SLRist

Lives in United Kingdom Portsmouth, United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 8, 2011

Comments

Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Even in its first iteration, Leica Q blows X100F (4th iteration from X100) out of water, in all respects. Four chances took Fujifilm to get it there, and still their product can't compare to Leica Q (even when sensor size is disregarded).

// Actually, I don't understand why is Fujifilm in camera business at all, when it takes them three to five models in each series to make them performing kinda ok. //

Leica digital cameras are money down the drain. They go obsolete as quickly as any other digital camera. A very poor investment.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: Might consider it if it had a zoom lens.
It doesn't have to be a super-zoom.
Just a zoom.

You miss the point of this camera. If it had a zoom, it'd be twice the size. If it was twice the size, you might as well buy a DSLR.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:17 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (660 comments in total)

Finally an upgrade worthy of resigning my original X100 as backup. I'm not going to pay early adopter prices though. In a few months, the price will fall to something more reasonable.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:12 UTC as 39th comment | 3 replies
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

NicoPPC: Any comments or comparaison in the article about lens performance ?

It's a fantastic lens. If you're going to shoot macro at f2 you're going to get soft images. Who does that?

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:08 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: What this camera really needs is an articulating lcd, not for selfies but for waist level shooting and ground level close ups.

No, no, no. It would make the camera thicker front to back. The X100 is all about size. If you don't have the balls to take shots of people at eye level, you shouldn't be doing street photography.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:07 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: A relatively standard prime lens on a camera of this price really ought to be a fair bit sharper.

It's plenty sharp enough in the real world. You have to be a pixel peeper to find anything wrong with it.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:05 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wilight: Video rating makes it look like it's almost as bad as the previous generations. I'd like to see how much worse it is than, say.. Sony a6000's XAVC-S.

Seriously - who buys an X100 to shoot video..??

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:04 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

pepeta: One of the most beautiful cameras ever made....I played with my friends X100T and I was gobsmacked with the built,ergonomics and output quality...with such quality gear I wonder why Fuji is not much popular as it is now!

My original X100 is very sharp at f2.0. It's only soft if you try to shoot macro - and who shoots macro at f2.0?

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 15:58 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonny1976: all my best and most successful photo of my career are made with the first x100.a..that 12 million pixel sensor in my opinion was the best of the series, less dynamic range but superb rendering. i always wanted to upgrade for more megapixel, but 1300 euro i don't know if it's worth considering the low video spec. sure a better af and more megapixel are welcome, but will i have the same natural feeling with this camera than my old x100?

You're kidding me, right? In the age of digital, a Leica body is going to depreciate as fast as everything else out there. M9 in mint condition are going now for 30% the price new.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 15:52 UTC
On photo ISO 6400 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (14 comments in total)

Canon have a habit of choosing default settings to appeal to the consumer. In their camcorders, it's all saturation and sharpness to the maxxx. On their high ISO shots, NR is cranked right up to smooth out the luminosity speckling at the expense of obscuring any fine detail.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 21:05 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Canon EOS 5D Mark III low light ISO samples sample gallery (14 comments in total)

Canon have a habit of choosing default settings to appeal to the consumer. In their camcorders, it's all saturation and sharpness to the maxxx. On their high ISO shots, NR is cranked right up to smooth out the luminosity speckling at the expense of obscuring any fine detail.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 21:05 UTC as 1st comment
On article Just posted: Nikon D800 test samples (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

rhlpetrus: DPR: ISO 100 settings for D800: 1/15s, f/11. For D4: 1/8s, f/11. That's one full EV difference, how come?

How about the likelihood that it's just a typo?

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 12:13 UTC
In reply to:

johnnymac43: I am having focusing issues as well, this camera doesn't focus as good as my Canon S90. For the most part it is great but not as good as the Canon. Anyone else with a focusing problems?

Much ado about nothing. This kind of rubbish accompanies every release of every new camera. I've seen photos showing this blooming, and it's only visible when pixel peeping. You'll never see it in a printed photo. This is yet another case of complete over-reaction. Those people who are about to return their cameras be honest - did you actually notice the problem before you read about it in the Internet? I guarantee you did not.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2011 at 13:16 UTC
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13