jenbenn

jenbenn

Lives in Germany Germany
Has a website at www.photography-in-style.de
Joined on Mar 23, 2007

Comments

Total: 38, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jenbenn: I dont really understand why people are complaining.

For the last months I have been shooting a 5D III and a sony A7. After testing Sony's "innovative" camera I am utterly disapponted and decided to stick entirely with my 5Ds despite their higher weight. Reasons?:

1. Optical Viewfinder. If you shoot more than the casual amateur, you need an optical viewfinder. Staring through a Mini-TV- Viewfinder for hours a day is not an option, no matter how good the TV is. EVF may have an advantage in near to total darkrness but the lag of the EVF in darkness also makes you miss shots.

2. Operability. Canon handles much better and quicker. Sony takes ages to power on or zoom into a pic for checking focus.

3. Lenses.

In view of this the 7D II is another solid, camera, with specs you need to get the shot. Sure I would love a Foveson Sensor with 36 Mp and no noise up to iso 102,400. But I happily take the cam as is because I know it will let me get the shots easier than its predecessor.

Further to my post:

1. EVF makes me personally feel somewhat detached from the subject. With an OVF I can much better transform my imagination into the image I want.

No.2 is also not exhaustive: start-up and zoom in are only examples. Everything on the Sony reacts only after a shorter and sometimes longer lag. Even changing the aperture doesnt feel smooth. In addition, the camera feels very unfomtable with longer and heavier lenses. A 70-200 for example is downright a pain to use, except from a tripod.

As to the other mirrorless option: I actually need the high IQ because I print for galleries and agencies. I also do a lot of portriature, so FF is kind of a necessity. The only alternative to Sony would be Fuji. They indeed have great lenses. But the EVF is kind of the same and I dont like the rendition of foilage and greenery. Looks sort of plasticy in all usable raw converters.

I think mirrorless are not really a replacment of a DSLR and lack the universailty of usages.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 13:11 UTC

I dont really understand why people are complaining.

For the last months I have been shooting a 5D III and a sony A7. After testing Sony's "innovative" camera I am utterly disapponted and decided to stick entirely with my 5Ds despite their higher weight. Reasons?:

1. Optical Viewfinder. If you shoot more than the casual amateur, you need an optical viewfinder. Staring through a Mini-TV- Viewfinder for hours a day is not an option, no matter how good the TV is. EVF may have an advantage in near to total darkrness but the lag of the EVF in darkness also makes you miss shots.

2. Operability. Canon handles much better and quicker. Sony takes ages to power on or zoom into a pic for checking focus.

3. Lenses.

In view of this the 7D II is another solid, camera, with specs you need to get the shot. Sure I would love a Foveson Sensor with 36 Mp and no noise up to iso 102,400. But I happily take the cam as is because I know it will let me get the shots easier than its predecessor.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 12:26 UTC as 45th comment | 9 replies

What you forgot to mention is that the 5D has vastly superior dynamic range in all shots. The highlights in the sony raws are all blown out while the canon retains considerably more detail.

BTW I own a 5d III and a Sony A7 (non-r). The canon consistantly delivers less noise and better dynamic range at all isos above 400. The exception being at iso 100 and iso200 where the sony has less shadow noise if you need to lift the shadows dramatically.

To complete this: Any test site (hint: DXO) rating the canon sensor far below the sony sensor, should start using their cameras to take photos instead of performing absurd measurebating tests which do not translate into real life.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 14:48 UTC as 123rd comment | 8 replies
On Chinese government orders Nikon to stop selling D600 article (228 comments in total)

Problem solved...true! Corporate culture solved? Probably not. The tactics of large coopertations (not only Japanese) to deny design errors and defects of their products is an outright slab in the face of any customer. Nikon should not apologize for the dust issue - there really is no camera maker who never had quality problems. Nikon should feel ashamed for not telling its customers the truth. I expect from any person I deal with and who made a mistake to reveal this mistake and recitify it free of costs at the earliest possible moment. This is simply a question of good manners and respect. Sadly Nikon seems to have neither of those.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 20:37 UTC as 87th comment | 2 replies
On Sigma announces all-new 50mm F1.4 DG HSM 'Art' lens article (244 comments in total)

What I dont lie here, is that optical superiority always seems to come at the cost of a huge increase in size and/or weight. The Sigma 24-105 is also quie a bit bigger and heavier than the canon 24-105, which I find already at the borderline.

This is btw not only an issue with ISgma. Canons recent 35mm f/2 is alot bigger than the previous version.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 12:13 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

jenbenn: "The XF56mm F1.2 R is less than half the size of an equivalent lens on a full-frame camera" That is debatable --an equivalent FF lens would be an 85mm 1.8. At least with respect to field of view and dof. The Canon version of such lens happens to be very comparable in size and weight to the Fuji - certainly not double that of the Fuji.iF one conisders the 50mm 1.2 L USM as an "equivalent" lens the statement might be true, however a 50mm on FF has a diffeent application than a 56mm on Aps.-CC and is not comparable. Anyway, apart from the stupid marketing taklk, a real nice lens. Hope Sony release a Zeiss 85mm for their A7r soon, though

Its not an obsession. If you want to recreate the look of an 85mm 1.8 lens shot on a FF-camera you need to use a 56mm 1.2 lens on an Aps-C camera. The 1.2 lens will give you the option to use a faster shuter speed ( rarly relevant for portraits, once you exceed the hand hold limit of about 1/80-1/125 s) or a lower iso. Since FF has about one stop high iso adavatage over Aps-C the practial difference in the final results created by the two lenses boil down to the difference in shutter speed assuming you use the same iso - which is not necessary, since you can go a stop hgher with FF.So however you look at it: 56mm 1.2 is an 85mm 1.8 for Aps-c without any obsession.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 16:17 UTC

"The XF56mm F1.2 R is less than half the size of an equivalent lens on a full-frame camera" That is debatable --an equivalent FF lens would be an 85mm 1.8. At least with respect to field of view and dof. The Canon version of such lens happens to be very comparable in size and weight to the Fuji - certainly not double that of the Fuji.iF one conisders the 50mm 1.2 L USM as an "equivalent" lens the statement might be true, however a 50mm on FF has a diffeent application than a 56mm on Aps.-CC and is not comparable. Anyway, apart from the stupid marketing taklk, a real nice lens. Hope Sony release a Zeiss 85mm for their A7r soon, though

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 13:49 UTC as 28th comment | 12 replies
On Fujifilm X-A1 real-world and test scene samples article (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

jenbenn: Hm if a look at the green felt in the test scene the disadvantages of the x-trans sensor in the x-m1 and x-e2 compared to the x-a1 becomes very obvious. Both JPGS and RAWs of the x-e2 and the x-m1 are much softer compared to the corresponding files from the x-a1. So far I thought that the x-trans softness was a raw converter problem. From the test scene it appears however that even Fuji hasn't found a proper way to process the x-trans data for their in-camera jpgs!

Fuji as much as I love your cameras, please, drop that stupid xtrans colour filter array.In reality images created from bayer sensors (which include an anti alising filter) are much sharper. The noise advantage often attributed to x-trans is not real as it comes at the expense of softer files. Sorry but the same can be achieved with a proper raw converter and some noise reduction.

RIght, such detail does not matter most of the times. But why build an x-trans sensor if the bayer sensor is superior (even be it ever so slightly)??????
As regards the lack of moiré , no, the xtrans is not any better than a bayer sensor with AA filter. (It is actually worse, just google for the online comparisms if you don believe me) The jpeg proessing has nothing to do with the colur filter of the sensor. e.g you can easily have fuji colours and lack of noise out of bayer filter. Thus, I would prefer if all fuji cameras had the x-a1 sensor. There is simply no adavantage in x-trans. It is just a marketing hype, selling people an inferior sensor for inflated prices. Honestly, I am not here to bash fuji. I think they build the best handling and well rounded mirrorless cameras with thze best lens selection on the market. It is just stupid that they go with an inferior sensor, even though they can do better as the x-a1 shows.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 20:32 UTC
On Fujifilm X-A1 real-world and test scene samples article (105 comments in total)

Hm if a look at the green felt in the test scene the disadvantages of the x-trans sensor in the x-m1 and x-e2 compared to the x-a1 becomes very obvious. Both JPGS and RAWs of the x-e2 and the x-m1 are much softer compared to the corresponding files from the x-a1. So far I thought that the x-trans softness was a raw converter problem. From the test scene it appears however that even Fuji hasn't found a proper way to process the x-trans data for their in-camera jpgs!

Fuji as much as I love your cameras, please, drop that stupid xtrans colour filter array.In reality images created from bayer sensors (which include an anti alising filter) are much sharper. The noise advantage often attributed to x-trans is not real as it comes at the expense of softer files. Sorry but the same can be achieved with a proper raw converter and some noise reduction.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 15:30 UTC as 4th comment | 6 replies
On Sony DSC-RX10 preview (725 comments in total)

Excuse me, whats the point? If I compare this Sony to the Canon 100D with a Sigma 18-200 superzoom, a combination of only slightly bigger size and and higher weight, the latter will offer higher IQ and better dof control due to its Aps-C sensor and more versatility due to its interchangeable lens system. Above all its cheaper than this sony. So again: Why would and should anbody chose this superzoom compact?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 09:20 UTC as 214th comment | 6 replies
On Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Review preview (333 comments in total)
In reply to:

jenbenn: Impressive IQ but unfortunately only a toy rather than a tool. If I shot landscapes I would have much preferred a slower, lighter lens with image stabilization. For the travel, street, documentary and event work that I do the inconsistent AF renders the lens useless for me. I might as well use a slower, smaller, lighter and more inconspicous lens and shoot at higher ISO. After smoothing the noise in pp the result should be the same as a misfocussed image from this lens. In the end it seems the lens will not turn your Aps-c camera into something of a full frame equivalent.(Save for the dof )

Dont get me wrong, I admire the optical achievement. But without reliable Af, this optical splendour is just wasted for the majority of the practical applications this lens was designed for. My agency (alamy) rejects all misfocused images (however slight) and for large gallery prints misfocussed images are not usable anyway. What a shame.

That it doesnt AF properly.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2013 at 20:58 UTC
On Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Review preview (333 comments in total)

Impressive IQ but unfortunately only a toy rather than a tool. If I shot landscapes I would have much preferred a slower, lighter lens with image stabilization. For the travel, street, documentary and event work that I do the inconsistent AF renders the lens useless for me. I might as well use a slower, smaller, lighter and more inconspicous lens and shoot at higher ISO. After smoothing the noise in pp the result should be the same as a misfocussed image from this lens. In the end it seems the lens will not turn your Aps-c camera into something of a full frame equivalent.(Save for the dof )

Dont get me wrong, I admire the optical achievement. But without reliable Af, this optical splendour is just wasted for the majority of the practical applications this lens was designed for. My agency (alamy) rejects all misfocused images (however slight) and for large gallery prints misfocussed images are not usable anyway. What a shame.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2013 at 18:52 UTC as 89th comment | 4 replies

Other great Exhibitions of the Berlin Fotofestival (non-mobile images) can be seen from 13-18 June 2013 in the Station Berlin, Luckenwalderstraße 4-6, 10963 Berlin (near Gleisdreieck).
International renowned photographers sucha s Christopher Morris, Ami Vitale and many more exhibit.

See also:

http://berlin-fotofestival.de/en/
http://photography-in-style.de/?page_id=23

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 09:45 UTC as 9th comment
On Leica announces X Vario zoom compact with APS-C sensor article (757 comments in total)

f/3.5-6.4 that is very slow.... Any dof potential of the Aps-C sensor seems wasted here. Why no interchangable lenses? The zooom plus one or two nice, bright primes would have made a beautifal small system, which would have have been much more flexible than the fixed zoom alone.

Sony's nex-6 looks a lot better here and includes an electronic viewfinder. It also can adpat Leica lenses

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 13:09 UTC as 361st comment | 3 replies
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)

One of the bioggest "features" of LR was that it integrated smoothly with Photoshop. Since I can no longer have an up to date version of Photoshop I may as well go capture one.

Hey Phase One, wouldnt this be the time to announce an upgrade and/ or price reductions?

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 08:29 UTC as 567th comment
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)

Haha, the price cut for LR last year was a smart move.

Adobe got more people to build a big catalogue of images knowing that it will be difficult if not impossible to switich programs without loosing the ability to re-adjust your old images without having to re-work them from the ground.

Next year we probably see a subscription only model LR for only 10 bucks a month (introductory price) and a year later will pay 50 bucks/months.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 07:52 UTC as 583rd comment
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)

"We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for CC members using Lightroom"

Ok its clear: LR will continue to work but the nice new feature that everybody wants and waits for will be for subscription customers only.

We better start looking for an alternative program.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 06:53 UTC as 606th comment

Imagine.
You had a Lightroom catalogue with 10,000 images
One day Adobe put Lightroom in the cloud(10 bucks a month) but you continue to use good old LR 5 on your computer.
10 years later: You have to upgrade your operating systems because win 7 is no longer supported by Microsoft.
LR 5 is no longer compatible with whatever new operating system you have to run.
LR cloud service is now only 100 bucks a month.
You got two choices: 1) subscribe for Adobe cloud and pay 100 bucks a month or 2) rework the 20,000+ images you have amassed until then.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 22:16 UTC as 584th comment | 3 replies

What a great business model. Two years subscription equal the price of one former perpetual license. This means that people who upgraded only every second or third time because of cost will now be forced to quit Photoshop or spent their arm and leg for photoshop.
BTW Adobe have you heard that the largest internet provider in GErmany will no longer offer flat internet rates? This means that your cloud service will become totally untenable here. Good Luck!

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 21:31 UTC as 612th comment

Hm most of the samples are good, except for the last ones of the 16-50mm lens. The shots taken at 49 and50mm are either comletly out of focus or have been smoothed tremendously by Noise reduction ( not likley, since they were taken at ISO 100).
DPReview please check, these last two pics are so soft, it cant be duie to bad lens quality.
Also, most people buy a UWA lens to use it at its widest setting. I think you should at least provide a few test shots at 10mm fromthat lens. If I wanted to shoot at 16mm or longer I'd go for a cheper lens.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2012 at 11:56 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
Total: 38, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »