Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Aerospace Engineering Consultant
Has a website at www.hinkey.zenfolio.com
Joined on Dec 27, 2005


Total: 340, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jdh99: This is a shocking development and a blow to Sony's E mount. Mount adapters always degrade image quality. Consumers shouldn't expect to have to adapt the mount

Mount adapters "always degrade image quality"? That's complete BS.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: I fear A7(R) customers could drop a screw onto the sensor, or better said the filter in front of it...and couldn't get the exact torque criss-cross onto the mount.

I'm wondering, does the A7 have the internal structure basis for being stable enough to support a all metal mount? the A7S does have it by design, but neither the A7(R)...and i mind have had reading before, the A7S front panel had been extra designed heavy duty to support a metal mount, and heavy lenses, especially.

Apart from that, good idea...but can't we just mount a A7S full metal bajonet then, without that silly saying "The Tough E-Mount" - which is really fugly for my taste...of course, when you've got a lens mounted, you don't see this. ;)

Further, i don't trust the Fotodiox brand that much - could they really produce a Metal E Mount within very slighty tolerances? I doubt it...and i'd say that mod will
void your warranty. As long as you don't know at exactly what specific torque you've to tighten the screws, too.

If someone doesn't know what they are doing with mechanical things such as this then they shouldn't be doing this replacement.

Worried about dropping screws on the sensor? Stand the camera up or upside down. Make a circular disk to fit inside the body to protect the sensor, etc., etc.
Worried about torque on the screws - learn how to tighten such flanges and get excellent tools.

Obviously this "upgrade" is not for every A7/r owner.

My A7R has absolutely no axial play and only a very slight rotational play that is consistent with all my other cameras.

If people are worried about mount strength someone should find a dead carcass of an A7 and pull/bend a couple of mounts to see if the plastic one in the A7/r is indeed inferior.

There is a lot of plastic to shear off in there and I'm not worried personally.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 19:34 UTC

Or maybe it has a pretty hefty AA filter on the sensor to reduce moire in 4k video?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 20:29 UTC as 64th comment | 3 replies

Some people see sharpness in these images while other (like me) see them as soft. These look great a small size, but so does my cell phone. Hopefully this copy is poor for sharpness or the SOOC jpg files have zero sharpening . . .

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 16:50 UTC as 71st comment
In reply to:

Realll: Just saw the review of Photographyblog. Even my LX7 does better.


One of the reasons I don't like my LX7 is softness - even shooting RAW the lens is just not that sharp. It's not bad, but it's not very good either.

Perhaps there are just too many optical compromises to be made with a collapsible lens.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 16:39 UTC

Finally some images that I can relate to (aided by the recent great weather here in the PNW).

After looking at the landscape shots from the hike in the North Cascades it seems that this lens is no 12-35/2.8 replacement - sharpness is not there.
I sure hope this is due to the SOOC JPEG settings. No fine details - which is more necessary with "just" 12MP to play with.

Also, I couldn't figure out why ISO 200 is used all the time in bright daylight - then I looked at the LX100 specs and 200 is the base ISO - why did Panasonic do that? The GX7 has 125 ISO as it's base - I thought these sensors were supposed to be similar, but I guess they are not.

I'll have to handle one in person before committing to purchase - hope ACR supports it soon.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 15:15 UTC as 79th comment | 1 reply

After reading all the comments (some silly, others well informed) I think this camera is in my future. I think this will replace my LX7 and G5 (have a GX7 and GH-2 as well) and be the one compact large sensor camera that I have. The LX7 was used for compactness and the G5 for general use.
I think I'll wait for the price to come down or some specials this holiday season before hitting the buy button though.

Certainly not a camera for everyone's use, but quite compelling, even if you already have other m43 gear. Been waiting for a fixed lens m43 camera for some time and Pany has finally done it. Sure it's missing a few features, but I think I can live with those omissions.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 16:18 UTC as 55th comment
In reply to:

crinosil: What's missing from the LX100 and frankly all of the super compacts is water and dust resistance... You would think that given that the lens doesn't come off they could engineer this in....especially in a $900 camera.... but without this, I'm sticking to the EM1... yes its bigger, but at least I can bring it with me in the rain and mud while I'm hiking without worrying about bricking it....

Ironically smart phones don't have many external controls or an extending lens and are thus far easier to make weather resistant. Not a good use of irony.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

Peter Gurdes: sony a6000 or a5100..... who needs fixed lens compacts these days when he can get those?

i sure not.

The reason they can charge that much for this camera is:
- Large sensor size
- Fast, reasonable zoom range lens INCLUDED WITH THE CAMERA
- External controls
- 4K Video
- Multi-Aspect Sensor

One should not be comparing the LX100 to the GX7, rather it should be compared to GX7+ lens (or any other camera body + lens) for size, price, features, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: GX7 has the all essential articulating display. I don't understand why Panasonic left it out of the LX100?!

Price, size, product differentiation, etc. Only they know.
I would imagine that an articulated/tilting display is a fairly expensive addition to a camera - extra parts and assembly + warranty issues.
Also, there may not have been enough desire for such a feature from the target audience.
Only Panasonic knows.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2014 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

lolopasstrail: "The line between the compact and the SLR began to blur somewhat with the disruptive influence of the Advanced Photo System (APS)"

We may forget that when 35mm cameras were new, they were referred to for decades as "miniature" format cameras. 35mm- now known as "Full Frame"- was the original compact camera system.

And there were "advanced compacts" even in the 35mm film days. Ricoh had one, so did Nikon, so did Contax. These were not cheap and had permanently attached lenses, either zoom or single focal length.

Leica even had a "miniature M"- the CL, which took two dedicated lenses- a 40mm and a 90mm.

Exactly - hence my comment far below about the unnecessary and incomplete history lesson that the author could have left out.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: They're only clarifying the language, not the original intent. If you read the directives, it's pretty clear that they're not restricting us from photographing the wilderness.

The proposed language for the amended directive was put up and comments invited. They have comments and are going to adjust accordingly. This is nothing more than a step in the process and nothing to worry about.

Private entities have no better track record of efficiency or lack of red tape than the US government, it's just not as transparent.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:23 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: They're only clarifying the language, not the original intent. If you read the directives, it's pretty clear that they're not restricting us from photographing the wilderness.

The proposed language for the amended directive was put up and comments invited. They have comments and are going to adjust accordingly. This is nothing more than a step in the process and nothing to worry about.

forpetessake -

If the government (fed, state, and local) was truly shut off for a year as you intone, your life would likely be very much degraded.
As much as people love to impune their government, they in fact rely on it to a far greater degree than they either are aware of or want to admit.
If you make $$ off of being on public land I think it only fair that you should be paying a fee for that opportunity. Many entities make $$ while on public land and they have to pay permit fees as well, so I see no reason that commercial photography and film interests get a pass.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

Edymagno: Tell them to stop the launch of ten Tomahawks and be done for the next 5 years.

So ~$14M will pay for it for the next 5 years for all the national parks? I don't think that will scratch the surface.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 01:44 UTC

I have no problem with a fee structure for commercial use (any commercial use be it one person or a whole film crew) of public lands. I pay a fee when I enter Mt. Rainier NP if I take pictures or not, I pay an additional fee if I climb the mountain, etc. I pay all sorts of fees at state and federal trail heads. These fees are to help cover the maintenance and upkeep (which is woefully behind) of these lands/facilities and I don't mind it.

That being said, I would expect that they should make the photo/filming fee process, especially for single individuals, very stream-lined, just like I get a yearly access pass for the National Parks I should, if I were a pro, be able to get a commercial use pass for a nominal fee.

I see photographers all the time walking off the trails in the NPs, don't know if they are pros, and this contributes to damage and wear/tear on facilities, trails, etc.

Sure WE own it, but that shouldn't mean that it should be "free" to do whatever we want.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 23:28 UTC as 100th comment

The article could have been half as long - spare us the history lesson which I found not all that applicable or complete.

Really it comes down to the cost of an LX100 vs. GX7+12-35/2.8 and the tradeoffs between the two camera+lenses.

Do you want (hopefully) very good IQ in a very compact package, but with a fixed zoom lens or do you want to trade compactness for versatility?

Panasonic has given us that option.

I'll have to look hard at selling my LX7 and replacing it with the LX100. In some cases my GX7+12-35 was too bulky and the LX100 is much more compact when collapsed down. That being said, my GX7 + 12-35/2.8 is in no danger of being replaced.

Preliminary kudos to Panasonic (waiting for the image quality tests).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 20:07 UTC as 156th comment
In reply to:

GothtinPowers: So how do these compare to dedicated film scanners like the Nikon coolscans?

I suspect they are pretty good. My CoolScan 5000ED was great for sharpness and dust/scratch correction and the auto slide holder worked great (once it was modified), but it had real problems with flare on high contrast images - very annoying.
I could get slightly better DR and way better flare control using my D800 + 55/3.5 AI micro + PS-6/PB-6 setup, but is was labor intensive and did not handle negs or scratched/dirty media very well.
It appears that these scanners have dust/scratch correction capability which would come in very handy. Don't know about the dynamic range capabilities . . .

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

RobertSigmund: The best method at the moment is copying the negative/slide with the digital camera. Brings better results than scanners and is faster. You need a macro lens of course, and a slide copier. I have the old minolta slide copy unit 1000 for the Minolta ring flash. Very good device.

Only if you have super clean, scratch-free negs/transparencies.
I've used my D800 + 55/3.5 AI Macro + PS-6/PB-6 with excellent results, but it becomes a nightmare if there are a lot of scratches and/or dust to fix.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 18:24 UTC

No worries, Nikon will come out with a mirrorless FX body . . . . I just may have expired by then.

But seriously, they surely have the technology ready for a FX mirrorless camera, but likely don't want to pull a Sony and put it all in an ill-thought-out camera body.

In the mean time I'll use my D800 and A7R side-by-side.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2014 at 05:14 UTC as 39th comment
On Hands-on with Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 article (441 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpix345: As amazing as the LX100 seems to be, I have to say that the more time passes the less interested I am. The lack of an onboard flash really is the killer for me, which I am now almost glad about, because if not for that fact I would have been willing to overlook the lack of touch screen and flip screen, which seem like ridiculous omissions from this level of camera.

Finally, that filter button just irks the hell out of me. Dedicated button for goofy filters? Seriously Panasonic? And not even an ND. SMH. And it's not even configurable to do something else, I don't think.

You tease us with this fast lens and generous sensor, but then fail to deliver some basic elements. Is that intentional, to create an easy path to the MKII version next year? I guess I hope so, but damn, I am tired of everyone playing that game.

Yes, the silly filter button . . . who uses these settings?
Hopefully it can be re-programmed.

Lack of flash is a downer, but I must admit the number of times I've used the on-board flash of my GX-7 is in the low single digits, so it's not that much of a loss for me.

Going to wait to see what kind of image sharpness this lens/sensor combo gives. I assume it will shoot RW2 files . .

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 17:30 UTC
Total: 340, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »