Joined on Apr 20, 2013


Total: 157, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

photo perzon: Once cameras can do ISO 100,000 for $ 200, the 5.6 lenses will be as good as the 2.8s

I wave a flag for stopping down your lenses and increase ISO (even as a Foveon user)
many many images of "semipros" with expensive FF gear show a razor thin depth of field which is constantly confused with quality.
best thing was a product shot where you actually couldn't see most of the product.
plus it is a very easy way to improve boring pictures, just blurr the hell out of your scenery.
nono, portraits on FF go most of the time above f/8, to be of use.
and it is true, high ISO has a definitive limit, no matter how hard you try to software-correct it (again believe me, Foveon user speaking!)

i am very happy with current cameras. Just shot a film of ISO400, and going to my X100T to dial-in not twice, not three but four times of that sensitivity with ease!

perfect for me.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

dave veneri: Come on Sony! How about a 50 1.4????? Also, these lenses are BIG. The whole idea of the mirrorless cameras is to reduce weight! It makes no sense to want to cut weight in one area and not the other. Canon and Nikon lenses are smaller so why not just get the D750 and the same lenses?

why not indeed?
the reduction of the mirror box does bring down only the weight of the camera body and introduces a different flange strategy.
You can design lenses around that, but you still need a huge area when you want to produce a lens with f/1.4 and especially when your sensor is so huge.
want smaller lenses? go manual focus (eg. leica) or go for a smaller sensor (more likely for most of us because this is getting ridiculous or hobbyists)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

Adamant: Contrary to the many, many claims around here, I don't recall anyone saying that mirrorless cameras would automatically deliver significant reductions in lens size, beyond a small improvement in flange distance. Of course, the bodies can be smaller because there is no mirror box. And mirrorless certainly has certain advantages, like no front/back focus issues and always-on live view. But it should some as no surprise that this lens is large. You cannot change the laws of physics, Jim.

Small sensors obviously allow for smaller lenses, but that is independent of whether a camera is mirrorless.

true. but remember, before Sony hit hard, the RX1 and the M9 were the only mirrorless 135 cameras. back then, mirrorless automatically ment APSC, m43 or even smaller. And specifically m43 trumps with these small little gems of lenses.
For APSC, regular lenses are not significantly smaller (not talking about your 600mm f2.something lenses)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 19:10 UTC

hehe, 880 g for the 24-70mm and 820 for the 85mm
muhahaha *mad eyes rolling*

maybe not as high-tech as an a7 something... but I'll stick to my X100T with TCL-X100 and DP3 Merrill even tighter, together: 900g

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 19:02 UTC as 77th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

tassosDA: Ok, I don't get this. I think that we have come to a point where the better a camera gets the greater are the complaints about it.We had some great announcements from Canon, Nikon and today from Sony about cameras that are absolutely fantastic, with features that a decade ago we couldn't even dream of and instead of being excited people are full of negative comments !! Is this some kind of a human nature thing??

no, but a typical internet thing.
I tend to waste less and less time on the forums, because it rarely holds something of value for me. and this is not a recent phenomenon.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 18:54 UTC
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

vscd: @dpreview. Will there be a real review this time? The first 1DX had only a preview... until today. Or do I just spell the domain wrong? ;) Just kidding.

why would you want a review for a D4 or 1D?
when you are in the market, you
1. know what you need know what you get
so you buy it.
if it is not fullfilling your needs, you bring it back or sell it.

don't be confused with your decisions of buying very expensive hobby equipment and your need to justify your purchases...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 19:57 UTC
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Iamnotarobot: Would I be punched in the face if I use this for street photography?

well it really does the best portraits. anything else is not really good. APSC-ish

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 19:53 UTC
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: And the biggie question is how does the new sensor perform. Normally ergonomics, features, things to assist the photographer as a tool are very highly prized and rightly so. But from Canon or Nikon at this tier this is expected.

But Canon has been now for several years behind Sony sensors. It would be good to see if Canon finally closed, matched or even surpassed this gap- and its worth asking in this case precisely for that reason.

I don't see what else they have on the new Nikon models other than be "Canon glass conpatible" if you own the system.

Disclosure: I am a street/wedding/event photographer. I wouldn't be carrying this tier of Canon or Nikon for that - so not my cameras. Just making an observation.

you have to be kidding me... gee, i really lose my temper when i read stuff like this.
canon has not lagged behind. the 6D has a killer sensor.

and the previous models of professional fullframe cameras from canon and nikon were good for literally millions of professional photos.

now you come along and blabber about "sensor performance" because you read articles about how good the prosumer a7Rii is, i guess? what does sensor performance even mean? numbers? numbers?

news flash: there are real pros designing and building these cameras. and especially this camera will deliver.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 19:51 UTC
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

spiderhunter: It would be good if advancement in technology meant smaller camera sizes.

smaller sensor, anyone?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

Charlieangel: The X-PRO2 represents the perfect digital rangefinder, to date, with interchangeable lens. The form factor is undoubtedly the main attraction here, and the superb features and specs make it nigh irresistible. The comparisons to DSLR or DSLR-like cameras are irrelevant. Manufacturers have been working for many years on perfecting the modernized reproduction of the old film rangefinders, and they keep getting better and better.

The comparatively large size is a plus, in my opinion, making it easier to handle. I wouldn't change a thing. I do like a tilt & touch screen, but I have more than one camera; so it not's essential, and it would make the camera too thick and clunky.

did i read that correclty? is Nick932 proposing to buy digital leicas instead of the xpro cameras? good grief! that is so out of proportion!

and btw did he ever picked one up? they are heavier and don't offer the ergonomics, that the xpro2 will have, starting from reprogrammable buttons and ending with the menu.
and lets not speak about price!

just saying, but don't get me wrong.
I do have an old M6 and tried digital with the M9 but didn't keep it. I love the handling and the feel of both. But I also like the fujis (x100t).

and for the history lesson: wikipedia is a much better source than nicks post.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 11:17 UTC
In reply to:

Bueche: The studio scen (raw files) is very 'soft' compared to Nikon D7200 and Pentax K-3 II. Even Canon 70D, with its 20MP, does much better than X-Pro II.

it is not really 36MP as the Sigmas do not have really 45MP.
but in some ways, the difference in sensor read out does improve image quality.
Revenant is right, you would aproach the fujis a little different and gain more visual excellence.

Anyhow, here people are comparing images at ISO6400.
Go ahead, but pixel peeping in general is a dull thing, yet at high iso this is a total useless thing. what do you want to achieve?
"mah camarah caaahn doo much darkaah scenes than youuuuurs"
cavemans. all cavemans.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 11:06 UTC
In reply to:

rapurimanka: I honestly don't understand what's the point of such camera? Cost is almost the same as in good nikon/canon DLSR, but have weird viewfinder, small lens park, strange ergonomics.

very true.
the viewfinder is wonderfully weird, a very welcome change.
lens park is small and offers some of the nicest primes you can wish for.
and ergonomics feel strange coming from "computer like" camera and suddenly have to turn physical wheels and think out of your full/semi automatic modes.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 11:01 UTC
In reply to:

gbdz: WTF! You are supposed to pay 1700 dollars for body only.
You could get a real camera for that price!

yes, a camera with a manly sensor.
not a stupid "crop" sensor.

a real camera for heroes like you.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 10:55 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Farace: The price of cutting edge technology and a niche market is about $1600... if that's too high buy a fantastic X Pro 1 for $500... or keep using your Rebel XT on green square noobie!

very true.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 10:53 UTC
In reply to:

maccam: $1700 for an APSC body? I don't think I'll be going there even though I can afford it.

because for the money you want to have more sensor, right?
manly sensors! huge!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 10:51 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

dopravopat: Whoever wrote this marketing blurb was either an idiot or very smart. Either way, the customers who buy this are much easier to fit in the idiot/very smart dichotomy.

Uh can I buy a dichotomy too? awesome!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 17:17 UTC
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

PascallacsaP: Funny to see how, among all the high-spec, latest/greatest, gear there is apparently a market for lo-fi, retro-performance, stuff. And people are actually prepared to pay for it. Gosh, we're so spoiled.

Or can I offer you a cheap filter that makes your images more organic?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

Peter Bendheim: The best camera is the one that makes you feel creative and happy to go and take images.

The camera I take the best images with is not the swankiest or most up to date camera I own.

It has nothing to do with specs. It feels good in the hand, and you relate to it.

In the same vein, the best life partner is not the prettiest, sexiest etc etc on paper. But she/he is to you, and is your best friend as well.

well, even if your camera is annoying, you can work around it.
I had a V1 and it was quite inconvenient. I had to take my time to correct the camera to the situation.
so I started to find the perfect option for me in most of the situations which made me more aware of looking ahead, in a way.
so for me: a positive learning.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

AlexCHStudio: The best camera? Well, yes, that was quite a difficult question. I was lucky enough to find an answer. I know for sure now what is the best camera because I have it. I am serious. It is perfect! Every time I shoot with it - it is pleasure. It does exactly what I want and how I want. I love its size, its weight and its shape. I love how it sound. I know all its shortcomings but I can easily cope with all of them... Though I am not going to tell you anything else about it. Sorry. You have to find an answer yourself. :-)

I love the guy!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

tinternaut: I always have a hard time recommending a camera for someone else. Recently I've recommended the Panasonic G6 (budget conscious, Panasonic superzoom user) and a Pentax SLR (dirt cheap, at the time, and great low light performance for indoor baby photos). I rarely recommend the cameras I use and love (Olympus - too quirky by half, if you ask me) and almost never recommend CaNikon. I've not recommended Fuji to anyone, yet, but that's surely a matter of time.

I give advise all the time. and a am frustrated that no one is listening to me ALL THE TIME

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 15:36 UTC
Total: 157, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »