keeponkeepingon

keeponkeepingon

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 28, 2005

Comments

Total: 362, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

hwzjerry: How's the startup time compared to the a6000?

I think we are in the wrong forum for any info that may be actually useful. Look at the A6000 review on dpreview, they glossed over every issue. I felt betrayed by dpreview when I got the A6000 and it felt like using a point and shoot in regard to startup time, image review, less than perfect light af performance, and lockup after a burst, none of which was mentined in the dpreview review. Oh how I miss phil's reviews with his timings etc.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 11:34 UTC
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

jango: If it had touchscreen it would be great

Finally the biggest gripe I have with the A6000 is how awkward it is to review your work compared to other cameras. When you look at a picture, hit the zoom and you can almost count to 3 one thousand before it actually zooms (for a raw file) then it's zoomed all the way in on a point you don't care about forcing you to zoom back out and/or pan around to get what you want. On my touch screen cameras (and iphone) I just "pinch to zoom" exactly where I want it and see exactly what I want to see at the zoom level I want in a fraction of the time that it takes on the sluggish A6000.

All that said what the A6300 or entire AXXXX line needs is a decent screen. All of the screens are a movie aspect ratio with a lot of wasted space viewing picts. End result: looking at a pict is like looking at a 2.5" screen on any other camera, way smaller than the competition and silly small for this class of camera.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 11:31 UTC
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

jango: If it had touchscreen it would be great

I've grown to love the touch screen on my EOS-M. When I switch to my A6000 I especially miss:

Choosing a focus point for stills and video. All of the A6000 hacks (zone focus, poor (in low light) AF tracking) don't make up for me being able to rapidly touch and command the camera to focus on a specific point.

Touch to snap or whatever it's called. Your touch does not just select the focus point, it selects the focus point and snaps the shutter. Not a second lost and great for chasing kids around or any other action. An added bonus is you hand it to a stranger to take your picture, tell them it's just like a smart phone and actually get a decent picture exposed on your face in return.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 11:28 UTC
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

bmwzimmer: DPreview, Please do a comparison between the D500, 7Dii, and A6300, & NX1 shooting Ice Hockey (through glass) or a evening football game or indoor basketball game. It's the only way to test if Mirrorless cameras can compete with DSLR's in sports/wildlife photography

"By Thematic (10 hours ago)
https://youtu.be/up8K_xd_iwU

Already done last year..... A6000 second only to Nikon D4s."

How is indoor sports equal to outdoor motorcross racing? My A6000 totally sucks at basketball. I call it "sunny day PDAF" because in anything but splendid lighting the auto tracking falls on it's face; almost useless for indoor sports.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 11:31 UTC
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: No touch screen. No sale. No ibis no sale, no battery life no sale really for $1000 they should be able to make a more complete camera. They don't even need to put a mirror or a pentaxprism in it nor 3 or four motors operating it all. Only the physical shutter still reminds of a real camera. :p

It's not an "action camera", it's sony top of the line APS-C mirrorless. Most of these will not be purchased solely for action but as a jack of all trades (ref, look at the dpreview forums and see how many action A6000 picts there are versus everything else).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 11:25 UTC
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

drivecancel: I see it still uses that awful eyecup...

I noticed that too! Almost useless plus loves to fall off. I lost my second and I don't think I'm going to bother to get a third.....

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 09:24 UTC
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (181 comments in total)

dpreview

Since you have one of these to play with can you tell us if it's possible to control the powerzooms from the body?

Specifically I'd like to be able to control the zoom from the body and idealy specify a starting focal length and have the option to remember the last focal length when powering on.

Using the kit power zoom on my A6000 is a total PITA. On my NEX-3n I could zoom in and out from the body allowing for easy one handed operation. However on both bodies I get arguably the weakest focal length (both for sharpness and distortion) when I switch on the camera.

Thanks!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 09:22 UTC as 21st comment
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

TomHudsonVisual: Ah man, for APS-C format it will be a hard choice for me between this and the Nikon D500.

As an A6000 owner I have to laugh at your dilema. Point and Shoot on steroids or pro DSLR? It should be an easy choice.....

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 09:20 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: meh.

No touch screen. Same sub-standard smaller than everyone else screen. (It's like 2.5" usesable area for viewing photos).

I'd be tempted though if:

It's no longer the sluggish dog for sports that the A6000 is. Slow to turn on, locks up after a burst, slow for simple function such as zooming in on a raw preview. Automatic features such as eye AF and tracking AF work in any lighting.

The PDAF is actually usable in anything but great lighting

Better with 3rd party lenses to make up for the horrible sony lens lineup.

Also the LA-E3 won't work with a single one of my sony alpha lenses so hey that may be worth mentioning (the limited compatability).

More A6000 lockup. Imaging resource:

"There is, however, one modest fly in the ointment: when the A6000's buffer fills up, it can take a long while to clear. And until it does, burst rate is greatly reduced and many of the camera's features are inaccessible. I ran into this a lot when shooting my long AF test bursts, especially when shooting in raw format. When I hit the buffer limit, I could still change certain settings like shutter speed and aperture, but I had to wait as long as a minute before I could access the menus. "

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 07:53 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: meh.

No touch screen. Same sub-standard smaller than everyone else screen. (It's like 2.5" usesable area for viewing photos).

I'd be tempted though if:

It's no longer the sluggish dog for sports that the A6000 is. Slow to turn on, locks up after a burst, slow for simple function such as zooming in on a raw preview. Automatic features such as eye AF and tracking AF work in any lighting.

The PDAF is actually usable in anything but great lighting

Better with 3rd party lenses to make up for the horrible sony lens lineup.

Also the LA-E3 won't work with a single one of my sony alpha lenses so hey that may be worth mentioning (the limited compatability).

Here's some 3rd party verification of the lockup T3 denies:
Slashgear:
"The downside to the continuous shooting mode is the time it takes to empty the buffer once you're done. Fire off 30-40 images and you can expect the A6000 to lock up as it writes to the memory card for anything up to 25-30 seconds, during which time the camera won't really allow you to do anything."

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 07:53 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: meh.

No touch screen. Same sub-standard smaller than everyone else screen. (It's like 2.5" usesable area for viewing photos).

I'd be tempted though if:

It's no longer the sluggish dog for sports that the A6000 is. Slow to turn on, locks up after a burst, slow for simple function such as zooming in on a raw preview. Automatic features such as eye AF and tracking AF work in any lighting.

The PDAF is actually usable in anything but great lighting

Better with 3rd party lenses to make up for the horrible sony lens lineup.

Also the LA-E3 won't work with a single one of my sony alpha lenses so hey that may be worth mentioning (the limited compatability).

T3 it does lock up. Right now on your A6000, enable RAW recording, put your A6000 in fast burst mode hold the shutter down for several seconds then try to look at one of the pictures you just took. You wont be able to preview your work for many many seconds (like 10), an eternity for sports.

Now, again making sure RAW mode is enabled (without jpeg), take just one picture, enter preview mode and zoom in. On my fastest card that simple act takes almost 2 seconds, 3 seconds on my slowest card, again crazy long time for sports.

Finally take your battery out for a few seconds. Put it back in. Tell us how long it takes from turning the camera on to taking a picture.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 07:31 UTC
In reply to:

kadardr: Wonder days are over. Just another camera. A good one though. I do not understand the whiners about lack of lenses. I made a "thought experiment" and came up with this list: Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss E 24mm F1.8 ZA, Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS, Sony Zeiss E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS or the Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS, and the Zeiss Touit T* 2.8/12 mm, Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 mm, Zeiss Touit Makro 2.8/50 mm, or the Sigma 2.8 / 19 mm DN, Sigma 2.8/30mm DN, Sigma 2.8 / 60 mm DN. (See how many OSS lenses!)
I would keep an APS-C DSLR though for sports/wildlife shooting with say a 70-300 lens

Sigma lenses won't use most of the PDAF points so you can scratch them off the list.

From the rest, which F1.4 lens from that list is your favorite? Thanks!

Incredible that sony does not have an affordable F1.4 50mm or F1.8 85mm prime.

The rest are all super pricey compared to stuff such as canon's $250 10-18mm or $125 STM 50mm or $350mm F1.8 85mm.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 07:25 UTC

meh.

No touch screen. Same sub-standard smaller than everyone else screen. (It's like 2.5" usesable area for viewing photos).

I'd be tempted though if:

It's no longer the sluggish dog for sports that the A6000 is. Slow to turn on, locks up after a burst, slow for simple function such as zooming in on a raw preview. Automatic features such as eye AF and tracking AF work in any lighting.

The PDAF is actually usable in anything but great lighting

Better with 3rd party lenses to make up for the horrible sony lens lineup.

Also the LA-E3 won't work with a single one of my sony alpha lenses so hey that may be worth mentioning (the limited compatability).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 06:20 UTC as 72nd comment | 5 replies

Isn't this just a casio tryx knockoff?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 01:16 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: Y'all need to narrow down what you mean by "travel camera" because your selections are all over the place.

Starting with

"We've picked out our best picks for the photographer who wants to keep things simple by carrying a compact camera rather than one with interchangeable lenses."

If you are going with that as a definition then I would think your travel camera recommendations would cover a wide range of focal lengths (as you can't change the lens) and the recommendations should be small and easy to travel with "a compact camera".

But on your list you have two recommendations with a fixed, very ackward focal length, and a large super zoom that is as big as a DSLR.

FOCUS DPREVIEW! This is not the large sensor compact or the super zoom review. You've left off popular options that fit your definition (Sony HXV90, Nikon S99000) to push your hipster darlings.

"Did you really just call 35mm (equiv) an awkward focal length?"

Yes I did! For travel it's extremely awkward. Often not wide enough seldom long enough.

Do you get out of the house much?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 26, 2015 at 22:54 UTC

Y'all need to narrow down what you mean by "travel camera" because your selections are all over the place.

Starting with

"We've picked out our best picks for the photographer who wants to keep things simple by carrying a compact camera rather than one with interchangeable lenses."

If you are going with that as a definition then I would think your travel camera recommendations would cover a wide range of focal lengths (as you can't change the lens) and the recommendations should be small and easy to travel with "a compact camera".

But on your list you have two recommendations with a fixed, very ackward focal length, and a large super zoom that is as big as a DSLR.

FOCUS DPREVIEW! This is not the large sensor compact or the super zoom review. You've left off popular options that fit your definition (Sony HXV90, Nikon S99000) to push your hipster darlings.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 12:56 UTC as 34th comment | 5 replies
On article DPReview recommends: Best Cameras for Kids 2015 (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

Teila Day: Articles like this make me gag. It's essentially saying "hey, your kid is dumb as a bag of rocks, so instead of getting your kid a camera s/he can learn shutter speed, aperture, iso relationships and change lenses, let's let them be cute and amuse us as they wallow in ignorance with their new toy..."

The best camera for kids to use are cameras like an old Pentax K1000 if they're the type of kid that wants to experiment and be surprised later after the film is developed, and old DSLR and a lens or two. Even an old used cheap view camera is an option.

This article demonstrates the same mentality that makes public schools so behind the times.. The take away here for me is that this article should demonstrate to parents that you have to take charge of your kid's life; as opposed to being directed by those who are clueless.

Simon Joinson. Pentax makes pink cameras too.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003GAMRD4

Dang anti pentax bias is everywhere!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 12:38 UTC
On article DPReview recommends: Best Cameras for Kids 2015 (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: Dad with bunch of kids:

ipod: great. Get an Otterbox Defender case. The 5g is a generation behind but may be better for kids as it has the lanyard attachment.(omitted din the 6th generation

Kidizoom: Owned it. Needs lots of light but of course the kids will want to use it indoors. Result: pictures look horrible kids lost interest quickly

Coolpix S33: We had the S30. bad IQ, needs lots of light, battery compartment leaked and the camera died.

Instax: $1 a picture that's not going to fly in this house.

Olympus TG-4: Really? There's like 7 current waterproof cameras with similar quality and you pick the most expensive? It may be drop proof but it's not loss proof. Panasonic TS5, TS25, Canon D20, Pentax WG-4 will hurt $100 less when the kid leaves it on the bus.

TSZ50: ? that's a real head scratcher. You basically could replace it with any point and shoot and it would be just as good/bad for kids. Pricey, chunky and has a horrible/breaky Pinocchio stick out lens.

Schira: It looks like a great choice and at $199 it's $150 less than the "top of the line" dpreview is recommending for junior.

miles green: You are right, having an aperture setting is almost useless on these small cameras. Canon has been selling refurb late model DSLRs for $200ish, a much better option if that's the purpose.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 12:33 UTC
On article DPReview recommends: Best Cameras for Kids 2015 (103 comments in total)

Dad with bunch of kids:

ipod: great. Get an Otterbox Defender case. The 5g is a generation behind but may be better for kids as it has the lanyard attachment.(omitted din the 6th generation

Kidizoom: Owned it. Needs lots of light but of course the kids will want to use it indoors. Result: pictures look horrible kids lost interest quickly

Coolpix S33: We had the S30. bad IQ, needs lots of light, battery compartment leaked and the camera died.

Instax: $1 a picture that's not going to fly in this house.

Olympus TG-4: Really? There's like 7 current waterproof cameras with similar quality and you pick the most expensive? It may be drop proof but it's not loss proof. Panasonic TS5, TS25, Canon D20, Pentax WG-4 will hurt $100 less when the kid leaves it on the bus.

TSZ50: ? that's a real head scratcher. You basically could replace it with any point and shoot and it would be just as good/bad for kids. Pricey, chunky and has a horrible/breaky Pinocchio stick out lens.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 22:55 UTC as 22nd comment | 4 replies

Nice post!

It's something to consider if my K-01 or EOS-M ever bite the bullet but given they are built like tanks and have survived me this long it may be quite awhile.

Regarding sharpness; I think it's easy to be sharp at 16mp. I wonder how well the lenses would fair with a decent modern high resolution sensor. (My old NEX was fairly decent at 16mp but my newer sony 20+mp alpha produces a lot of mush, not extra detail with the same lenses).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 07:12 UTC as 28th comment
Total: 362, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »