audiobomber

audiobomber

Lives in Canada Sudbury, ON, Canada
Joined on Jan 27, 2008

Comments

Total: 165, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Shoot a scene with the Olympus OM-D EM-1 and 300mm f4. Shoot the same scene with a Pentax K-3 II and DA*300mm f4 from the same location. Crop the Pentax image to the same dimensions as the Oly image.

Voila, equivalence! Both are 16mp, same FOV, similar noise, same DOF, same perspective, similar DR. Both are weather-sealed. Pentax IBIS is 4.5 stops, Oly is 5 stops. Size is not much different. The K-3 II is slightly larger than the EM-1. The Olympus 300mm is slightly larger than the Pentax lens. Frankly I prefer to use my K-3 with battery grip with a large lens like a 300mm f4. A larger body and smaller lens is the more comfortable option IMO.

What is not similar is the cost; $1600 for the Pentax system vs. $3600 for Olympus. The Pentax lens is discounted right now and the Olympus lens is priced for early adopters, but there's still a huge gap. A couple of grand can buy a whole bag full of K-mount lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 00:19 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies
On article Field Test: Brad Puet and the Fujifilm X-T10 (119 comments in total)

So, which current ILC could not do the same?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2015 at 12:58 UTC as 49th comment | 11 replies
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: If the EM5-II outshines the K-3 II for low light auto-focus I'll eat my shirt. I have an a6000 and K-3. The K-3 will focus in light so dim I can barely see, where the a6000 is simply lost.
I suspect whoever tested the K-3 II is using the wrong settings for the tracking tests, or poor methodology. The EM5-II is stated as having a 75% hit rate in the review. My K-3 will easily do that. I've shot hockey and soccer and hit about 90%. I've had high success rate with BIF too.

The K-3 II has improved tracking for subjects coming straight at the camera, which is the only weakness I see in the K-3 compared to my a6000. A blanket statement that AF doesn't match the competition is misleading and unfair.

Phht! The EM-II doesn't even have PDAF. A6000 AF outclasses any Olympus, and so does the K-3 II for low light AF and tracking.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2015 at 03:46 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: If the EM5-II outshines the K-3 II for low light auto-focus I'll eat my shirt. I have an a6000 and K-3. The K-3 will focus in light so dim I can barely see, where the a6000 is simply lost.
I suspect whoever tested the K-3 II is using the wrong settings for the tracking tests, or poor methodology. The EM5-II is stated as having a 75% hit rate in the review. My K-3 will easily do that. I've shot hockey and soccer and hit about 90%. I've had high success rate with BIF too.

The K-3 II has improved tracking for subjects coming straight at the camera, which is the only weakness I see in the K-3 compared to my a6000. A blanket statement that AF doesn't match the competition is misleading and unfair.

You don't know what you're talking about .Unlike you, I have both a K-3 and a6000.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2015 at 01:56 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: If the EM5-II outshines the K-3 II for low light auto-focus I'll eat my shirt. I have an a6000 and K-3. The K-3 will focus in light so dim I can barely see, where the a6000 is simply lost.
I suspect whoever tested the K-3 II is using the wrong settings for the tracking tests, or poor methodology. The EM5-II is stated as having a 75% hit rate in the review. My K-3 will easily do that. I've shot hockey and soccer and hit about 90%. I've had high success rate with BIF too.

The K-3 II has improved tracking for subjects coming straight at the camera, which is the only weakness I see in the K-3 compared to my a6000. A blanket statement that AF doesn't match the competition is misleading and unfair.

Who cares? AF-S speed is not a problem with any modern ILC. It doesn't keep up to either for tracking, and not even close to the K-3 for low light AF.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 23:36 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (156 comments in total)

If the EM5-II outshines the K-3 II for low light auto-focus I'll eat my shirt. I have an a6000 and K-3. The K-3 will focus in light so dim I can barely see, where the a6000 is simply lost.
I suspect whoever tested the K-3 II is using the wrong settings for the tracking tests, or poor methodology. The EM5-II is stated as having a 75% hit rate in the review. My K-3 will easily do that. I've shot hockey and soccer and hit about 90%. I've had high success rate with BIF too.

The K-3 II has improved tracking for subjects coming straight at the camera, which is the only weakness I see in the K-3 compared to my a6000. A blanket statement that AF doesn't match the competition is misleading and unfair.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 11:59 UTC as 17th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: I thought DSLRs were a dying breed. Won't this FF mean that every lens Pentax has developed in the last 10-15 years will be cropping the sensor?

Good list Petroglyph. I'll add the DA 560mm f5.6. There are many discontinued FF lenses too, M, K and A are manual focus, but there are plenty of fine discontinued F and FA lenses with screw-drive auto-focus.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 18:08 UTC
On article Manfrotto launches Pixi Evo mini tripods for DSLRs (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

neatnclean: "... is designed, in part, to support entry-level DSLRs with large lenses."
yeah right. Entry level DSLR with a large 600/4 on it. hehe!

Fugly design. Too much plastic. Way overpriced. Prefer my Cullman Copter Magnesit.

The Cullmann Copter is only rated for 2.5 lbs. vs. 5.5 for the Manfrotto.

I have the original Pixi in my day bag. I've used it with a K-3 and various lenses, including Sigma 17-50 2.8, DA 55-300 f4-5.8 and DA*300mm f4 with no issues. (The 300 f4 has a tripod foot). Tough little rig.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 18:04 UTC

The photos are great, but there are lots of great nature photos on the net What was really special for me here, was the commentary.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2015 at 16:40 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

what_i_saw: Does this one at least focus on subject instead of the background like the old one did?

An AF point on a CDAF sensor is not as fine as an AF point on a DSLR. That is my experience with an a8000 and K-3. Missing the subject and picking up a contrasty background is far more frequent with a MILC.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

what_i_saw: Does this one at least focus on subject instead of the background like the old one did?

> Does this one at least focus on subject instead of the background like the old one did?

Why should it? No other CDAF will.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 13:52 UTC

Both the Ricoh GR II and Pentax K3 II are "kick the can down the road" products because the new Sony APS-C sensor is not available yet.

> A7000 delay and some more info about it (via Ricoh/Nikon sources)

"Trusted sources kept saying this (Sony a7000) was due to release sometimes in April/May but Sony had some kind of issues with the hardware of the camera."

> I now got info from Ricoh and Nikon sources:
"They told us that Sony developed a new sensor for the A7000. By contract that sensor could be used by other companies six months after the Sony A7000 announcement. The delay of the A7000 release also changed their product roadmap. To use the new Sony APS-C sensor with hybrid autofocus tech they will have to release their camera sometimes in 2016 instead of late 2015."

"Let’ hope Sony will announce the A7000 during the next announcement session in September/October!"

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a7000-delay-and-some-more-info-about-it/

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 13:50 UTC as 10th comment

If the Trifecta DSLR bag would hold my 70-200 f2.8 or 300mm f4 with hood mounted *in shooting position*, it would be exactly what I want.

I have a Think Tank Streetwalker backpack which holds a DSLR and tele lens, with hood mounted in shooting position, but I have to remove the bag to get to the camera, so it's no good in the field. I have a sling bag which gives me reasonable access to the camera, but won't hold my long lenses.

I want to combine the sling and backpack advantages. The Trifecta comes closes, but just short of the mark.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 13:48 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Pandimonium: Stacked means like foveon I suppose? and a new BSI cmos for FF. I'd like to see the studio shots for these instead of a Leica ;). Suppose we'l see a RX2 soon too.

No claim of improved DR or SNRv in the press release? Odd.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 21:48 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Alexander Jikharev (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobYIL: I wish I had one-tenth of the talent to create wonders with a modest 5-year-old camera like this photographer instead of the money to afford 10 times more expensive gear he uses..

> Check DXO-mark. The K-5 gets a 82. More than the K-3.

Where 5 points = 1/3 of a stop. The K-3 is a better camera in most ways.

Really nice images in the feature. #4 is my favourite. I'd like to see it blown up to poster size. Better yet, I'd like to have been there.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 8, 2015 at 20:49 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 Review (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

ritholtznue: Hi,
Are all AF points are cross type? Based on specs center 15 are cross type. Any idea why Nikon made every focus point sensitive to -3EV instead of making all cross types. I guess, it is still amazing. I am just trying to understand their decision to make single focus points sensitive to -3EV which looks like a rare case.

Can we expect to see low-light AF tests in future reviews?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 20:30 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 Review (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

Horshack: Regarding the raw dynamic range, the default ACR/LR conversions of the D7200 look noticeably worse than the D5500 for the -6EV studio scene. This is due to a magenta shadow cast, likely from uncalibrated/incorrect per-channel black points in the raw file. Applying a -2 ACR shadow tint (toward green) improves the D7200 image significantly, with lower noise than the D5500 image. However the D7200 appears to be +.40EV brighter than the D5500, both in the shadows and highlights - can't tell if this is from different ambient lighting intensity or an ACR conversion quirk.

Here is a 100% crop comparison of the two, both converted via the Camera Neutral profile and downsampled to 8MP, exposure adjusted -.40EV on the D7200 vs the D5500:

http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-XgfJbtr/0/O/i-XgfJbtr.jpg

I wonder if the differences in brightness and processing are due to Nikon wanting the D7200 to put up the best possible scores on DXOMark? Exaggerated ISO numbers, raw noise reduction and tone curves seem commonplace these days.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 17:47 UTC
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: It was a good try 'cept the acting was ho-hum and they dragged it out too long.I think the main point was that the film was shot on an E-M5.

I didn't make it to the end. I suspect a lot of people will be too bored with the same lame joke retold in 47 ways and won't bother to finish either.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 05:24 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: Silly at best!

I agree. That silly little joke was not worth all the effort of creating the video.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 05:16 UTC
On article Field Test: Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 DN lenses (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Baldy: I've enjoyed the Sigma 19mm 2.8 Art on my little NEX-5N, except for one major issue, for me.

As I love to shoot predominately in MF mode, I need a lens that works well in full manual, and the issue with the ultra lightweight 19mm, is that the plastic lens barrel is susceptible to a roughness when even gently squeezed by the fingers to rotate the focus ring. The focus ring is not easily moved without a little tab on it like the Voigtlanders or Leicas, or the serrated grip surface of the Sony or Zeiss lenses, so one has to grip the smooth focus ring from both sides by the finger and thumb to comfortably adjust focus - and that very light pressure actually deforms the lightweight plastic focus ring enough to make the focusing rough and difficult to find perfect focus, in my experience.
I'm not sure if this is a specific lens issue, but it would seem to me that the barrel integrity will not change from one lens to another, and that the lens is simply not designed for solid MF focusing.

> "do you find any roughness or stickiness when using full manual focus with the 60mm?"

No, not at all. Focus is as good as it gets with focus by wire. Very smooth and quite responsive. I can't see how anyone could deform the focus ring with finger pressure. It is solid, no deflection at all.

There is no manual override, but does the a6000 even support that feature? None of my lenses do it. I configured button C2 for MF.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
Total: 165, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »