jonikon

jonikon

Lives in United States State of, CA, United States
Works as a Retired engineer
Joined on Nov 19, 2010
About me:

Nikon D7000
Nikon D3000
Nikon D40
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Tokina AF 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX
Nikon 85mm f/3.5 DX VR Micro-NIKKOR
Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD
Nikon SB-600 Speed light

Comments

Total: 70, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review article (498 comments in total)

For some inexplicable reason in their evaluation of the AF settings of the D600, DPR fails to understand the advantage of software driven settings that allow the setting to be saved under the User Settings 1,2 on the mode dial, as opposed to hardware controls that would make that impossible. I feel DPR should at least point out the advantage of storing the AF settings that have been moved from a hard control to a software control.

Here is the quoted excerpts from page 11- Handling.:
"This 'simplification' comes at a cost, however. Specifically, it makes switching between AF-S and AF-C, and indeed changing AF pattern mode, slower than it was Nikon's previous generation DSLRs. Using the D300S, for example, a quick flick of the left thumb is all it took to go from single AF to continuous, and a quick flick of the rear lever would switch from single-point AF to multi-pattern. With the D600 (and the D800 and D4) there's an extra step - a button press - in both cases. " - DPReview

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2012 at 19:24 UTC as 135th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

jonikon: I'm not impressed at all with the image quality of the Oly XZ-2. I see a lot of smearing of details, very poor IQ at high ISOs, a de-centered lens causing OOF areas, poor color rendition, poor micro-contrast, lots of distortion, etc.

Why in the world would anyone buy this camera when the excellent Sony RX-100 can be had for about the same price and blows the XZ-2's image quality away! This camera would not be desirable even if it was priced at the current XZ1 price of $200, IMO.

-Jon

Years ago Fujifilm had the best straight out of camera JPEG colors, and still does. I used to like Olympus JPEG colors as well, but not anymore as they have changed for the worse, IMO.
I also don't understand the "It's not a Sony" remark. Smart buyers don't reject a better product for the same price because of the name on the outside. That would be just shooting yourself in the foot foolish!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2012 at 16:38 UTC

I'm not impressed at all with the image quality of the Oly XZ-2. I see a lot of smearing of details, very poor IQ at high ISOs, a de-centered lens causing OOF areas, poor color rendition, poor micro-contrast, lots of distortion, etc.

Why in the world would anyone buy this camera when the excellent Sony RX-100 can be had for about the same price and blows the XZ-2's image quality away! This camera would not be desirable even if it was priced at the current XZ1 price of $200, IMO.

-Jon

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2012 at 15:51 UTC as 10th comment | 7 replies
On Just Posted: Pentax K-30 full review article (272 comments in total)

The K-30 may be a very good camera (leaving the reliability issue of Pentax DSLRs aside), but it only makes up one half of the image quality equation, with the other half being the lens in front of the sensor. Unfortunately the Pentax DSLRs suffer from a lot of cheap lenses with poor optical qualities, or very expensive lenses with acceptable, but not exceptional optical qualities.
For example, the Pentax SMC 16-50mm f/2.8 lens is over $1400 at reputable dealers like B&H photo, but this lens only gets 3 stars out of 5 (or 60%), for optical quality from the Photozone lens review. For value and the ultimate in optical lens quality, Nikon is a much better choice for lenses than Pentax, which makes a Nikon DSLR the better choice for a camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 16:33 UTC as 26th comment | 11 replies
On Hands-on with Nikon V2 article (454 comments in total)

This V2 has all the improvements I was hoping for over the V1, ( with the possible exception of image quality which is an unknown at this time).
The built-in flash is more compact than the SB-N5 add on flash for the V1 and the large grip will actually make using the FT-1 adapter with DX lenses manageable. Some call the V2 ugly only because of the protruding EVF/flash unit, but from the perspective of a photographer, it as a thing of beauty!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2012 at 20:22 UTC as 173rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Skipper494: Full frame sensors in compact cameras are long overdue. 1" and m4/3 are band aids. We had 35mm film in little cameras like my Chinon Bon Ami. Miniaturisation is not a problem. Having space for human sized controls is. 1" and m4/3 are just a way for the industry to gradually introduce larger sensors and milk as much money along the way.

It's already here. It's called the Sony RX1. Not very pocket-able though.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2012 at 15:20 UTC

I own a Nikon D7000 and love the image quality from the 16MP APS-C Sony sensor. However, the size of the D7000 and lenses is often bothersome and attracts too much attention so when Adorama started selling the Nikon V1 with 10-30mm lens for $399 I jumped on it. So what do I think of the 1" sensor's IQ? I found it is surprisingly good, with high ISO image quality better than my previous DSLR (Sony a700), and a huge step up from a small sensor pocket camera. I don't agree at all with the disparaging remarks about the image quality from some posters on the forums regarding the 1" sensor. The IQ of the Nikon System 1 cameras is very good indeed, and more than adequate for most camera buyers in the price range of the J1/J2.
Now that Sony is on board with the great marketing success of the Sony RX100, I now believe the 1" sensor will displace the current tiny sensor used in current pocket cameras, and may even displace the m4/3 format at some point.

Best regards,
Jon

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2012 at 15:15 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jonikon: The worst of the lot by far is the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS, which does not even come close to doing an APS-C sensor justice. Only the very center is reasonably sharp and it quickly gets softer going out from there. I was surprised how much distortion the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS has, even at 50mm. I have pocket cameras that have better lenses than that!

Yep, the distortion is very obvious even without downloading the originals,(which I also did to check for sharpness). Just look at the photo of the guy in the red shirt holding the wine glass. Now look at the vertical elements in the scene and you will see the high degree of distortion even here at 50mm. Given a decent lens, there should be very little or no discernible distortion in at 50mm on an APS-C senso.. Also in the window sill there is a lot of veiling flare, which reminds me of the problem of using my old Minolta lenses on the a700. Not a very good performance for this particular Sony lens, I'm afraid.
Sony needs to do a lot of work to improve their NEX lens quality.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2012 at 20:03 UTC

The worst of the lot by far is the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS, which does not even come close to doing an APS-C sensor justice. Only the very center is reasonably sharp and it quickly gets softer going out from there. I was surprised how much distortion the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS has, even at 50mm. I have pocket cameras that have better lenses than that!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2012 at 19:16 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Shamael: NEX-6 runs without AA filter too, like NEX-7 and RX 1. Look the picture 2264079 in full size, and look how many moire pattern you find in the curbs of the leafs of the Pampa grass. They are all excellent cameras, but they have all that problem, same as D800E from Nikon.

I think what you are seeing is not moire, but rather the affects of processing high levels of CA out of the image.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2012 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

TonyC5D: Sorry guys but, yet again, a very poor set of pictures. Lots of out of focus or blurry shots, and why the very high ISO samples, or is this a joint test of camera and lens. If so I think it would be much better to do these separately. Many shots are at low shutter speeds which will not help unless you were using a very sturdy tripod. This is supposedly the best review site on the web and your technical write ups are excellent but you do keep letting things down with poor quality galleries. Sorry but more attention needed I think. Having worked for camera manufacturers for many years I would feel rather aggrieved with the apparent lack of effort and technical skill put into the gallery shots.

Some nice artsy pics, but it would be more informative if your photographers selected scenes that allow comparison between center sharpness and edge sharpness. Lots of lenses are sharp dead center these days, but it's how they perform across the frame that separates the good from the ugly.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2012 at 17:10 UTC

Does anyone care about these pencil eraser sized sensors anymore? Most of the lenses that are installed in front of them are cheap junk anyway, so what's the point of improving these tiny sensors? Sony should be putting their efforts into the further development of the 1" sensor with PDAF. That's where the future of pocket cameras lies.

-Jon

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2012 at 16:54 UTC as 8th comment | 5 replies
On Photokina 2012: Interview - John Carlson of Pentax article (152 comments in total)

John Carlson's forced smile is not any more convincing or reassuring than the current Pentax product lines and prices. Suddenly doubling the price of their DSLR lenses in the US will almost certainly put the final nail in the coffin for Pentax in the USA anyway. Too bad, since Pentax was once a respected name in photography in the USA. At the very least Pentax should put their horrible Q system out of it's misery, and kill it before it dies a slow and miserable death and reduces their credibility as a camera maker even more.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2012 at 07:29 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies
On Preview:pentax-k-30 (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

keltos: Is the Af on par with the D7000's now ? or better ? I shoot jet fighters and already hesitated between a k5 (good price now) and the D7k, but now comes the K30... if the AF is better than that of the K5 I might just wait for the 25th of June..

Nope. Only 11 focus points in the K30 and 39 in the Nikon D7000. Also the D7000 has excellent 3D continuous focusing, which Pentax lacks. Auto-focus has always been the Achilles heel for Pentax cameras. They just can't seem to get it right.

Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 07:28 UTC
On Nikon CoolPix P7700 Preview preview (192 comments in total)

The P7700 is too much camera for such a tiny sensor. Tiny sensors are just too limited for DOF control, high ISO image quality and dynamic range. With all the better alternatives of larger sensor compact cameras available today, it is hard to believe anybody would still be interested in these sensor size crippled cameras anymore. The Sony RX-100 is a much more attractive camera to photography enthusiasts. Time for Nikon to wake up and make a compact camera with a 1 inch sensor and leave the tiny sensors to the cell phones.
.
-Jon

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 06:33 UTC as 64th comment | 2 replies
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)
In reply to:

Erot: Looking at the comparison table the column "Aperture range (equiv.)" is very interesting. It shows beside the possible most narrow DOF also the light gathering capability of lens-sensor-comibination.

At the short end of the zoom the Sony has the best value (4,9). So the Sony is more capable to take pictures at available light than all other cameras in the table, including the Nikon D3200 with the kit lens.

But at the long end of the zoom the RX100 shows a completly different behavior. The aperture value 13,4 (at 100 mm equiv.) is worse than the G1X, XZ-1 and X10 (at 112mm equiv.). You have to rise the ISO setting at available light, so the picture will probably be more noisy than the other cams, depending on the performance of the sensor.

This seems to be a drawback of the compact conctruction.

You have misinterpreted the information supplied. The aperture equivalents are only for DOF comparison and not useful for determining lumen per unit area at the sensor. In other words the aperture equivalents can not be used to compare ISO requirements at any given focal length.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 8, 2012 at 04:37 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images article (645 comments in total)

This Sony RX100 is a BIG improvement over all the other truly pocketable cameras and should be well received by many. Cameras like this should have been made years ago, as the demand has been there for some time now. Although the RX100 is definitely a Canon G1X killer, it is not perfect however. I would like to see Sony add:
1. an EVF
2. Phase detection auto focus for acceptable continuous AF of moving subjects.
3. Less megapixels. 10MP is enough, but 20MP is unnecessary and results some IQ issues (like color accuracy and diffraction limiting, noise reduction smearing), that could have been avoided with a 10 or 12 MP sensor.
4. A way to remove the lens for sensor cleaning.
5. Lower price.

That said, I think the RX100 is good enough to take away a lot of sales from their NEX line of cameras that are definitely NOT pocketable with a zoom lens attached, and offer little more than lens interchangeability over the RX100.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 17:03 UTC as 95th comment | 16 replies
On Just Posted: Pentax K-01 review article (355 comments in total)

The 69% review score is a gift for this deeply flawed camera.
No viewfinder and slow and dodgy auto-focus in a $900 camera?
Pentax, what were you thinking?

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2012 at 02:32 UTC as 102nd comment | 5 replies

I own the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF non-VC lens in a Nikon mount and bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC version to replace it. However, after comparing the sharpness of these two lenses, I decided the non-VC lens was noticeably sharper at f2.8-f4.0. I could not justify the loss in sharpness for the occasional usefulness of VC in a lens of such short focal length, so I returned the VC version and kept the sharper non-VC version. There is little doubt in my mind that this new 24-70 VC Tamron would have been sharper without the VC. I'll bet the reviews of this lens will find the center sharp and the edges soft at f2.8-f4.0. The only good reason to have VC on a lens of this type is for shooting video where it matters, and softness does not.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2012 at 08:50 UTC as 19th comment | 11 replies
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X review article (519 comments in total)
In reply to:

Manfred Bachmann: this rating is ridiculous! OK, imagequality is good, but all the other things are very bad against the Nikon V1, which earns 69 points.

I agree. the Nikon V1 is a much better camera with interchangeable lenses, an EVF and super fast phase detection auto-focus capability. All of which the Canon G1X lacks, (along with a long list of other features common to cameras these days).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2012 at 15:13 UTC
Total: 70, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »