Klipsen

Joined on Feb 2, 2005

Comments

Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Klipsen: Of course Nikon will eventually make a FF mirrorless. Probably not while the only "serious" competition comes from Sony, but when Canon feel their system has matured enough to be upgraded to FF, Nikon will have no choice.
They also took their good time to introduce FF in the first place, actually being beaten by Canon by years and Sony by months.
Old farts like yours truly will always prefer an OVF, but the smartphone generation couldn't care less - preferring the ability to see exactly what they're shooting with the camera high above their heads or in other "impossible" positions.
Tethered shooting is another situation where there really is no reason to spend excessive amounts of money on prism, mirror and everything else needed for an OVF to work.

Firstly, look through the viewfinder of a Sony A900, then add the Type L focusing screen. Now, that's what I need in terms of viewfinder.
Secondly, my remarks about the smartphone generation (yours, I dare to suppose, considering that you apparently stopped reading and went on the defensive) were not meant any more negatively than calling my own generation old farts - it was used affectionately. If you bothered to read the last two paragraphs you would perhaps realise that I advocate the use of EVF's.
You can't teach old dogs new tricks, they say. I say: Don't become an old dog at a young age.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 14:20 UTC

Of course Nikon will eventually make a FF mirrorless. Probably not while the only "serious" competition comes from Sony, but when Canon feel their system has matured enough to be upgraded to FF, Nikon will have no choice.
They also took their good time to introduce FF in the first place, actually being beaten by Canon by years and Sony by months.
Old farts like yours truly will always prefer an OVF, but the smartphone generation couldn't care less - preferring the ability to see exactly what they're shooting with the camera high above their heads or in other "impossible" positions.
Tethered shooting is another situation where there really is no reason to spend excessive amounts of money on prism, mirror and everything else needed for an OVF to work.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 20:37 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies

"Let's see ... well, you either need an 85 mm lens or a 35 mm lens for your specific needs".
I could just toss coins and get the same "help" making dicisions (i.e. no help at all).

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 20:15 UTC as 54th comment
In reply to:

Rob: Professional sites need to stop mispronouncing bokeh. It has always been "bo-KAY." "Bo-KA" was a mispronunciation by those who were ignorant of the term's origin and somehow it caught on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqipY-wQaxc

It all boils down to the vast majority of English speakers' inability to pronounce the sound written é in French. If a Japanese says Nigh-Kon, he's most likely just aware that it's how Ameriacans pronounce it. In Japanese, Japan is called Nihon (Knee-hon, not Nigh-hon), and the name Nikon was chosen - at least in part - because the Japanese supposedly cannot tell the difference between Nikon and Nihon.
Actually, the Japanese word was originally spelled boke in English translation, but then people thought the e was silent, pronouncing it bowk. Adding an accent, boké, would be the most correct spelling, but English speakers would pronounce it incorrectly no matter what, because the sound of both the o and the e/é do not exist in English.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

Unbounded: Already owns the 90 2.8 macro. Can't decide if the STF is really worth it... I'd give the orange "G" a premium.

If the STF is anywhere near the "original" 135 mm STF for A-mount, it may not be exactly "value for money", but it will be exceptionally excellent.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 19:10 UTC

As an old Minoltan I'm intrigued by your article ... but I still have to say that other manufacturers have made similar solutions, albeit within tubular designs, notably Tokina with their AT-X series from the 1980's, among them a 50-250 mm zoom. It has quite impressive image quality at the 50 mm setting, and an even more impressive 1:1.4 macro setting, which is accessed by turning the lens past the MFD at 50 mm and extending the lens while the zoom mechanism is locked. For the time, a magnification ratio of 1:1.4 was rather unusual, most dedicated macros having one of 1:2, requiring an extension tube to reach 1:1.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/tokina-50-250mm-at-x-review.496888/

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 18:37 UTC as 1st comment

If a poacher sets a trap and an animal falls prey to it ... did the animal commit suicide?

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 21:43 UTC as 87th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2748 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klipsen: Can anyone explain the logic?
Memory Card Slots:
SLOT1: Slot for SD(UHS-I/II compliant) memory card,
SLOT2: Multi slot for Memory Stick Duo/SD(UHS-I compliant) memory card
Why bother with dual card slots, when they're not identical?
I understand that there's a desire to be loyal to one's own technology (MS), but if the price is the loss of UHS-II, then the second slot is useless as a backup for anything that requires the higher speed it provides.

Well, card formats may be different, while performance is identical.
In order to take full advantage of some of the video modes, UHS-II is probably required - or else why bother to include it?
I know it's not going to be a huge problem to most people, but it would be annoying to have bought very fast cards in order to record in the highest quality - and then find that the card slot is limited to less than that, because of the "need" to be compatible with Memory Sticks.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 12:46 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2748 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klipsen: Can anyone explain the logic?
Memory Card Slots:
SLOT1: Slot for SD(UHS-I/II compliant) memory card,
SLOT2: Multi slot for Memory Stick Duo/SD(UHS-I compliant) memory card
Why bother with dual card slots, when they're not identical?
I understand that there's a desire to be loyal to one's own technology (MS), but if the price is the loss of UHS-II, then the second slot is useless as a backup for anything that requires the higher speed it provides.

That makes sense, thank you :-)
Still, that could also be done with a better card slot, and the cost reduction is marginal.
Is it even possible to save raw and jpg to different cards (on this camera)?

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 11:18 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2748 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: 200mm is pretty darn short for field sports on Full Frame. They're not storming anything with that.

The 500 mm f/4 is probably 100 % compatible using the proper adapter.
The 300 mm f/2.8 is also compatible, albeit not 100 %.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 19:04 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2748 comments in total)
In reply to:

M Chambers: Note how DP Review always manages to turn a positive Sony headline into a negative story about Sony. God forbid they ever speak ill of Canon or Nikon.

It's because the writers are afraid they won't be taken seriously if they don't remember to pay hommage to Canon and Nikon every chance they get.
Most of the technologies used in modern cameras were invented by other manufacturers than the big two, but they get credit for almost any invention as soon as they start using it.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 19:00 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2748 comments in total)
In reply to:

misspiggy01: ideally all this tech ends up in a Nikon body!

Well, anyone who "needs" 14 FPS probably needs 20 FPS ... the day Nikon offers it in a pro DSLR (just like 24 Mpix wasn't necessary when introduced by Sony in the A900, but became essential when Nikon upgraded the D3 to D3X three months later ... using Sony's sensor. Overnight, "nothing gained with 24 Mpix" changed to "amazing improvement".
Most of us certainly will not get more keepers except by sheer luck, but if 10 FPS is better than 5 FPS, then 20 FPS should be even better.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 18:53 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2748 comments in total)

Can anyone explain the logic?
Memory Card Slots:
SLOT1: Slot for SD(UHS-I/II compliant) memory card,
SLOT2: Multi slot for Memory Stick Duo/SD(UHS-I compliant) memory card
Why bother with dual card slots, when they're not identical?
I understand that there's a desire to be loyal to one's own technology (MS), but if the price is the loss of UHS-II, then the second slot is useless as a backup for anything that requires the higher speed it provides.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 18:38 UTC as 363rd comment | 4 replies

"... a readily available professional camera". Why?
So it can be replaced in a hurry if it breaks down during the wedding?

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2017 at 17:11 UTC as 48th comment
In reply to:

BobT3218: Just saw the movie La La Land. Great movie! A scene shows an archetypal professional photographer doing a photo shoot of the band. He used a Sony with a wireless link. Obviously, Sony offered the producers the best deal but also apparently the producers had no qualms about showing a "pro" photographer with a Sony. But then a band photo shoot is not a wedding is it?

Well, a clear sign that a film is released through Sony Pictures Entertainment is the abundant presence of Sony TV's, Sony computers, Sony smartphones and Sony cameras. In part it's product placement, but then again, why would they advertise other companies' products?
In contrast, you hardly see Sony products in "non-Sony" films.

(As my gear list suggests, I'm a Sony owner).

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2017 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: If Hi Sync works by using a long flash pulse, does this mean it is less well suited to capturing very fast motion than "normal" flash?

I can't think of any subject that would require faster shutter speeds than 1/8,000 s to be frozen - and that I would capture with a "normal" camera.
You will need a completely blackened room, Bulb exposure and an ingenious way to release the flash at just the right moment (1/50,000 s) to take advantage of such a short duration.
Unless you're shooting rifle bullets, for which you won't need studio lamps, 1/8,000 s is more than likely to be more than fast enough.
The "only" advantage of the Skyport is output, but HSS with hotshoe flashes at 1/8,000 s is of very limited use exactly because of the drastically reduced output.
Other than that, fast moving subjects will be just as skewed using the Skyport as hotshoe flashes, because the shutter works in the same way no matter what light source you use - it could even be the sun.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 08:34 UTC

Compatible with the A850, but not the A900? (I know, it's an error).
Is there a difference between the NEX-7K and any other NEX-7? I mean, one that would make the transmitter only work on that camera with the kit lens, and otherwise not?
Yes, I am being pedantic :-D

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 22:47 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

AshMills: If Hi Sync works by using a long flash pulse, does this mean it is less well suited to capturing very fast motion than "normal" flash?

Quite the contrary. Hotshoe flashes actually extend the duration of the flash to last the shortest "real" synchronised shutter speed, i.e. 1/160, 1/200 or 1/250 depending on camera model. The actual duration of a TTL flash is from around 1/1,000 s and down to 1/50,000 s - possibly even shorter, but since only a narrow strip of the sensor is exposed at any given point during the 1/200 s it takes for the shutter to open and close, only a fraction of the scene will be lit by the flash, and the guide number is drastically reduced to extend duration.
Using lamps that can deliver full power for longer than 1/250 s you will be able to capture those subjects from a greater distance, at smaller f-stops and without the need for high ISO.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 22:03 UTC
In reply to:

lehill: Well this is pretty expensive and altogether weird. According to Sony(1) and Brian Smith's Jul 13 blog the transmitter is only compatible with the A7xII cameras after a coming firmware update.

That's just totally weird. I can't believe Sony would develop such a specialized and limited wireless flash system.

(1) http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/cscs/accessories/?mdl=FA-WRC1M&area=us&lang=en&cnt=us&cat=9

It used to be firmware-update capability was regarded as a must, and now you complain that it's being applied?
I realise that you're probably frustrated that it only works with one camera series, but I think you can expect it to work with all cameras sporting the new hotshoe before it is released for real. After all, Phottix have the Odin system, which apparently does pretty much what this system does - with just about any Minolta or Sony A-mount camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

Thomas Kachadurian: They were using titanium in the 1960s? I had one of these I bought with a 50mm f1.4 for $65 in 1979. I used it for quite a few years, and I'd swear it had a cloth shutter, like they all did.

Something doesn't sound exactly right here. My Pentax MX had a cloth shutter. Were those all woven titanium?

They posted a correction, stating that they got carried away and mistook it for an F3, so you're right that it's wrong. Titanium began being used in quantity in the early 80s.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2016 at 05:47 UTC
Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »