irish03jmu

Joined on Sep 9, 2016

Comments

Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13
In reply to:

ZilverHaylide: Sad day. I hope the new company can make a profitable go of it. Considering that:

1) MFT sensors are appreciably-larger than the sensors in smartphones, and certainly good enough for A4/8.5x11-inch printing, which most people will never exceed because that's the maximum size from their home printer,

2) a real camera with interchangeable lenses permits optical capabilities that no flatish smartphone will ever have,

3) a real camera's ergonomics are so much better than a phone's,

I think that there's a real place for MFT-sensor-based "real" cameras -- even though, right now, not enough people seem to appreciate that.

You are certainly right about MFT, but this is about market forces more than the technology. The vast majority of people find their smartphones to be adequate and aren't interested in carrying around a camera. This has dramatically shrunk the pool of people who are interested in buying a standalone camera. That is why companies have been posting losses. Of the people who do buy standalone cameras, MFT is a tough sell compared to the excellent APS-C offerings that aren't much larger.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 15:51 UTC

I don't understand Sony's strategy. These lenses look great and are probably "pro" level, but the 16-55 is way too expensive for the enthusiast user. Perhaps i am wrong but i thought the whole idea of the APS-C lineup was to cater to enthusiasts. I don't know about you guys, but i don't have $3,000 to drop on a a6600 + the new 16-55? And if i did, there are WAY better options out there for that money. Heck you can get a used A7RII with a kit lens and the f/4 70-200 for about $2400 on lensauthority. That package will give you much better photos than the 24MP a6XXX sensor will, cover all the ranges you need, and save $600 bucks.

The 70-350 looks like a good lens, but isn't really a replacement for 55-210, as its way more expensive. Most people who shoot with the a6XXX series have the 16-70, 18-105, or the 18-135 all of which are "decent". A "decent" replacement for the 55-210 in the $500-$700 range would really fill out the APS-C zoom line and give enthusiasts an affordable setup.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2019 at 16:53 UTC as 42nd comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Mared: What a disappointment. It looks like Sony is giving the tech leadership position to Fuji and Panasonic. Sony seems happy to start behaving like Canon and Nikon (to a lesser degree) by launching outdated/crippled products.

Missing from the apsc flagship:
4K 60P and advanced video features
Outdated EVF and Display
No new Sensor - should've been 30+MP
Body and Controls are underwhelming at this price point

This kind of product release really shakes my confidence in Sony. It's time to start looking at other brands.

I disagree with some of your criticisms. First, i take your point about 4k 60P. But with respect to 30+ MP sensor, i don't think that would be a good idea. Noise would be an even larger problem than it already is when you cram that many pixels together, and the improvement in image quality would be marginal unless you are making large prints. But frankly folks who are doing that will use a full frame sensor. I think body and controls are personal preference.

I'm no Sony love either, i've been using an a6000 since 2014 and held off on every generations since then because i didn't think the upgrades were good enough. But in-body stabilization is a biggie. It will definitely help in low-light situations, especially with an f4 zoom like the 16-70.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2019 at 15:58 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII Review (994 comments in total)

Am I the only one who isn't that impressed here? Sure its got the fancy tracking system, but I don't think the system in my mark 5 is bad at all. I have no problem following my unpredictable 3 year old around. Plus, the prices of these cameras have been going up and up. $1200 is a steep price for a 1" camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2019 at 20:18 UTC as 150th comment
In reply to:

irish03jmu: I think the 6300, 6400, or the 6500 are overrated for the price. No doubt they have improvements over the a6000, especially for video. But if you are shooting stills with a fast lens (or even the f/4 zooms), and have a reasonably steady hold, i don't think the differences in image quality are huge. What is huge is the price difference. If you've been holding onto the a6000 this long, i would keep waiting and get the most return on your investment.

"In A6000 times, you'd have to pay $2000 to get A6300 quality."

And you would have been wasting your money, as your own citation pointed out the "overall image quality is quite close".

The different prices at launch is the most irrelevant point yet! What matters are the prices TODAY. The fact is with the a6300, a6400, and a6500 you are paying a heck of a lot more for images that aren't much better than what the a6000 gives you.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2019 at 06:19 UTC
In reply to:

irish03jmu: I think the 6300, 6400, or the 6500 are overrated for the price. No doubt they have improvements over the a6000, especially for video. But if you are shooting stills with a fast lens (or even the f/4 zooms), and have a reasonably steady hold, i don't think the differences in image quality are huge. What is huge is the price difference. If you've been holding onto the a6000 this long, i would keep waiting and get the most return on your investment.

Again, i think your link proves my point. While the a6300 is better than the a6000 in those studio scenes, the difference is not worth twice the price. Or 3 times the price for an a6400 or a6500.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2019 at 04:47 UTC
In reply to:

irish03jmu: I think the 6300, 6400, or the 6500 are overrated for the price. No doubt they have improvements over the a6000, especially for video. But if you are shooting stills with a fast lens (or even the f/4 zooms), and have a reasonably steady hold, i don't think the differences in image quality are huge. What is huge is the price difference. If you've been holding onto the a6000 this long, i would keep waiting and get the most return on your investment.

I'll also point out that the article you gave a link to includes the following statement, which i believe sums up my point...

"Given that the overall image quality is quite close, those who don’t care about having the best AF performance or 4K video may be just as happy with the performance of the a6000."

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2019 at 04:11 UTC
In reply to:

irish03jmu: I think the 6300, 6400, or the 6500 are overrated for the price. No doubt they have improvements over the a6000, especially for video. But if you are shooting stills with a fast lens (or even the f/4 zooms), and have a reasonably steady hold, i don't think the differences in image quality are huge. What is huge is the price difference. If you've been holding onto the a6000 this long, i would keep waiting and get the most return on your investment.

Look, i hear you. And I will absolutely agree that the a6300 is a better camera. However, look at the pics that come out of it versus the a6000. Are the a6300 pics really worth twice the price? You can pick up an a6000 (body only) for $350 from KEH, the a6300 is $650. To me, when you look at pics from both cameras, i don't see enough of a difference in quality to justify nearly twice the price. Not to mention the price difference between the a6000 and the a6400 and a6500. I think a photographer would be better off investing in a full frame camera that those price points.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2019 at 04:08 UTC

I think the 6300, 6400, or the 6500 are overrated for the price. No doubt they have improvements over the a6000, especially for video. But if you are shooting stills with a fast lens (or even the f/4 zooms), and have a reasonably steady hold, i don't think the differences in image quality are huge. What is huge is the price difference. If you've been holding onto the a6000 this long, i would keep waiting and get the most return on your investment.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2019 at 13:37 UTC as 12th comment | 10 replies
On article Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom (741 comments in total)

I love my RX100V. I saved a few bucks and got it used, mainly because my a6000 and lenses were tough to carry around and use with a newborn/toddler. Sometimes, I wished the zoom range was a little bit longer, but I wouldn't want to give up the fast lens. If the new lens is sharp and can do decently in low light, then I think a lot of people are going to be interested in this camera. But at $1200, I'm out. That is just too much money for a 1 inch camera, in my opinion.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2018 at 17:51 UTC as 118th comment

Camera companies need the general public to buy cameras to grow. But a regular person will only buy a camera if they have a good reason to use it over their smartphone. So what is a good reason? Easy - the camera will kick the crap out of their smartphone in quality, fit in their pocket, and be easy to use.

Enthusiasts and professionals may be willing to carry around hunks of gear, but the general public doesn't want to do that. They want a small camera that takes spectacular photos and videos - without them knowing anything about photography. Big sensors, sharp lens, simple operation, and easy means of sharing with others. Nail all of those areas, and the general public will buy your product. An enthusiast may never shoot this way, but a regular person wants to be able to quickly take an awesome photo of their kid and share it immediately. Their money is just as good as the enthusiast's and there is a lot more of it out there. That is the way to grow your sales.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 18:59 UTC as 29th comment | 5 replies
On article Woof! Sony a6500 sample images are here (365 comments in total)

I understand that you want to test the camera's capabilities, but putting a $2,500 GM lens on the camera is obviously gonna make it look good. I only saw one shot from the 16-70 zeiss - which I'm sure a lot more people own the 70-200 GM. How about testing it with some lenses most enthusiasts are actually gonna use. That way we can see what we are getting.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 19:14 UTC as 78th comment | 7 replies
On article Sony offers E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS for Super 35mm/APS-C (132 comments in total)

I get that this lens is not for enthusiasts or family photo takers, especially considering the price is 3x the cost of an a6300. Frankly, that is part of the problem. Sony hasn't come out with nice zoom lenses aimed at the enthusiats and family photo takers whom the a6000 was marketed to. The 16-70 is fine, but the edge/corner softness understandably bothers folks who spend the money on it. The 18-105 has significant distortion issues if you shoot RAW that need to be corrected in post. While photoshop and lightroom have profiles for that lens, photoshop elements does not. So the postprocessing software intended for enthusiasts and family photo takers lacks the functionality to make correcting the distortion in the 18-105 simple. Sure, you can do it manually, but that is a pain. It would be nice to see Sony update their lens offering. Even an updated 18-105 that corrects the distortion would go a long way.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 17:11 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13