PIX 2015
brendon1000

brendon1000

Lives in India India
Has a website at www.brendonshootspeople.com
Joined on Feb 7, 2009

Comments

Total: 969, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

joyclick: is the 200-500mm Nikon's answer to The Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm?

It can use teleconverters and can go upto 1500mm on APSC what effective aperture will be available at this extreme zoom and will IQ be acceptable enough?

I may consider using a 1.4x TC on this. Quality should be acceptable. But a 2x TC on a zoom should be a no no.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 09:09 UTC
In reply to:

BarnET: Wow Nikon,

great specs and reasonable prices for all 3 of them
especially the 200-500mm

^^ Unfortunately with falling ILC sales manufacturers are catering to the higher end of the market. That is where the money lies.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

ChrisH37: Am I alone in thinking the 200-500 is a bit of a game changer? Considering price, focal length and maximum aperture it seems to be a very agressive move from Nikon.

I imagine it will be extremely popular, birding/wildlife/aviation/motorsport shooters have not been well served by 'prosumer' superzoom options from first party manufacturers.

Yes it should sell well but 200mm starting is a bit too long.

Some will prefer the Sigma 150-600mm Sport as its longer and wider too.

Though yes this lens should disrupt 3rd party lens manufacturers sales for Nikon.

They will have to bank more for sales from Canon users.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 09:06 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: So now I'm expecting a 300-600mm f8 VR lens from Nikon, or maybe a 500-1000 f11 VR?
Note: Canon's 100-400mm is 1570 grams and it has 4,5-5,6 aperture. What does Nikon use in their lenses, concrete? Oh yes Nikon goes to 500mm but that 50% more weight?

Look at tele lenses and you will see that from 200mm onwards any corresponding increase in focal length and aperture has a tremendous increase in size.

The Nikon 500mm f4 prime lens is just a stop faster but its also a far large lens while being a prime while this is a zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 08:57 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

Babka08: Every comparison it seems that people make in this post are for larger or much, much larger cameras. The comparisons to apsc or 4/3 cameras is also telling, simply because the RX100 is even in the comparison bench. Folks, it is tiny. Nothing comes close. The review is bang on. I'll be upgrading from my mk 1 to this sometime fairly soon. The viewfinder itself is a significant reason.

@Santana - I agree there are a lot of fanbois around but quite frankly you also look like one by repeatedly comparing a highly niche camera like the Ricoh GR to something that is more mass market like the RX100.

The RX100 is a small sensor camera and with a zoom lens that is designed for compactness rather than performance so it isn't going to match a larger sensor camera like a m43 or even a Nikon 1 series camera with a sharp prime lens.

There is no one camera that is better than the RX100 if you use all of its features and you want a compact body. If you know some please share cause your Ricoh GR example was very poor considering it has no real control in movie mode and it is useless.

And you are probably referring to the old RX100 mk 1 and 2 interface. The mk 3 and mk 4 have a far better interface.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:05 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?

^^ If you don't care about sharpness wide open then obviously such lenses aren't for you ! :)

These are for discerning photographers who demand sharpness wide open.

Its one the reasons the Sigma Art series sell so well because they are very sharp wide open but stopped down you will be hard pressed to tell the differences between an older cheaper optic and the Art lens.

@JACS - True but thats only w.r.t DOF. Shutter speed wise the Fuji will have double the shutter speed at f2.8 compared to the 135mm at f4.

Since the Fuji is extremely sharp wide open, stopping down is really just for getting additional DOF rather than sharpness.

The 135mm is a stellar lens but it still needs a much heavier and bulkier body to use.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 16:11 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?

^^ No I am not. Check out the test results from lenstip. its one of the sharpest lenses even wide open and is sharpest by f2.8. The Canon 135mm needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to attain maximum sharpness.

I have used the Canon lens and while I have not used the Fuji 90mm I have used a couple of Fuji lenses and they are as sharp as any Canon lens out there, maybe more.

The Canon 135mm is a great lens but its an old optic and this Fuji is their sharpest lens yet. In fact if you read the review of the cheaper but MF only Samyang 135mm f2 you will see that it measures better than the Canon 135mm f2.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 14:17 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joel Benford: That is really a very nice looking lens

/slightly envious Sony owner

@Joel - This is no doubt a stellar lens. But Zeiss has launched the Batis 85mm f1.8 for Sony which has OIS which this lens lacks (OIS makes a reasonable difference to a lens of this focal length).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 12:52 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?

^^ The 85mm f1.8 USM is far from the quality of a good 85mm lens. Its an old optic and while reasonably sharp lacks good contrast or bokeh.

If you are fine with the images from the 85mm f1.8 then I don't think you will appreciate the IQ of the Fuji 90mm f2.

I am neither a Canon or Fuji shooter but this 90mm lens seems pretty close to a 135mm f2 lens to me.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 12:33 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: A useful lens. Probably more than at first sight, a Macro which offers a FOV equivilant to long end of most 70-210 2.8 lenses (given the focus breathing most suffer from) and at £700 expensive but not rip off territory, given its often the lenses which make compelling system choices, I nthink Fuji have sweet spotted with this offering.

What macro ? Its got very poor close focusing abilities.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valentinian: ok, ok... beautiful lens.... but... in mft we have the 75mm/f1.8 which is at least as good, costs way less and it is smaller and lighter.... and if your budget is tighter, then in mft you can use the Sigma 60mm/f2.8....

Its good you are happy with m43 but why bring it up on a fuji lens thread ? :P

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 12:28 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

onlooker: Looks like the fanboy brigade in out in force standing guard in case anyone dare criticize it in the slightest. They will immediately ridicule you with unfunny sarcasm, parabolic exaggerations, and tell you what you REALLY think.

How much is the zoom on the GR ?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 14:25 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

Babka08: Every comparison it seems that people make in this post are for larger or much, much larger cameras. The comparisons to apsc or 4/3 cameras is also telling, simply because the RX100 is even in the comparison bench. Folks, it is tiny. Nothing comes close. The review is bang on. I'll be upgrading from my mk 1 to this sometime fairly soon. The viewfinder itself is a significant reason.

@SSantana - There is a big reason why superior IQ cameras like the Ricoh GR and Coolpix A don't sell too well. Hardly anyone wants a prime lens camera unless its an ILC camera and you can use a zoom lens too if you wish.

Besides the far more useful zoom, the RX100 also has an EVF built in along with a flip screen which is highly useful.

These are the main reasons the RX100 far outsells the Ricoh. The RX100 doesn't pretend to be a top of the line IQ camera. It is not. Its meant as a secondary everyday go to camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 14:03 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

sandy b: Nice feature set. The J1 matches for IQ upto 3200. I think it's too expensive.

But this camera is hardly about IQ. Its about IQ and convenience. The Nikon Coolpix A has a bigger sensor and a sharp 28mm prime lens. But no one buys it as a prime lens is far less convenient.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 10:12 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

joelakeland: This is a great pocket camera though I still think the Panasonic GM5 with a pancake is giving you better image quality and with the 12-32 lens as good or better. Plus, have you seen the great price you can pick one up for on eBay? I'm talking under $550.

Don't believe me, put the GM5 up with the RX100 IV in the studio comparison.

As a non-video guy, I'm not swayed by the Sony's capabilities there. It's best feature? The fast aperture at the wide end which can give you some nice output.

The 12-32mm lens isn't terribly good and a prime lens is terribly lacking in versatility.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 16:44 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

watson076: $900 - i just don't get the target audience. You can do so much better for less including some great ILCs from Fuji and Olympus. I would never pay $900 for a 1 inch sensor, that just seems insane to me. I don't see the amazing image quality either, am I missing something ???

Its the size. You want best quality for the price the RX100 isn't for you. If you want the best quality in the smallest form factor then the RX100 is excellent for that.

Any smaller and you get very tiny sensor cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 16:36 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Gold award for lossy RAW files. If Sony keeps getting Gold awards, when will they ever change the word lossy to lossless?

^^ I have plenty. Take your pick ! :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 16:33 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

onlooker: Looks like the fanboy brigade in out in force standing guard in case anyone dare criticize it in the slightest. They will immediately ridicule you with unfunny sarcasm, parabolic exaggerations, and tell you what you REALLY think.

Criticizing is one thing. I see most of the people here comparing its IQ with far bigger cameras. Thats the whole point of the camera. Maximum quality in minimum size. Take that away and it will fall flat in the face of larger sensor cameras. But those cameras can't compete with the size of the RX100

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 16:32 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

abi170845: 1000 buck with no charger included? I will stick to my 100D.

^^ There is an external charger as I mentioned exactly one post before yours ! :P

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 08:10 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1547 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Gold award for lossy RAW files. If Sony keeps getting Gold awards, when will they ever change the word lossy to lossless?

Yes I did and that caused barely visible artifacts. I shoot regularly and all my photos in my galleries are shot using compressed RAW. Do you see any objectionable artifacts ?

I haven't seen them shooting many many landscapes.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 08:05 UTC
Total: 969, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »