PIX 2015
tbcass

tbcass

Lives in United States Central, NY, United States
Works as a Master of the Universe
Joined on Nov 21, 2005
About me:

Sony RX100
Sony A77
Sony A77ii
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 USD
Sony 35mm f1.8
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 "C" lens
Tamron 70-300 USD
Tamron 150-600 USD
Tamron 16-300
Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro
Also play Bass Guitar and Keyboards
Fender Squier Fretless 4 String
Fender Precision Lyte fretted 4 string
Yamaha TPG635 electronic Piano/Keyboard

Comments

Total: 339, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On VHS Camcorder for iOS takes you back to the 80s post (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: Sheer stupidity. Why would anybody want to purposely take poor quality video other than trying to simulate it for a 1980s period movie?

:-) The only thing I can envision is a bunch of people at a party looking at a video taken with this app and laughing while saying they can't believe anybody actually watched this garbage. :-) ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 19:24 UTC
On VHS Camcorder for iOS takes you back to the 80s post (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: Sheer stupidity. Why would anybody want to purposely take poor quality video other than trying to simulate it for a 1980s period movie?

Yes although I don't get the "fun at a party" angle.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 12:36 UTC
In reply to:

W5JCK: I don't understand the concept of making a $1300 bridge camera that is okay for taking Facebook and Instagram images but not images good enough to print. An a6000 with kit 210mm telephoto will do a much better job and cost less, and you will have printable images that are in focus. None, absolutely none, of these sample photos are good. That might be more photographer error than anything, but these tiny 1" sensors are never going to produce any real quality.

Your ignorance and fanboyism is showing. This camera is capable of output that produces excellent 20x30 prints.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:48 UTC
In reply to:

El Chubasco: I own the first version of this camera and its performance is rock solid. I share the views of this review and confirm that is the best all-in-one camera in the market. The image quality is excellent and the 24-200 2.8 lens is superb. This camera is so good that I am debating what to do with the rest of my gear.

I encourage all who criticize to go to the nearest store and try the RX10. Rent it if you can. You will be pleasantly surprised.

The people who criticize are mostly fanboys who have never used the camera. I admit it's not for me but it's still great all in one camera. I instead opted for a Tamron 16-300 for my A77 II.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

Cane: It's like the family style chain restaurant of cameras. Does a lot of things ok, but nothing great, and a lot of soccer moms and old folks are good with that.

Cut the crap about old folks. The fact is us old folks are more picky than all the young whipper snappers shooting with cell phones. If anything reality is just the opposite of what you are saying with old people demanding more quality.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Is the plane picture really sharp? I understand that there is haze effect but still I cannot call it sharp.
I cannot understand why people keep saying "1" sensor from Sony is excellent". Well, it's OK at most. It's good enough but definitely not "excellent". I'd prefer a 1" 10MP Sony sensor. This 20MP sensor looks as if there is always some noise reduction which kills smaller details.
Or maybe it's just me...

All you have to do is resize the image to 10mp and bingo, it's the same as shooting with a 10mp sensor. In fact many examples prove that a photo from a 20mp sensor resized to 10 mp looks better than a photo from a native 10 mp sensor. It's hard to believe that there are still people who believe in the fallacy that fewer pixels produce cleaner images because that idea has been shot down numerous times.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:36 UTC
On VHS Camcorder for iOS takes you back to the 80s post (6 comments in total)

Sheer stupidity. Why would anybody want to purposely take poor quality video other than trying to simulate it for a 1980s period movie?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:06 UTC as 1st comment | 4 replies

I've never seen such hate for a camera and a company. It appears the fanboys are intimidated.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 20:38 UTC as 63rd comment | 4 replies
On Sony SLT-A77 II Review preview (517 comments in total)
In reply to:

jacobfreeze: JUNK! JUNK! JUNK! Even at ISO 200 this thing is mushy! Why does Sony even bother to keep producing alpha lenses for garbage like this? And meanwhile the whole Nex product line looks like the Island of Broken Toys!

Troll.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 22:58 UTC
On Sony SLT-A77 II Review preview (517 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: I am trying to find a reason to like this camera, as I can get a good deal on it with the f/2.8 kit lens. But honestly, I can't see how it is better for stills than my 4 year old D7000.

You forgot to mention that the buffer is huge compared go the D7000. That said Brownie is an anti Sony Troll so replying to him is a waste of time. He's one of many on my ignore list.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 22:56 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thsoft: No touch screen. RIP

Arizona Sunset; The screen on the RX100 is so small that a touch screen would be very hard to use, at least it would for me. Maybe people with small fingers would feel differently but I have a hard enough time with my iPhone which has a screen twice as big.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 00:37 UTC
On Kate in the -I'm Too Sexy for My Shirt- (in Full Colours Only) challenge (11 comments in total)

She's hot to be sure!!!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 18:03 UTC as 1st comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thsoft: No touch screen. RIP

I never delay a purchase based on the hope of something in the future. It could result in never buying anything. Maybe that is what the OP is doing and maybe not. Nobody knows but him so maybe it is a false dichotomy and maybe not. I've seen too many fanboys using things like this simply to put a competing product down.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 18:31 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thsoft: No touch screen. RIP

onlooker;

No it's not False dichotomy because the original post by Thsoft, said "No touch screen. RIP" which to me means that no matter how good the camera is he doesn't want it if it doesn't have a touch screen. My response to you was made with that post in mind which you seem to be defending.

A big problem with posting on these forums is the delay between posts and lack of face to face interaction results in meanings often getting lost.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 18:19 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thsoft: No touch screen. RIP

@onlooker
"One-touch focus point selection (with optional shutter release). That's just one."

Do You really think that should be a make or break feature. I certainly don't understand why. If camera one without a touch screen is superior to camera 2 with a touch screen no serious photographer, even one who likes touch screens, would choose camera 2. Are we becoming that gadget obsessed?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 01:57 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thsoft: No touch screen. RIP

"onlooker" Since I've never owned a camera with a touch screen how would I know if you can turn it off or not? That said I fail to understand why a touch screen should be a make or break feature in a camera as the OP implied. It's one of those features that might be nice to have for some people but shouldn't the camera's ability to take good photos be the #1 priority? It falls into the useful but optional category like GPS and a top LCD. I just think the OP was looking for a reason to put the camera down.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 19:33 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Holy smokes, that's expensive. Does it really need to be a thousand dollars to make a decent profit?

The price is double or triple what other nice compacts cost, so is the image quality two or three times as good?

I'm a semi-pro photographer, and L-glass + full frame has me spoiled.

But, of course, it produces quite a bulge in my shirt pocket. 😏

I use my iPhone for a lot of fun shots, but it's limited in most situations.

I don't know how much it's worth to get the size so small compared to the cost (with the Sony).

A thousand bucks. Wow.

"MikeFairbanks" The RX100 i, ii and iii are still available at much lower prices.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/869238-REG/Sony_DSC_RX100_Digital_Camera.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Sony+RX100ii&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 18:14 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pohz: While this is a fantastic camera that can fit in your pocket, I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing considering the price. I had issues with my RX100 because some fluff, dust or whatever it was got stuck in the electronic mechanism(while it was sitting idly in my pocket) and it stopped working completely. I shrugged it off because the orginial RX100 is very cheap but if that happened to this thing I'd be gutted. This camera is fragile.

I use a belt case for my RX100. It's actually more convenient than my pocket and no dust in 3 years. No camera should be kept in a pocket IMO.

"Pentaxian30" The RX100 might look fragile to you but in actuality it is built extremely well with a metal body and is quite heavy for it's size.

"Stan Powers" 3 years with my RX100 and never a problem with dust. I believe your experience is an aberration.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: IQ is worse than with OM-D E-M10. This Oly body costs today 499 € in Finland. I get a couple of top quality lenses + the body for less money. No thanks, Sony.

"vesa1tahti" I have 2 much larger cameras that have better IQ and capabilities than my RX100 MK1 but guess what camera I took with me when I went horseback riding last week? You totally miss the point of these cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 17:59 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1548 comments in total)
In reply to:

123Mike: Low noise performance wise, I'm not seeing any difference between the very first RX100 to every version to IV. Someone looking for good pocket camera for basic vacation use for instance, would be much better off buying a used RX100 older version from someone "upgrading" for kicks.

I agree. I bought the RX100 when it first came out 3 years ago and none of these newer models are enough to make me want to upgrade. Sony did it right the first time and the minor tweaks since then haven't added much IMO.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 17:49 UTC
Total: 339, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »