Sarge_

Lives in United States Jackson Hole, WY, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Apr 14, 2007

Comments

Total: 165, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I live in Jackson Hole and we all cheer for the wildlife. Many tourists are utter morons (the Chinese seem particularly bad), and nearly every animal-related injury is entirely the fault of the stupid tourist, and completely preventable. Many times the animal ends up dying or being euthanized as a result (like the time someone picked up a baby bison and put it in their car because they thought it was cold. For real.).

There are signs ALL OVER THE PARKS warning people to stay away from bison and elk, and carry bear spray, but every year there's a stream of stories like this. The other favorites are idiots walking on the geyser features and occassionally falling through the crust, and never being seen again.

If you're going to go out in nature, you'd best learn to respect it.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2020 at 16:36 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D3500 review (410 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sarge_: I'm surprised they're making cameras like this anymore. I would think all manufacturers would need to pair down their lineups in this day of diminishing camera sales. I would have thought the Z50 would replace cameras like this in the amateur market, due to its smaller form factor.

I suppose people with good information made a logical business decision, although that isn't always the case. As a pragmatist, it would seem like if I wanted a non-pocketable camera, I would buy something lightly used with good or better sensor, but perhaps this offers better AF performance (I don't know).

As a professional who also takes 'snapshots' for family/travel/sports purposes, I'm just surprised anyone in that market wants a bulky DSLR anymore. I do still prefer looking through a prism over an LED viewfinder, but that tech, as well as AF (sony especially) has improved to the point that it no longer justifies the size penalty of the old school DSLR to me, so I remain surprised that they are bothering to update the low-end DSLR market.

If there's still money to be made, so be it, but I just keep expecting that market to be abandoned.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2020 at 05:13 UTC
On article Nikon D3500 review (410 comments in total)

I'm surprised they're making cameras like this anymore. I would think all manufacturers would need to pair down their lineups in this day of diminishing camera sales. I would have thought the Z50 would replace cameras like this in the amateur market, due to its smaller form factor.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2020 at 14:56 UTC as 94th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

cjb: I love my original CamRanger. I'll be looking at this.

FWIW, it's my opinion the value is not in the hardware, but in the software.

Use what serves you best, of course.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2019 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

cjb: I love my original CamRanger. I'll be looking at this.

FWIW, it's my opinion the value is not in the hardware, but in the software.

Buy the cheaper Camranger 1 used? Or maybe the Camranger mini? They're cheaper, slower, and have less range. You need the hardware to use the software, though.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2019 at 22:03 UTC
In reply to:

cjb: I love my original CamRanger. I'll be looking at this.

FWIW, it's my opinion the value is not in the hardware, but in the software.

It's a game changer for architecture, where you have flash triggers, an ipad or two (client review pad), and might be moving lighting and shooting 150' away from the camera.

The software is vastly superior to a lot of OEM wifi controls, for cameras that even have wifi capability, not to mention the gains in range and speed.

If you need it, you'd know it, though.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2019 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

3pgrey: Its almost 2020 and someone still thinks they can make money selling this product. You'd think cameras would have LTE antennas by now let alone decent wifi connectivity and seemless transfer to devices

I couldn't even shoot architecture the way I do if not for Camranger or similar devices. It's redefined my entire workflow.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2019 at 01:55 UTC

Great viral marketing, I suppose. easily 100x more people 'know' about this than otherwise would have. I have a friend who has produced similar stunts for decades, and this fits that bill.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2019 at 02:49 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Sarge_: As a pro photographer who uses an Inspire 2 with X5s, I'm floored by the vast gap in quality between the quality of the RAW DNG files and the RAW video footage. The still RAWs are not only flat, the tone/hue curves of certain colors seem to almost be inverted. Creating still images that even remotely approach or match the colors from Sony and Nikon DSLRs requires all manner of gymnastics with the sliders in Lightroom.

Has the author, or anyone else, found any particular settings that work for them?

There are minor deviations across cameras for RAW processing, but the differences should be minor, if the cameras are in 'neutral' color settings, since they are supposed to be recording what's actually there... Occasionally my DJI X4S raw files are decent, but 90% of the time they're horrible with seriously screwed up color casts.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2019 at 02:47 UTC

Does anyone have any tips for processing DJI X4s raw photos? Even after all the updates, they still look lifeless without a lot of processing, and oftentimes the hue, saturation and luminosity sliders need lots of crossing up for individual colors. In short, I often find the raw files to be a mess.

Anyone else? Solutions? Lightroom presets?

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2019 at 22:57 UTC as 4th comment

As a pro photographer who uses an Inspire 2 with X5s, I'm floored by the vast gap in quality between the quality of the RAW DNG files and the RAW video footage. The still RAWs are not only flat, the tone/hue curves of certain colors seem to almost be inverted. Creating still images that even remotely approach or match the colors from Sony and Nikon DSLRs requires all manner of gymnastics with the sliders in Lightroom.

Has the author, or anyone else, found any particular settings that work for them?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2019 at 14:27 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies

So... basically... Sony's 'pixel shift' applied to a phone sensor?

Not that it's unimpressive, but that's what we're on about?

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2019 at 04:37 UTC as 18th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

Sarge_: (1) Something about this feels like an advertorial.

(2) Why, if quality and flexibility were among top priorities, would one choose a tiny sensor EOS over an APS-C sensor like a Sony a6400? Is the size difference really that meaningful? To me Sony seems like a vastly superior choice.

(3) Most (nearly all?) cameras have a USB-driven battery charger as an option, be it OEM or 3rd party.

Despite underestimating the size of the sensor, the points all still stand, Canon fanbois.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2019 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

Sarge_: (1) Something about this feels like an advertorial.

(2) Why, if quality and flexibility were among top priorities, would one choose a tiny sensor EOS over an APS-C sensor like a Sony a6400? Is the size difference really that meaningful? To me Sony seems like a vastly superior choice.

(3) Most (nearly all?) cameras have a USB-driven battery charger as an option, be it OEM or 3rd party.

@PhotoKhan I admitted not noticing the ONE SINGLE MENTION of the sensor size. Regardless, it is still an inferior sensor, and the lens selection is smaller.

The only thing I hear from everyone is 'price'. OK, if you can spend thousands on travel, but still can't spend $300-$500 more on a new sony, buy used. I've bought several of their bodies used precisely because I use them for travel and in 'high risk' situations where they get dropped, wet, etc, and when they die it's not that expensive to replace them. Even the used ones have better sensors, equal or better AF, and always a much wider array of lenses available, both used and new.

I just don't see any compelling argument to go with the Canon. I had Canon gear for years. I don't hate the brand, I just don't think they've played a leadership role in bodies and sensors in quite a while. Many of my pro shooter friends, who shoot Canon, would agree. I use Nikon professionally, and Sony for travel and casual things.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2019 at 18:51 UTC
In reply to:

Sarge_: (1) Something about this feels like an advertorial.

(2) Why, if quality and flexibility were among top priorities, would one choose a tiny sensor EOS over an APS-C sensor like a Sony a6400? Is the size difference really that meaningful? To me Sony seems like a vastly superior choice.

(3) Most (nearly all?) cameras have a USB-driven battery charger as an option, be it OEM or 3rd party.

@TheNickle:

It's still an inferior sensor, and the lens options are vastly smaller and also inferior.

Which leaves it as 'still a decent camera for the price', but not the best choice overall. For the many thousands of dollars one would spend on travel, the price difference to move up to the superior Sony options is small. And if price is that big a deal, you can buy a Sony a6000 or a5000 for a few hundred dollars on the used market, still have comparable better sensor, and a much wider array of lenses.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2019 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

Sarge_: (1) Something about this feels like an advertorial.

(2) Why, if quality and flexibility were among top priorities, would one choose a tiny sensor EOS over an APS-C sensor like a Sony a6400? Is the size difference really that meaningful? To me Sony seems like a vastly superior choice.

(3) Most (nearly all?) cameras have a USB-driven battery charger as an option, be it OEM or 3rd party.

TheNickle I am brand independent. I have no sponsored affiliations and don't give two hoots about names. I used Canon for years. I use Nikon for work since the D3 was launched, and Sony for travel because, despite their own shortcomings, Sony are still doing the overall best job of packing high performance into the smallest packages.

The Canon M system is pretty widely panned as 'coming up short' next to competing options. I personally am not an M4/3 fan, but there are good cameras in that group as well. Overall what I see here from Canon, as do many others, is more of the typical 'less than the best' from Canon on the sensor side. Even their pro bodies, though very widely used professionally, have lagged on DR and AF for years, and all of their images are tuned, IMO, to have a little too 'glossy' look, RAW or not.

They do make great glass, though.

One thing's for sure, the Canon fanbois have no weather sealing and are prone to overheating.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2019 at 03:36 UTC
In reply to:

Sarge_: (1) Something about this feels like an advertorial.

(2) Why, if quality and flexibility were among top priorities, would one choose a tiny sensor EOS over an APS-C sensor like a Sony a6400? Is the size difference really that meaningful? To me Sony seems like a vastly superior choice.

(3) Most (nearly all?) cameras have a USB-driven battery charger as an option, be it OEM or 3rd party.

The point still stands that the Canon sensor isn't as good, the AF isn't as good, and the lens selection isn't as good.

Good grief indeed.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2019 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

Sarge_: (1) Something about this feels like an advertorial.

(2) Why, if quality and flexibility were among top priorities, would one choose a tiny sensor EOS over an APS-C sensor like a Sony a6400? Is the size difference really that meaningful? To me Sony seems like a vastly superior choice.

(3) Most (nearly all?) cameras have a USB-driven battery charger as an option, be it OEM or 3rd party.

Also, it is worth noting that the Sony sensor is a slightly larger APS-C sensor than the Canon, and the lens selection for the comparable Sony system is vastly larger.

The M100 scores 78 at DXOmark, where the smaller sony a5100 scores an 80, and the a6500 scores an 85.

There are plenty of other variables to compare as well. For a travel camera, I don't see why the Canon would be a better choice, with quality of photos as the top priority. An a5100 with a pancake is similarly pocketable.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2019 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

Sarge_: (1) Something about this feels like an advertorial.

(2) Why, if quality and flexibility were among top priorities, would one choose a tiny sensor EOS over an APS-C sensor like a Sony a6400? Is the size difference really that meaningful? To me Sony seems like a vastly superior choice.

(3) Most (nearly all?) cameras have a USB-driven battery charger as an option, be it OEM or 3rd party.

I didn't realize Canon had started offering an APS-C mirrorless. I'm a Nikon and Sony shooter. I skimmed the article, but made an invalid assumption after missing the SINGLE 'APS-C' reference in the article. Last I knew they only offered the small-sensor mirrorless product.

Your fickle, thin-skinned indignance is equally reason not to participate in conversations on this website. I'm sorry to have wasted your precious pixel-peeping time. I'm off to go make a living with my gear...

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2019 at 16:01 UTC

(1) Something about this feels like an advertorial.

(2) Why, if quality and flexibility were among top priorities, would one choose a tiny sensor EOS over an APS-C sensor like a Sony a6400? Is the size difference really that meaningful? To me Sony seems like a vastly superior choice.

(3) Most (nearly all?) cameras have a USB-driven battery charger as an option, be it OEM or 3rd party.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2019 at 05:38 UTC as 33rd comment | 20 replies
Total: 165, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »