ManuelVilardeMacedo

ManuelVilardeMacedo

Lives in Portugal Portugal
Joined on Mar 1, 2012

Comments

Total: 833, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: An MF system or a brand new yacht: you choose.

Mikiev, you're so clever.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: That is like eye-wateringly expensive.

Sensors are priced exponentially based on area though due to the odds of defects increasing w/sensor area, so hopefully an FX sized equivalent would only cost $2K or so. Personally I would still rather have a bare-bones FX cam w/the form factor of an old SLR but a legacy mount for <$1000.

This kind of equipment belongs in the most demanding studios. It can't be measured against your regular DSLR, full-frame or otherwise. You don't want to take an MF camera on your vacations...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: An MF system or a brand new yacht: you choose.

What part of «system» did you find so hard to understand? Add a body and lenses to the backs' price and you'll be surprised...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 19:01 UTC

An MF system or a brand new yacht: you choose.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 18:23 UTC as 38th comment | 9 replies
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I use OM lenses on my Olympus E-P1; thus I've become tolerant to some amount of softness in photographs. After seeing the Raw studio scene comparison, however, I found the sofness in the Fuji images completely unacceptable. Many have shared their perplexity for this lack of sharpness in a camera with such an innovative sensor, and now it's my turn to wonder.
Add to that the difficulty in demosaicing Fuji's Raw files, which means no third-party image edition software programme has achieved completely satisfactory results yet with Fuji's Raws (though Adobe has come closer this time), and what you have, at the end of the day, is an overpriced body that is supposed to be complemented with very expensive lenses.
It is really a shame, because I love this camera. It is absolutely gorgeous and appeals to people like me, who lived the rangefinder glory days. I really hope Fujifilm solves these issues, because a camera this beautiful deserves success.

It disgusts me to see such depreciative replies. I wrote I loved the camera, albeit with some relevant reservations, but fanboyism is just like this: "this camera is perfect and anyone who doesn't think alike is a fool". This kind of mentality is way beyond my understanding.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 18:12 UTC
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I use OM lenses on my Olympus E-P1; thus I've become tolerant to some amount of softness in photographs. After seeing the Raw studio scene comparison, however, I found the sofness in the Fuji images completely unacceptable. Many have shared their perplexity for this lack of sharpness in a camera with such an innovative sensor, and now it's my turn to wonder.
Add to that the difficulty in demosaicing Fuji's Raw files, which means no third-party image edition software programme has achieved completely satisfactory results yet with Fuji's Raws (though Adobe has come closer this time), and what you have, at the end of the day, is an overpriced body that is supposed to be complemented with very expensive lenses.
It is really a shame, because I love this camera. It is absolutely gorgeous and appeals to people like me, who lived the rangefinder glory days. I really hope Fujifilm solves these issues, because a camera this beautiful deserves success.

So it is the review, not the camera, that is flawed... that's new!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 23:47 UTC
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I use OM lenses on my Olympus E-P1; thus I've become tolerant to some amount of softness in photographs. After seeing the Raw studio scene comparison, however, I found the sofness in the Fuji images completely unacceptable. Many have shared their perplexity for this lack of sharpness in a camera with such an innovative sensor, and now it's my turn to wonder.
Add to that the difficulty in demosaicing Fuji's Raw files, which means no third-party image edition software programme has achieved completely satisfactory results yet with Fuji's Raws (though Adobe has come closer this time), and what you have, at the end of the day, is an overpriced body that is supposed to be complemented with very expensive lenses.
It is really a shame, because I love this camera. It is absolutely gorgeous and appeals to people like me, who lived the rangefinder glory days. I really hope Fujifilm solves these issues, because a camera this beautiful deserves success.

Why should I do that, Thomas? None of the autofocus lenses I have give me the same results when it comes to colour rendition, and the OMs can be at least as sharp as my "digital" lenses. Plus they help me learn about photographing techniques in a way no other lenses do. The hands-on experience of shooting with manual focus lenses helped me having a better understanding of exposure, focus and depth of field. It is unwise to write things off just because they're not flavour of the month. It's like the option between automatic or manual gearboxes in cars: the latter feel more like the 'real thing'.
It was exactly because I believe softness is hard to accept with digital, autofocus equipment, that I bashed the Fuji X-E1. If some degree of sofness is tolerable with older equipment, with today's gear it isn't.
If your intention was to quote Bob Dylan's (whose music is rather antiquated...) album title, you got it wrong: it's «the times they are a'changin'» - a fact I'm completely aware of.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 22:41 UTC
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)

I use OM lenses on my Olympus E-P1; thus I've become tolerant to some amount of softness in photographs. After seeing the Raw studio scene comparison, however, I found the sofness in the Fuji images completely unacceptable. Many have shared their perplexity for this lack of sharpness in a camera with such an innovative sensor, and now it's my turn to wonder.
Add to that the difficulty in demosaicing Fuji's Raw files, which means no third-party image edition software programme has achieved completely satisfactory results yet with Fuji's Raws (though Adobe has come closer this time), and what you have, at the end of the day, is an overpriced body that is supposed to be complemented with very expensive lenses.
It is really a shame, because I love this camera. It is absolutely gorgeous and appeals to people like me, who lived the rangefinder glory days. I really hope Fujifilm solves these issues, because a camera this beautiful deserves success.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 22:00 UTC as 81st comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

stratplaya: This girl has made some bad choices in her life.

Clint, I'm absolutely sure that wasn't stratsplaya's intention. Look at the guy; someone with no contact with certain social realities will be forgiven to wonder why that woman chose such a despicable creature to share her life. That's not the same as blaming the victim.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 21:42 UTC
In reply to:

RonHendriks: It is amazing how much fuzz there is about the ending off the K-01. Most camera's go down easy, so all this fuzz is about something special!

Popetographer: you've just employed the adjective that best describes the Pentax K-01's aesthetics: «grotesque»!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 21:04 UTC
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)

Where are the "equivalent aperture" trolls?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 16:52 UTC as 95th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

RonHendriks: It is amazing how much fuzz there is about the ending off the K-01. Most camera's go down easy, so all this fuzz is about something special!

What do I find ugly about this camera? It is a silly question, because taste is not quantifiable; but, in a nutshell... everything.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2013 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

Tim F 101: Simple cause of death: it makes no sense to own a mirrorless camera with a SLR's register distance. If the lenses and camera body are no smaller for a given sensor size, then just buy the SLR. It will focus faster and its viewfinder will work better. Pentax tried to cheap out of designing new lenses for a new mount and got exactly the reception they deserved.

IMO the design was fine. Odd but it got people talking. The real problem was that the system as designed had no technical reason to exist.

Waxwaine, you missed Tim's point completely.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 22:07 UTC
On Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested article (144 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: Now we all can understand why DxO is so cautious about releasing X-Trans support...

Oh, a Canon fanboy bitterly resenting Canon's less-than-stellar DxOMark tests. Spare me!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 09:56 UTC
In reply to:

RonHendriks: It is amazing how much fuzz there is about the ending off the K-01. Most camera's go down easy, so all this fuzz is about something special!

Yes, one of the ugliest cameras in the world is now gone. It was a monumental failure, hence the interest.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 23:26 UTC
In reply to:

bzanchet: I think it`s a shame, at the studio comparison tool, the IQ is one of the best I have ever seen.
There is no need to complaint about the design, just buy something else, IMO I think it could bring some new ideas to the manufacturers... They are so short minded nowadays that all we see is some vintage designs coming back, where is the creativity?

The problem with the K-01 was not so much its looks, but that it was always at a loss to find its own spot. It was too big for a CSC camera, too small and fiddly to replace a DSLR. And, for its price at the time of launch, you could have bought a K-r body, or even a K-x, and you'd have got a proper handgrip and an optical viewfinder without adding too much to the bulk.
Of course, when the K-30 came, Pentax buried the K-01. The latter's advantage of allowing K lenses to be mounted became irrelevant (and so did its image quality) in face of its flaws. I don't see why people should hesitate in choosing the K-30 over the K-01.
Pentax could have done much better, but apparently they were too jaded to understand the market's demands.
And being fugly didn't help the K-01's case...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 22:55 UTC
On Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested article (144 comments in total)

Now we all can understand why DxO is so cautious about releasing X-Trans support...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 22:25 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies

Why am I not surprised?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 00:28 UTC as 104th comment | 1 reply
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mssimo: Some big tech guy on the radio took this 5DmkIII to the super bowl, guess what happened.... They did not let him in with the camera. He did not get any pictures and it ruined the experience for the entire group. How much is this worth to you. Maybe the RX1 comes at a premium, but being able to take it places you could not take a DSLR may be priceless for its buyers. Lets take a look at the numbers:

Full frame compact sensor camera: +-$1900
Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* with autofocus: +-1000
Total: $2900

6D/D600: +- $1900
Sigma 35mm F1.4: $900
Total: $2800

Having a great time at the super bowl with many images that captured the moments...Priceless...or at least worth the extra $100 bucks.

This is assuming you want the best of the best, lots of other great cameras on the market: RX100, X100s, OMD and so on.

Well, Massimo, with a 35mm lens the players would look minuscule on the field. And that would be if you could get a clear view. On the other hand, you would get awesome pictures of the spectators' scruffs...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 21:33 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Priaptor: You have to love all the hoi polloi posting their inane negative comments. None of you cretins even own one. It must suck to be just another wannabe.

Nice language.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 15:24 UTC
Total: 833, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »