meanwhile

meanwhile

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Nov 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 588, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony a6300 gallery updated with Raw conversions (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

photogeek: Don't know why they bother. APS-C is definitely a dead end in Sony lineup. To make it otherwise, Sony needs smaller, APS-C specific lenses for these cameras, and given that they can't even be bothered to produce a full lineup for their $3K+ bodies, I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. This is coming from a former NEX-7 owner. I liked the body, but the lens lineup was inadequate, so when the first A7 came out, I saw the writing on the wall and got rid of NEX-7.

Arbux, that's a load of twaddle. Internet time just runs faster than actual time.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2016 at 01:53 UTC
On article Sony a6300 gallery updated with Raw conversions (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

photogeek: Don't know why they bother. APS-C is definitely a dead end in Sony lineup. To make it otherwise, Sony needs smaller, APS-C specific lenses for these cameras, and given that they can't even be bothered to produce a full lineup for their $3K+ bodies, I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. This is coming from a former NEX-7 owner. I liked the body, but the lens lineup was inadequate, so when the first A7 came out, I saw the writing on the wall and got rid of NEX-7.

"including now dead Samsung NX"

Perhaps that's what happens when you rush.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 23:49 UTC
On article Sony a6300 gallery updated with Raw conversions (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

photogeek: Don't know why they bother. APS-C is definitely a dead end in Sony lineup. To make it otherwise, Sony needs smaller, APS-C specific lenses for these cameras, and given that they can't even be bothered to produce a full lineup for their $3K+ bodies, I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. This is coming from a former NEX-7 owner. I liked the body, but the lens lineup was inadequate, so when the first A7 came out, I saw the writing on the wall and got rid of NEX-7.

Building a system takes time. This camera will take wonderful photos, with lots of quality lenses available for it. Which part is the dead-end? The lenses that will continue to work? The accessories that will continue to work? The batteries that are shared with the A7 series? The RAW files that will continue to work?

Theoretically, you may be correct. But to what end? What's the difference? You take your shots with what works for you now and into the near future (it's electronics).

If you can't find lenses that work for you with the mirrorless systems, that's your issue, not the cameras. Three quarters of a century of lenses work beautifully with them, from some of the best quality native AF lenses through to pre-War sonnars.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 16:18 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2127 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

The top right of the a6300 studio scene is out of focus. Decentered lens or misfocus?

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 15:00 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2127 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

It also depends what mode you are looking in. I tend to use COMP rather than FULL or PRINT.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 14:57 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2127 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

That's a long way from "the Sony always looks worst". :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 14:55 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2127 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

Faces have more detail, bottle label is better, money is better, and also, playing cards at the bottom are much better from the a6300. It's only the top cards where the E-M10 looks better.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 14:45 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2127 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

You are right about the playing cards. For some reason the E-M10 makes a better showing with those. Looking at every other aspect of the scene though, the a6300 bests it by a decent margin. Corners are much better, text on the paint tubes is much better, sketch is much better. ISO100.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

One can be a genius, and yet be foolish.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 10:06 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

You, my dear, are a pedant. A time-wasting one at that.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 09:21 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

"It's my body and none of your business. Same goes for the nanny state. Freedom, can you live it?"

If you smoke, you are an idiot. Plain, scientific fact. Freedom has zero to do with it.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 08:49 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

Trump! Trump! Trump! Pack of whingers.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 08:47 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

Awesome, so you'll be paying the 10's of thousands for the chemo drugs too. Freedom, can you afford it?

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 08:03 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

"I am not forgetting, the costs were calculated and the result is, obese people, people that smoke or drink, they cost the state less than the healthy people. Check the stats."

At no point did I talk statistics, but that's complete bulls**t anyway.

The human cost, having experience in oncology, is enormous. You can lie to yourself all you like, smoking is a stupid, pointless, selfish act.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: As someone pointed out on thedigitalpicture site,,, the exif on provided samples pics prove the samples have been extensively, almost comically, photoshopped.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17853

It was my grammar I was having a go at. :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 06:46 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: As someone pointed out on thedigitalpicture site,,, the exif on provided samples pics prove the samples have been extensively, almost comically, photoshopped.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17853

"that's are available" ... awesome grammar me, bestest job.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 05:08 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: As someone pointed out on thedigitalpicture site,,, the exif on provided samples pics prove the samples have been extensively, almost comically, photoshopped.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17853

So just download the RAWs that's are available ...

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 22:30 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

" They must not destroy their health so that they can stay alive and keep paying taxes"

It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat lung cancer. It's also a horrible, disgusting death. Intense pain, sorrow for the family, and wasted energy that could be used to treat patients that didn't get there through their own negligence and selfishness. But hey.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

km25: The Nikon 105mm f2.5, that was a very sharp lens. This lens looks to be well make, at least in performance. I had a Leica R8 and there 100mm 2.8 micro. I had a picture very close to one you have here. I feel as if the Leica lens was sharper and had better out of focus the this lens, but not a great deal. seems like a nice lens. But so may companies are producing good lens now a days

And the Nikon 105mm DC (Defocus Control). Different lens than the Nikon 105/2.5 discussed here though.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 22:13 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

sporanox: Iso 1600 appalling photos. Sony will not have my money.

Took the ISO1600 RAW into Capture One. It's beautiful.
What's your issue exactly?

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2016 at 22:52 UTC
Total: 588, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »