ecka84

ecka84

Lives in Lithuania Lithuania
Joined on Sep 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 216, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg7579: I admit I am a huge fan of Fuji (love the XT-1), and its special "feel" - ergo, retro, all of those beautiful dials and great IQ. I do like the X-Trans sensor. I am a Canon FF shooter and have been for many decades, but love the smaller system Fuji (and other mirrorless makers) provides. The Fuji lenses are the best in the world, I do believe. Now, having said that as full disclosure, I am always amazed that on any new camera announcement or early galleries or discussion of any brand, that people come out in droves rudely bashing whatever camera is in discussion in emotional ways that are not interesting or constructive. Many of them are paid writers supporting competing brands and their mission is to make the competition sound less appealing. Others of them are younger people who love internet and forum battles and are fiercely loyal to whatever brand they invested money in initially, and feel the need to bash anything else because it validates their own opinion and purchases.

What if Megan doesn't suffer from any kind of tactile fetish addictions? Do you?
I'm sorry Greg, but you sound like a pimp :)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 23:52 UTC
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg7579: I admit I am a huge fan of Fuji (love the XT-1), and its special "feel" - ergo, retro, all of those beautiful dials and great IQ. I do like the X-Trans sensor. I am a Canon FF shooter and have been for many decades, but love the smaller system Fuji (and other mirrorless makers) provides. The Fuji lenses are the best in the world, I do believe. Now, having said that as full disclosure, I am always amazed that on any new camera announcement or early galleries or discussion of any brand, that people come out in droves rudely bashing whatever camera is in discussion in emotional ways that are not interesting or constructive. Many of them are paid writers supporting competing brands and their mission is to make the competition sound less appealing. Others of them are younger people who love internet and forum battles and are fiercely loyal to whatever brand they invested money in initially, and feel the need to bash anything else because it validates their own opinion and purchases.

Normal people are here to learn things, share things, have fun and enjoy watching how photography evolves. Not for some kind of camera worshiping cult or a holy war against sane people :)
Honestly, what do you expect? I'm reading most of the articles here, regardless of the camera brand involved and when I see (in the comments) all kinds of lies, delusions, propaganda, paranoia and ignorance, I try to 'fix' it. Some silly people just love bashing everything they don't like or understand. So what? That doesn't mean they are being paid to do it. There is no perfect camera. Just accept it and be critical, seek the truth and don't be a troll.
Good luck.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 07:05 UTC
On a photo in the Sony Alpha 7R II Samples Gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Corrupted RAW file :(

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 03:39 UTC as 1st comment
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentlossing: My takeaway is that underexposing to -1.7 EV is too much for this sensor, as in the waterfall pic. Slight underexposure is fine, however, and detail retention is pretty impressive. Lens appears to be fairly high-resolving, details aren't super crisp but you can tell they would stand a fair amount of microcontrast adjustment.

@kolyy
It's not lightroom, it's fuji who decided to produce precooked RAWs.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 02:14 UTC
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentlossing: My takeaway is that underexposing to -1.7 EV is too much for this sensor, as in the waterfall pic. Slight underexposure is fine, however, and detail retention is pretty impressive. Lens appears to be fairly high-resolving, details aren't super crisp but you can tell they would stand a fair amount of microcontrast adjustment.

The waterfall picture, the RAW. I don't care about OOC jpeg, I just ignore them :)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3f4pSjoPzBuZ1JKQmNuU1lBaGM/view?usp=sharing

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 14:29 UTC
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentlossing: My takeaway is that underexposing to -1.7 EV is too much for this sensor, as in the waterfall pic. Slight underexposure is fine, however, and detail retention is pretty impressive. Lens appears to be fairly high-resolving, details aren't super crisp but you can tell they would stand a fair amount of microcontrast adjustment.

Well, I'm a Canon shooter, but even by Canon standards this image doesn't look dark enough to justify the mushiness. So, the RAW must be precooked, badly.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 13:53 UTC
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentlossing: My takeaway is that underexposing to -1.7 EV is too much for this sensor, as in the waterfall pic. Slight underexposure is fine, however, and detail retention is pretty impressive. Lens appears to be fairly high-resolving, details aren't super crisp but you can tell they would stand a fair amount of microcontrast adjustment.

@kolyy
What are you talking about? Are you saying that Fuji invented a special shooting mode to make pictures look bad? :))

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 13:20 UTC
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg7579: I admit I am a huge fan of Fuji (love the XT-1), and its special "feel" - ergo, retro, all of those beautiful dials and great IQ. I do like the X-Trans sensor. I am a Canon FF shooter and have been for many decades, but love the smaller system Fuji (and other mirrorless makers) provides. The Fuji lenses are the best in the world, I do believe. Now, having said that as full disclosure, I am always amazed that on any new camera announcement or early galleries or discussion of any brand, that people come out in droves rudely bashing whatever camera is in discussion in emotional ways that are not interesting or constructive. Many of them are paid writers supporting competing brands and their mission is to make the competition sound less appealing. Others of them are younger people who love internet and forum battles and are fiercely loyal to whatever brand they invested money in initially, and feel the need to bash anything else because it validates their own opinion and purchases.

Greg+26 fuji-trolls and counting :)
Could be the same person ...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 10:27 UTC
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentlossing: My takeaway is that underexposing to -1.7 EV is too much for this sensor, as in the waterfall pic. Slight underexposure is fine, however, and detail retention is pretty impressive. Lens appears to be fairly high-resolving, details aren't super crisp but you can tell they would stand a fair amount of microcontrast adjustment.

@SSantana75
Actually, the color was crap before I cranked up +50 contrast and cranked down -50 blacks (after +1.5EV exposure and +60 shadows) and then +30 vibrance too. So, now it looks just like ACR edit in DPR gallery :)
However, I wasn't criticizing the colors, it's not such a dark scene to worry about colors. It's the mushiness of ... everything basically, even the well lit parts. Seems like ISO 800 is just too much for it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 06:40 UTC
On article Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentlossing: My takeaway is that underexposing to -1.7 EV is too much for this sensor, as in the waterfall pic. Slight underexposure is fine, however, and detail retention is pretty impressive. Lens appears to be fairly high-resolving, details aren't super crisp but you can tell they would stand a fair amount of microcontrast adjustment.

"Impressive"? Really? Not sure about that :)
Just tried the OEM RAW Converter (SILKYPIX) from Fuji and the waterfall image quality looks even more horrible than ACR :(
I'm curious, how would Ricoh GRII or Nikon Coolpix A handle it. Am I expecting too much?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 00:42 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 wrong again.

"400 & 600 F5.6 lenses are F5.6 lenses regardless of what camera you put them on."
- They are, until you try to compare different format sensors. They are not equivalent.
Talking about 1.5x crops (1.53x actually), they get around 2.34 times less light, so it is over 1 stop (less than 1.5 stops). It's absolutely NOT foolish to suggest the difference in the noise performance of crop v FF is a constant value. It is exactly crop ISO 100 vs FF ISO 234, crop ISO 400 vs FF ISO 936, and so on.

"If the light is EV16, my FF and crop camera are set to ISO 100 then if I want a correct exposure I must set 1/1000 @ F8 (or 1/500 @ F11 and so on) on BOTH cameras."
- And you would still get cleaner images on FF. Weird, isn't it? Must be magic.
Well, it's not. Set it to:
crop ISO 100, 1/1000, 400/5.6 @ F8
FF ISO 250, 1/1000, 600/5.6 @ F12
and you will get much closer images, in noise, DoF and everything.
+FF ISO 250, 1/1000, 400/5.6+1.5TC @ F12 would do the same thing.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 21:24 UTC

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

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 06:16 UTC as 5th 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 (331 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 (612 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
Total: 216, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »