Bassman2003

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Videographer/Photographer
Has a website at www.metroplexmultimedia.com
Joined on Mar 2, 2006

Comments

Total: 109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (773 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bassman2003: I tried this camera for a short while at a Sony event and I just could not get past the ergonomics. Without the grip attached it just did not feel comfortable in my hands. Seemed like an a6300 only a little larger. Great camera but I don't think I can ever get past the nice grip of my 5D III (or DSLR sized camera).

Also was expecting to be knocked over by the viewfinder and I thought it just looked ok compared to my pro video cameras. Still some room for improvement in this area imho. Yes they cost more but feedback is feedback.

I was entertaining a switch to Sony but not yet. The 24-105 f4 looks like a great lens. What the Canon version II should have been! Great to see so much tech in the cameras and the march forward.

Thanks. I see now. I would be interested in trying this out to see how much it helps.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2017 at 03:40 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (773 comments in total)
In reply to:

elementare: At this point I think that it's quite hard for both Canon and Nikon to release a FF mirrorless camera. By this time they aren't in the position of neither being able to project a so technologically advanced camera without taking away resources from FF dslr cameras. Canon's mirrorless apsc is a good example of how Canon put the same sensor inside mirrorless and dslr but crop a lot of functions of the first.

And they aren't in the position of being able to release FF mirrorless unable to compete with mirrorless cameras like Sony A7RIII without collapse themselves. It's quite obvious that none is going to buy a Canon or Nikon FF mirrorless with a new mount that it's not able to match a Sony A7RIII like this.

At this point they have two possibilities, release just some aps-c mirrorless for amateur and enthusiast market (as Canon is already doing) or convert the whole pro dslr FF production into a pro FF mirrorless one, something I think it's never going to happen.

Good conversation and thanks for the info. I think it is 6 and one half dozen of the other. If the viewfinder is good enough I don't think many would care if the body was mirrorless or not. If the AF performance was improved then folks would prefer it. I do not see the mirror based cameras like the 1D or 5D as being challenged for photography. Mirrorless just has some new tech for focus and a little smaller size but it does not put the mirrors out of business.

If Canon can go mirrorless while using their EF mount then I think they have played it well. Don't offer one until it is killer.

But on the other hand, Sony can make the A99 style body with the a9 tech & e-mount and I would probably be a buyer. Ergonomics seem easy to me but Sony has decided to go with the brick design. I guess to differentiate. Will be interesting to watch it unfold.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 21:31 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (773 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bassman2003: I tried this camera for a short while at a Sony event and I just could not get past the ergonomics. Without the grip attached it just did not feel comfortable in my hands. Seemed like an a6300 only a little larger. Great camera but I don't think I can ever get past the nice grip of my 5D III (or DSLR sized camera).

Also was expecting to be knocked over by the viewfinder and I thought it just looked ok compared to my pro video cameras. Still some room for improvement in this area imho. Yes they cost more but feedback is feedback.

I was entertaining a switch to Sony but not yet. The 24-105 f4 looks like a great lens. What the Canon version II should have been! Great to see so much tech in the cameras and the march forward.

Could you point out the "L" bracket for me? I don't exactly know what you are speaking of.

Yes, with the battery grip the camera does feel more DSLR like, but still not the best. I had to move the AF-On button as my nose was covering it. :) Just seems a little too compact in certain areas.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 17:26 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (773 comments in total)
In reply to:

elementare: At this point I think that it's quite hard for both Canon and Nikon to release a FF mirrorless camera. By this time they aren't in the position of neither being able to project a so technologically advanced camera without taking away resources from FF dslr cameras. Canon's mirrorless apsc is a good example of how Canon put the same sensor inside mirrorless and dslr but crop a lot of functions of the first.

And they aren't in the position of being able to release FF mirrorless unable to compete with mirrorless cameras like Sony A7RIII without collapse themselves. It's quite obvious that none is going to buy a Canon or Nikon FF mirrorless with a new mount that it's not able to match a Sony A7RIII like this.

At this point they have two possibilities, release just some aps-c mirrorless for amateur and enthusiast market (as Canon is already doing) or convert the whole pro dslr FF production into a pro FF mirrorless one, something I think it's never going to happen.

Yes, the fact that the lens mount has to different is just a killer for Canikon. Tough to know what they can do with their huge install base of EF lenses. Can they be adapted with a company designed adapter?

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 16:03 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (773 comments in total)

I tried this camera for a short while at a Sony event and I just could not get past the ergonomics. Without the grip attached it just did not feel comfortable in my hands. Seemed like an a6300 only a little larger. Great camera but I don't think I can ever get past the nice grip of my 5D III (or DSLR sized camera).

Also was expecting to be knocked over by the viewfinder and I thought it just looked ok compared to my pro video cameras. Still some room for improvement in this area imho. Yes they cost more but feedback is feedback.

I was entertaining a switch to Sony but not yet. The 24-105 f4 looks like a great lens. What the Canon version II should have been! Great to see so much tech in the cameras and the march forward.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 16:00 UTC as 145th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

Bassman2003: Just curious, why doesn't Sigma make m4/3rds lenses? Seems like their sort of unique style would fit with the m4/3rds brand. A 12-45 f2 IS zoom would be killer.

Thanks. I guess I was only looking at it from a zoom point of view. The 18-35 f1.8 they make was kind of the model for my thought. This lens with a little more range but only f2 would be a great m4/3rds lens. A lot of video people adapt this lens for use on the GH5.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 17:34 UTC

Just curious, why doesn't Sigma make m4/3rds lenses? Seems like their sort of unique style would fit with the m4/3rds brand. A 12-45 f2 IS zoom would be killer.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 04:51 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
On article Shooting the Presidents Cup with the Sony a9 (239 comments in total)

These images are kind of contrasty for my tastes. Color and DR are not as refined as I would like either. Although these are middle of the road for DSLR comparison, I think the A9 has a lot more to offer with some attention.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 15:53 UTC as 26th comment

Does the eye focus work well in video mode?

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 12:54 UTC as 15th comment
On article Sony a7R III sample gallery (261 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bassman2003: These images do look nice, better than I expected for color. Although I think they look "modern" I would like for them to be a little less digital looking? does that make sense?

I have always liked how Canon has ridden this edge of detail, sharpness and character. Maybe this can be processed away? Anyway, looking forward to seeing if the video images are improved as well.

Makes sense. Just thinking In terms of portrait shooting.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 19:36 UTC
On article Sony a7R III sample gallery (261 comments in total)

These images do look nice, better than I expected for color. Although I think they look "modern" I would like for them to be a little less digital looking? does that make sense?

I have always liked how Canon has ridden this edge of detail, sharpness and character. Maybe this can be processed away? Anyway, looking forward to seeing if the video images are improved as well.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 17:06 UTC as 62nd comment | 5 replies
On article What you need to know about Sony's a7R III (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vignes: A9 was not that interesting for me. it looked like an experimental camera effort. This is different. if i'm going to jump to Sony FF, this will be the camera.
they didn't just came up with a camera with a another huge Mpx sensor. They refined an already good camera. still need to test it but all i can say is great job Sony.

I think you have to see the price as set by the industry. The Canon 5D is the direct competitor to this camera and it has always been priced right above $3,000. No way Sony would drop this down to the GH5 range just because it is mirrorless. (which is what many seem to expect).

Cameras have always been priced on end image quality and value to the user.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 12:34 UTC
On article What you need to know about Sony's a7R III (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

User0141875632: The lack of PlayMemories apps is really furustrating, Specially time lapse and remote control. I admit the apps weren't really slick and felt the whole thing is dated to the NEX camera time of 2012. But the functionality is there and now it's gone. Which means a step backward.
Sony how about reiterating a new app eco system with faster more functional apps and open up for 3rd party app development while providing proper API.
Think of having Dropbox right into your camera or wifi tethering to your computer or whatever!

I do not think they like giving that much access to the camera internals. For example, I have all my cameras set to be able to record unlimited video thanks to a simple Playmemories app. This is great for me but not great for Sony who want me to buy their Fs5 for unlimited video use.

It is just like the internet, all of the good and bad rolled into one. Corporations prefer walled off gardens. Just my opinion.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 12:31 UTC
In reply to:

Bassman2003: How much does it cost Adobe to add a new camera into LR?

Let's face it, many of us will only need to upgrade LR if we get a new camera and need support for its RAW files. If the future of photography is smart phones and we big camera people are in the minority, then what would be the harm in offering a frozen feature LR that just offers camera additions for a nominal fee?

What I do not like about the whole subscription model is not being forced to pay Adobe, it is the ability to access my images in the future if for whatever reason I decide to no longer use the product. It ends up being a handcuff of your work to Adobe which is quite an over reach if you ask me.

So find a way to keep LR6 updated for new cameras, charge us for that every six months and move on to your smartphone users with the subscription model.

I do not know exactly how LR CC works as I am a LR 6 user. I was erroneously basing the LR approach to the other CC products like Premiere where if you stop paying you do not have access to the program. Game over for accessing your work. Unless I am wrong on that one too!

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 19:42 UTC

How much does it cost Adobe to add a new camera into LR?

Let's face it, many of us will only need to upgrade LR if we get a new camera and need support for its RAW files. If the future of photography is smart phones and we big camera people are in the minority, then what would be the harm in offering a frozen feature LR that just offers camera additions for a nominal fee?

What I do not like about the whole subscription model is not being forced to pay Adobe, it is the ability to access my images in the future if for whatever reason I decide to no longer use the product. It ends up being a handcuff of your work to Adobe which is quite an over reach if you ask me.

So find a way to keep LR6 updated for new cameras, charge us for that every six months and move on to your smartphone users with the subscription model.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 19:01 UTC as 149th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mosc: You know the main reasons why this camera is awkward are superior products you can point to in Canon's own lineup:

G5x: Same ergonomics, much cheaper, similar lens
M5: a little larger but ILC, much cheaper, similar lens offered (15-45)

You don't have to mention a Sony camera to explain why this product is out of date before it's released (well, except for 4K) which is a step in the right direction for Canon.

I mean maybe there's really a market for people who think the M5 is too much work and the G5x is just slightly not good enough.

Until one looks at the slow lens... Really Canon? f5.6 at 70mm?

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 13:20 UTC
In reply to:

blurredvision: Why does EVERYTHING have to be a "game changer" these days? Anything labeled as such almost never is, not even close. This is one of those.

Sorry, Game Changer + Caveats = Less than Game Changer!

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 18:53 UTC
In reply to:

Garug: Camera review shot at 24 fps on media that is 98% viewed on 60 Hz monitor. GREAT.

Now modern flatscreen TVs (like computer monitors) can handle progressive input (24p 30p 60p) unlike earlier TVs which where interlaced only. But do not let this get confused with refresh rate (Hz). Some newer TVs have a higher refresh rate like 240Hz and the motion looks totally different.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

Garug: Camera review shot at 24 fps on media that is 98% viewed on 60 Hz monitor. GREAT.

I respectfully disagree about pulldown. The jerky motion IS the 24p. It is a slow framerate. It does not react well to hardly any camera movement.

Once again, there is no 24Hz viewing medium!! All monitors or televisions have a rate they refresh any screen changes and they happen to try to not go below 50/60Hz because they would show flicker that the human eye can pickup. Cinema projectors do the double frame, double shutter thing.

24p is a tricky framerate but when you watch produced drama like "Game of Thrones" are you saying that it does not look proper? Just trying to keep the technical information correct here because people often blame 24p jerkiness on the viewing equipment when it is really the thorns of the framerate.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 12:25 UTC
In reply to:

Garug: Camera review shot at 24 fps on media that is 98% viewed on 60 Hz monitor. GREAT.

I think you are mis-interpreting my comments. When I say the 24p looks fine I mean the 24p is being represented properly on the 60Hz device. You may or may not like the slower framerate but showing it on a 60Hz device is not the problem! You just do not care for the look of 24p with the content shown.

I would tend to agree that GoPro style action shooting is not the best fit for 24p shooting.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 23:01 UTC
Total: 109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »