Low Budget Dave

Lives in United States Orlando, United States
Joined on Feb 24, 2010

Comments

Total: 68, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

The hard work is actually going into conflict zones and being willing to document what you see. All the rest is marketing. I don't like the filters, but they accomplished what he wanted them to do: I clicked on the article and looked at the pictures.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2013 at 17:12 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

Sam Carriere: One of the amazing things about this discussion, and similar ones elsewhere is that two years ago, when the NEX-7 was first announced, it was universally deemed the best thing since sliced bread. Reviewers who had never even seen the actual camera fell over themselves finding appropriate superlatives. It took a year from the first announcement for Sony to actually produce the camera and in that time, the enthusiasm raged unabated.
And now ... it seems few people have much good to say about the poor NEX-7.
I did not have much faith in web-based reviews at the time this all happened, and I have even less now.
The whole thing, though, was a triumph for Sony marketing which correctly assessed the leming-like nature of both reviewers and consumers.

Sam, The job of marketing people is to create hype. If they can do it for products that aren't invented yet, they will. Because of their size and history, Sony is a little better at it than most, but it is really just a matter of degree.

If Canon could start the hype for their 5Dmk5 right now, they would do it. Hard to judge camera companies for doing what their shareholders demand.

Having said that, I did go ahead and purchase a NEX6 when my old camera broke. Maybe I bought into the hype, or it was wishful thinking, but the end result is still a camera that was worth what I paid for it. It doesn't solve any problems for me, it just takes pictures.

The quality of the pictures still depends on me more than the camera. It has a few more missed-focus shots than average, and it takes me a little longer to change settings than I would like, but if I really wanted a D800, I would have had to buy a D800.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2013 at 16:54 UTC

As far as product review speed, I am not sure any web site does particularly complete reviews in advance of product introduction. I am not sure how they could. As far as the NEX6 goes, I bought it when my old camera broke, based on the assumption that it would be about the same as every other camera in the price range.

Generally, it is a pretty good camera. I am not wild about the color on the kit lens, but that is easy to fix with the Sony 50mm or even the Sigma 35mm. The autofocus speed seems to be pretty good, but the accuracy is only about average. The camera gets distracted by bright areas, even if you are using center focus or spot focus. Anything moving gets out of focus very quickly, and the Sony has trouble keeping up. The Sony face detection is more likely to focus on the outline of the head than on the eyes.

The kit lens is designed for portability, and comes with the trade-offs you would expect. The only thing I didn't expect is how touchy it is to manually focus. A quarter of a turn takes you from front focus to rear focus, and only a very good eye and steady hands will be able to capture a shot in between. In this respect (and many others) the 50mm "sippy cup" is vastly better.

In short, it is about the same as every other camera in the price range. It is a little better at some things and a little worse at others. Of course, if they said this in a review, they could finish every review within 2 hours of getting the camera.

They might also add: "This camera won't help you take better pictures, unless you are upgrading from a cell phone, and maybe not even then." This sentence can be safely added to every review.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 18:14 UTC as 5th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Robert P Miller: I do believe some smartphone users would not mind better quality in low light to help with blurs and noise, but otherwise most are not candidates for a second body camera. They will simply accept the better quality sensors when they arrive in the smart phone world.

All things considered, I would rather have an NEX that makes (mediocre) phone calls than a phone that takes mediocre pictures.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2012 at 14:43 UTC

The C-AF makes sense when you consider the RX-100. The S-AF is reliable and fast, but the C-AF hunts back and forth. In movie mode, it does not, but it picture mode, it is annoying. Sony took the feature out because it was causing more problems than it was fixing.

The shutter speed is also a matter of working with the available tools. Some engineer somewhere pointed out that the camera might be useful for sports photography if you could up the speed just a little bit. On leaf cameras, one way to do this is to shoot at F7, or whatever. All you have to do is tell the software to stop protecting you from yourself.

It does not fit my needs or my bank account, but if you want portrait quality in a small package, Sony seems to be delivering the goods.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 15:16 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Fazal Majid: Smartphones.

Given the abysmal software skills of most camera makers, their allegedly-smart devices will underwhelm and die a horrible death, and in the end only true smartphones will have those capabilities. In one of the recent Photokina interviews (Fuji?), the product manager was sensibly pointing out that people are not exactly going to line up to pay for yet another data plan in addition to the one on their smartphones.

"Phones" has my vote too. Just because they are missing a feature doesn't change the market they will be judged against.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 12:44 UTC
In reply to:

Justin Francis: Will be blown away by the Nikon D600 and Canon 6D.

It is pretty rare for any camera to blow any other camera out of the market. Canon and Nikon did it to Kodak, but Sony is not Kodak.

If it takes good pictures, it is likely to be around a while. In spite of what people say here, few people need more than 6 fps.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

mavic: Hi,

I'm quite a big fan of the Sony Alpha system (and own an Alpha 55) but this body makes no sense to me.
Which professional would be jumping on a Sony Alpha FF body just reviewing the line of FF compatible glasses (either from Sony or Tamron or Sigma). There is only a very few as most of those lenses has been designed for APS-C bodies. Why should I limit myself?
Are there any plans / rumors for more lenses in the A-mount domain?
regards

I only ever use one lens at a time.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 17:18 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony NEX-6 and 16-50mm power zoom preview (63 comments in total)
In reply to:

mikeydread: Quote from the Sony official website:

"there’s a tiltable LCD touch screen"

oh dear DPReview - how can you do a hands-on preview and not know it has a touch screen!!!!

You might be looking at the NEX-5R. The screen on the 6 does not tilt or touch.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

JDT0505: That's a lot of dough for a point and shoot. Personally, I'd go for an X100. Even though it's got a smaller sensor simply because the wider feature set. Seriously, $2800 and it's got a hot-shoe mounted viewfinder?

The pixel pitch on the two cameras are about the same as is the focal length. The Fuji can be got for less than $1000 these days. The only thing it's got going for it is the Zeiss "named" lens. Sorry Sony. Fail.

I suspect that we will see comparisons pretty soon. Fuji is a good camera, bu Sony will have better AF, better IQ, and more overhead to do post-processing. For some people, this is worth the extra money.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:25 UTC
In reply to:

echelon2004: Who on earth was it that decided that what we need most was smaller cameras and that that pretty much was the most important thing? Did we suddenly develop smaller hands? Are we shrinking? Should we worry?

My Airline made that decision for me, when they started charging me by the pound to carry on luggage.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:20 UTC
In reply to:

Kevin Coppalotti: "Does this camera make my nose look big dear?" Yes, yes it does. 35mm to short for a flattering portrait.

Kevin, maybe, but with 24mp, you can crop down quite a bit and still get the portrait you want. (The Nikon D3, for example, had 12mp, and you see plenty of D3 portraits that were originally taken at the long end of the 17-35 lens.)

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:16 UTC
On article Sony NEX-5R Hands-on Preview (145 comments in total)

Looking forward to some detailed testing. For people with kids, the fast AF is the biggest draw. Having a camera that I can fit in my carry-on luggage is a side benefit.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 16:03 UTC as 48th comment

I guess Canon is in the business of selling cameras, so they are going to make whatever they can sell. Still, I wish Canon would take the initiative and improve cameras rather than just selling "me too" superzooms.

If Apple was content making their iPhones and iPods to be essential clones of the competition, they would still sell them, but no one would love them. The reason people love Apple is that they made the iPhone better than it needed to be, and changed the whole playing field.

Canon has the money and the technology to do the same for cameras. They don't do it because they are lazy. Why bother making something 60% better when you can sell a million of them by just making it 10% better?

If it weren't for the competition, Canon would still be selling nothing but film cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2012 at 20:02 UTC as 23rd comment

Could you do us a favor and let us know your opinion of the test results? I have been reading through the comments, and different people seem to interpret the results differently.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2012 at 16:44 UTC as 16th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Michael Knight: I'd rather get the Sony RX100!!

The RX100 is the best point-and-shoot I have ever used. I tried both in the store, and decided on the RX100 because of the size. Having said that, though, the J1 had the fastest autofocus I have ever seen on a camera. The Sony is good, but the J1 was quite a bit faster.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 13:00 UTC
On article Interview: Tetsuya Yamamoto of Nikon (194 comments in total)

The people who are buying this camera don't want bokeh. They want the best point-and-shoot Nikon makes. If the picture of Mr. Yamamoto above was shot with a V1, then I bet the photographer was 20 meters away.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 16:17 UTC as 28th comment | 8 replies
On article Mirrorless Roundup 2011 (426 comments in total)

This is a good review, and it puts the cameras together pretty well. I would have preferred a few more columns, though, so we can draw our own conclusions. You included a column for "touchscreen" for example, but not "rotating screen". I would have also liked a column for "autofocus speed" or some similar measurement of speed that is not already obvious.

The V1, for example, has little other claim to fame, and the EPL3 has little else to justify it over the EPL2. For the NEX 5n, it is one of the few limitations.

If you had added enough columns, you could have dispensed with "grouping" them, and let people make up their own minds as to where the logical groupings fall. It is your article, of course, but several people have already commented about how your groups seem subjective. Just a few more columns, and you could simply group them by price.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2011 at 17:46 UTC as 70th comment | 1 reply
On article Roundup: Third-party Lenses for Enthusiasts (170 comments in total)

Dear Santa: Please ask Sigma and Tamron to make these lenses for Sony NEX e-mount. Bigger than the camera, yes, but at least you don't need software correction.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2011 at 17:23 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

presiden: Just called sony customer service hotline for the fix solution.
The operator confirmed that the solution was just to add some lubricant to the clicking part.
Obviously this is not a fix at all...

I am with Lance on this one. I do not believe there was anything loose in there. The clicking on my camera sounds electronic. My guess is that they are just adding a noise clipping filter to the audio software until they can figure it out.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2011 at 09:56 UTC
Total: 68, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »