Dave Oddie

Lives in United Kingdom Chester, United Kingdom
Works as a IT
Joined on Jan 23, 2002


Total: 431, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

T3: With every passing day, the myth that "Sony has no lenses" evaporates. Up next, super telephotos. But super telephotos aren't exactly mainstream lenses, everyday-use, so it makes sense that they'd save those for later.

I don't think lenses costing $1700 & $2200 qualify as mainstream everyday use lenses either for most people.

These are Zeiss prices and while they may perform as such they may as well not exist for many potential users at those prices. A Canon16-35L costs around $999 and yes its an F4 but it is an excellent lens. Sony is not going to entice your average amateur to the range with lens prices like this.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

Donnie G: Personally, I'm not buying into the speculation of Canon doing a FF mirrorless camera anytime soon or even at all. I believe that Canon will go its own way, as it has in the past, and develope their OVF's intelligent viewfinder into a system that offers all of the advantages of EVFs but without the disadvantages, such as excessive battery drain, etc.. A DSLR equipped with their DPAF sensor and an OVF like the one I described would pretty much put an end to the FF mirrorless/DSLR debates.

Often, the solution to a problem hides in plain sight. I think that Canon's intelligent viewfinder system for DSLRs is one of those. 😎

I am not sure what you refer to by "OVF's intelligent viewfinder" but unless it offers the wysiwig view of an EVF it can't replicate the that advantage of EVF.

And as to the solution being in plain sight, surely the plain sight solution to (the myth of) excessive battery drain is not to come up with some complex viewfinder technology but to simply improve battery capacity (which we see happening all the time as it is).

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

bmoag: I am leaving on a trip today. In deciding what cameras to bring I had an Oly MD10ii with 14-150 lens in one hand and a Canon T7i with 16-135 in the other: they weigh the same, as in they weigh the same, so I am not sure where the bulkitude advantage is in mirrorless. My full frame weighs even more and is just too big and heavy for many uses. The "problem" with optical full frame dSLRs for many of us is weight more than physical size. I can not believe that an optical dSLR, particularly if video is tossed (Leica did), can not be made at a reasonable size and weight, like that of an advanced 35mm film slr--so no change in lens mount. Build stabilization into the camera and lens bulk goes down as well. If Nikon goes mirrorless they would be unwise to maintain the current F mount.

I agree. Have people forgotten about 35mm film cameras alike the Olympus OM1/2 and Pentax MX/ME?

These things (particularly the Pentax) were TINY compared to many modern DLSR's and they had all the mechanics in the body to wind on and accommodate a roll of film.

A Pentax MX was 135.8 × 82.5 × 49.3 mm and weighed 495g
A Sony A7 RII is 127 x 96 x 60 mm and weighs 625g

Now the extra depth of the Sony will be due to the grip which the Pentax does not have but what this shows is it is possible to build a small camera with a deeper flange as all a Pentax equivalent of the Sony would need is a 49.3 deep body and narrower grip. Or no grip at all if they went retro.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 16:45 UTC

As the article points out the issue between the two systems is currently focusing. “Legacy” lenses don’t focus well on mirrorless bodies.

That doesn’t mean mirrorless must have short flange distance. If you put the required mechanics into a lens to work well with CDAF what difference does it make what the flange distance is?

So for Canikon the solution seems obvious. Go with the same flange distance still allowing current lenses to be mounted without a hideous adapter while building up a range of native mirrorless lenses that work best mechanically.

To not do this seems nuts as witnessed by Sony who angered a lot of A mount customers forcing the use of an adapter if they convert, just so people could mount not just A mount but Canon and other lenses also via an adapter. Which is ironic because of course they ALL don’t work as well either.

Sony may have felt they had to do this to appeal to others than just A mount/Minolta users but Canikon don’t have to do that.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 16:24 UTC as 94th comment

I love historical documentary photography like this.

Along with a rather inspired History teacher it was similar photographs from the time of Brunel and the latter part of the Industrial revolution that brought history to life for me (no stuffy Kings & Queens lol).

I have always been drawn to suge images because of the largely lost industrial world (in the western world at least) they document.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 15:30 UTC as 25th comment
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (316 comments in total)

The Sony 135 STF has a secondary aperture that controls the amount of blur with values ranging from T4.5 to T6.7. So you get to chose how much blur you want.

Does the new Sony 100mm allow you to do the same? I don't know if it does or not but if it does, then I don't get the complaint that there is too much blur. You pick how much you want.

The fact on the 135 you are at T6.7 obviously doesn't matter from a d.o.f point of view as in it being too deep because the lens is still blurring the background for you.

Unless you can't do this on the 100mm or the blur even at smaller apertures is still too strong for some tastes I don't really understand the criticism.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 11:12 UTC as 82nd comment | 1 reply
On article 2017 Roundup: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (460 comments in total)
In reply to:

GjB: Within a few more years this discussion is moot. With the exception of working pros and a declining number of enthusiasts - smartphone will reign supreme in image capture.

I thought that the optical lens quality and optical zoom would be the moat defending the SLR and MILC segments. Wrong.

Imagine an iPhone 9 or 10 with FIVE fixed focal length lenses of (equivalent)


Software will do the rest including (through image processing algorithms) effective infinite zoom within range as well as probably some interesting depth and re-focusing effects. Game over.

Software eats hardware.

The "real" camera market will decline. And the economies of scale in reverse will see a declining number of players and reduced revenues for innovation.

Roll on the iPhone 10.

@JackM "Physics is physics. Larger sensors and lenses will always outperform smaller ones."

Well that is indeed the theory but check out virtually any new m43 or aps/c camera at low iso and spot the noise. It's a futile exercise because from a practical point of view in the real world, you can't see any.

Sure a 42mp m43 sensor would be noisier and then some than a FF sensor of the same resolution but how many people are truly in need of such high resolution?

Theories are fine but often they don't stack up or have an impact in the real world. I am not saying I agree smartphones are the future for the serious hobbyist or pro but for many they are already good enough to negate the need for compact camera.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 14:54 UTC

Why does it matter how much it costs? At the end of the related article here:


It says "Hansen, having already moved from Nikon to Canon..."

So this tells us pros switch systems occasionally. I doubt that was a cheap move but I also doubt Hansen paid for it himself either. There must have been some compelling reason to move from Nikon to Canon regardless of cost and if Sony can provide one to switch to them, then (some) pros will switch.

I think the cost of switching systems is far more relevant to amateurs like me than pros but even then we amateurs don't have to replace the entire lens lineup in one go and can phase the move as funds allow.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 14:37 UTC as 175th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)

Seems to me if Sony fills the gap in the lens range there is nothing to stop pros from switching because despite all the obstacles to switching outlined in the article, at the very end it says "Hansen, having already moved from Nikon to Canon....".

So pros do switch systems despite all the current investment in their current system.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 10:16 UTC as 181st comment | 1 reply

If Sony want to chase the pro sports shooter and wildlife photographer then why not go the whole hog and come up with a form factor for the body that is more ergonomic?

What would be wrong in making the A9 look almost identical to an A99ii or any other traditional looking DSLR which is far easier to hold with big lenses?

Why are Sony so clearly wedded to this form factor for this range of FF mirrorless cameras? Looks like a case of form over function here.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 14:55 UTC as 13th comment | 17 replies
In reply to:

barrym1966: A whole Sony interview even including wedding photography and no mention of the A99ii?

I defy you to spot the "slightly worse low light abilities". And the poor adaptability of lenses is a non issue for people who have no interest in adapting lenses. I have never understood the fascination. You can put M42 screw mount lenses on an A series body via an adapter (chipped for focus/aperture readout as well) and I have tried it. My conclusion was why on earth do people bother?

Granted the video is not as good but if you are into still photography, again, who cares?

In the meantime an A99II will beat the pants off any A7 for sports and wildlife and has better battery life and ergonomics.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: Frank and honest replies from Tanaka-san, especially "....they require more durability", which, along with ergonomics and battery life, are the main reasons why most sports, wildlife, event and wedding photographers currently remain with Canon or Nikon. I really hope that the next generation of Sony E-mount cameras will meet our expectations in these regards.

I am with entoman. I have owned a few SLR's / DSLR's over the years starting with a Yashica FR film SLR, several Olympus film SLR's (OM10, OM2, OM4) until I went with Sony for my first DSLR with the A100. I now shoot an A77 and I can safely say ergonomically it is the best of all the cameras I have owned.

With the E-series Sony seemed to forget all they seemingly learned by acquiring Minolta from the ergonomic point of view.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 13:57 UTC
On article Nikon announces midrange D7500 DSLR (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fujica: Why does Nikon remove certain options from a camera that supposed to be a follow up on the D7200?

Does Nikon really think it is that easy to fool their customers?

It seems Nikon is still not heading out of the storm they are in. As a matter of fact I see more thunder and rain ahead. Will they be able to keep their boat afloat for the long run?

If this is all they can do on their 100th anniversary I can only see a ship that is making lots of water...

Maybe but cameras didn't used to be built to a price and in any case how much does a GPS chip cost really? That is the feature lost from the A77 to the A77II that precludes me from "upgrading" so is cost control so tight that a cheap feature like that disappears?

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 23:58 UTC

I wonder how the sales of the A99II helped here? Apparently they were not expecting that much interest but they can't make enough of them.

If so then perhaps they should consider expanding the A mount lens lineup and they might get even more users. Sigma and Tamron aren't going to do it for them unless Sony show more commitment than they have to A mount.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 23:46 UTC as 93rd comment
On article Nikon announces midrange D7500 DSLR (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fujica: Why does Nikon remove certain options from a camera that supposed to be a follow up on the D7200?

Does Nikon really think it is that easy to fool their customers?

It seems Nikon is still not heading out of the storm they are in. As a matter of fact I see more thunder and rain ahead. Will they be able to keep their boat afloat for the long run?

If this is all they can do on their 100th anniversary I can only see a ship that is making lots of water...

They aren't the only ones to do this.

It just doesn't seem part of Japanese camera manufacturer mentality that an "improved" model has all the features and spec of the previous one with these features improved and (possibly) new ones added.

Two steps forward, one step back seems to be the way they work.

I shoot a Sony A77. The A77II is missing features I value more than the ones they added. Complain and you get the fanboys trying to justify it.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
On article Zeiss formally announces Batis 135mm F2.8 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

BALI BADSHAH: And there we go sigma launches 135 mm 1.8 , How many people think Zeiss should have made 1.8 too .

They already do. In Sony A-mount. A few years old now but an outstanding lens.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 00:14 UTC
In reply to:

TORN: Most things said are pretty relevant for any interformat comparison. So if you do not want to buy highly expensive cameras with expensive and huge lenses then APS-C like Fuji compares pretty nicely to full frame. Fuji x just offers some nice and small 1.2/1.4 lenses which usually are costly to beat with full frame.

In addition I wonder how lenses wide open and base or max iso are the only relevant camera settings? Use other settings and you can pretty much enjoy the advantages of a bigger sensor with an equivalent lens.

"The point is that away from these extremes, you can probably use equivalent settings, at which point there is little to no advantage of a bigger sensor."

Which is the point I think Torm was making in that the same logic implied in the article that says you don't need MF if you have FF applies to FF v APS-C.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

colourgeek: Glad to see Sigma bring quality lenses to fill in the voids in product line ups. For once I'll say Canon's 135mm f2 is one of their best. Yet this brings great quality to Nikon and perhaps Sony. Would have been nice to have IS, as my 100mm macro 2.8 L Canon has!

Sony already has the Zeiss 135mm F1.8 and it is an outstanding lens. It is old screw drive tech but it doesn't seem to bother users.

Sigma have seemed to stop making lenses in A mount. I have their 105mm macro (latest one with O/S) and it is a great lens.

I am not interested in a 135mm prime anyway but it is a pity Sigma have dropped A-mount just when Sony released the A99II

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 16:30 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)

My first camera was a little Ilford Sprite. One of these:


I then moved onto a Kodak instamatic that took 126 cartridges.

My first "proper" camera was a Yashica FR, manual everything but had an electronically timed shutter. Very nice camera. That was stolen on a Geology field trip when I was at University.

I bought an Olympus OM2 to replace it with funds from a summer job. Ended up with an OM4 and stuck with that until I bought my first digital camera, a Minolta A1. Eventually moved to a Sony A100 and currently an A77.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 15:31 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

cosinaphile: id like to see smaller lenses .... these beasts.... im seeing 50mm 1.4 that look the size of medium format lenses that are 4 times the size of a lovely 50mm 1.4 ais

for perspective remember how the early leicas and the later evolved ones and things like the minolta cle in m mount with is cultishly adored 40mm f2 rokkor m

the format we somehow have come to call full frame was in fact the miniature format when it first was born .. the lenses were beautiful compact had genuine helicoids metal construction and aperture control accessible to humans

the teardowns i see of modern lenses with flimsy shells that crack apart like a pinata with an 18 inch drop that are so filled with specific electronics they are virtually guaranteed to be paperweights in a few decades as systems evolve in the computer errr camera body world

im sure im alone but id like to see smaller lenses tat have adequate sharpness
but great oof character and size and build for the ages

I am with you. A 135 F2.8 can be a very small medium tele and with today's computer generated optical formulas could be insanely sharp but Sigma and others seem to think a lens of anything less and F2 isn't worth making.

If I were a Canon user I'd take their 35mm F2 over any of the 35mm F1.4 alternatives any day if the week. Some will no doubt say they need an F1.4 lens but it is only ONE STOP faster and for that you pay a huge weight penalty.

The whole obsession with fast lenses seems counter intuitive to me as sensors become better and better at high ISO's. We are no longer shooting film that at ISO 1600 had grain the size of a small pea! So improving sensor technology should be driving a move to smaller slower lenses being made but it isn't. Sure, some will argue about bokeh of fast apertures but for those who don't need it there are few compact alternatives.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 16:34 UTC
Total: 431, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »