Joined on Feb 7, 2009


Total: 460, showing: 301 – 320
« First‹ Previous1415161718Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: It is like Canon is still gloating in the fact that the 5D MKII was such a huge success. They have decided that they will never make another camera that improves on the 5DMKII.

Well the A77 does shoot 12 fps.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 05:21 UTC
In reply to:

Ivan Lietaert: Compare this with the GH3.
Panasonic listened carefully to the GH2 users, and then produced a revolutionary camera that is kicking ass as a video camera. The GJ3 easily is in the same league as the 5DMIII but costs only half as much.

As for the 700D, there is absolutely nothing in the image quality department that would even make me consider replacing my now rusty 550D.

Of course, you get a lot of camera for its money, but the 650D or the 600D is a wiser option.

I only now looked at its price... wow... what an insult to common sense!

Nope, the GH3 takes better stills.|0/%28brand%29/Panasonic/%28appareil2%29/813|0/%28brand2%29/Canon

The Canon does have a better selection of lenses of course but it shows that while Canon has persisted with this old sensor the competition has improved and the new Panasonic sensor outperforms the Canon even though the sensor used in the Panasonic is noticeably smaller in size.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 05:19 UTC
In reply to:

dan_7d: im sorry but iv had to stop my self from saying this for so long but i would like to see any one you people here make a camera all you do is moan and moan how you shut your mouths and come up with something your self

You will hardly see anyone complain about a Nikon D7100 or a 7D as those were class leading cameras at the time. This is a sad rehash that Canon will get away with because it has a lot of customers with blind loyalty to the brand.

Take that away and Canon would see its sales drop like a hot potato.

They have been really arrogant in the past few years with under specd cameras (compared to the competition) and lenses with rather high prices allowing the competition to similarly raise prices.

This is all IMO of course.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 05:15 UTC
On Just posted: Hands-on preview of the Canon EOS 100D/SL1 article (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

raizans: Olympus already tried the tiny DSLR thing before concluding that mirrorless was the way to go. I guess Canon didn't get the memo. ;)

^^ No actually people for a majority of casual shooters a mirrorless is all they need. I have used Nikon, Sony and Canon's entry level DSLRs and found them pretty ordinary in both focusing and ergonomics.

A basic mirrorless camera offers practically the same IQ in a much smaller package especially now with the pancake zoom lenses. The newer crop of mirrorless cameras will outperform most budget DSLRs in focusing and their small sized lenses allow them to be more portable than a DSLR.

For those who aren't really looking at building a system a mirrorless is a more compact and a better alternative (IMO) than an entry level DSLR.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 05:11 UTC
In reply to:

bloodycape: I noticed it is smaller than the Sony SLT A35/37(and may complained they were compact for an DSLR as the grip was small), but it's barley lighter than the A35. Those cameras already feel pretty well built so it be interesting how this Canon compares.

There is generally a limit to how small you will want a camera when the lenses are big. Trying to use this 100D with even a basic 55-250mm is going to be a problem.

I own the A37 and while its fine when using primes or the kit lens it becomes very uncomfortable when I attach my CZ 24-70mm f2.8 or a Tamron 70-200mm.

Such dimensions are fine with mirrorless cameras as the lenses are much smaller than DSLR lenses

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 06:10 UTC
In reply to:

mironv: Well there are very elaborate weddings with set time for formals where there is a time to use such lens or regular one in slow methodical aproch. On another hand camera and lenses getting better abd better but aparenty in high end weddings the "worst" picture looks the better. There are so many that shot with flare, PP to look like chip 50's slides or out of focus blured shots and people paid upwords of $4500 to $10000 for such "style".
To me it looks like this days starting at high end is easier than low end but since one bride won a court case in USA all wedding photogs be weary.
What was a claim she won? She claim she did not like pictures and asked for $40.000 and yes she did get a $$$$$$$$$$. Market will never be same since any bride can say I don't like it pay me lot of $$$$$$$$ I'm sure that $40K covered a even big wedding cost and who paid for that poor photographer.

I believe they were referring to this -

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2013 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Chuck Yadmark: About time somebody went this way. Hope the quality is good and maybe more choices as well. I often use 12-24 as a walk around, I find 18-70 not wide enough for my taste.

Sony has done it. They have IBIS for their Alpha cameras and they have a 10-24mm OIS lens for NEX cameras. :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2013 at 01:17 UTC
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

digby dart: I commented first and then read some of the other comments... from the images I have seen around from this camera, taken in a variety of situations, I'd have given it a Sparkling Triple Mega Platinum Award.

At au$1200 with a totally excellent 35mm metal bodied prime its a gift. I read OMD, GH3 & D7000 in some comments, are we all pointing outward on the same planet, this thing delivers D4 results minimum - for that at au$1200 with a 'magic' prime thrown in I'd be happy focusing with a mechanical crank handle on the side.

For the grumbling cash flash grandads below, Nikon and Canon full framers are really nice gear, take excellent frames - these Fuji's just look to be heck of a lot better from build/ergonomics to image quality. Doesn't make your or my gear any less, this stuff is just heaps better for the money.

Like me for the moment, live with it. :-D

You like the photos then fine. I still like the output of FF sensors more than the Fuji's photos and I believe most FF cameras far outsell the Fuji.

Most people aren't terribly happy with slow AF and a camera that locks up from time to time.

No doubt, per pixel sharpness is very good indeed and high ISO capability can match any FF camera BUT IQ is not just specifications and the output of FF cameras IMO is better than what the Fuji can deliver.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 14:53 UTC
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

kewlguy: the most expensive jpg-only camera...

Why are you guys defending poor RAW implementation ? Call a spade a spade. ACR only recently improved support for Fuji RAW files. Earlier implementations cause lots of IQ issues.

Those who like to shoot JPEGs are of course fine. But a LOT of people like the flexibility of RAW. And frankly given how the camera slows down and the lack of RAW support is a sizeable negative.

Maybe for the XE-2 with better Xtrans sensor support will not have the same issues with RAW support but as far as I am concerned the current XE-1 is primarily a JPEG only camera.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 14:47 UTC
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review article (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rod McD: "Large and chunky build won't suit everyone......." (See conclusion 'cons'). Large and chunky? Really? Half the appeal of mirror-less is that they are smaller for the same sensor size than DSLRs and I thought the XE1 does an exemplary job of being small and retaining very high useability. Sure it won't suit phone and shirt pocket camera users but it's not intended to.

Otherwise a review that confirms what users have been reporting - it's a great camera.

Compare it with a Sony NEX5R and you will see there is a rather substantial difference between the two.,371

Similarly its not much smaller than a basic DSLT like a A55,371

Not saying I don't like the Fuji. If I had to start a system from scratch I might consider the Fuji but I agree that for a mirrorless camera its rather large and clunky compared to other mirrorless cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 06:19 UTC
In reply to:

chiumeister: no way the 50 1.4 can be $1500, unless it's a 1.2

My main concern is the price. There hasn't been too many 50mm lenses that were much noticeably better than the Canon 50mm f1.4 so I dunno how well this one would fare especially in the face of the high price.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Can people using such lenses explain to me why would anybody prefer 70-400/4-5.6 over 70-200/2.8 plus 2x teleconverter (or even crop, given how unsharp 400mm is on the previous 70-400 I have seen), at the same total price and weight?

Who says its so unsharp ?

Photozone has tested the lens and the sharpness figures seemed pretty good.

You have a look at the resolution figures of a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR I (which is better than the Sony version of that lens) with a Nikon branded TC.

Zoom lenses aren't really good candidates of TCs

Another issue is that AF speed will reduce quite a bit and you really need to stop down to get even decent contrast.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

cheetah43: A viewfinder is a must. Sony should discard the flash. Available light photographs from RX1 have been demonstrated to be good. But vignetting is a serious flaw. Post-processing is not ideal. Sony's work is cut out if they want to sell RX1 in numbers. Why should a pro have to carry a separate viewfinder for RX1? He will want the RX1 for its quality and compactness.

I can't think of any compelling reason for a pro to buy a fixed lens camera at such a high price.

Now for amatuers or street photographers this is something useful if you want FF quality photos in a compact body.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2013 at 05:33 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D7100 Hands-On Preview article (311 comments in total)
In reply to:

KZMike: For the $$$, I'd like to see a rear LCD screen that can, at least, adjust up or down. Such a large % of my shots seem to 'want' this. Can someone tell me why Nikon,Cannon limit this to their "lesser" bodies?

I am just glad Sony has articulating screens in varying degrees in all its DSLRs. Sony has gotten way too many things wrong in recent years but IMO the articulating screens just isn't one of them.

Using a viewfinder exclusively is an archaic and old way of composing. Using the screen at different angles opens so many different compositions that would be difficult to practically impossible without an articulating screen.

I am glad Sony didn't remove the articulating screen from the A99 FF camera which makes it the only FF camera in the world to have a fully articulating screen.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2013 at 05:53 UTC
On Sony announces SLT-A58 20MP mid-level DSLR-style camera article (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

shady1991: They should name it A44. A5X cameras were excellently balanced between price and quality and now everything's messed up.
they shouldn't downgrade screen or video fps if they want to compete with d5200. I won't be surprised even if they decreased buffer size.
I think everything should be solid and good quality in A5X series like is in my a57.
now You buy a58 and you get world's greatest evf but you're distracted buy very cheap feeling of worst screen ever.

^^ Exactly ! I too was heavily disappointed thinking this had the A37 screen (which I use and hate with all my heart) but I see that this has twice the resolution so maybe there is hope.

I never really had a problem with the size of the screen but the resolution and viewing angles were poor. If Sony has fixed that I would consider getting rid of the A37 and picking up the A58.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 13:15 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

razorfish: I don't get how this is a gold award

I have actually tried this camera out and its ridiculously small for the level of performance it offers. Not everyone wants a bulky camera that requires a large backpack to carry around everywhere.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 13:06 UTC
In reply to:

pureaxis: The Sony 70-400mm G is absolutely the best lens in its class, too bad Sony didn't update it with weather-sealing

^^ Not for IQ or AF performance.

But the 70-200mm without TC will offer better bokeh and of course a much faster aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 06:53 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

the reason: you have to be a special brand of stupid to pay this much for that

Look I don't want this camera, you don't want this camera and frankly most of my friends don't want this camera.

However I met one person at the camera market who sold his Canon 5D MK III and all his Canon lenses and got this instead.

When I asked him WHY he got this camera he simply said he found value in a such a small FF camera.

So just because we don't find value in such things doesn't mean others do not as well.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 04:14 UTC
On P1060002.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Doesn't this picture know that you can't get subject isolation with m4/3?

^^ True ! That multi format sensor is awesome ! :D

But the darn camera is quite big AND you lose out on Olympus EBIS. :(

Wish Olympus came out with a multi format sensor with EVF and of course its very effective EBIS.

While I am a Sony user I can't stand the NEX interface one bit. It makes little to no logical sense to me. Not sure why they abandoned the Sony Alpha interface which I found to be one of the best I have ever used (fair chance of personal bias in my last statement).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2013 at 16:06 UTC
On P1060002.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Doesn't this picture know that you can't get subject isolation with m4/3?

Seriously never expected so much isolation from m43 and that too with a 17mm lens !!!

Only thing I really don't like (thats personal dislike) is the 4:3 format. I would have preferred either a full 1:1 format or the 3:2 format. 4:3 is not square enough for my tastes (like 1:1) nor is it rectangular enough like 3:2.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2013 at 09:00 UTC
Total: 460, showing: 301 – 320
« First‹ Previous1415161718Next ›Last »