount lenses which are bulky, more expensive and heavy weight (compared to APSC lenses), and not producing APSC lenses, the whole point of APSC is gone! Im not a sony hater and I own an a6000, but this really is sick! Sony why don't you get some lenses for APSC only??

@Dave Oddie
You are doing it wrong!
FF 600/5.6 ~ 400/3.7 crop. NOT 400/5.6!
crop 16-50/2.8 ~ 24-75/4.2. NOT 24-70/2.8!
end of story.

$900 Sony Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 is equivalent to a cheap FF 24-120/5.3-6.8, if such lens existed. Try 24-105/3.5-5.6 STM or 28-135/3.5-5.6 USM, you'll be surprised. They are a bit bigger, faster and much cheaper. Maybe even Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3 beats it.

"Well being F4 that means your shutter will be a stop slower or your ISO a stop higher."
- Yes, you have to adjust the ISO, obviously. ISO numbers are not universal, they are just made up by the manufacturers to make the old and obsolete film standards work.

"Yes FF sensors have less noise but this is now only an issue at high ISO. You can't tell low ISO shots apart these days from virtually any modern d-slr/milc, even from 4/3"
- Now that's a complete and utter nonsense.
There is noise in every image, even the cleanest ones.
Bigger sensor = more light = more information = better quality. That's a fact!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

haplens: Sony seems to be insisting on using full frame lenses with APS-C mirrorless bodies as well. To hell with that!, we wanna use a APS-C due to its compactness, if they insist users to use FE mount lenses which are bulky, more expensive and heavy weight (compared to APSC lenses), and not producing APSC lenses, the whole point of APSC is gone! Im not a sony hater and I own an a6000, but this really is sick! Sony why don't you get some lenses for APSC only??

Sony is insisting on forgetting about the APSC completely. The a6300 is for those who don't agree with that just yet. There's absolutely no size, weight or price advantages with crop optics. It's all BS you've been fooled to believe. Just don't buy heavy if you don't want heavy. F4 on FF is still better than F2.8 on crop. They don't make F1.8 zooms for crop, because those would be just as big/heavy/expensive as the equivalent F2.8 for FF.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

Frank C.: I dunno, I think the new Nikon is gonna smack this camera... is Canon still using their own sensors with the inferior DR? Aren't Canon owners fed up by now?

Yes, Nikon has its own 'gems', like 300/4E, and that's what makes them different.
24-70VR - very soft, 33% more expensive than Canon - better get the twice cheaper Tamron 24-70VC.
70-200/2.8 - not really a 200, not as good as Canon while still $100 more expensive.
85mm F1.2 is not about sharpness and it is beautiful in its own way - bokeh. You don't use F1.4 for sharpness, do you? You need to stop it down quite a bit, to get the most sharpness. Then why not just use 85/1.8...
80-400mm - same story, not as good, $200 more expensive.
14-24/2.8 - nice, but there is Tamron 15-30/2.8VC for $700 less.
40STM - in the context of all that bragging about "small" mirrorless systems, here it is - smaller, cheaper, lighter, better, FF - don't care? ... silly :)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 01:51 UTC
In reply to:

Frank C.: I dunno, I think the new Nikon is gonna smack this camera... is Canon still using their own sensors with the inferior DR? Aren't Canon owners fed up by now?

@BarnET
How about 24-70/2.8L'II?
How about 70-200/2.8L'II?
How about 11-24L?
All these workhorses are unmatched by Nikon and Sigma.
There are more - 85L'II, MP-E65, 8-15L, 100-400L'II, 40STM, TS-E17, ...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 15:40 UTC
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (594 comments in total)
In reply to:

aramgrg: Isn't X factor Fuji's?

Maybe

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

M H S: Pretty photos and nice form factor.

Does anyone think fuji will ever create a full frame cousin.

darngooddesign, medium format is the grandpa :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

Dimit: Too bulky for crop rangefinder type
Too complicated re xtrans persistence
Too expensive
Won't sell as xpro1 didn't.

@hifimacianer
Otus? Really?
You've said that you don't care about any of this. Why are you still fighting? Just accept the truth :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

Dimit: Too bulky for crop rangefinder type
Too complicated re xtrans persistence
Too expensive
Won't sell as xpro1 didn't.

@hifimacianer
It's not about dof, it's about the amount of light.
It's not XF 15-45/2.6, so the size comparison is worthless. Specially, if you don't even care.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 08:00 UTC
In reply to:

M H S: Pretty photos and nice form factor.

Does anyone think fuji will ever create a full frame cousin.

Cousin? You mean daddy? :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 05:19 UTC
In reply to:

Dimit: Too bulky for crop rangefinder type
Too complicated re xtrans persistence
Too expensive
Won't sell as xpro1 didn't.

Guys, please, stop torturing yourselves and misleading others with delusions, that a mirrorless crop camera can be Magically small, or even much smaller (or cheaper) than FF camera with equivalent optics. That's a myth. Just buy it for different reasons, if you like it.
However, it should be cheaper for what it is, IMHO. I mean, A7II at the same price beats it, easily.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

scottcraig: The camera is simply a tool. It's the person behind it that brings the pictures to life regardless of the brand. Whether it's Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Samsung or any other in the end it's how comfortable the person is while using the camera that will allow him/her to capture those great images. Frankly all these additional features and claims by manufacturers about which camera is better is in my opinion, a marketing ploy thought up by a bunch of executives sitting in a pub on how to extract every last dollar from consumers.

@Neodp
Sure. I'm not criticizing the article, the article is great ;). This kind of information makes people think before doing.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 21:16 UTC
In reply to:

scottcraig: The camera is simply a tool. It's the person behind it that brings the pictures to life regardless of the brand. Whether it's Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Samsung or any other in the end it's how comfortable the person is while using the camera that will allow him/her to capture those great images. Frankly all these additional features and claims by manufacturers about which camera is better is in my opinion, a marketing ploy thought up by a bunch of executives sitting in a pub on how to extract every last dollar from consumers.

The problem is that sometimes the "photographer" can be a tool as well :).
People don't just pick a camera, they are looking for something to worship and then to blame for the mistakes they've made (including using wrong tools in a wrong way) and then to replace it with a "better" camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 18:00 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

ybizzle: Who in their right mind would pay such ridiculous price when you can just buy the original for much less? Better yet, just get the much superior Canon LTM 1.4 which blows this thing away at half the cost. Must be an early April fools joke. ;)

In Russia .. you are photography'ing, because for shooting you need kalashnikov :) and only the bad guys are allowed to have those.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 04:31 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

melgross: I'm sorry, but I remember reviews of Soviet lenses, including these, way back. They weren't considered to be all that good then, and when compared to the vastly better lenses of today, they're practically junk.

But some people have fond memories of the bad old days, and seem to like lenses that are soft, have serious falloff, and aberrations. I suppose for some portrait work, where this gives a somewhat dreamy look, it's fine.

But what looked good on film, often doesn't look good on digital, where those aberrations don't give a soft look, but a hard aberrant look. Use old AnscoChrome, and a soft crummy lens was great, I used to use the combo myself for female portraits. But for much else it was a bomb. Today, it's a disaster. These "new" lenses are going to be very limited in what they can be used for.

Hopefully, the designs, and particularly, the optical and mechanical quality, is improved significantly. But if it is, then it won't be the same lens anyway.

Unfortunately, some people want those bad old days back.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 03:22 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

photominion: You can get like 20 specimen of the original lens for that price.. Who's bonkers enough to pay for that stuff?

What's next? A Pentacon bokeh monster revival for 1,5 grand?
Or maybe they'll offer a pinhole bodycap for 100 dollars?

And you just gave them the idea for free :D

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 03:14 UTC
On article Top 5: Hands-on with Nikon D500 (785 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: Looking at the 4K crop, I'm now having difficulty visualizing how such a crop would generally be practical with any DX-style zoom lens.

Exactly my point.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 12:11 UTC
Total: 205, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »