zapatista

zapatista

Lives in United States Denver, United States
Works as a Photographer every 6th Friday of the month
Joined on Sep 11, 2011

Comments

Total: 132, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbnl: Meh. To each their own. I've been using an aps-c dslr and a complement of lenses, and I've had no issues scaling up walls, climbing a top of rocks, hanging from ropes and cruising around on a skateboard with my kit.

Sure, it'd be nice to have something compact, but until Nikon makes a mirrorless that uses the F-bayonet without an adapter, and has the capabilities for flash and external lighting, I'm keeping my dslr. If they made something with the controls an size of my FE, I'd buy it.

I like having all the controls at my finger tips without having to scroll through menus, and the stability of using a viewfinder over a screen does it for me.

To each their own.

Absolutely, it is great to have so many good choices!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2013 at 22:04 UTC
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)
In reply to:

jjnik: The RX100II night shot is fine to post on Facebook - but beyond that it is a noise-reduced mess and way inferior to what a good FF DSLR would deliver. I'm fine with people being OK with these shots and wanting decent IQ in a portable package - but there are significant IQ trade-offs that come long with that - so I hate when people try to suggest that they come even remotely close to what a good DSLR would deliver in the same situation because that is complete BS.

Why would I spend money on a $4000 on a 4 pound FF Body and 35mm lens. You can get shots with a small camera that you can't with a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages go both ways.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2013 at 21:42 UTC
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)
In reply to:

jjnik: The RX100II night shot is fine to post on Facebook - but beyond that it is a noise-reduced mess and way inferior to what a good FF DSLR would deliver. I'm fine with people being OK with these shots and wanting decent IQ in a portable package - but there are significant IQ trade-offs that come long with that - so I hate when people try to suggest that they come even remotely close to what a good DSLR would deliver in the same situation because that is complete BS.

I humbly suggest that mirrorless cameras are capable of producing images just as good or better than DSLR's. Especially of the same sensor size. You won't do better in a non-action 35mm shot than an RX1 with ANY FF DSLR body/35mm lens combo.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2013 at 21:33 UTC
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)

Well, you could go mirrorless, 35mm and shoot at "ISO 20,000+" with an RX1 and save space! All kidding aside, a very well formed piece on the practicality of photography and balanced to boot. I started in mirrorless (GF2) and have found very little need to go "bigger" even though I like to shoot birds.
Right now the EOS M with the 22mm is a great, small and ridiculously cheap combo for the 35mm eq. FOV--$300 for the EOS M vs. $2500 for an RX1. I can afford and have owned (and loved) the RX1 but for my use, the EOS M is damn good and a damn good bargain. Thanks again Barney!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2013 at 21:20 UTC as 204th comment
On Just posted: Olympus PEN E-P5 real-world samples article (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adrian Van: Very good photos overall. Image quality similar to OMD.
What is the point of taking photos at 12800 iso, to show how noisy it is at an iso most of us would not likely want to use anyway, and would get a prime for a lower iso? It cleaned up fairly well in ACR though in second image. I would rather see more images at 1600, 3200 and 6400. There was some night photos taken at 800 iso with F1.8 or longer exposures looked very good.
All in all a great camera though.
Robin Wong also has great examples on his website blog.

How effective is the IBIS? On par with the OM-D? Thanks for posting the samples :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2013 at 21:10 UTC
On DSC00276 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

PBR and an RX100 (II). Life doesn't get any better.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2013 at 05:02 UTC as 2nd comment
On Lens reviews update: DxOMark data for Sony NEX primes article (54 comments in total)

The 50mm is best at f1.8?!? DxOMark needs to stick with sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2013 at 04:23 UTC as 12th comment
On Pentax unveils blue and white K-01 in Japan article (262 comments in total)

Wow, the world has changed. Now if they just priced it at $5,999 and called it a Lunar I could die happy.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2013 at 14:13 UTC as 99th comment | 1 reply

It's interesting, on the US HQ building, Pentax is easily seen but Ricoh is not on the outside of the building.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2013 at 19:57 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: Not to troll, as know how lovely the Fujis are, but spec wise, this is still not as good as my similarly priced Sony NEX 5R + 16-50mm Power Zoom kit, that offers an identical lens to the Fuji zoom, plus 50fps video (important), touch screen that can be flipped forward, faster high speed still shooting (10fps), and correct me if I am wrong, but a larger sensor amongst other things.

The very reason I would move to Fuji was their twin tactile exposure controls, but here, they have removed them, bringing back the same usability issues that effect the mid to low end NEX cameras with their somewhat fiddly on screen menu system. (I only keep my NEX because the IQ and shot to shot speed is superb. As is the articulating display.)

The NEX16-50mm sucks for IQ...sucks bad. Fast accurate AF, dogcrap (and I mean blurry dogcrap) IQ. Sony doesn't have one...not one really good E mount zoom lens. The sensors are exactly the same size. Please actually attempt to read a little about the camera, or god forbid try one out before spouting total crap.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2013 at 00:18 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: Anyone know why pair with 16-50mm instead of 18-55mm kit lens
Is the 16-50mm worse than 18-55mm?

The Sony "kit" zoom lenses are crap. Decent enough for basic stuff, but not in the same league as the Fuji 18-55mm & probably not near the new 16-50mm.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2013 at 00:12 UTC
On Fujifilm X-M1 Preview preview (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

radissimo: Fuji just got lazy introducing "me too" camera. yawn

Nex 5R has a similiar feature set and physical controls...though the 5R can take an EVf. BTW, I shoot with an XE-1, not an NEX.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2013 at 02:38 UTC
In reply to:

CarVac: I want a small 28mm equiv for aps-c dslrs.

Not some huge semi-fast prime (77mm filter threads!).

Not some huger, faster (!) zoom.

I'll even take f/4 if it's small.

Either way, more options are better.

Well, how about the Fuji 18mm f2 while we're at it, the only downside is that you'd have to get a smaller body :P.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2013 at 12:24 UTC
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: Amazing lens for amazing price. I have the EOS M with both lenses. The 22mm F/2 smokes the Fuji 23mm on the X100 and easily beats the Zeiss 24 1.8 for the NEX.
Also the difference between the Canon EFM 18-55 and the mid range zooms from Sony is night and day.
I'm pretty sure, based on current EFM optics, the 11-22 will be stellar!
Suddenly the EOS M with the enhanced AF and the addition of what should be a stellar ultra wide is looking like an amazing bargain.

Agreed on the 22mm, and you can buy a new one for around $100 on eBay.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

Dougbm_2: So it is really a 200mm to 560mm f4-5.6 IS L lens.
Might as well buy a Panasonic FZ200 and get 25-600mm f2.8. Ok not the same and a tiny sensor but unless you are a serious photographer or quite wealthy what to do?. Don't get me wrong I would love this but my wallet says no. My longest lens is an old 100-300 f5.6 L lens that is a push pull design like the 100-400 L, but it is much sharper than that lens (now sold). I also have a 70-200 f4 IS and it is nearly as good as that, especially good at the long end, except it doesn't have IS. I was really surprised! Cost me almost nothing too!

I know, stayed up all night and can't decide between this lens or an FZ200.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 11:58 UTC
On Just posted: Pentax MX-1 Preview Samples article (55 comments in total)

Brass Olympus

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2013 at 23:14 UTC as 10th comment

In 9 months when it's selling for $149, I'd buy one.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2013 at 07:48 UTC as 47th comment
In reply to:

kinglau711: Mr Butler,

Why are the RAWs of the X-E1 and X-Pro1 less sharp than the RAWs of any other camera like the Olympus E-M5, Canon 5D markIII, Sony Nex-7 or Nikon D7000, at 3200 ISO ?

Thank you.

That's cos max is an idiot.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2013 at 19:49 UTC
On US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector article (300 comments in total)

On another subject, who the hell is paying almost $600k for an inkjet print-film scan of a tricycle.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 00:51 UTC as 90th comment | 1 reply
On Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review article (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

DarkShift: Oh, it equals about 21mm f4.5 lens on full frame. Not too fast for a 900$ lens.

Vignetting is also very extreme, whopping 1.34 EV @ f8.

What I'd love is to see just ONE of these "crop sensor" comment discussions go on without some dumbass equivocating DoF to full frame. JUST ONE.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 00:10 UTC
Total: 132, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »