amolkolhe

amolkolhe

Joined on Aug 15, 2012

Comments

Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8
In reply to:

nemark: Knowing the (POOOR) quality of Sony lenses, I`ll wait some practical results, tests and comments to create my own opinion. Nice collection of focal lengths and apertures, but discussable q. (Don`t confuse Sony with Zeiss-for-Sony.)

Yeah, agree. I tried the 16-50 power zoom in store today. While I personally like the 18-55 more because of its build quality, 16-50 has a better range (for me). Coming from Canon DSLR, the test shots taken with both of these seem so much better than the 18-55 on canon.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2013 at 23:41 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: 16-50 is OK. I guess depends on quality, E18-55 is incredibly bad for a modern lens.
10-18 and 35 are somewhat overpriced compared to SLR competition (Sigma 10-20 lenses are $480, Tamron 10-24 are $450 etc).

If you come from a canon kit lens 18-55, the Sony E18-55 is a vast improvement :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2013 at 23:34 UTC
On Fujifilm X20 Preview preview (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

xiod_crlx: $600 for this?

right now G15 and P7700 cost $200 less without side effects like

- size is too big
- lack of proper support from third party raw converters

but there is a definite segment of market for people that like "old-school" look and feel. so they have to pay =)

Its not all about looks, these cameras need to be judged by what they can i.e. the image results. And theres a reason X100, X10, X20, etc etc have generated so much buzz. They look awesome and they take great pictures.

If thats not obvious to you, then more power to you. Enjoy those plastic bodies of yours.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2013 at 14:53 UTC
On Fujifilm X20 Preview preview (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

RadioGnome: I was suddenly struck by the fact that Fuji prints the 35mm equivalents of the focal length on the zoom ring. I was inclined to like the whole retro styling, but this suddenly made it all look very fake and 'willing to be something it is not'.

I was considering ordering a X20, but can't describe how stupid the camera looks to me now.

I think after a good 10 years of varying sensor sizes, every serious photographer is mentally capable of understanding the focal length / sensor size story. This makes it ever more appropriate to just print the actual physical focal length on the barrel of a zoom lens. One side is 'wide angle', other end is 'tele'.

I Actually prefer 35mm equivalents. I personally am less inclined towards remembering the crop factors of every little camera I own and shoot. Using 35mm equivalent focal lengths as standard makes lot of sense to me. But then I'm not an old timer like you, more power to you!!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2013 at 14:50 UTC
In reply to:

Ben O Connor: It just prooves again: If you want the best shot, dont get fixed lens ! Buy even smallest sensored interchangable camera body and add a pancake lens on it. You could add any lens when you got richer. You can even get a camera bag too !!

(I dont know noone who could wear panths jacket has bulky pockets to handle X100... sorry it has never be compact though..)

And which f/2 lens do you use with you Sony Nex? Can you even get that combo for $1200?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

snake_b: I simply bought a K-5 with a couple of primes. It's seriously not that much bigger than an x100, true, in a dSLR format, but a small one. Everything I want is there, with fewer compromises, like AF, lens limitations, shutter speed limits, and so on. The X100 is a good performer, but rough around the edges. If some of these things were worked out, I'd likely have gotten one, but in the meantime, the K-5 leaves me wanting NOTHING. I wouldn't even sacrifice this performance for something smaller.

669 euros new with rebate, 359 for a used FA35 F2, 180 for a used F50 1.7, and I have just about everything I need.

score :)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 18:57 UTC
In reply to:

Polyfem: Hats off for Fujifilm. Instead of just letting the X100 on its own they keep improving its attraction. Great firmware updates and now this. I'm not sure I'll use it since the difference between 28 and 35 isn't significant, but, knowing myself, I'll probably acquiere one after all - the price is very nice.

I just wish they'd upgrade their assecories, especially their bags. The fine leather holster was useless from the beginning - they should make a decent bag which could contain the camera with UV filter, the cap, the hood and now the converter. It's meaningless to have a fine leather holster which cannot contain the rather few extras for this camera.

Sven

I found full leather cover to be too much hassle. I like my camera readily available when needed, rest of the time its in a bag with nice cushion.

So, I got the leather half cover with a hole at the bottom for changing batteries. This protects the bottom. The top is left open, but that makes it convenient to operate.

For the lens, I got the converter and hood, and a uv filter by B+W. Its an awesome setup and all elements are protected.

Looking fwd to get the Wide angle converter for landscape.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 18:41 UTC
On Fujifilm X-E1 Preview preview (410 comments in total)
In reply to:

mcm49: Also, everyone is saying Fuji's RAW format is useless because no post precessor supports it. And, history tells us when a sensor company tries to create their own RAW post processor, it hasn't flown very well. But, the Fuji in-camera RAW processor can be programmed to produce what the artist wants from their work, so this will be a very intriguing experiment to see how that pans out in comparison to the third party RAW post processors. On first guess, I'd say it won't compare equally or close enough to be lauded as a solution, but perhaps with the new JPEG engine in the X-series Fuji's, in camera RAW processing may not be shabby at all. It's exciting to see how it will all pan out...

"Fuji's RAW format is useless" is an overstatement.

I always shoot RAW+JPEG with my X100. I Post process the Raw files in Apple Aperture. All you need to do is install the Silkypix raw converter to get it to work.

However I have to say that the JPEGs out of the box are so stunning, on many occassions I use the JPEGs, right out of camera with minor edits.

My Primary use of RAW is for HDR work.
http://500px.com/photo/13724441

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 12:37 UTC
Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8