babart

babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

babart: Any one else have trouble loading Firmware 2.4 for the X-E1. I can see the FAT file on my SD card, but the camera keeps telling me it can't find the update file.

?? BAB

Cancel that. There was another DAT file from a previous upgrade in my download folder. After deleting that the new upgrade loaded correctly.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 01:08 UTC

Any one else have trouble loading Firmware 2.4 for the X-E1. I can see the FAT file on my SD card, but the camera keeps telling me it can't find the update file.

?? BAB

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 00:34 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
On Ten things you need to know about the Sony Alpha 7 II article (263 comments in total)
In reply to:

HornOUBet: I'm actually thinking about selling the 6D and buying the X-T1...though the Sony is tempting...
http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.21,520.359,579.396,ha,t

If entirely unsatisfied, you might try to switch it for the 18-135, if you bought it from a reliable dealer. The latter lens is larger and I've not seen reviews that show real numbers, but the lens is well-liked, and seems as good as the 18-55, or nearly so. See here for example: http://danbaileyphoto.com/blog/full-review-of-the-fuji-xf-18-135mm-weather-sealed-lens/. Other than WR, you won't be dissatisfied with the 18-55 either.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2014 at 21:21 UTC
On Ten things you need to know about the Sony Alpha 7 II article (263 comments in total)
In reply to:

HornOUBet: I'm actually thinking about selling the 6D and buying the X-T1...though the Sony is tempting...
http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.21,520.359,579.396,ha,t

Fuji's "kit" 18-55 wasn't weather sealed when I bought it, and I'm not sure it is now. The 18-135 is weather resistant, however, and is sold as the kit lens for the XT-1, which also has a weather resistant body. If you're referring to the IQ of the 18-55, though, you're right on the money. It's not the usual kit zoom at all and is one of the best zooms I've ever owned.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2014 at 19:12 UTC
On Ten things you need to know about the Sony Alpha 7 II article (263 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: I can't wait for the A7II to hit the markets, because that will put the A7 prices down where I can reach it! I do a lot of architectural photography and the A7 is certainly the best entry into a full-frame sensor. I already have a shift lens, but on APS-C that's a bit long in the tooth for architecture with the crop value. The A7 is a bit flawed in more than one area, but I'd be bypassing many of the flaws, as I routinely use a tripod, manual focus and manual exposure for that type of photography. For everything else I have Fuji and Pentax APS-C bodies, although I deeply suspect that full-frame mirrorless is here to stay, and will soon be emulated by other manufacturers. The A7 series is almost as small and light as my Fuji APS-C.

Thanks much. I already have a Pentax 28/3.5 shift lens (and a slew of PK film lenses), so all I'd need is a PK to Sony adapter. I almost always use a tripod to allow for better composition and to insure my perspective control is right. Also I can use lower ISOs to lessen noise -- I am shooting with film lenses here, which need a somewhat heavy hand on sharpness Amount, Clarity, and Contrast in ACR. The less noise the better. I use manual exposure kind of as a holdover from the film days, but it can be more accurate when using lenses that don't connect electronically to the camera. That said, I appreciate your comments about the A7 and it's great to know the dynamic range is so good. The Pentax K-5 shows 14 or 15 stops DR at ISO 80, which I much appreciate. I can imagine the A7 being similar, as the K-5 uses a Sony sensor :). The "flawed" mentioned above mainly relates to some glitches in AUTO mode, which I never use anyway. Thanks again.
BAB

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2014 at 14:09 UTC
On Ten things you need to know about the Sony Alpha 7 II article (263 comments in total)
In reply to:

HornOUBet: I'm actually thinking about selling the 6D and buying the X-T1...though the Sony is tempting...
http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.21,520.359,579.396,ha,t

Just a few days ago I had a chance to look at a friend's X-T1, and I was much impressed with the EVF. Much better than my X-E1. Too, it is said to keep up with moving subjects in continuous focus. I have four FX lenses, and I've stopped buying Pentax glass. I'm sold on mirrorless, if nothing else for the size and weight. Especially with the latter, there's no comparison. I can see myself using an A7 for architecture and the X-T1 for everything else. Fuji lenses are awesome.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2014 at 02:17 UTC
On Ten things you need to know about the Sony Alpha 7 II article (263 comments in total)

I can't wait for the A7II to hit the markets, because that will put the A7 prices down where I can reach it! I do a lot of architectural photography and the A7 is certainly the best entry into a full-frame sensor. I already have a shift lens, but on APS-C that's a bit long in the tooth for architecture with the crop value. The A7 is a bit flawed in more than one area, but I'd be bypassing many of the flaws, as I routinely use a tripod, manual focus and manual exposure for that type of photography. For everything else I have Fuji and Pentax APS-C bodies, although I deeply suspect that full-frame mirrorless is here to stay, and will soon be emulated by other manufacturers. The A7 series is almost as small and light as my Fuji APS-C.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2014 at 14:02 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: I can't believe some of the ugly comments and "critiques" aimed at this showcase. Do us a favor and crawl back into your dark, dank burrows. And if you should dare to return, show us some of your amazing, vital, animated, and photographically perfect portraits. Seriously.

As everywhere in the world. The Internet, once touted as the Great Emancipator, has instead become the means for separating us into ever smaller, and ever more obstinate, splinter groups.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2014 at 12:58 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)

I can't believe some of the ugly comments and "critiques" aimed at this showcase. Do us a favor and crawl back into your dark, dank burrows. And if you should dare to return, show us some of your amazing, vital, animated, and photographically perfect portraits. Seriously.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 22:04 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)

How sooo Twenty-first Century.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 17:52 UTC as 332nd comment
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)

A full frame mirrorless camera with a tilt/shift lens, both Canon quality, for $1000. I don't even care if the lens is interchangeable. Wow, what a dreamer, huh? :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 12:29 UTC as 764th comment
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Interesting topic, and one that was just tossed around on DPR's Fuji forum. It seems there is a strong contingent of Fuji owners that bought the small and light angle of Fuji's mirrorless offerings. That, and the great lenses.

But Fuji's latest offerings are rather large and heavy. OK, not as heavy as f/2.8 full-frame zooms, but heavy enough that Fuji users are starting to complain.

Why can't Fuji make a 60-135 that's, say, f/3.5 to 4.5. Such a lens would certainly weigh less than a pound and be much more compatible to the excellent 18-55 zoom. Pentax currently makes a WR 50-200/4-5.6 zoom that weighs 10 ounces. With Fuji quality and focus motors, a 60-135/3.5-4.5 shouldn't be more that 14 ounces? At any rate, producing two pound zooms at $1600 and up might cause Fuji to lose favor with it's strongest followers.

Mirrorless started out light and small, and everyone loved it. Now it's becoming like small cars that grow bigger every year.

BAB

Ditto. I can see the need for a 2.8 lens for a pro who shoots action of any sort. For me, one kilobuck is about the most I want to spend on a lens. I have good shots of flying birds shot at f/8. Now grandchildren are a completely different story :).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 22:22 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Interesting topic, and one that was just tossed around on DPR's Fuji forum. It seems there is a strong contingent of Fuji owners that bought the small and light angle of Fuji's mirrorless offerings. That, and the great lenses.

But Fuji's latest offerings are rather large and heavy. OK, not as heavy as f/2.8 full-frame zooms, but heavy enough that Fuji users are starting to complain.

Why can't Fuji make a 60-135 that's, say, f/3.5 to 4.5. Such a lens would certainly weigh less than a pound and be much more compatible to the excellent 18-55 zoom. Pentax currently makes a WR 50-200/4-5.6 zoom that weighs 10 ounces. With Fuji quality and focus motors, a 60-135/3.5-4.5 shouldn't be more that 14 ounces? At any rate, producing two pound zooms at $1600 and up might cause Fuji to lose favor with it's strongest followers.

Mirrorless started out light and small, and everyone loved it. Now it's becoming like small cars that grow bigger every year.

BAB

Thanks. I agree. What is it with 2.8 anyway?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 19:17 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Interesting topic, and one that was just tossed around on DPR's Fuji forum. It seems there is a strong contingent of Fuji owners that bought the small and light angle of Fuji's mirrorless offerings. That, and the great lenses.

But Fuji's latest offerings are rather large and heavy. OK, not as heavy as f/2.8 full-frame zooms, but heavy enough that Fuji users are starting to complain.

Why can't Fuji make a 60-135 that's, say, f/3.5 to 4.5. Such a lens would certainly weigh less than a pound and be much more compatible to the excellent 18-55 zoom. Pentax currently makes a WR 50-200/4-5.6 zoom that weighs 10 ounces. With Fuji quality and focus motors, a 60-135/3.5-4.5 shouldn't be more that 14 ounces? At any rate, producing two pound zooms at $1600 and up might cause Fuji to lose favor with it's strongest followers.

Mirrorless started out light and small, and everyone loved it. Now it's becoming like small cars that grow bigger every year.

BAB

Sorry if I'm misreading who, precisely, you don't understand. Is it my original post complaining about the size and weight of the Fuji 50-140 (and the price), or is it the comment immediately below from jtan163? If the latter, I agree with you about the weight and the price. I have the 55-200, but would really enjoy something even smaller and lighter that than lens for travel. That's why I wondered about Fuji producing a 60-135 at a slower aperture to keep things small and light, which are two of the reason a lot of us bought into Fuji.

The tendency toward fast lenses seems a bit like follow the leader to me rather than a thoughtful offering of lenses that most Fuji users would like to own. The improvement in noise levels of sensors in the last few years -- and Fuji has one of the best -- has to a large extent argued against the faster lenses. So I'm wondering where this is going to end, or where and when it might be supplemented with lenses most of us can afford.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 12:38 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: A lens starting at 50mm is much more usable than a lens starting at 70mm on aps-c. I have tried both. I shot the Sigma 50-150 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is useless indoors on an aps-c body. 70mm is way to long for general use. The 50-150 was very usable. That extra 20mm of width is VERY useful.
Also - where are the pro grade 50-150 f/4 lenses? Why has no one made this lens? Could be made much smaller than the f/2.8 lenses - and would still be pretty useful under almost all conditions.

If Pentax can make a 50-200mm f/4-5.6 that is 2.7 x 3.0 inches, weighing 10ounces, I'm certain a 60-135 at f3.5-4.5 could be produced that would be the same size, and maybe a few ounces more for OIS. The barrel doesn't have to be 135mm long.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 14:17 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: A lens starting at 50mm is much more usable than a lens starting at 70mm on aps-c. I have tried both. I shot the Sigma 50-150 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is useless indoors on an aps-c body. 70mm is way to long for general use. The 50-150 was very usable. That extra 20mm of width is VERY useful.
Also - where are the pro grade 50-150 f/4 lenses? Why has no one made this lens? Could be made much smaller than the f/2.8 lenses - and would still be pretty useful under almost all conditions.

Perhaps. Note, however, that while the Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 costs $1400 and weighs 686gm, the Pentax WR 50-200mm f/4-5.6 costs $250 and weighs 286gm. Agreed, the 50-200 is not a super lens, and that OIS might add $$ and weight (Pentax' IS is in-camera.) But just how much?

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 18:41 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

GPW: The Nikon and Canon 70-200 weigh that much for a reason. I have had so many people tell me that their Sigma or Tamron had to go back several times for repairs. My Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 has been through some harsh elements(weather) in the past 5 years with ZERO failures, because they are built like a rock.

They might be if the aperture were f/4, or 3.5-4.5, or 4-5.6, or something along those lines. The manufacturers are into f/2.8 recently, but not everyone wants, or needs, that size and weight. The higher cost of f/2.8 is an added issue. This isn't a masculine/feminine issue, just a preference. Buy a light camera system and one prefers lighter lenses. Also, ever try carrying your equipment onto an airplane?

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 13:03 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: A lens starting at 50mm is much more usable than a lens starting at 70mm on aps-c. I have tried both. I shot the Sigma 50-150 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is useless indoors on an aps-c body. 70mm is way to long for general use. The 50-150 was very usable. That extra 20mm of width is VERY useful.
Also - where are the pro grade 50-150 f/4 lenses? Why has no one made this lens? Could be made much smaller than the f/2.8 lenses - and would still be pretty useful under almost all conditions.

Amen to that last statement. I guess "everyone" is making f/2.8 zooms so we've got to make one, too, is the thinking. An f/4 model is more manageable and with today's less noisy sensors would be still be "pretty useful under almost all conditions."

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 12:54 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

GPW: The Nikon and Canon 70-200 weigh that much for a reason. I have had so many people tell me that their Sigma or Tamron had to go back several times for repairs. My Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 has been through some harsh elements(weather) in the past 5 years with ZERO failures, because they are built like a rock.

Very true, and I don't suspect most would dispute that. It's the 70-200 vs 50-135 (APS-C equivalent to 75-210) that's being compared here. The APS-C zooms can also be well-built, but they'd still be lighter, if you see what I mean. :) BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 00:36 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)

Interesting topic, and one that was just tossed around on DPR's Fuji forum. It seems there is a strong contingent of Fuji owners that bought the small and light angle of Fuji's mirrorless offerings. That, and the great lenses.

But Fuji's latest offerings are rather large and heavy. OK, not as heavy as f/2.8 full-frame zooms, but heavy enough that Fuji users are starting to complain.

Why can't Fuji make a 60-135 that's, say, f/3.5 to 4.5. Such a lens would certainly weigh less than a pound and be much more compatible to the excellent 18-55 zoom. Pentax currently makes a WR 50-200/4-5.6 zoom that weighs 10 ounces. With Fuji quality and focus motors, a 60-135/3.5-4.5 shouldn't be more that 14 ounces? At any rate, producing two pound zooms at $1600 and up might cause Fuji to lose favor with it's strongest followers.

Mirrorless started out light and small, and everyone loved it. Now it's becoming like small cars that grow bigger every year.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 22:33 UTC as 66th comment | 8 replies
Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »