rbach44

rbach44

Joined on Nov 4, 2011

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Nikon Df Review preview (1613 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: I played with one of these in the store yesterday and I agree without his review: They picked and chose which features were "retro" quality and which parts were modern mid grade. The whole package just doesn't add up the way it should have.

Its a shame, because picking it up just doesn't feel anything close to an old F. It seems like the OM-D line to me in this regard, where they sacrificed ergonomics for classic styling without really digging into the core of what made these old cameras so great (and usable). I wish that this was an old style camera with a bit of the wisdom Nikon has gained from making what I consider the finest and most refined SLRs on the face of the planet. But it really ends up feeling like a compromised frankenstein. I was very excited for this camera, but I am actually pretty disappointed now that I saw it in person.

I thought he body on a whole felt like modern techno plastic with some metal dials on top.

I feel like for such a "boutique" camera that feel + ergonomics should have been everything. But feel like they fell short on both. I honestly feel like my beloved D700 feels + handles better than the Df (at east with my short time with it)

Oh and I have used the EM1, and I rather like it. But I think Olympus is guilty of the same thing sometimes: trading ergonomics for style (the centered viewfinder in particular…). But the whole package is more successful than the the Df in my opinion...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 17:11 UTC
On Nikon Df Review preview (1613 comments in total)

I played with one of these in the store yesterday and I agree without his review: They picked and chose which features were "retro" quality and which parts were modern mid grade. The whole package just doesn't add up the way it should have.

Its a shame, because picking it up just doesn't feel anything close to an old F. It seems like the OM-D line to me in this regard, where they sacrificed ergonomics for classic styling without really digging into the core of what made these old cameras so great (and usable). I wish that this was an old style camera with a bit of the wisdom Nikon has gained from making what I consider the finest and most refined SLRs on the face of the planet. But it really ends up feeling like a compromised frankenstein. I was very excited for this camera, but I am actually pretty disappointed now that I saw it in person.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 16:26 UTC as 241st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

napilopez: Strange that they would only do a cosmetic change; Panasonic normally remodels its lenses to a greater degree. I was expecting improved autofocus, but to see no mention of it in the press release likely means little if anything was changed on that front.

On the other hand, a subtle fix that the marketing team would probably want to avoid mentioning would be removing the banding issues that occured with this lens on the new Sony sensors at high ISOs; indeed the banding was the main issue prompting me to sell mine and get the 25mm. Unlike many, I actually prefer the pancake for focal length and sharpness(not to mention size).

What about a lens could have caused banding?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2013 at 04:41 UTC
In reply to:

PK24X36NOW: Sigma again shows the "Big Boys" (i.e., Nikon & Canon) what can be achieved in lens design. You essentially have Sigma to thank for the fact that wide angle zoom lenses even exist, because it was Sigma that showed the stuffed shirts at the camera makers that such lenses could be made, and could be made to produce high image quality, in the first place.

Having said that, this lens also shows how "size and weight" advantages are non-existent when you compare lenses with equivalent DOF range. In fact, this lens is basically as big or bigger, and heavier than, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 FF lenses, which get considerably wider at the short end and considerably longer at the long end, with the same DOF. The new lens hardly has a terrific range in terms of start and end points, and too limited a range at less than 2:1. If they managed a 15-45 f1.8, that would have been a much more attractive lens.

The other thing is, wait till you hear the bleating when they announce the price - LOL.

Y'know I've always wondered about this.

Take the Fuji X10 vs. the Sony RX100 for example. On the long end, the Fuji has an aperture of 2.8, while the Sony has an aperture of 4.9. Assuming both of their lens had perfect light gathering abilities and the sensors had similar qualities, wouldn't that mean the Sony would have to have at least a ~1.5 stop advantage over the Fuji to have similar image quality at the long end? Wouldn't the Sony's ISO have to be 1.5 stops higher to compensate for the loss of light?

Same argument as we're having here, I'd love to see some sort of test on this…

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: makes no sense for me.
I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.
sounds crazy.

a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...

Oh I love primes, don't get me wrong. I use them all the time. I just think the logic is a bit faulty when saying "A good wide lens is a normal and few steps back" (or vice versa) because the compression qualities are quite different.

I mean you would't want to do portraits with a 28mm stuck close enough to someone's face that it gives a similar angle of view as a 50mm…

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 23:23 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: makes no sense for me.
I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.
sounds crazy.

a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...

Zooming with your feet only applies to angle of view, good luck getting some of that sweet, sweeping wide angle look or telephoto compression with a normal and your feet.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 20:35 UTC

Sigma is SERIOUSLY stepping up their game as of late. The new lenses seem nothing but beautiful. If they finally got heir quality control issues of the past sorted out, the big boys will have to seriously watch their backs….

BTW if there were a full frame version I'd be preordering it now...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 20:33 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

naththo: How about will Adobe improve colour accuracy in camera profile to match with the actual same as manufacturer camera sets on camera raw file? The Adobe one shows a bit more cyan in skies and bit warmer hue I supposed in yellow colours to bring more green look compare to coming straight off camera shows more realistic blue skies and better colours.

Have you tried using the Camera standard, Camera Neutral, etc. settings for your camera in the camera profile tab? They are built to mimic the manufacturer's profiles and are quite close.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

rbach44: I really wanted to try it out, but it is only available for OS 10.7.

Very very disappointing...

I use 10.7 at work and it is rather unpleasant. I'm perfectly happy with 10.6, and its just not that old! I don't understand the lack fo support.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

photogeek: Still no GPU acceleration. Epic fail.

GPU acceleration really isn't for photo tasks, more for video and 3d. And as someone who works with that stuff professionally, I can tell you that GPU acceleration is NOT an easy solution, and really ups the ante as far as hardware necessary to run things...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

cuol: I still hate the lightroom color rendering. Why does every other converter look better to me using either Canon or Nikon files? The tools are great, but something about the look sucks.

I profile all of my cameras, and Lightroom's default profiles are very very close to what comes right off the sensor. I find that things may not look as good in Lightroom, but its what your images ACTUALLY look like. Then you can fix from there to your liking…

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

Benarm: Another major Lightroom release without native support for RAW editing via plugins like Photomatix, Silver Efex Pro, etc.

Ever use VSCO's kit? Its setup as a series of camera profiles and Lightroom setups. Definitely the most useable architecture for a plugin I've ever used.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

Closely Observed Images: After decades of constantly battling with windows based architecture I bit the bullet and bought a S/H Mac Pro 1.1 that is the most amazingly capable (and stable) computer I have ever owned. I handles LR4 and photoshop apps with ease and speed, but runs Snow Leopard (IOS 10.6.8).

I have used every version of LR since it's inception.

Why no support for LR5 running under Snow Leopard then? I'm an enthusiastic amateur photographer who makes a living driving taxi's and enjoys tinkering with images.

I'm gutted that whilst I would happily pay for an upgrade. Adobe have just lost my custom by making themselves even more exclusive.

Bye . . . . .

I whole heartedly agree. I don't kn ow why they would only come out with an upgrade for the latest OS out there...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:09 UTC

I really wanted to try it out, but it is only available for OS 10.7.

Very very disappointing...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:06 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

rbach44: Now that we have an f1.4 ZOOM when are we gonna have a nice, small, and super sharp fixed, say, 28mm 1.4 equiv.?

That would be pretty desirable to me. Make it super pocketable, have raw, etc. Maybe even some kind of OVF! Something akin to a pocketable, smaller sensor version of an x100. Any else think that would be great?

I mean a few things.

If we have an f1.4 lens on a zoom on something this small, surely we could go smaller (and probably sharper) with a nice fixed focal length. Perhaps small enough to make the camera actually pocketable (I don't consider the LX's or the ricohs to be pocketable). And maybe a sensor similar in size to the sony RX100.

In this day and age some of the micro four thirds and other mirrorless cameras are getting pretty small. And the size advantage of cameras like the LX's are getting less and less advantageous.

Sony gets it with the RX100, it would be nice to have something like a crossover in concept between the Fuji X100 and Sony RX100. Pocketable, small, sharp fast, prime lens, decent sized sensor, no frills that make the camera huge and negate that size advantage. THAT would be cool.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2012 at 18:27 UTC

Now that we have an f1.4 ZOOM when are we gonna have a nice, small, and super sharp fixed, say, 28mm 1.4 equiv.?

That would be pretty desirable to me. Make it super pocketable, have raw, etc. Maybe even some kind of OVF! Something akin to a pocketable, smaller sensor version of an x100. Any else think that would be great?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2012 at 16:11 UTC as 22nd comment | 7 replies

I've been waiting for a camera like this, a real high quality compact camera.

No hot shoe BS, no optional viewfinder that triples the size of the camera, no fluff to try to make it compete with bigger and better cameras that ultimately negate its size advantage, etc. Just a big sensor in s small camera. I mean actually small, like pocketable (unlike every of the other bigger sensor compacts…) Just something small and able to go everywhere but still take decent pictures.

If the image samples are any sort of indication, this camera will be a real winner. Sony gets it on this one.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 7, 2012 at 01:02 UTC as 27th comment

Seems like Canon is starting a new video "megapixel race". And I think they've screwed this offer up. Here's why:

- 8-bit motion JPEG. Very foolish. The reason a lot of videographers use 4k is the same reason why still shooters shoot at way more MP than they need. And throttling it all down an 8 bit pipeline AND then throwing it through a very poor codec (by most professional's reckoning…) is really killing the advantage of 4k. Imagine if the new D800 only shot 3 megabyte compressed JPEGs…

- The Price. Who is this camera aimed at? It costs as much as the C300 and many other great specialized video cameras. Why would someone with $15,000 buy this over the other specialized video offerings, even within Canon's own lineup?

Ultimately it seems like this is the compromise camera aimed towards a pro market that doesn't wan't compromise. . Its an underspecced for a pro device at top of the line pro price. I'll be interested to see how much of these sell.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2012 at 20:17 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan: Lens makers, I want something with more range! How come the Fuji X10 can have a 28-112mm F2-2.8 while larger sensor shooters are stuck with lenses like this 24-70 that only zooms less than 3X? Is it because it will be too big? I would LOVE to have a 24-120mm F2.8 with VR. A lot of people liked the 28-105mm F2.8, and with today's technology, I would think that more could be done. With more cameras supporting in-camera lens distortion correction, I'm excited about the future of lenses.

I'm afraid you ARE mistaken. The amount of light captured by say one f/2 lens is similar to all f/2 lenses (well for the most part, actual transmission may vary), what you're thinking of is DOF.

As the exit pupil (actual focal length / f number) decreases in size, the DOF increases, which is where that whole equation came from. As far as the amount of light captured, it stays the same. It is unaffected by focal length (Which is essentially the only different between the Fuji lens and full frame lens)

If what your saying is true, then the f/2.8 aperture of a Canon 400mm f2.8 captures ~30 times more light than the Canon 14mm f2.8, and we all know THAT isn't true…

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 02:00 UTC

Dear Panasonic, if these lenses were being ANNOUNCED today, I probably wouldn't be selling all of my M43 stuff as we speak.

Enough with the concepts and rumors and speculation, I have pictures to take and video to shoot. Fill the few but gaping holes in your lineup.

I hate to leave M43 but unfortunately concepts of lenses we need don't pay the bills.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 21:49 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »