Lee Jay

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

Comments

Total: 829, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ms18: The only one thing I liked about smart phone camera is the single focal lens it has. I wish it was standard 35mm instead 24-28mm these days. Now shick. The zoom came in..

By far the largest problem with using a cell phone for photography is the fixed ~28mm equivalent focal length. It's the main reason I never use mine and carry a separate camera in the same pocket. There are other reasons too, but that's the biggest one.

Absolutely have to have some telephoto capability. 28mm fixed is just this side of useless.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: In my opinion, Canon appears to "get it".

I don't see any need to go mirrorless because I'd have to give up performance to get it - especially viewfinder and focusing performance. I don't want my camera to be smaller as my hands haven't shrunk so there's no size savings - I still need the same grip size and the same controls. So why would I give up performance and battery life to get, well, no benefits whatsoever?

And when I need mirrorless (i.e. for video) I can still have it with my SLR by adding an EVF or LCD loupe (which I have). Try adding a TTL OVF to a mirrorless camera.

The trouble I see for mirrorless, and have seen since they started getting interchangeable lenses, is that EVFs can NEVER catch up to OVFs. It's just not possible for them to have zero lag and current EVF lag, touted by some as "not noticeable" is still absolutely horrendous to me.

Frankly, I can't imagine ever giving up a mirrored camera.

No, it isn't. They aren't counting the total lag, just one (of six) part of it. For it to be 4ms it would have to do things that are impossible for it to do.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: In my opinion, Canon appears to "get it".

I don't see any need to go mirrorless because I'd have to give up performance to get it - especially viewfinder and focusing performance. I don't want my camera to be smaller as my hands haven't shrunk so there's no size savings - I still need the same grip size and the same controls. So why would I give up performance and battery life to get, well, no benefits whatsoever?

And when I need mirrorless (i.e. for video) I can still have it with my SLR by adding an EVF or LCD loupe (which I have). Try adding a TTL OVF to a mirrorless camera.

The trouble I see for mirrorless, and have seen since they started getting interchangeable lenses, is that EVFs can NEVER catch up to OVFs. It's just not possible for them to have zero lag and current EVF lag, touted by some as "not noticeable" is still absolutely horrendous to me.

Frankly, I can't imagine ever giving up a mirrored camera.

Maybe 10ms would be okay, maybe not, but no one is close to that yet, especially in lower light.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 12:49 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: In my opinion, Canon appears to "get it".

I don't see any need to go mirrorless because I'd have to give up performance to get it - especially viewfinder and focusing performance. I don't want my camera to be smaller as my hands haven't shrunk so there's no size savings - I still need the same grip size and the same controls. So why would I give up performance and battery life to get, well, no benefits whatsoever?

And when I need mirrorless (i.e. for video) I can still have it with my SLR by adding an EVF or LCD loupe (which I have). Try adding a TTL OVF to a mirrorless camera.

The trouble I see for mirrorless, and have seen since they started getting interchangeable lenses, is that EVFs can NEVER catch up to OVFs. It's just not possible for them to have zero lag and current EVF lag, touted by some as "not noticeable" is still absolutely horrendous to me.

Frankly, I can't imagine ever giving up a mirrored camera.

Fuji's claim was a lie, and shutter lag has nothing to do with viewfinder lag. Viewfinder lag matters before you take the shot preventing the shot from being framed in the first place. Shutter lag doesn't affect framing it just affects when the shot gets taken. Have a well framed shot slightly later is much preferable to having a shot sooner but with the subject not in the frame.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: In my opinion, Canon appears to "get it".

I don't see any need to go mirrorless because I'd have to give up performance to get it - especially viewfinder and focusing performance. I don't want my camera to be smaller as my hands haven't shrunk so there's no size savings - I still need the same grip size and the same controls. So why would I give up performance and battery life to get, well, no benefits whatsoever?

And when I need mirrorless (i.e. for video) I can still have it with my SLR by adding an EVF or LCD loupe (which I have). Try adding a TTL OVF to a mirrorless camera.

The trouble I see for mirrorless, and have seen since they started getting interchangeable lenses, is that EVFs can NEVER catch up to OVFs. It's just not possible for them to have zero lag and current EVF lag, touted by some as "not noticeable" is still absolutely horrendous to me.

Frankly, I can't imagine ever giving up a mirrored camera.

Don't know about the 6300 but I tried a 6000 in the store and it literally had the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever used. That and the horrible viewfinder made me wonder what anyone sees in it. Anyway, I use my 7D2 for sports, airshows, video, family, travel, astro and everything else.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 04:04 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: In my opinion, Canon appears to "get it".

I don't see any need to go mirrorless because I'd have to give up performance to get it - especially viewfinder and focusing performance. I don't want my camera to be smaller as my hands haven't shrunk so there's no size savings - I still need the same grip size and the same controls. So why would I give up performance and battery life to get, well, no benefits whatsoever?

And when I need mirrorless (i.e. for video) I can still have it with my SLR by adding an EVF or LCD loupe (which I have). Try adding a TTL OVF to a mirrorless camera.

The trouble I see for mirrorless, and have seen since they started getting interchangeable lenses, is that EVFs can NEVER catch up to OVFs. It's just not possible for them to have zero lag and current EVF lag, touted by some as "not noticeable" is still absolutely horrendous to me.

Frankly, I can't imagine ever giving up a mirrored camera.

I find the lag of modern EVF cameras to be horrid. But, yes, crushed blacks and blown highlights are a big problem too. Same with noise and additional lag in dark conditions. Same with battery life.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 22:37 UTC

In my opinion, Canon appears to "get it".

I don't see any need to go mirrorless because I'd have to give up performance to get it - especially viewfinder and focusing performance. I don't want my camera to be smaller as my hands haven't shrunk so there's no size savings - I still need the same grip size and the same controls. So why would I give up performance and battery life to get, well, no benefits whatsoever?

And when I need mirrorless (i.e. for video) I can still have it with my SLR by adding an EVF or LCD loupe (which I have). Try adding a TTL OVF to a mirrorless camera.

The trouble I see for mirrorless, and have seen since they started getting interchangeable lenses, is that EVFs can NEVER catch up to OVFs. It's just not possible for them to have zero lag and current EVF lag, touted by some as "not noticeable" is still absolutely horrendous to me.

Frankly, I can't imagine ever giving up a mirrored camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 22:27 UTC as 71st comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

Lee Jay: 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.

I disagree. First of all, I have shot indoor sports with shutter speeds as slow as 1/30th specifically at slow spots, for portraits, or to preserve motion blur. Second, blur from handshake is added to blur from subjects so IS helps quite a bit even when you are shooting in the 1/200th - 1/500th range at long focal lengths.

This is why I'll continue to use my 70-200/2.8L IS II for this instead of getting the faster but shorter and unstabilized Sigma 50-100.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 17:52 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: 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.

And I sold my 100/2 and 85/1.8, partly because of no IS.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: 24-200 is what I'm looking for, in the most compact body available.

Yeah, the ZS100 is quite interesting. But I've never liked Panasonic's from a UI point of view, and it's too expensive.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 17:32 UTC

24-200 is what I'm looking for, in the most compact body available.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 14:49 UTC as 67th comment | 5 replies

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 35th comment | 6 replies
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (563 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 (563 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 (563 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 (563 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 (563 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 149th 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 105th comment | 2 replies
On article Extreme made easy: GoPro HERO4 Session review (64 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 (64 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 23rd comment
Total: 829, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »