Navman

Joined on Jun 2, 2012

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dorkooken: Too bad Sony only releases new camera's and not offering any new updates to the older models like A7(r)(II) like Fuji "Kaizen" does....

I'm sure they could give the update menu, new AF improvements,etc... to current customers...
That's a reason I would hesitate to buy a new Sony next time...

Sony are particularly patronising and disempowering in this regard - several of us have raised the issue of their introduction of the star-eater algorithm in the latest update, and we get a generic pat-on-the-head message - 'Sony values your opinions' - but then we get diddly-squat.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 23:08 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (505 comments in total)

Did you have any indication as to whether Sony have retained the median filtering of all exposures longer than 3.2 seconds that they introduced in f/w 3.3 for the Sony A7RII and A7S. This has seriously degraded the previously superb performance of these cameras for night-sky photography, with no ability to roll back. I would be very interested to know whether its imposed on the A9, or whether they have finally acknowledged this issue and enabled it to be turned off in the menu.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 21:24 UTC as 16th comment
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dorkooken: Too bad Sony only releases new camera's and not offering any new updates to the older models like A7(r)(II) like Fuji "Kaizen" does....

I'm sure they could give the update menu, new AF improvements,etc... to current customers...
That's a reason I would hesitate to buy a new Sony next time...

But Sony even went so far as to make changes to settings in their latest firmware that degraded some existing camera uses, without proper notification in the firmware release, and with no capacity to roll-back. I'm referring specifically to their imposition of median filtering on exposures longer than 3.2 seconds (f/w 3.3), previously only applied to bulb exposures. This star-eater algorithm seriously degrades the performance of Sony A7S and A7RII cameras for astro-photography, but this change was not advised in advance and is irreversible. That's totally unethical in the minds of many in the astrophotography community.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 21:20 UTC
On article Olympus m.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 first impressions and samples (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

ediblestarfish: I have both the 20mm and the new 17mm, prefer the 17mm on the E-M5.

It's just more transparent in usage for me. Maybe because I'm just a P&S person, but I like the snappier feel. Of course I'd love to have the 20mm's sharpness with all the good things the 17mm brings, but I find that the 20mm only works well when I had ample time to setup a shot before I took a picture. There's also the annoying banding issue with the E-M5 at higher ISO.

Have a handful of snaps in my gallery (with polarizer). It's PP-ed, but that's the end result what I actually get, instead of some banal test shot with nothing applied (which I never seem to do).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ediblestarfish/sets/72157632580082505/

Yes, I'd be happy with those as a real-world test! Perhaps not quite as sharp as some I see off my Olympus 45 or my Summilux 25, but unless you're printing extraordinarily large, sharpness seems more than satisfactory. Some nice pics there.

And just as an aside, I wonder if the optical engineers at Olympus (the real experts) ever bother to read the comments of the DPReview 'experts' - they'd have a few laughs I guess!

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2013 at 03:14 UTC
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4