Ray Sachs

Ray Sachs

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Mar 20, 2010

Comments

Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Rumle: So... every one forgot about the Nikon A?

I've had three samples, still own two, and all were excellent. I've heard of a few complaints of dust on the sensor, as with the GR (and about any other camera with a lens that extends and retracts). But yours is the first I've seen about a bad lens, so I don't think it's a generalized problem. You may just be really unlucky...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

Ray Sachs: Does the auto ISO have a decent minimum shutter speed control, or is it limited to 1/125 as with the X100 series?

Turns out it's 1/500, which none of the X100 has. Pretty nice - should be fast enough for just about anything you'd care to do with a 28mm lens...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 07:04 UTC
In reply to:

Rumle: So... every one forgot about the Nikon A?

Unfortunately, it seems Nikon has... Great camera, still pretty easy to find at $299...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

Catalin Stavaru: I really like the compactness of this camera. I wonder if it is the most compact APS-C to date (with lens attached, of course).

Ricoh GR and Nikon Coolpix A (seemingly discontinued) are both more compact...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:07 UTC

The wider if the two magnification levels in the XPro 1 OVF was optimized for the 18mm lens. Is this one? What's the coverage like with the 14 and 16mm primes? I never tried the 16mm on an X-Pro 1, but the 14 was wider than the OVF and worked better with the EVF...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 09:52 UTC as 318th comment

Does the auto ISO have a decent minimum shutter speed control, or is it limited to 1/125 as with the X100 series?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 09:22 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply

Nice piece, BUT... I liked the original RX1 a lot, and absolutely LOVE the Nikon DF, so I guess we just like different things. I couldn't possibly have less interest in a 42mp sensor. And most of the photos I'm seeing from the II look surprisingly soft, which the original never did. I'm not sure if that's just a matter of soft at the pixel level, which is unfair given how many pixels there ARE, or actually a bit soft at normal viewing sizes. Regardless, I can't seem to shake the impression...

Regardless, despite the RX1 being my primary camera for about two years and one of my favorite all time, I can't screw up either the enthusiasm or cash (if the enthusiasm was there) for this camera. I hope Sony keeps innovating on the sensor front though, and moves their BSI tech down to a 20 or 24mp sensor that I might want to check out. Or 16, but Sony seems wedded to more and more and MORE resolution, which just isn't my priority.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 12:29 UTC as 20th comment
On article Second time lucky? A closer look at Sony's new RX1R II (542 comments in total)

I'm assuming this camera uses the same excellent auto ISO shutter speed control used in the A7RII, RX100 IV, and RX10 II??? If so, that's a huge improvement over the original RX1, which didn't have ANY shutter speed control in auto-ISO. I don't have any desire for a 42mp sensor though - wish they'd just stick with 24 mp (or 16 for that matter) and perfect it...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 23:46 UTC as 84th comment
On article ZEISS goes wide with Loxia 21mm F2.8 for Sony E-mount (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: What is the point of a lens without AF in this day and age? AF is one of the functions most photographers need more than any other.

"Did you ever use a film SLR? It could be that just getting used to a certain system, whatever that is, would give equal results. Wearing eyeglasses is another obstacle."

Yeah, I used to shoot high school sports with a Pentax K-1000 and a 50mm f1.8 lens back in the '70s. It got better from there. And I wear glasses, but don't have any problem with manual focus for most uses. I have a few AF lenses and there are times when it's the only way to go, but I don't shoot a lot of action so most of my shooting is with MF on a Nikon DF...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 15:18 UTC
On article ZEISS goes wide with Loxia 21mm F2.8 for Sony E-mount (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: What is the point of a lens without AF in this day and age? AF is one of the functions most photographers need more than any other.

I use manual focus lenses exclusively on a DSLR. I replaced the focus screen with one that has a split prism, like the old film SLRs. It makes it a quicker process, but Nikon's focus confirmation dot is at least a precise. I've used a lot of mirrorless gear with focus peaking and auto-magnification, but honestly my rate of keepers is just as high with my DSLR.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 13:00 UTC
On article ZEISS goes wide with Loxia 21mm F2.8 for Sony E-mount (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: What is the point of a lens without AF in this day and age? AF is one of the functions most photographers need more than any other.

What is the point of auto-focus on a 21mm lens to begin with? I get the advantages at 50mm, 85mm, and longer. But with this wide a lens, if you're shooting at any distance at all you've got crazy depth of field, and you're usually better off focussing manually for close work anyway...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 00:24 UTC
On article ZEISS goes wide with Loxia 21mm F2.8 for Sony E-mount (224 comments in total)

Substantially smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon Distagon versions of the 21mm, and a bit less expensive. I wonder how the optics hold up to those. I have the Nikon version and it's about my favorite lens. If these Loxia versions are similar quality, I could start thinking about moving back to mirrorless someday... Although I have so much good F-mount glass that I paid, generally, so little for, it would be tough to switch just to save a few grams and millimeters...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2015 at 20:42 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies

Could lead to some really good deals on the existing distagon and sonnar and whatever else they call the current generation. I shoot with a DF (low res for today) and love the Zeiss glass I have. Might be an opportunity to pick up a couple more at nice prices...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:11 UTC as 21st comment
On article SmugMug Films: Master of illusions (41 comments in total)

I was in that same freshman high school photo class that Joel was in roughly 40 years ago now. I guess we learned in the same darkroom. To say he took it a LOT farther than I did would be the understatement of the millenium!

I've seen a lot of his earlier work, from before we had all of the digital tools he uses so effectively. You can like his current approach or not, but he's an incredible photographer with a great eye going way back. Check out his book on the Navajo people - you can still probably find it used on Amazon. The guy's an artist and as with all art, anyone can criticize it for whatever reasons. But some of the dismissive comments here are a joke.

I think anyone of us here would love to have 1% of the body of work Joel has put together over the past 30+ years.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2014 at 14:29 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Jorgen K H Knudsen: I certainly miss Panasonic GH3 as option

Wasn't the GH3 available in 2012?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 31, 2013 at 22:39 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Review (608 comments in total)
In reply to:

MGJA: This is silver, but Canon 70D is gold. Heh.

Really, I am ever more convinced that dpr just hands those out in order to maximize page reloads as irate fangurls battle it out in the comments. Fine, whatever puts food on their tables is a-ok with me.

I liked the GX7 a LOT, despite mostly being an Oly user since I got into m43 a few years ago (I really liked the GF1, didn't much like the GH2 or G3, and haven't spent much time with a Pany since until the GX7). But the stabilized viewfinder is a pretty big deal with longer lenses. When I first used the EM5 with the 100-300, this was a revelation. The whole view calms down and lets you much more easily pick out a focus point and lock focus on it. Before this, working at extremely long focal lengths was often more bother than it was worth unless you were using a tripod and a relatively stationary subject. I never got how great BIF shooters did what they did. The EM5, EP5, and EM1 all have this feature and it's an awesome feature. And when I had a GX7 for a month, the lack of EVF stabilization was the one negative I immediately noticed and was bothered by. This is a pretty big deal with long lenses...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 11:35 UTC
On article Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review (1200 comments in total)

Any idea how auto-ISO works? Can you set a minimum shutter speed in aperture priority mode? If so, how high can you set it? Does exposure comp work with auto-ISO in manual mode?

Auto-ISO implementation has become one of the key things I look for with sensors getting better and better and it becoming a more and more useful tool, but it's often a tough thing to really get a handle on without using the camera yourself.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 11:32 UTC as 358th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (492 comments in total)

"Auto ISO is available when using manual exposure, but disappointingly it doesn't respect the exposure compensation setting in this mode, which reduces its usefulness...........(Pentax Ricoh is the only company to explicitly offer such a Shutter + Aperture priority mode)"

This may be strictly true but the reality is that other manufacturers offer the same functionality in manual mode - they don't give it a separate mode with its own place on the mode dial, but you can do the very same thing. I have an RX1 and a Nikon Coolpix A that both have that functionality incorporated into the M mode (the Nikon has the most overall useful auto-ISO setup I've ever used).

But the basic point is right that Fuji falls down (hard!) by omitting this function. And a top minimum shutter speed of 1/125 is better than not being able to set it, but just barely. Ricoh's 1/250 and Nikon's 1/1000 are both far more useful...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 07:36 UTC as 146th comment

Wow. I just saw this announcement. Live and let live, for sure, as long as its not hurting anyone else. But I gotta admit an inability to get why anyone would spend $1300 for this when the EXACT same camera is $300 in an LX7. But, its their money - mine sure wouldn't go in that direction.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 10:37 UTC as 73rd comment
On article Just Posted: Our Nikon Coolpix A review (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cailean Gallimore: I'll buy the Ricoh, but the Nikon doesn't seem to have any special appeal... It's a decent camera, but nothing special. The Ricoh is driven by incredibly photographer friendly software, and in that lies it's special appeal.

Marike6 - I'm also a long time Ricoh user who's had a chance to shoot pretty extensively with both of these. And I personally find plenty to like about the Nikon, some things more than the Ricoh. I, too, really like the focus ring, I like the auto-ISO implementation better, and blasphemous as it might be, I even prefer the less complex but still flexible interface. But I really don't know where you get "far better high ISO ability"? DXO shows a marginal difference of about a third of a stop IIRC, and I could never see a difference in actual low light shooting. They're both excellent, and as equally so as my eye could determine. Measurably better, maybe. But far better? I don't think so.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 7, 2013 at 01:31 UTC
Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »