sportyaccordy

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 1, 2010

Comments

Total: 506, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Hannu108: “ Mirrorless is 'probably' the future”

Battery technology has to improve a lot to achieve this...

I think Fujica and Max ISO are being biased and a little hyperbolic, albeit to very different degrees. DSLRs are still king for most specialized and demanding forms of photography, but MILC offers some things DSLRs cannot, albeit at a price.

Not really fair to compare Leica M lenses to autofocus lenses. The AF gear has to go somewhere. Plus a lot of M mount lenses utilize simple, ancient designs, with commensurate IQ. Their small size also is a factor in driving up the price. I rented a Nokton 35 1.4 to use with an A7... it was pretty much a 35/2. It was too soft wide open, and pretty chunky. It is a bummer that FE glass has turned out to be so big and heavy but even still, most of the lenses are decently balanced.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: “ Mirrorless is 'probably' the future”

Battery technology has to improve a lot to achieve this...

I knew Max ISO was going to make that suggestion, and I had that same anticipated response for it. You'd have all the disadvantages of DSLRs (alignment issues, more parts and complexity, larger size) with, if you choose to use those features like that overlay LED, all the disadvantages of MILCs (a high res sensor constantly scanning & being processed, battery drain). Not to mention he is arguing an as yet non existent potential solution against actual cameras. Well we can play this game both ways. I work with LEDs extensively and their efficiency is increasing at an exponential rate. It's not unreasonable to extrapolate that the battery drain of an EVF will be negligible in the near future- ESPECIALLY if OVFs are going to have illuminated LCD overlays to relay the same info.

"DSLRs and MILCs will both coexist, but here is how DSLRs will make MILCs irrelevant".... just shoot what you like and be happy.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 22:23 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: “ Mirrorless is 'probably' the future”

Battery technology has to improve a lot to achieve this...

Many MILCs are also available with battery grips. But again, I've taken hundreds of shots on one charge with an MILC. It comes down to a choice between "exposure insecurity" and "battery insecurity". Both don't really matter if you know what you're doing.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: “ Mirrorless is 'probably' the future”

Battery technology has to improve a lot to achieve this...

I don't think approximating an OVF is the goal of an EVF. It's just a tool for composing. I'm sure even the 4.4MP EVFs don't come close to an OVF. That's a known sacrifice one makes for MILC.

Like I've said in other discussions though, just as an EVF will never be able to replicate an OVF's IQ, there are a bunch of things an EVF can do that an OVF probably never will. No live histogram, no live tilt meter, limited view of shooting parameters (i.e. no WB mode), no image review, etc. Note how none of those things are "noob exposure confidence" related... i.e. how convenient would it be to be able to ETTR through the viewfinder? That's a pretty advanced technique. So aside from resolution/refresh rate and blackout functionally the advantage of EVF is pretty obvious. Aside from interframe blackout OVF is definitely a subjective choice.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: “ Mirrorless is 'probably' the future”

Battery technology has to improve a lot to achieve this...

MILCs definitely require a different mindset. They will never be able to replace DSLRs. But they don't make a DSLR that has what I want (FF, IBIS, <700g weight). I've been shooting MILC for years and battery life hasn't been too bad. My C3 was good for 1-2 days of shooting in Peru and once I got my head around the settings my A7 was manageable. Unless you are taking thousands of shots a day it's not that big of a deal. I do find it a bit bizarre that folks who have no problem managing manual exposure cannot handle dealing with an extra battery or two though.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Sigma is going after the highly overlooked Cyclops and tryclops markets with that EVF placement. Good for them.

Optimized for vertical grip.... perfect for a camera with a sensor optimized for landscapes. Oh Sigma :-D

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 14:56 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Sigma is going after the highly overlooked Cyclops and tryclops markets with that EVF placement. Good for them.

No, the X1D's EVF is skewed to the left, just like pretty much every non-Sigma ILC before it. This has an EVF placed for left hand shooting, but with a right hand shutter button. It's a mess.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 16:14 UTC

Sigma is going after the highly overlooked Cyclops and tryclops markets with that EVF placement. Good for them.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 15:00 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: I wonder if the old 35/2 will be compatible. If the old 50 & 85 aren't I'd imagine the old 35 wouldn't be either. And the Yongnuo 35 is complete garbage. Someone needs to make a cheap but good 35!!!

This is excellent news nonetheless, though I definitely want to see how these changes actually perform.

Interesting. I figured that since it came out the same year as the 50 1.8 II and before the 85 1.8 it would have the same AF problems. Do you know if it works with the Fotodiox adapter?

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 00:58 UTC

I wonder if the old 35/2 will be compatible. If the old 50 & 85 aren't I'd imagine the old 35 wouldn't be either. And the Yongnuo 35 is complete garbage. Someone needs to make a cheap but good 35!!!

This is excellent news nonetheless, though I definitely want to see how these changes actually perform.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 20:19 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (789 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: You guys should get a picture of it next to other bodies. Hard to get a feel for its size.

It's up on Camerasize.com.

http://j.mp/28PG7r7

Pretty much the same exact size as an A7x, only a hair taller and an inch wider. The grip may actually be way too small; I felt the grip on the original A7 was too small and this will have to hold even bigger lenses. Still though, pretty incredible.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 16:31 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (789 comments in total)

You guys should get a picture of it next to other bodies. Hard to get a feel for its size.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 14:49 UTC as 76th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

@Paul Boddie Shooting MFT is using a tool in the toolbox. Getting angry and arguing with people who talk about why they don't is a lifestyle choice. The "DOF police" are just voices in your head.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

DoF is not only relevant for the task of creating "wafer thin" DoF. Any kind of composition in which subject isolation would help benefits from having a wider range of DoF to operate. Why is that a crime?

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

If all that mattered were photo skills everyone would shoot with the absolute worst camera possible (which would mean going even worse than 4/3). Someone with the same skill set will get better photos out of a nicer + newer camera. This is not a new concept.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 11:46 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

It's not just the depth of field. IQ will be better at every ISO and lenses on larger formats are less stressed to get the same sharpness across the frame. It adds up. Obviously everything is a compromise, but in my opinion this seems extreme. Again this lens is no lighter or smaller than Canon's 24 2.8 IS USM, nor is it much lighter or smaller than the Nikkor 24 f/1.8. It may not matter to you but it could be food for thought for someone else. It's just an opinion. Fortunately you don't have to agree, disagree, or respond at all for that matter.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 02:16 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

I am happy for you. Some others may want to shop around though. And again participation in discussions like this = 100% voluntary.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

It's not everything, but it's a factor. Should people not be able to compare systems out of fear of hurting MFT shooters' feelings? If you are happy with your systems why participate in discussions of comparisons and equivalence?

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 23:56 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

@Yake lenses like this eliminate that advantage. A FF MILC + a 28/2 is about the same size as an MFT camera with full controls and this lens. If you want MFT for it's small size then choose small lenses. The little F/1.7 primes, the small zooms. Getting something like this or those Zuiko 2.8 primes and a big OM-D body just seems pointless to me.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 23:44 UTC

$1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 20:27 UTC as 34th comment | 30 replies
Total: 506, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »