Dave Oddie

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

Comments

Total: 386, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

medicus: Hi!
From my point of view it is not absolutely clear wheater the converters are intented for use on the 150-600mm. Due to the aperture AF would not work anymore. This is a rther useless combination.
The lens itself seems to be great.

It might AF with a Sony A mount camera with the 1.4 TC attached because they have always been configured to AF with the now discontinued 500mm F8 mirror lens - which I own and does AF properly on an A77.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2016 at 11:19 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Canon EOS M5 quick look video (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: It is a camera DPR can't help but like?

It was a big disappointment last week:

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4495586328/the-canon-eos-m5-is-a-great-mirrorless-camera-and-a-big-disappointment

"I shot a lot of video for this show, and exactly none of it was shot in 4K."

Great. If you were using the M5 you wouldn't have a choice either way. And I know the gist of the other article was this is late to the party but that being so the fact it doesn't do 4K says it is still behind the curve. So I think your headline with the preceding article remains more appropriate.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 00:35 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Canon EOS M5 quick look video (252 comments in total)

It is a camera DPR can't help but like?

It was a big disappointment last week:

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4495586328/the-canon-eos-m5-is-a-great-mirrorless-camera-and-a-big-disappointment

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 09:01 UTC as 15th comment | 7 replies
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Sony a99 II (430 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vignes: What I picked out from the comments
- Sony users saying A99 II is better than A7.
- Sony is doing this because they realised that on sensor AF is not matured enough.
- Some say, it's sad that they’ve have sold most of my A mount lenses which includes me.
- Some justifying that the A99II price tag is OK (same folks whom commented that 5DMk4 is too pricey). Can’t understand why the high price is OK when you only have minimal lens options compared to Canon/Nikons offer plus 3rd party guys like Sigma don’t make that many options for A mounts.

I’m just wondering, does Sony actually needs the A99II? OR they should have concentrated on their A mount, consistently developed they body/lens and become like Canon and Nikon, DSLR brand of choice

They used to use the minolta hot shoe as on my A77 but then dropped it which is unfortunately not untypical of how Sony does things. It was actually a better more secure design but that isn't the issue.

Like A to E mount adapters are now needed to use your old kit on the new kit. A needless complication.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

PPierre: It may be time to ditch Sony after all... They leave A-Mount for dead for 2-to-3 years, focus on E-Mount letting everyone suspect A-Mount is dead, now come back with something A-Mount while their E-Mount line-up is far from perfect... They won't have the resources to focus on two mounts, so either you buy A-Mount, but you know they can let you down in some 2 years as they've done before, or you buy E-Mount, but you can be sure they'll focus on A-Mount now since their lens line-up is not high-standard enough for the A99II sensor. I guess I prefer to go elsewhere now.

I think assuming a lack of capability of existing lenses is assuming too much on the negative side.

I have not heard a great deal of complaints from E mount users who have mounted lenses such as the 70-400G1 and G2 on their cameras either.

There is also Tamron who support Sony with the recent 35, 45 and 85 primes. Are they not modern enough designs?

I'd also like to see how my Sigma 105 macro (the latest version) goes on this 42mp sensor.

As to trusting Sony as in using Sony as a professional that is a different issue and would not have gone away had they just canned the A-mount and gone exclusively E mount and brought out an SLR like A9 E-mount or whatever. Canikon have had the pro market taped up for years, particularly for sport and action shooting.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:54 UTC
In reply to:

PPierre: It may be time to ditch Sony after all... They leave A-Mount for dead for 2-to-3 years, focus on E-Mount letting everyone suspect A-Mount is dead, now come back with something A-Mount while their E-Mount line-up is far from perfect... They won't have the resources to focus on two mounts, so either you buy A-Mount, but you know they can let you down in some 2 years as they've done before, or you buy E-Mount, but you can be sure they'll focus on A-Mount now since their lens line-up is not high-standard enough for the A99II sensor. I guess I prefer to go elsewhere now.

Of course the existing Zeiss primes and zooms such as to the 24-70 and 16-35 are crap as is the 70-300GII and 70-400GII. Not to mention the 500mm F4. All useless!

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:20 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)

The overall tenet of this article is undermined by the actual price of the camera.

It comes across as although the XE2S is using some slightly out of date technology mainly the sensor and video it represents somewhat of a bargain.

If you buy it with a 27mm pancake and you are talking £768 total in the UK.

A Panasonic GX8 which has IBIS with 20mm F1.7 pancake , 4K video and 20mp is only £30 more expensive for example.

An Oly ELP-7 with 17mm F2.8 pancake AND the optional EVF accessory is £155 cheaper.

If the Fuji combination was priced as the Oly one, then I think the article would have more of a point.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 15:46 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
On article 6 tips for better wildflower photos (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

WilliamJ: Oh my ! I've stopped just after reading "Choose the right gear for the job" thinking in myself: oh no, not again !!!

Do people writing for dpreview readers think we are all dumbs like stones, or what ? I can't bear any longer this sort of stupidity. And what's next ? The as well spoiled "do your homeworks" ?

I might not have phrased it as Williamj did but there is very little on actual technique here. Three out of six pages are gear, homework, tread lightly.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 10:54 UTC
On article Sony a7R II versus a7 II: Eight key differences (397 comments in total)

I wonder if Sony will come out with a BSI version of a 24mp sensor to give an upgraded A7 II for those who don't need 42mp?

Would seem logical given they went for the 12mp S version for lower noise etc.

Then again as a long time Sony A mount user Sony "upgrades" are often not very logical!

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 13:23 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: So this will have a f.o.v equivalent of 52mm on APS-C and 70mm on m4/3.

Useless focal lengths IMO. Yes I know some people like 50mm "standard" lens but it should really be about 42mm equiv and 70mm equiv on m43 is neither one thing nor the other.

Why they don't make a 28mm or 30mm that would actually function as a true standard for Aps-c and a 20mm for m43?

M43 is always short changed when manufacturers do this. Sticking a m43 mount on the end of lens with a focal length clearly designed for aps-c is a cheap way of tapping into another market but if I were a m43 user I would not want this lens. Though slower, lenses like the 45mm (so 90mm eqiv f.o.v) are much more sensible.

Juck, grow up. Keyboard warrior name calling is childish.

Simon Says, you obviously missed the "IMO" bit in (in my opinion) in my original post and where I said ," I know some people like 50mm "standard", so clearly I was expressing my opinion here that I don't.

If you want more detail, to get the same perspective and view as your eye sees (which is what you want from a standard lens in my opinion) you need a lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal of the sensor which for APS-C is about 28mm and on FF about 42mm. It's why Pentax make a full frame 43mm standard lens.

Many moons ago when shooting film my first SLR I had a 50mm lens and that is all I had for some time but I quickly found it frustrating. It was a different view than what I saw.

So a 35mm lens on Aps-c which is 52mm equiv which is slightly narrower than 50mm so moves even further away from the ideal - in my opinion (OK?).

I currently use a Sony 30mm on my aps-c camera and find it ideal.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 11:03 UTC

So this will have a f.o.v equivalent of 52mm on APS-C and 70mm on m4/3.

Useless focal lengths IMO. Yes I know some people like 50mm "standard" lens but it should really be about 42mm equiv and 70mm equiv on m43 is neither one thing nor the other.

Why they don't make a 28mm or 30mm that would actually function as a true standard for Aps-c and a 20mm for m43?

M43 is always short changed when manufacturers do this. Sticking a m43 mount on the end of lens with a focal length clearly designed for aps-c is a cheap way of tapping into another market but if I were a m43 user I would not want this lens. Though slower, lenses like the 45mm (so 90mm eqiv f.o.v) are much more sensible.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 10:36 UTC as 9th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

lacix: I wonder if this movie could be done much easier with today’s digital technology – Maybe even with the popular A7S II 4K ?

If he were shooting today he might not need such a fast lens but don't forget its use also had an effect on the character of the film with actors having to keep still etc i.e."the director felt this helped convey the stilted 18th century atmosphere".

Making life easy sometimes means you miss something e.g. using a zoom means you miss the different perspective of a fixed focal length lens when you move toward the subject.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 13:13 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (294 comments in total)

"The G7 X II does not support an EVF, unlike Sony's RX100 III/IV, which have a clever display that pops up like a flash. "

So why isn't the lack of an EVF in the negatives column? The fact the G5 X has one which the review seems to be using as an excuse is irrelevant . It is not pocketable whereas the Sony's are.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 17:45 UTC as 69th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

Niala2: G-Master
- f1.4/ 42mm
- f1.2 / 70mm (or slightly less)
are what I'm really hoping for ! (Any road-map known?)
I don't consider 50/55mm to be a good in-between of what the above would mean to me.

The G-Master 85 is for me far superior to Canon's 1.2 85mmM2 but I always found 70mm at f1.2mm to be missing complement.

For me "normal-view" at 50mm is too narrow, 35 too large. 42mm? YESs! (Sorry-lol)
The 55 1.7 was finally good enough, with strait Eye-AF more than just a bonus.
A valid 28mm would have been logic.
Wide-open 42 and 70mm ; that would not only be spectacular, but allow new possibilities, and it would have avoided that feeling of unnecessary, abundant redundancy.
If indeed it proves to be the worth it's weight and size.., eventually it will replace my 55. But only maybe. Lol. But that really calls for comparison photos that should be really, really easy to provide by reviewers.
(Bad cats eye, true bokeh etc.: we all know how easy this should be COMPARED vs speculated)

It's about the framing. 42mm means when you put the camera to your eye you see a natural perspective pretty much as your eye sees.

I used to use 35mm as standard many years ago as I didn't like 50mm but found the same as Niala2 that 35mm was too much the other way.

I have been using a 28mm (on APS-C) as my standard lens lately (so 42mm equiv f.o.v) and I find it ideal.

If it was 35mm equivalent if when walking along taking landscapes, when I decided I had a shot I wanted to take, I'd bring the camera up to my eye and then find I would have to move and the photo ends up with a slightly different perspective.

Cropping after the event is no good either. I don't know anyone who takes many shots thinking "I'll crop that later". You want to take the photo you see now.

I also have a 16-80 zoom and have run a program that analyses the focal lengths and other data of my photos and it is striking how many taken with that lens are around the 40mm mark.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 10:31 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2669 comments in total)
In reply to:

Professor999: "Empty words? Check the 5DS review, the a7R II review, the D500 review, D7200 review, the a6300 review, and the D810 review. The D810 has a 200/4 sequence, albeit at ISO 2000 equivalent, and a different 'test', so it's not directly comparable"
So, the reviews says himself, for the D810, the test was different they can't be compared.
a7R II? The test used a F4 lens (Pentax a 2.8)-not comparable, I think.
D500? it's an apc camera so not comparable-The Autofocus page doesn't state the lens used for the test.
D7200-it's an apc camera so not comparable. Lenses used were f.28 (on an apc sensor) and F4
Sony a6300-another apc camera-different category so not comparable. Lens used F4 (on an apc sensor).
Canon 5DS-Lens used for test on autofocus page not mentioned.

"Because DPR groups cameras into categories so apc and FF aren't comparable."

Nonsense. Some arbitrary categorisation by a web site doesn't affect how fast a camera focuses or how well a camera tracks focus. They are absolute measures.

If DOF makes it easier or harder to focus depending on format so what? The focus speed and tracking ability are absolute measures. If camera A tracks better than camera B, it tracks better. End of. What size the sensor is? Irrelevant.

Yes different lenses can affect matters but I was not replying to that criticism just the notion you can't compare how fast a camera focuses because of different sized sensors. DPR could of course overcome the lens issue to a degree by buying in a set of 3rd party lenses and use those but then someone would complain Canon focuses quicker with Canon lenses or whatever.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 11:22 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2669 comments in total)
In reply to:

Professor999: "Empty words? Check the 5DS review, the a7R II review, the D500 review, D7200 review, the a6300 review, and the D810 review. The D810 has a 200/4 sequence, albeit at ISO 2000 equivalent, and a different 'test', so it's not directly comparable"
So, the reviews says himself, for the D810, the test was different they can't be compared.
a7R II? The test used a F4 lens (Pentax a 2.8)-not comparable, I think.
D500? it's an apc camera so not comparable-The Autofocus page doesn't state the lens used for the test.
D7200-it's an apc camera so not comparable. Lenses used were f.28 (on an apc sensor) and F4
Sony a6300-another apc camera-different category so not comparable. Lens used F4 (on an apc sensor).
Canon 5DS-Lens used for test on autofocus page not mentioned.

Why are aps-c and FF cameras (or any other format such as m43) not comparable when simply talking about AF capabilities?

They all focus as fast and as accurately as they do. It's an absolute measure. If a Nikon D500 can focus faster track better than a K-1 then that is all there is to it. The size of the sensor is irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Foggy8: I am waiting for a 10mm f2 micro four thirds lens. And compactness would be nice.

" That said, many are off-put by the price for a lens that is equivalent to a 24 / 2.8 on FF"

They may be put off by the price but if so it will be because it is an expensive lens. I doubt anyone even thinks its expensive because its supposed to be equivalent to a 24 / 2.8 on FF.

I thunk Fuji lenses are expensive and Sony E-mount ones insanely so but that is simply because they cost lots of ££££, not what sensor is in the camera they fit onto.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 13:16 UTC
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (475 comments in total)
In reply to:

Spectro: the point of the story is he tired of waiting for the snapbridge app for apple iOS later this year compared to the android version.

Kind of like in the PC vs MAc days when all the software and support were on the PC devices first.

I can see your point but surely what this highlights is not just lack of software for iOS but what an awful cludge Nikon made of WiFi on the camera in the first place.

Read raindance post below for how it should be done.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 23:53 UTC

Terrorists 1, India 0.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 12:40 UTC as 29th comment
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (522 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: This camera can shoot the equivalent of 105 36 exposure films on one battery charge. How times have changed.

How so? Many old film SLR's were mechanical and used the battery for the meter only. You'd replace it once a year if that!

Those cameras also didn't stop working once the battery did run out either (later ones with electronically timed shutters were not so lucky). You had to estimate the exposure but they still worked ;)

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 14:06 UTC
Total: 386, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »