RStyga

RStyga

Joined on Nov 8, 2010

Comments

Total: 813, showing: 281 – 300
« First‹ Previous1314151617Next ›Last »

These lenses are too big for a mirrorless system. They should be smaller than their DSLR counterparts not same-size or larger.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 03:10 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

RStyga: The Leica T design does not help either.

"DESIGN" I said...

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 01:26 UTC

The Leica T design does not help either.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 22:13 UTC as 42nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Timlo: Not only is a rangefinder camera expensive to buy but to own too. What I've heard owners send in their cameras for inspection and service regularly, usually for checking the alignment of the rangefinder. In this regard this Konost with its digital ghost patch is really ground breaking in my opinion, no more maintenence!

Very good point!

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 03:01 UTC

The lack of controls to this extant is a serious drawback even for RF cameras. I also doubt the ergonomics of the grip as it looks slippery, we'll see. Last, I have serious reservations in regard to pricing: I feel from the existing marketing promotion that it will be quite expensive and only nominally cheaper than a comparable Leica M. If Ricoh release a successor to GXR+A12M it will be groundbreaking news. GXR was light years ahead in almost all respects compared to any M-mount digital camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 01:28 UTC as 97th comment
In reply to:

Randy Benter: The T6s should get a firmware upgrade to add AF micro adjust. I would never use a DSLR without this capability. It would be nice to have a smaller DSLR like this as an option, but apparently Canikon believe that enthusiasts and pros would never want a smaller/lighter camera. The competition is offering some nice options (e.g. E-M1 and X-T1), but Canon still doesn't get it.

AF micro adjustment should be a standard feature in all PDAF DSLR cameras, even the entry-level ones. With the advent of high-precision CDAF DSLM cameras, this is the minimum manufacturers can do to compete. Pentax was wise enough to incorporate it even in its lowly K-r. Snapshooters can let it be in default setting, but those who can see why FF or BF is unacceptable in a modern camera, should be able to use it. Canon wake up!

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 08:17 UTC
On article CP+ 2015: Fujifilm shows prototype roadmap lenses (78 comments in total)

Well done Fujifilm. 'Glad to see continuous support of fixed-focal lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 06:42 UTC as 5th comment

It's very early to comment on this camera. There's hardly anything there, yet. The mockup looks very tall, necessarily tall for a FF camera and detracts from the aesthetic harmony of the overall design. Pentax can make smaller DSLRs, they have proven it time and time again. We'll wait (I'm afraid rather a long time) and see...

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 22:06 UTC as 66th comment
On article Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

I wouldn't say Foveon is a colour-champion above base
ISO, however.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 22:02 UTC
On article Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

I'm old enough to have lived the film-only photography days in the 80s and 90s so quit your 'younger gen" rhetoric... it's irrelevant. I also used to own a DP2 but sold it because of its atrocious responsiveness. DPM improved but not enough. RAW recording speed, I implied, before, is another issue. Sigma need to fix what can be fixed (beyond the sensor limitations, that is). You can certainly take impressively high IQ photos but Sigma cameras are tripod-mostly, battery-intensive, take-your-time-only, loose-most-shots, freakishly-clumsy, but-fugly-as-of-Quattro cameras. Do you think that an RX1 or an A7 or 6D won't give you a superb image in terms of IQ?

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 04:40 UTC
On article Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

Save me the BS... Since when AF speed is one of the "endless features" in an AF camera? Battery power, RAW recording, ....

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 02:16 UTC
On article Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

@christom people like me.. you don't know me... and probably younger than me.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 13:46 UTC
On article Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

It has to, it's the only reason people buy them. In most other respects they are appalling.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 03:11 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: The design is not as bad as K-S1's but it is, still, a "K-S design"... ugly (especially top view and button design at the back).

No account for taste...

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 22:54 UTC
On article Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens (139 comments in total)

I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 12:39 UTC as 22nd comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

RStyga: Hopefully the WR design will prevent the duo-cam design from sucking dust. The lens is, however, very dark... F4-5.6... a F2.8-4 would be much better even if it would make the lens' diameter larger.

Well, lenses that maximize compactness are not advertised for performance.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: The design is not as bad as K-S1's but it is, still, a "K-S design"... ugly (especially top view and button design at the back).

I did not state that non-black cameras are badly designed, calm down. I was referring to the design, the shape, form and texture, not the colour.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 10:57 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: Hopefully the WR design will prevent the duo-cam design from sucking dust. The lens is, however, very dark... F4-5.6... a F2.8-4 would be much better even if it would make the lens' diameter larger.

@stray.. you're being rude & stupid. Have you seen how small the full-frame Sigma AF 28-70mm F2.8-4 DG is?

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 10:51 UTC

Hopefully the WR design will prevent the duo-cam design from sucking dust. The lens is, however, very dark... F4-5.6... a F2.8-4 would be much better even if it would make the lens' diameter larger.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 01:51 UTC as 19th comment | 6 replies

The design is not as bad as K-S1's but it is, still, a "K-S design"... ugly (especially top view and button design at the back).

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 01:45 UTC as 53rd comment | 6 replies
Total: 813, showing: 281 – 300
« First‹ Previous1314151617Next ›Last »