PIX 2015
T3

T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 2299, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

BeaniePic: Oh all please shut up about 4K in this type of camera.... It will be in all cameras when needed and not before, with all the expected changes to video over the coming years having the current for of 4K will be like having Blu-Ray in your PC, useless.

"The G3X is designed for a completely different consumer."

I just wonder about the kind of consumer who thinks they can handhold a 600mm-equivalent lens without a viewfinder. I feel like Canon in preying on these people who think "Ooooh, wow, 24-600mm! It must take great pictures!" In other words, people who are buying it "simply for the zoom". I think it might appeal to people with a certain naiveté.

But I think Canon is over-estimating people's lack of wisdom. People who are willing to dump $1K into a compact camera generally aren't so naive. They'll look at the specs, see what they're getting for their money, assess the alternatives. Sometimes, complaints about a camera's shortcomings are warranted. And lately, it seems to be a pattern with Canon, like when they announced the XC10, a $2500 4K video bridge camera with no RAW and no EVF "for cost reasons". Heck, it won't even accept the $250 add-on EVF that the G3X accepts! "What was Canon thinking"?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2015 at 13:30 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

BeaniePic: Oh all please shut up about 4K in this type of camera.... It will be in all cameras when needed and not before, with all the expected changes to video over the coming years having the current for of 4K will be like having Blu-Ray in your PC, useless.

Sure, a touchscreen on the A7R II would be very nice, but come on, 1fps shooting speed on the G3X? Besides, the recent Sony A7RII makes up for the lack of a touchscreen by packing in a lot of other technological goodies, like 42mp, IBIS, fast AF, 399 phase-detection AF points, 4K, fast AF even with DSLR lenses, etc. And yes, even pushing 42mp, it still manages to shoot 5fps with continuous focus tracking. So the lack of a touchscreen is counterbalanced by a lot of other features and specs. I'm not so sure that the G3X counterbalances the slow shooting speed, lack of 4K, lack of EVF, and high price with enough other goodies.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2015 at 00:18 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

BeaniePic: Oh all please shut up about 4K in this type of camera.... It will be in all cameras when needed and not before, with all the expected changes to video over the coming years having the current for of 4K will be like having Blu-Ray in your PC, useless.

How about we b*tch about the fact that the G3X only does 1 frame-per-second in AI Servo mode RAW? I mean, for $1K, in 2015, that's really really slow performance. It might be okay for 2005, but not for 2015.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 22:49 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: Leica's new fixed lens camera is too bulky and too expensive, and no EVF of FF sensor will compensate for it. An A7II would be a more prudent choice. But Leica's target group of victims is immune to these arguments so happy ending for all..

Too bulky compared to what? The Q's lens is larger than a Summicron 28mm f/2 (but the Q's lens has AF and IS), while the Q's body is smaller than a Leica M. Overall, it's basically about the same size as a Leica M with 28mm Summicron, or slightly smaller.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#389.270,625,ha,t

As for weight, a Leica M body alone weighs 680g, while a Leica Q with lens weighs 640g. So the Q is definitely a lighter camera. As for price, a Leica M body costs $7K and a Summicron 28/2 costs $3800. So the Q is also lighter on the wallet. A Leica Q with AF, IS, 10fps continuous, Wifi, NFC for $4250 seems like a pretty decent price for a Leica.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 19:37 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

maximme: i could get Fuji X100T x 3pcs , each equipped to get
28mm
35mm
50mm

and still have spare cash

hmmmmmmmm

Read your own words, UnitedNations:

"You sound very confused. That OIS in the Q is not for stills. It causes image deterioration in the outer edges. Leica put that in for support for video mode."

Maybe you can post a link to what the Leica representatives have said, so that we can read for ourselves *exactly* what has been said, rather than having it filtered through you.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 19:26 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

UnitedNations: The OIS is not really for stills. Leica admits image deterioration in the edges when using OIS. The OIS was put in there to support the video mode.

I think the fact that you're blowing things out of proportion and getting so heated about it is "silly" and more an indication of a "mental problem", LOL.

I think the overwhelming majority of Leica Q users will be perfectly fine with the OIS for stills. None of the initial reviews of the Q seem to have any issue with the OIS.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 15:35 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

maximme: i could get Fuji X100T x 3pcs , each equipped to get
28mm
35mm
50mm

and still have spare cash

hmmmmmmmm

@UnitedNations- Uh...you're the one who has repeatedly stated that, "OIS in the Q is not for stills." Yes, those are your exact words. "...not for stills". You even accused someone of being "very confused" about the OIS. Are you now trying to backtrack your words?

As I said, I think you're blowing things out of proportion with your definitive and declarative statements. I would gladly accept a bit of corner degradation if it meant that the rest of the frame was sharp and steady. Besides, in most of the shooting situations for which this camera will be used, I doubt it would be noticed, if it appeared at all.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 15:31 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

maximme: i could get Fuji X100T x 3pcs , each equipped to get
28mm
35mm
50mm

and still have spare cash

hmmmmmmmm

UnitedNations- Lori Grunin , CNET's camera review editor, reported:
"The 28mm f1.7 lens delivers beautiful bokeh, with smooth out-of-focus areas and round highlights. It displays excellent sharpness, across the entire aperture range and from edge to edge, with little fringing. Although Leica warned me that the optical image stabilization could degrade the corners somewhat, not an uncommon problem, but I didn't see any issues."

I think you're making much ado about nothing. It might show up on test charts, but in real world shooting, like the kind of street photography this camera will likely be used for, I think it's a total non-issue.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 14:41 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

maximme: i could get Fuji X100T x 3pcs , each equipped to get
28mm
35mm
50mm

and still have spare cash

hmmmmmmmm

Dear UnitedNations- if I'm given the choice between blurring throughout the image due to handshake or camera shake, versus a bit of image degradation along the edges from using OIS, I'd easily choose to go with OIS!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 14:34 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

UnitedNations: The OIS is not really for stills. Leica admits image deterioration in the edges when using OIS. The OIS was put in there to support the video mode.

I don't think the OIS in the Leica is really any different than the OIS in a million other still cameras and lenses. So to say that the Leica's OIS is "not really for stills" is rather silly. All OIS systems have the potential to deteriorate the corners. After all, they use a floating lens element that jockeys back and forth, up and down, to stabilize the image! That certainly has the potential to deteriorate the image along the edges.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 14:30 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)

1 fps in RAW with continuous AF on a $1K camera! Woohoo!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 10:07 UTC as 12th comment
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

yonsarh: ...and there will be Panasonic model which will be release soon with a half price

Nope, not likely. That only happens when Leica is using re-badged Panasonic cameras. This is a Leica original, not a re-badged Panasonic. You don't see a Panasonic version of the Leica M or Leica T, do you?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 14:40 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)

I'm surprised it doesn't have a threaded shutter button. No chance to add a soft-touch shutter release. Also surprised they don't offer a silver body in addition to the black one.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 05:45 UTC as 27th comment | 2 replies
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

eddie_cam: Max. 1/2000 sec. at f/2.8? No 4K? Only 5.9 fps? No built-in EVF? Good luck with that, Canon!

Only 5.9 fps with no focus tracking. With focus tracking it drops down to 3.2 fps.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 15:52 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

joelakeland: It had me until I read the $250 EVF. At $1250 I can buy the Olympus OMD E M5 with 14-42($499) plus the 40-150 ($99), 25 1.8($299), 45 1.8($299) and 9mm f8 cap lens($88). Well, $33 more...

@Sdaniella - you are a desperate, desperate woman, so desperate to defend this camera. LOL. Like I said, why bother? I might be able to understand if you had bought into the G "system". But these cameras are stand-alone cameras. They aren't part of a "system", so you're not locked into using them. It's just a stand-alone camera. I don't understand the obsessive defense of it. Does your obsessiveness come from brand loyalty? Again, that "loyalty" might make more sense if you'd committed to a particular system, but the G cameras aren't system cameras (unless you're counting the Canon flash system). But for the most part, these cameras should just be considered as the stand-alone cameras that they are.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 14:40 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

jl_smith: All of the "no EVF" complainers who are telling Canon they fail at life are OBVIOUSLY better at running a multi-million dollar company than Canon is, so I'm *amazed* they haven't hired you yet!

It's about market segments and potential engineering limitations, people.

On the marketing bit - you have to keep the camera below certain price points to appeal to your target customers. The semi-serious P&S crowd isn't going to give a great deal about an EVF - they just want decent images and lots of zoom.

The serious P&S shooter IS going to care about the EVF and will spend the extra money to get it (assuming they go with this model).

Of course, one would hope it was an engineering decision instead of a sales/marketing one.

At $999, did Canon *really* hit a desirable price point for this camera? I think many would argue no.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 14:29 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: You can always think of this camera as a $1250 camera with a removable EVF. Then it is simply overpriced but it actually has a feature advantage in that you can remove the EVF when you don’t need/want it.

A removable EVF is a good thing and not a bad thing especially in a camera this small. It allows you to have a flash and an EVF simultaneously. There simply isn’t a place on this camera to put a built-in EVF without removing the Flash or the hot shoe.

If you think about it that way you will see that Canon designed it exactly right. They just didn’t hit the price point they really needed to hit.

Well the problem with these removable EVFs is that you NEED to remove it in order to use the hotshoe. And you'll maybe even WANT to removed it during times when you don't want this bulbous thing sticking off the top of your compact camera. None of these things are an issue with built-in EVFs.

I've been using a removable, tilting EVF on my Oly PEN body for a few years. I thought I'd like a removeable EVF for the same reason you cite: "I can remove the EVF when I don't need/want it". I no longer like these hotshoe EVFs. It hogs up your hotshoe. And it protrudes from your camera in an awkward way. I now much prefer built-in EVFs that are nicely integrated into the shape and form of the camera body. When you have a nicely integrated EVF, you don't find the need to remove it. I used to think detachable hotshoe EVFs were a good idea. Not anymore. I don't even think it's worth having for the tilt feature. Tilting on a tall detachable EVF makes a vulnerable EVF that much more vulnerable.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 14:20 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

joelakeland: It had me until I read the $250 EVF. At $1250 I can buy the Olympus OMD E M5 with 14-42($499) plus the 40-150 ($99), 25 1.8($299), 45 1.8($299) and 9mm f8 cap lens($88). Well, $33 more...

So what's the practicality of handholding a 300-600mm equivalent focal length without a viewfinder with the G3X's slower max aperture at those focal ranges? LOL.

And at least with the Oly, you have the option of using other lenses, rather than being stuck with a slow, impractical megazoom for the life of the camera. Plus, I don't find lenses with such a massive zoom range to be optically very good. Too much optical compromise to achieve such massive zoom range. And it's not as if you can swap it out for a shorter zoom range or better optical quality like you can with the Oly.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 14:00 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

joelakeland: It had me until I read the $250 EVF. At $1250 I can buy the Olympus OMD E M5 with 14-42($499) plus the 40-150 ($99), 25 1.8($299), 45 1.8($299) and 9mm f8 cap lens($88). Well, $33 more...

@Sdaniella - you show your desperation by cherry-picking Oly f/2.8 pro zooms as a means to compare price and weight. That's pathetic. All your calculations just show a desperate attempt at defending a fairly lackluster, overpriced camera. Why bother? It's just a camera. If you like it, buy it. The rest of us are going to pass. I suspect a lot of people are going to pass on this camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:51 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: $999 ? The new Samsung NX500 with much larger APS-C sensor has 4K UHD , 28mp and with 16-50mm power zoom OIS lens is $599. It has the same sensor as the NX1 that I just got that works great with my old lenses.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56004675

@dwill23 - yes, powerzoom is very valuable for video. But at least with the NX 16-50 powerzoom, it's removeable!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:31 UTC
Total: 2299, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »