Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 760, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

The 50-100/1.8 would be a ton more interesting and useful if it had OS. It's not as important in the 18-35/1.8 because of the shorter focal length, but the longer one really needs it which is why most of the 70-200/2.8's for full-frame have IS or are attached to a body with IBIS.

I'll keep my 18-35/1.8 but I won't buy the 50-100/1.8.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 14:25 UTC as 34th comment | 6 replies
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: If I wanted a camera that can only shoot at one focal length, I could use my cell phone and save the $3,300.

Really, I wouldn't give $300 for a fixed-lens fixed-focal-length camera no matter how good it was, as it would only cover perhaps 1% of my shooting.

Don't know Helmut Newton, but (and I know I'm in the minority here) I think HCB's images stink.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 19:54 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: If I wanted a camera that can only shoot at one focal length, I could use my cell phone and save the $3,300.

Really, I wouldn't give $300 for a fixed-lens fixed-focal-length camera no matter how good it was, as it would only cover perhaps 1% of my shooting.

If you only shoot at one focal length, you are very one-dimensional.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 19:39 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: If I wanted a camera that can only shoot at one focal length, I could use my cell phone and save the $3,300.

Really, I wouldn't give $300 for a fixed-lens fixed-focal-length camera no matter how good it was, as it would only cover perhaps 1% of my shooting.

Okay, you were right, 35mm would actually cover about 10% of my shooting (just looked).

And, I can't see a reason to own a camera with a lens welded to it when I can own (and already do) a better camera that can take any lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 19:27 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: If I wanted a camera that can only shoot at one focal length, I could use my cell phone and save the $3,300.

Really, I wouldn't give $300 for a fixed-lens fixed-focal-length camera no matter how good it was, as it would only cover perhaps 1% of my shooting.

I regularly use focal lengths from full-frame fisheye through to 4,500mm (1.6-crop camera mounted to my 2,800mm telescope).

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 19:19 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (546 comments in total)

If I wanted a camera that can only shoot at one focal length, I could use my cell phone and save the $3,300.

Really, I wouldn't give $300 for a fixed-lens fixed-focal-length camera no matter how good it was, as it would only cover perhaps 1% of my shooting.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 19:15 UTC as 144th comment | 12 replies

I've always felt the 85mm thing (or 50mm thing) was a total crock. I've shot portraits with lenses from 15mm fisheye on full-frame to the Sigma 150-600 (at 600) on crop.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 17:43 UTC as 103rd comment | 2 replies
On article Extreme made easy: GoPro HERO4 Session review (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: 1/3.2" 8MP sensor (with an F2.8 maximum aperture)

Kudos for actually posting that. Seems to be a state secret with most of these cameras. Now could you calculate the lens field of view?

Is it a requirement that an action cam have a fisheye lense? Something like a 22mm wide wouldn't make me as nauseous. Doesn't seem to be out there.

"No matter how much you correct or crop a fisheye, it's still junk. Sometimes you have no choice but when you do, you always want rectilinear."

100% of those words are false. And that's from someone who has taken tens of thousands of fisheye and ultra wide rectilinear shots and fished and defished with at least 8 different tools.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 04:10 UTC
On article Extreme made easy: GoPro HERO4 Session review (62 comments in total)

For $68 I can have a Mobius which looks to be a much smaller camera with user changeable lenses and a user replaceable battery.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 04:07 UTC as 20th comment
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The trouble with this "attractive" camera is that it isn't. Although looks make zero difference to me, this one is definitely a two-bagger.

All the main-stream SLRs look better and I kind of like the look of the FZ1000.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 18:25 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The trouble with this "attractive" camera is that it isn't. Although looks make zero difference to me, this one is definitely a two-bagger.

Have to put two bags over it, just in case one blows off.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 17:52 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The trouble with this "attractive" camera is that it isn't. Although looks make zero difference to me, this one is definitely a two-bagger.

No camera is particularly attractive, but this one is far below average.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 16:53 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (398 comments in total)

The trouble with this "attractive" camera is that it isn't. Although looks make zero difference to me, this one is definitely a two-bagger.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 15:54 UTC as 154th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This is why I have SLRs. They do everything well. Great ergonomics, great viewfinder, great autofocus, great speed, great responsiveness, great flexibility, great image quality. Every other type of camera is a sacrifice. For example, picking on the first camera mentioned in the article, the A6000 has the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever held and also has a terrible viewfinder.

Which is easier to handle, a 0x90 screw from a pair of glasses or a 3/8" bolt from a car?

Smaller is harder to handle, harder to transport and harder to manage. My hands aren't getting any smaller so my cameras aren't either. I use my SLRs around 10 times as much as my compacts.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This is why I have SLRs. They do everything well. Great ergonomics, great viewfinder, great autofocus, great speed, great responsiveness, great flexibility, great image quality. Every other type of camera is a sacrifice. For example, picking on the first camera mentioned in the article, the A6000 has the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever held and also has a terrible viewfinder.

Yeah, I even referenced it.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This is why I have SLRs. They do everything well. Great ergonomics, great viewfinder, great autofocus, great speed, great responsiveness, great flexibility, great image quality. Every other type of camera is a sacrifice. For example, picking on the first camera mentioned in the article, the A6000 has the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever held and also has a terrible viewfinder.

In my opinion there are only two sizes of camera - one that fits in my pocket all the time, and one that doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter if it's in a small bag or a slightly larger bag.

I've owned cameras of every size from ultra-small compact, to full-frame SLR, and the SLRs are the only ones with no compromises other than they don't fit in my jeans pocket along side my cell phone. But none of the MILCs do either so their size difference is entirely irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This is why I have SLRs. They do everything well. Great ergonomics, great viewfinder, great autofocus, great speed, great responsiveness, great flexibility, great image quality. Every other type of camera is a sacrifice. For example, picking on the first camera mentioned in the article, the A6000 has the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever held and also has a terrible viewfinder.

Great weight and great size is correct. Easy to handle, easy to hold, easy to transport.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 15:09 UTC

This is why I have SLRs. They do everything well. Great ergonomics, great viewfinder, great autofocus, great speed, great responsiveness, great flexibility, great image quality. Every other type of camera is a sacrifice. For example, picking on the first camera mentioned in the article, the A6000 has the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever held and also has a terrible viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 14:36 UTC as 171st comment | 18 replies
On article Vote now for Best Product of 2015! (130 comments in total)

Not one of my top 3 are on the list.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 02:13 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

BarnET: 21-30mm equiv?! (or something even less useful on Canon)

Sorry i have no clue for what i would possibly use this.
Especialy when they have a 11-20mm F2.8 in the current line-up

I wouldn't buy either lens, but both are really replacements for f/1.8 or f/2 24, 28 and 35mm primes. And the primes sell.

I have the Sigma 18-35/1.8, which was my replacement on crop for the 35mm prime on full-frame. That gives me like a 28,35 and 50mm prime, all in one lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2016 at 17:00 UTC
Total: 760, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »