johnsaxon

johnsaxon

Lives in United States Dallas, TX, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at johnsaxonphoto.com
Joined on Jan 22, 2010

Comments

Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20

Hey, I agree that just about anybody could have taken this shot but you have to give the guy credit for an amazing marketing job. And it is a pretty decent photo after all.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 00:55 UTC as 39th comment
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (954 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpro: Is it just me or do the G7 shots of the studio scene look blurry?

Look at the playing cards in the two different locations. In the upper one the Canon is sharper, and in the lower one the Sony is sharper. Doesn't really make sense to me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 23:16 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (954 comments in total)

Weird. From the studio test shot comparison the G7 appears to be sharper in the upper part of the frame and the RX100 looks sharper in the lower half of the frame. Not sure what could be going on there.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 23:14 UTC as 19th comment
On High-end pocketable compacts 2013 roundup article (264 comments in total)

I've been shooting with a Canon S90 (earlier version of S120) for many years. This camera fits very easily in the front pocket of my jeans or shorts and it's small and light enough that I don't even realize that it's there. The lens doesn't stick out much and the corners are rounded so it's very easy to slip in and out of the pocket. You just can't beat this camera for portability. It takes great sharp pictures and focuses close at all focal lengths. I think the RX-100 is too chunky to be carried constantly in my pocket, so the extra pixels don't really matter to me. I can just shoot with my Canon 5D if I'm needing a large file.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 03:13 UTC as 53rd comment | 1 reply
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

Cool idea, but it's way too thick and has too many dials. If they wanted to go retro they should have made it look exactly like a good old Nikon F with the standard prism.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2013 at 03:54 UTC as 41st comment
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

Per my brother-in-law Tim, maybe they should call it the Nikon WTf.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 03:12 UTC as 278th comment

Just goes to show you.... it ain't the camera, it's the eye. This guy could take great pictures with a Brownie.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2013 at 17:32 UTC as 19th comment
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review article (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsaxon: Here I go again. Is anyone listening? This camera will not focus close up except at the widest focal length of 28mm. When you zoom to 35mm or 50mm ALL CLOSE UP FOCUSING IS GONE. The minimum focus distance at 50mm is 15.5" whereas my Canon S95 will focus down to about 3.5 inches at 50mm. The Sony will only focus down to 19.5 inches at 100mm, the Canon S95 focuses to 9 inches at 105mm.
I bought a Sony RX100 and had to return it when I discovered that it had virtually no close focusing ability. I use this type of close focusing every day with my Canon and cannot live without it.
OK, everyone enjoy your new RX100! just don't try to focus on anything too close to the camera. And remember that nobody else but you is having this problem, even people who paid about $75 for their little point and shoot.

Jens_G- I don't think that's right about the sensor size. The RX100 will focus to under 2" at 28mm. If the sensor size were the problem it wouldn't be able to do that. My objection is that it ONLY focuses close at the 28mm setting. When you zoom to 35mm the close focus distance jumps way up. This seems more like a lens design problem.
Also note that the RX100 only focuses to 15.5" at 50mm. That's almost 5 times farther away than the S95 which focuses to 3" or so. The Sony sensor is not 5 times larger than the Canon's.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 19:04 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review article (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsaxon: Here I go again. Is anyone listening? This camera will not focus close up except at the widest focal length of 28mm. When you zoom to 35mm or 50mm ALL CLOSE UP FOCUSING IS GONE. The minimum focus distance at 50mm is 15.5" whereas my Canon S95 will focus down to about 3.5 inches at 50mm. The Sony will only focus down to 19.5 inches at 100mm, the Canon S95 focuses to 9 inches at 105mm.
I bought a Sony RX100 and had to return it when I discovered that it had virtually no close focusing ability. I use this type of close focusing every day with my Canon and cannot live without it.
OK, everyone enjoy your new RX100! just don't try to focus on anything too close to the camera. And remember that nobody else but you is having this problem, even people who paid about $75 for their little point and shoot.

Yes, of course the closest focusing distance is always at the widest focal length, but I'm talking about a huge jump from closeup to totally not closeup with the slightest zooming of the lens. Very bizarre if you ask me, and makes the camera completely unusable for me. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the excellence of the Canon S95, but for $650 I certainly expected the RX100 to at least match the focusing performance of much less expensive cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 02:59 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review article (373 comments in total)

Here I go again. Is anyone listening? This camera will not focus close up except at the widest focal length of 28mm. When you zoom to 35mm or 50mm ALL CLOSE UP FOCUSING IS GONE. The minimum focus distance at 50mm is 15.5" whereas my Canon S95 will focus down to about 3.5 inches at 50mm. The Sony will only focus down to 19.5 inches at 100mm, the Canon S95 focuses to 9 inches at 105mm.
I bought a Sony RX100 and had to return it when I discovered that it had virtually no close focusing ability. I use this type of close focusing every day with my Canon and cannot live without it.
OK, everyone enjoy your new RX100! just don't try to focus on anything too close to the camera. And remember that nobody else but you is having this problem, even people who paid about $75 for their little point and shoot.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 23:56 UTC as 89th comment | 5 replies

I had to return the Sony RX100 that I bought because the close-focus figure of 2" was very deceptive. once you zoom the lens from its 28mm wide-angle setting the close-focusing completely disappears and the camera has absolutely no macro capability. (how about 15.5" at 50mm?) My point here is that now I'm paranoid and will not consider any camera until I can find out detailed info about the macro focusing AT ALL FOCAL LENGTHS. I doubt that Nikon would pull something as weird as what Sony did, but I'm just sayin'.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 22:50 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsaxon: Just got a new RX100 yesterday. It's nice but has what may be a deal-killer flaw. When you try to close-focus at anything but the widest angle the lens suddenly becomes very un-macro, forcing you to back way up. I don't know about you, but I consider it very important to be able to close-focus while being somewhat telephoto-ed out. For one thing, if you can only focus close at the widest angle setting you are right on top of whatever you're shooting and your shadow is on top of it. My Canon S95 has no problem doing macro with the telephoto, so I guess I'm spoiled. Honestly, the user-friendliness of the Canon trumps whatever advantages the Sony may have in Megapixels or aperture. ATTENTION, DP REVIEW: please tell us what the minimum focusing distances are at ALL ZOOM LEVELS. What good is it to have this super-detailed review if you're going to leave out something so essential?

TJGKG, as long as you don't care about focusing close at anything other than 28mm you should be OK. I just expect closer focusing from a $650 camera. Most of these little point and shoots have excellent close-focusing abilities, including many of the sub-100 dollar ones. I'm not sure what Sony was thinking here.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 19:01 UTC
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)

Minimum focusing distance goes from 2" at 28mm to a whopping 8" at 35mm, an equally whopping 15.5" at 50mm, then 18" at 70mm and 19.25" at 100mm. IMHO, this makes the camera fairly useless for most macro work. It's hard to believe that Sony would even release a camera with such poor close-focusing distances. I also feel that DP Review failed to mention this as a major problem in their review. I certainly would have immediately dropped the camera from consideration.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 18:56 UTC as 42nd comment | 3 replies
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dinarius: I've owned the wonderful Canon G9 for a few years now. But, I think it's time to treat myself to something better. The viewfinder on the G9 is rubbish, & i never use it. Professionally, I use a Hasselblad & a Canon 1DsMlll. In both cases, basis framing is done using the viewfinder, but final decisions regarding composition are made on the screen (Canon) or laptop (Hasselblad). As with Polaroid in film days, beIng able to 'stand back' from the composition (rather than be 'in it' when your eye is against the viewfinder) is vital for me.

The deal breakers for me when choosing a new compact will be portability & image quality, nothing else. For this reason, I've ruled out the G1X. So, if someone can tell me what's the best camera using those criteria, I'd be very grateful. ;)

D.

Be warned- the minimum focusing distances are pretty bad at anything other than 28mm wide angle (equiv.). Nowhere near as good as the ones on your G9.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 17:51 UTC
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)

Just got a new RX100 yesterday. It's nice but has what may be a deal-killer flaw. When you try to close-focus at anything but the widest angle the lens suddenly becomes very un-macro, forcing you to back way up. I don't know about you, but I consider it very important to be able to close-focus while being somewhat telephoto-ed out. For one thing, if you can only focus close at the widest angle setting you are right on top of whatever you're shooting and your shadow is on top of it. My Canon S95 has no problem doing macro with the telephoto, so I guess I'm spoiled. Honestly, the user-friendliness of the Canon trumps whatever advantages the Sony may have in Megapixels or aperture. ATTENTION, DP REVIEW: please tell us what the minimum focusing distances are at ALL ZOOM LEVELS. What good is it to have this super-detailed review if you're going to leave out something so essential?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 16:23 UTC as 43rd comment | 5 replies
On New York in the Look Up High challenge (3 comments in total)

Really cool photo. Very nice.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 22:39 UTC as 1st comment
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)

I've been a professional photographer for 35 years, but have now retired from commercial work. When looking to buy a camera I would only look at image quality versus cost. The Mark II set a very high standard for quality and was about $2700 for the body if I remember correctly. So far I have never looked at one of the images from my 5D Mark II and felt any need for increased resolution or any other improvement.

Regarding the fancy metering, what are you doing other than averaging the light in the scene and then choosing an exposure value that will either blow the highlights or block up the shadows? I remember the old days when the film came with a little paper that said "open shade - 125th @ f8" - and by god it worked.

It's aggravating that Canon has jacked up the price of the 5D by almost a thousand dollars. Unless this model has a far superior sensor, which is likely not the case, just buy yourself a Mark II while you still can.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 22:36 UTC as 51st comment | 5 replies

Let me just run right out and buy this lens for $900. Oh wait, I forgot that I'm not one of the group of Serious Amateur Photographers With Unlimited Money.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 22:07 UTC as 27th comment | 8 replies
On PT3C9836 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)

I've been a pro photographer for the last 35 years. I don't care how many zones the metering system has, you still are only choosing a shutter speed and f-stop. I stopped even using meters after several years of shooting because I pretty much knew what the exposure was going to be. If I was wrong I would just adjust it up or down a little. You still have to use your brain to decide whether to expose for shadows or highlights depending on how you want to interpret the scene, etc. Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me that Canon would arbitrarily jack the price of the camera way up. My advice would be to buy a Mark II while you still can. Anything that surpasses the image quality of the Mark II is either way too expensive for the small quality improvement, or total overkill unless you're planning on viewing your photos at billboard size.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 01:56 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On Northern Saw-whet owl in the Oh, What I had to do for this! challenge (18 comments in total)

Really gorgeous shot! Worth the effort.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2010 at 16:02 UTC as 10th comment
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20