T3

T3

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

Comments

Total: 1874, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

limlh: With four aspherical lenses and two ED glass lenses, this zoom has some serious stuff inside its barrel. Together with 5 stops OIS and weather resistant, Fujifilm is downright serious about this.

Far too many people here sit around griping about specs, sitting around waiting for the "perfect" lens or body, rather than seeing the potential of existing lenses and bodies, and going out to shoot with them. Yes, fast primes or shorter zooms with constant apertures are great. But they are just one tool in your tool box. A lens like this weather sealed image stabilized 18-135 (with, hopefully, very good IQ) is another tool in your tool box. And given its range, weather sealing, and stabilization, I think it should be a far more versatile tool than most narrow-minded specs-whiners realize.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

limlh: With four aspherical lenses and two ED glass lenses, this zoom has some serious stuff inside its barrel. Together with 5 stops OIS and weather resistant, Fujifilm is downright serious about this.

@tkbslc - it's not a boring lens. Maybe you're just a boring photographer! LOL. Seriously though, would you consider a 35/1.4 non-stabilized lens a boring lens because it's not very wide, not very long, has no stabilization, and has zero range? Like I said, maybe it's you who is boring. Yeah, sure, you can load up on a bunch of fast primes, or shorter zooms with constant apertures. But there is absolutely a usefulness to having a lens that you can keep on your body, without having to constantly swap lenses. In some conditions, swapping lenses means missing shots. Furthermore, in some dusty, windy conditions, it's best not to change your lens at all because doing so would easily introduce dust into the body! Even worse if it's rainy and wet! Yes, many of us shoot in those conditions! So having a weather sealed 18-135 zoom is a huge benefit to us! Maybe you don't realize this, because you just shoot in more "boring" conditions! LOL.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

Jorginho: For Fuji users probably good news. A nice addition to already very nice lens setup. Fuji is not letting their users down!

To me personally it also demonstrates why i do not want a APS-c sensor for a mirrorless cam. Because it is a large and heavy lens. Just compare it to the panasonic 14-140. To me, for such bodies, such a lens makes more sense.

A lot of APS-C mirrorless users have the intent of using APS-C mirrorless as a replacement for APS-C DSLRs. If that's the intent, "such bodies" and "such a lens" makes perfect sense. Because when combined with an entire kit in your bag, it results in a noticeable reduction in size, weight, bulk in your camera bag compared to a comparable DSLR gear collection.

I use m4/3. But I still have a preference for APS-C. I'm torn between the compactness of m4/3, and the larger sensor size of APS-C. However, both are a significantly lesser load compared to lugging around DSLR gear.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

ZoranHR: Fuji (and other mirorless too) make some really small and nice looking cameras,but all accompanied with big lens. (I know the reason for that) ;-)
No matter how much I like camera body, I just I don't see the point.
Why I should have a camera with body sized almost as a smartphone with lens size of half-used roll of toilet paper?!

How it would look like if they produce lens for wildlife? (since most mirorless already have a weather sealed version)

They should make a body wich gives a comfort while you hold a lens like this.

@ZoranHR - maybe you're the kind of guy who holds his camera by having both hands on each side of the camera body, like you're holding a small book in front of your face. LOL. Yeah, if that's your handholding technique, then lens size will be an issue! Nothing but the smallest lenses will be comfortable to hold if you're using that method. But with proper holding technique, any camera + lens combo can be comfortable to hold. With *your* holding technique, only the smallest, shortest, lightest lenses will be comfortable to use.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

ZoranHR: Fuji (and other mirorless too) make some really small and nice looking cameras,but all accompanied with big lens. (I know the reason for that) ;-)
No matter how much I like camera body, I just I don't see the point.
Why I should have a camera with body sized almost as a smartphone with lens size of half-used roll of toilet paper?!

How it would look like if they produce lens for wildlife? (since most mirorless already have a weather sealed version)

They should make a body wich gives a comfort while you hold a lens like this.

@ZoranHR - you need to learn how to hold a lens! We DSLR users regularly hold MUCH larger lenses for very long periods of time (Canon 24-70/2.8L, Canon 70-200/2.8L, Canon 100-400L, etc). And we don't do it by supporting these very front-heavy lenses with the camera bodies they are mounted on! We do it by supporting these very large and heavy lenses with our left hand sitting below the lens. I've shot these big lenses on small Rebel bodies with no problems. Again, it's merely a matter of proper hand-holding technique. It's a misconception that the best way to hold a large and heavy lens is to add a large and heavy camera body. That just adds to the overall size and weight you have to support with your body! And. no, that's not more comfortable!!!

With this Fuji 18-135 zoom lens on any of Fuji's mirrorless body, I would simple use proper handholding technique: support the lens with your left hand. No big deal.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 19:39 UTC
In reply to:

Dr111968: I wonder why mirrorless camera body should be small while the lenses are huge! what is the point!

No, mirrorless lenses aren't "huge". I think people should reserve their judgment regarding the size of these lenses until they actually have one of these lenses in their hands. Meanwhile, DSLR users don't seem to mind using lenses that are just as proportionally large on their DSLR bodies as this lens is on a mirrorless body! And a lot of DSLR lenses are TRULY HUGE. Not to mention the fact that all DSLR bodies, even the small ones, are bigger compared to mirrorless bodies. Which results in body + lens combos that dwarf any mirrorless body + lens combo! It's total hypocrisy.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 19:30 UTC
In reply to:

limlh: With four aspherical lenses and two ED glass lenses, this zoom has some serious stuff inside its barrel. Together with 5 stops OIS and weather resistant, Fujifilm is downright serious about this.

@ tkbslc - I don't know what's "boring" about an 18-135 zoom range. That zoom range covers a lot of ground, and it's a lens that you could keep on your body quite a lot. Not everyone needs faster apertures all the time. Sometimes you just want a good zoom range, and good IQ across that range. The Fuji 18-135 seems like it has the potential to do that. And with excellent image stabilization and weather sealing to boot! Not everything is about aperture, aperture, aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Fuji is moving swiftly to become the most respected lens manufacturer in the world: a combination of high quality, affordable price, and compact designs is hard to beat.

@bluevellet - I think it's rather short-sighted to be so dismissive of this lens just because it has slower variable aperture specs. Hasselblad makes some slow variable aperture zooms for their medium format H-system. It doesn't mean these lenses are cheap kit lenses! Not everyone needs fast apertures on all lenses. Sometimes, you just want the zoom range, but you still want good optical performance.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 19:21 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: $900 for 18-135/3.5-5.6! Fuji is not exactly shy.
For comparison
Canon's new 18-135 IS STM costs $550 (Canon's old $500),
Sony's $500 ,
Nikon's new 18-140 is also $500,
Pentax 18-135WR also $500 - hell, you can buy whole WR k-50 with 18-135 for $900!
And it is harder (more expensive) to reach 18mm on a DSLR!

Among mirrorless, more versatile (longer reach)
Panasonic HD 14-140 is $400 (new 14-140 $630),
Olympus 14-150 $600;
Samsung 18-200 (again much longer reach) $700.

You have to keep in mind that the volume of production can have a significant impact on unit pricing. DSLRs are far more numerous, and their lenses are going to be produced in much, much greater volumes, thus reducing their prices. Fuji is not a high volume manufacturer on the level of a Canon or Nikon or any DSLR manufacturer, for that matter. And, of course, whether sealing adds cost, too.

In the automobile world, people accept that there are large variations in pricing from one brand to the next, even from fairly similar types of cars. No one freaks out about that. Same with watches. Same with a lot of industries. And yet, when there are pricing differences in the photographer world, people freak out! Get over it. The photo equipment world is no different from any other industry. There can be differences in pricing from one brand to the next. Get over it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

ZoranHR: Fuji (and other mirorless too) make some really small and nice looking cameras,but all accompanied with big lens. (I know the reason for that) ;-)
No matter how much I like camera body, I just I don't see the point.
Why I should have a camera with body sized almost as a smartphone with lens size of half-used roll of toilet paper?!

How it would look like if they produce lens for wildlife? (since most mirorless already have a weather sealed version)

They should make a body wich gives a comfort while you hold a lens like this.

In the DSLR world, we regularly use very large lenses that are easily as proportionally larger than our DSLR bodies as this lens is on an a Fuji body. And yet, you never hear of DSLR users complaining "I don't see the point!"

The "point" is that even if some lenses are large, you still get an *overall* reduction in size when you consider the overall collection of mirrorless equipment you have in your bag. An overall reduction in size and weight is still an overall reduction in size and weight. Less to lug around, less in your carry-on bag at the airport, etc.

Furthermore, if you are supporting the size and weight of a lens solely from the camera body (and thus, your desire to have "a body that gives a comfort while you hold a lens like this") then you're not using proper holding technique. With larger lenses, you support the lens with your left hand. If you do that, it really doesn't matter how big or heavy the lens is, your camera body can handle it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 15:13 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: At $900 for a slow kit zoom, Fuji thinks that they are the new Leica.

Slower variable apertures do not indicate a typical "kit" zoom. That's just plain idiotic prejudice and bigotry, making a judgement merely on the most superficial of observations. I'll bet you do a lot of that in your life with other things too.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 15:07 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: Woot? This is a kit zoom tartied up to be a premium lens by putting lipstick on a pig. Wow its got a million stops of IS so I can marvel at how good it is taking pictures of figurines on my desk and explaining to forums how great it is. But let's not forget the weather sealing! How great will it be to use an overpriced kit zoom in the rain, amazeballs! There is a reason lenses like this don't usually get the pig in lipstick treatment...

"Pig in lipstick" typically refers to things that merely get superficial treatments to make them appear better than they are. But I don't think that applies to this lens at all.

Firstly, the weather sealing is REAL. And a lens you can comfortably use in the rain is still better than a lens you can't use in the rain! A lens doesn't take very good pictures if it's sitting in your camera for fear that water might get into it.

Secondly, are you really dismissing the value of improved image stabilization as something you only use to take pictures of figurines on your desk? Sorry, but the rest of us shoot out in the real world, were any improvements in images stabilization are welcomed.

Thirdly, you make claims about the IQ of this lens; can you please show us the rests of the extensive testing you've done with this lens?

Fourthly, there's not much point in comparing it to other zooms with much shorter zoom ranges. This is no 18-55 lens. It's an 18-135 lens.

You: armchair whiner.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 15:05 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Man this lens is huge. Considering it is a lens for CSCs and it is so slow (f3,5-5,6) it should have been much smaller. But 490g and 67mm filter thread? Definitely not corresponding with the luminosity. And also more suitable for large DSLR with proper handgrip than for small CSC (OK, X-T1 is relatively usable, but this lens definitely doesn´t fit to X-E2/X-M1/X-A1).

This Fuji lens is not huge. It only looks "huge" because the X-T1 is small compared to a DSLR. In reality, it's about the same size as Canon's 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, which has a 67mm filter thread, and is 455 grams. But keep in mind, the Canon lens is slightly lighter because it's not weather sealed, and is mostly plastic.

As for the notion that this lens doesn't "fit" the X-E2/X-M1/X-A1, that's a bit silly. With DSLRs, people regularly use lenses that are proportionally much larger than the DSLR bodies they mount them on with no problems. I've used Canon's huge 24-70/2.9L on small Rebel bodies. It's all in how you hold everything: just support the lens with your left hand. You shouldn't be using the camera's handgrip to be supporting any of the size and weight of the lens!

Plus, really good optics generally require big glass. Look how big the Zeiss Otus is. So I'm not so surprised about the size of this lens, even though its for mirrorless. I bet the IQ is quite good.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 08:44 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Using the Studio comparison tool, I see no reason to own this or any camera with a one inch sensor especially if one's primary format is FF. I was drawn here yesterday because of the hubbub over the RX100 III. Same reaction today. IQ is too compromised especially when fine detail is necessary.

Of course, the RAW isn't available yet but I downloaded the jpegs of this and the 5D3 (as I did with the RX100 III) and even on this modest laptop, viewing at "Fill the Screen" size in PS (making it a relatively small image), The differences are quite plain to see.

The FZ1000 and the RX 100 III images look nearly indistinguishable significant in the sense that the lenses are this super zoom versus a relatively moderate 24-70.

Comparing 1" to FF? Geez, man, grow a brain. Obviously, that's a substantial difference in sensor size, so there will be a difference in IQ. But as for "no reason" to own a camera with a 1" sensor, I can think of one big reason: camera size. A FF body with an equivalent lens would be enormous compared to the size of this 1" sensored camera. Not everything is about ultimate IQ. Portability and convenience can also be significantly important. Besides, in real world shooting (i.e., without the benefit of side-by-side studio comparison images viewed at high magnification), the difference in IQ won't nearly be as significant or noticeable in many situations and for many output sizes.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: 10GB, huh? What it can do a $10 16GB USB stick cannot?

@ peevee1 - BTW, as much as you think that physically taking drives to your bank safe is "much more safe than those clouds", the reality is that a trip to your bank isn't going to happen as often as you think it is. That's the reality. Cloud syncing, on the other hand, is something that can happen automatically, seemlessly, and conveniently-- and it will be a much more practical process for a lot of people. But like I said, it's a supplement to what you might already be doing. It's an extra layer of redundancy. Nothing wrong with that!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: 10GB, huh? What it can do a $10 16GB USB stick cannot?

@peevee1 - I'll take redundancy wherever I can get it. And it's even better when it's automated redundancy, which happens without me lifting a finger. That's where the technology is headed. And none of this has to *replace* anything you're currently doing. It's a supplement. That's the point of *redundancy*. So stop freaking out. The addition of cloud storage doesn't mean someone is going to take away your local physical drives. It's like people who were so against adding video to cameras, because they feared it would somehow take away from still photography! All these things are *supplements*!!! Use it if you like, ignore it if you don't, but it's great to have these options! People are so paranoid, geez! As far as I'm concerned, another cloud storage option is just another "feature" I can use as I wish. But the "features" I currently know and love are still there. No one is throwing the baby out with the bath water! LOL.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

Mark Forman: I have over 14TB of images and Canon offers just 10GB free.
Let me see now. That means that I will have to pay for the remaining 13,990 GB of storage with them.
I don't think so.
I store backups in mirrored form and have offsite storage as well on Smugmug which has been doing this for years without issues.

You're being an "all or nothing" extremist. There's nothing wrong with using cloud storage to *supplement* local physical storage, especially if you are traveling and can't get to your physical backup storage. No one says you have to keep *everything* there all the time. If I'm on a trip, I love being able to upload a chunk of images to the cloud, to back up my local physical media, until I can get home and put it all onto mirrored drives. I'm not freaking out over the notion that I have to have 14TB's of cloud storage!!! Get some perspective, man! I'll take redundancy anywhere I can get it!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Buy 2, 3 terabyte hard drives for $150. One for images, one for back-up. To heck with the "cloud" and the hackers.

Local storage is okay, but local storage *plus* cloud storage is even better. You can never be too safe. There are plenty of people who have thought that their local back up was good enough--- until it wasn't. People who say "to heck with the cloud and the hackers" remind me of people who think it's better to keep all their money in the form of physical cash stored in physical locations (stick it all in a few mattresses!) rather than depositing money in a bank.

Time to join the 21st century, people. We're not living in the Stone Age anymore. We live in a connected world, with increasingly connected devices. Right now, as soon as I get home, my smartphone connects to my network and automatically starts uploading any photos or videos I too with my phone to the cloud-- all without me lifting a finger. That's what future cameras will be doing. Then, if you want to manually download your images to a local drive, you can do that, too. But wireless automation of cloud syncing is great!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 14:41 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: 10GB, huh? What it can do a $10 16GB USB stick cannot?

Are you seriously comparing cloud storage to a USB stick? LOL. A USB stick, just like any physical storage device, is a single physical unit that can be lost, stolen, or destroyed. Furthermore, cloud storage is a means to supplement physical and local storage. Plus, you can share from cloud storage a lot more easily than you can from a USB stick. Also, the beauty of cloud storage services is that you can automatically back up or upload to them. As more and more devices become "connected" devices, these auto backups will be more and more a part of our regular lives. For example, when you get home, your camera can detect your wifi network, and it will automatically start uploading images to the cloud, without you lifting a finger. Auto backups are going to save a lot of time and hassle, not to mention a lot of photos that might otherwise be lost. A USB stick is still something you have to consciously plug in and transfer images to.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 14:33 UTC
On HTC launches One E8 smartphone with 13MP camera post (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leandros S: Polycarbonate is cheap **** (self censored). You really want metal. The lower price is a second hint that the megapixels may not be up to much.

Jeez, what century do you live in? Polycarbonate is a fantastic material. It's tough, shock resistant, and durable. Why do you think people buy polycarbonate protective cases to put their metal body smartphones in? LOL. Polycarbonate also feels better in the hand, IMHO. I *much* preferred how the iPhone 5C felt in my hand over the 5S. But I opted for the LG G2, which also has a polycarb body. It feels great in my hand. Very impact resistant. I'll take polycarbonate any day. Time to join the 21st century, old man.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2014 at 02:43 UTC
Total: 1874, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »