tkbslc

Lives in United States Salt Lake City, UT, United States
Joined on May 30, 2008

Comments

Total: 3632, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »

Iron lens mounts for durability.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 21:38 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

abortabort: Please do a M mount version (there had been some testing of a M mount of the 50mm, don't know if it ever went into production).

Since they are really Cine lenses, Leica mount doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

EthanP99: Theres no FE mount, only E mount. Just like theres no EF-s mount and no DX mount

There is nothing to FE but FE itself.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

EthanP99: Theres no FE mount, only E mount. Just like theres no EF-s mount and no DX mount

There is also no spoon.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: Like Ethan said. There is only E mount. There is NO FE mount, and there is no reason that you guys should keep attempting to mislead readers by promoting it as such. This also goes for the forum description.

Look at the actual mount of the A7R II, What does it say? Take a look and get back to us.

It takes real courage to stand up for what's right.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: I have not purchased a HDD in years and all of my PCs and Macs have SSDs.

Buying SSD for media storage is a massive waste of money. It's like buying a Drag racer to drive the kids to school through a 20MPH zone.

And sure SSD is getting cheaper, but it's still $200 vs $50 for 1TB and the performance is roughly identical (for media file access). If you want to above 2TB, the SSD's get really expensive. 2TB is $700 vs $70.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 15:29 UTC
In reply to:

QuietOC: And I just had a Sandisk SSD fail this week.

My Samsung SD card split in half and I had to throw it away.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 15:26 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aasmund G: Why would one buy this over an A7 + 24-240 or A6000 + sigma 18-300? Tamron 16-300 + entry level dslr springs to mind also. Should be similar or lower price and superior image quality at all focal lengths no? with the appropriate cropping and apart from video features off course.

4k, high speed video, much more zoom, etc.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 21:48 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Not sure I'd ever see a reason to buy the rx10, it's pretty large for a so called compact. I'd rather buy a m4/3 and get better image quality and have the ability to change lenses, as a bunch of m4/3 cameras with normal zooms are smaller and lighter. Or even Sonys own a6300. I guess if you really need that much reach, but for me if I did need the reach, I'd want I tripod and better tracking anyway.

Again, I was talking the RX10 when I said f3.7. That's a lot closer to the 14-140 in focal length.

In terms of the RX10 III, I don't know how we can even compare. 14-140 only has 45% of the zoom range. And if you don't need the reach, you'd get the RX10 II.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 18:23 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)
In reply to:

tarsus: I would love to see how these big guns stack up against something like the Panasonic ZS 60. When you take into account price and size, are these monsters really worth it?

Or as more of a direct comparison, the new Panasonic TZ100 (ZS100) which also has a nice zoom range, viewfinder and a 1" sensor.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 17:59 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)
In reply to:

blink667: The Lumix, which received a gold award from DPR, is less than half the price- is the Sony really worth twice as much? And I'm a little confused about the market this camera might appeal to; if you're serious about photography, even as a hobbyist, you're probably investing in a better body and crisper lens for a moderately greater investment.

I think they publish articles like this so that each of us can answer that for ourselves. You can make arguments like this all day long. Is the FZ1000 worth it over a TZ80? Is a TZ80 worth it over the camera that came built into my phone? Should I take pictures at all when there's probably a postcard with this scene on it already....

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 17:58 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Not sure I'd ever see a reason to buy the rx10, it's pretty large for a so called compact. I'd rather buy a m4/3 and get better image quality and have the ability to change lenses, as a bunch of m4/3 cameras with normal zooms are smaller and lighter. Or even Sonys own a6300. I guess if you really need that much reach, but for me if I did need the reach, I'd want I tripod and better tracking anyway.

The comment above says RX10, that's got a 24-200mm eq. f2.8 zoom. Which is like 12-100mm f3.7 on m43. I would love for that lens to exist for m4/3!

With the RX10 III, you would need a 12-300mm f3.2-5.4, There's nothing even close to that for m4/3. 14-140 doesn't even cover half the range and it's a 1/3 stop slower.

Yes m4/3 offers different lens options. I am just assuming someone shopping for one of these already knows they are losing the lens mount.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 17:55 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Not sure I'd ever see a reason to buy the rx10, it's pretty large for a so called compact. I'd rather buy a m4/3 and get better image quality and have the ability to change lenses, as a bunch of m4/3 cameras with normal zooms are smaller and lighter. Or even Sonys own a6300. I guess if you really need that much reach, but for me if I did need the reach, I'd want I tripod and better tracking anyway.

I have m4/3, but there are no 2-3" long f3.7 super zoom lenses for it.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 15:52 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retro1976: The amazing things one can buy for the price of this Sony camera. Yeah I get it has a big zoom, but at the end of the day it is still a 1 inch sensor.

Like what?

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

maximme: i miss Motorola flip phones
:)

http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/20/moto-razr-flip-phone-teaser/

Link | Posted on May 22, 2016 at 07:38 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: The hard part is that the 85mm f1.8's from Nikon and Canon are both very good and much cheaper. Sigma's 85mm f1.4 isn't much more expensive, either.

I guess if you really need the VC, but typically you'll be at 1/80+ for people pictures anyway, and this is a classic portrait length. Using VC and shooting a couple stops down at 1/30 or 1/25 and you'll have subject motion blur much of the time. Could work for video I guess.

They released the 90mm f2.8 macro at the same time. They should have just combined the two and made a 90mm f2 macro. Now THAT would be an exciting lens with few peers.

I like it when one lens can perform many jobs. That's why an f2 macro lens.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2016 at 07:44 UTC

The hard part is that the 85mm f1.8's from Nikon and Canon are both very good and much cheaper. Sigma's 85mm f1.4 isn't much more expensive, either.

I guess if you really need the VC, but typically you'll be at 1/80+ for people pictures anyway, and this is a classic portrait length. Using VC and shooting a couple stops down at 1/30 or 1/25 and you'll have subject motion blur much of the time. Could work for video I guess.

They released the 90mm f2.8 macro at the same time. They should have just combined the two and made a 90mm f2 macro. Now THAT would be an exciting lens with few peers.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 18:47 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ijustloveshooting: wide open sharpness and contrast of batis 85 smokes it.

Batis 85mm only works on Sony and this was designed for DSLR. Irrelevant.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: I can't beleive there is controversy over this. If you have a 50-140mm f2.8 and want want to double your reach and maintain WR, you have only two options. One is almost $2000 and adds 3lbs to your bag. The other is $350 and is the size and weight of a small prime. This can be a useful item to have.

Arguments about quality should include comparisons to cropping. Usually a TC is the difference between an extreme crop (losing 3/4 of the area for 2x) or no shot at all. Assuming you are going to magically carry a second telephoto everywhere you could bring a TC is a bit of a stretch.

I'd love to see that comparison, because I sure don't buy it. Unless your goal is 1000px images.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 17:05 UTC

I can't beleive there is controversy over this. If you have a 50-140mm f2.8 and want want to double your reach and maintain WR, you have only two options. One is almost $2000 and adds 3lbs to your bag. The other is $350 and is the size and weight of a small prime. This can be a useful item to have.

Arguments about quality should include comparisons to cropping. Usually a TC is the difference between an extreme crop (losing 3/4 of the area for 2x) or no shot at all. Assuming you are going to magically carry a second telephoto everywhere you could bring a TC is a bit of a stretch.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 15:30 UTC as 8th comment | 6 replies
Total: 3632, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »