Lives in Australia Australia
Works as a Medical physicist
Joined on Oct 30, 2007


Total: 362, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mrkarisma: My dream camera! Make it FF with a 35mm lens and around half the price of the original Sony RX1 with the next iteration and Im in!

It's your dream camera, except you'd change everything about it?

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2016 at 09:35 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: I was going to comment on how the USA has influenced Barney's speech when I saw 'reckon' in the second sentence. But after a quick google search I learned the word is common in British English, which is surprising considering it's only common here in the south. Interesting how certain words have uncommon bedfellows.

"Reckon" is also incredibly common word in Australia.

It's not very uncommon at all. I think the author of that article simply hasn't travelled much.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2015 at 09:24 UTC
In reply to:

Neez: I actually want this over my galaxy s6 because of the micro SD slot.

Actually, mobile phone storage, or any solid state storage, hasn't increased in size at a quick pace whatsoever.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: F1.9 means nothing when sensor size is not known.

Actually, depending on what you're talking about, f1.9 can mean something in EVERY sensor size.

If you're talking about shutter speed, then it means the same thing whether you're talking about a large sensor, or a small sensor, because it means for a given ISO, you're going to be able to shoot at a faster shutter speed.
Or you can shoot at the same shutter speed and use a lower ISO.

In a way, you're right when it comes to sensor noise, but if you can use a lower ISO due to the f/1.9 aperture, then that's better.

Besides, given a choice, you really cannot say that you'd rather have a f/2.5 or f/2.2 lens of the same quality.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 10:16 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: For those of you who don't think Sony could or would cut Nikon out of the picture, think of what Amazon just did to Chromecast or Apple TV...

Sony isn't going to dump Nikon because they're a big customer who, I presume, pays their bills on time, and have been customers for over a decade.

Nikon isn't going to dump Sony unless they had a reason to, and they don't. Nikon also deals with Aptina and other sensor companies, but they CHOOSE to buy their sensors from Sony. Nikon has, and always had, a choice in the matter, and they chose Sony.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

Lawn Lends: So basically Sony's RAW setting is really just a jpeg on steroids?

I don't have a Sony, but if there are any words in the manual or the camera menu system that says "RAW", I would be pisssed.

IMHO a lossy RAW is like hot ice -- one of the two descriptions is, at best, inaccurate, at worst a lie.

Exactly how I feel.

To me, a RAW file is raw data, and that's it. I already have a slight problem with "compressed" RAW, so "Lossy" RAW is just complete BS to my ears.

"Lossy RAW" is like learning that a certain "vegetarian" eats fish. You just want to slap them.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Imaginative?

Do you act in commercial cinema, and star in movies?

If not, then can you still say that Nicolas Cage sucks at acting?

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2015 at 01:46 UTC
In reply to:

Nathan Cowlishaw: It's art but there's a fine line between photography and the digital painting and manipulation. I could see this taking off in a graphic arts publication but this is digital imaging in the realm of complete manipulation. Imagine a photojournalist trying to pass this off. In it's context, it's art much like painting and so is photography but there has to be drawn an ethical line between what is photography and what's not so much...

Think about it.

"But Jerry Uelsmann has been doing it" isn't a good argument for the "Yes, this is a photo" camp, either. For me, it doesn't, and it doesn't matter if you say "John Smith used to do the same 100 years ago."

For me, it's not about the existence of Photoshop, or the "amount" of manipulation done to the photo, but has everything to do with the "TYPE" of manipulation done to it. Photography was involved in the process of creating his images, but it's not the subject of his work. It's not his art. He doesn't want you to look at his photography. The subject is something else entirely.

It's like watching a video of a ballet dancer taken from a single angle. In this instance, I'd say the "ballet" is the subject. The video is just a vestibule to enable you to enjoy the dance.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2015 at 01:43 UTC
In reply to:

Xentinus: I know there are many "if" scenarios and I don't want to be unfair for an innovative company;but while it is not lightweight and there are prime options, If it was 20-35 f 2.0 then it would have been special.
18-35 1.8 was/is special because of 1.8 aperture at 18mm.

Since I'd be much more likely to shoot at 24 and 35 mm, and not at 70 mm, I'd say this lens serves a great purpose to those who would shoot using 2 primes within those two focal lengths.

The 24-70 mm f/2.8 never suited me. I owned one, but didn't use it as much as I thought I would.

Why do people talk about the 24-70 as if it's some kind of benchmark? It's not a lens for everyone.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

alatchin: These are very interesting products... For those who clearly need speed over range this seems a compelling option... However the whole purpose of a zoom is versatility.

What we have done here is reduce some versatility in the range... well quite a lot really... for a slightly better noise performance.

I would be curious how well this would sell.

It shoots at f/2, which offers a LOT of versatility.

It just happens to be a different type of versatility than you're talking about.

Personally, I love shooting with 24, 35, 50, and 85 mm primes. Ideally, I'd be shooting with 24 mm, 43mm, and 85 mm primes, but 43 mm is hard to come by except on maybe Pentax.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 23:54 UTC
In reply to:

RedFox88: If Leica made this they'd market it as a 24mm and a 35mm prime both f/2 in one lens. And they'd charge $4500 for it!

Only $4500. Where did you see Leica lenses on sale?

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 23:50 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1178 comments in total)

I love this camera, and I don't think it's THAT bad a deal. It's still too expensive for me though!

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 12:09 UTC as 293rd comment
In reply to:

princecody: Who owns it?

It's sitting in a box, unopened, and yet it's already his favourite camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 12:02 UTC
In reply to:

supeyugin1: No touchscreen, 5 fps? really? It's not gonna fly, and 42MP who needs that much?
4K video with shitty compression? Not gonna work that good.

Since when did high-res variants of cameras become sports cameras? 5 fps is absolutely fine for this camera.

Just wait for a lower resolution version (A7S-2)

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 11:59 UTC
In reply to:

BillyBobSenna: I'm still trying to get my head around if this camera will be as good as say a Nikon D750 for action photography? Is the speed of the AF and usability of the EVF going to provide at least equal capability? I know there is still the question of lens availability for action photography however I just want to know if the basic platform has at least equal potential. I have a Sony A6000 and my experience is that it is not an action camera.

How much action do you intend on capturing with a battery that small?

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 11:54 UTC
In reply to:

Nanospeed1: Guys, here is a petition for Sony for the uncompressed RAW implementation.... Please sign it if that's a critical issue for you (as it certainly is for me!)

p.s. to censor: Yes, I posted it under the other article too but the more signatures, the more voice and (hopefully) more happy Sony-photographers in the future! :-)

Doesn't Sony cook their RAWs anyway?

I just want data that's OOC. To me, that's what a RAW is supposed to be.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 11:49 UTC
In reply to:

Nikita66: "It also offers a fully electronic silent shutter."

Then why do we need a mechanical shutter at all?

Rolling shutter effect, which will cause a distortion of a moving subject.

It could be something as simple as a person walking. That person will look bendy in a weird way.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 11:47 UTC
Total: 362, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »