wy2lam

Joined on Jun 22, 2004
About me:

Voigtlander Bessa 66

Past cameras: Pentax Zoom90R, KX, Super Program, MZ-50, MZ-5

Past lenses: AI-s 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF, Tamron SP 17-35, Tamron 24-135 AF, Zenitar 16mm FE, Vivitar S1 200/3, Tokina RMC 70-210/3.5, Vivitar S1 70-210/2.8-4, SMCT 85/1.8, SMCT 50/1.4, K55/1.8, A50/1.4, FA80-320, Cosina 105/3.5, Sears 135/2.8, Jupiter 9 80/2, Sigma EX 15/2.8 FE, Kiron MC7 2x TC

Comments

Total: 77, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Joachim Gerstl: Great! Now add 16/2, 23/2 and 56/2.

28/2 pancake, please.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

sirkhann: Still double the price compared to Nikon's Nikkor 35/f1.8G DX, which is also splash proof sealed. The Nikkor is sharp, has aberratons, inconsistent in AF and its out-of-focus bokehis on the rough side.

Not happy for having to downgrade for F2.0 to get better bokeh and IQ from the F1.4 version...

Since when does dropping lenses on the floor determine how well they are built?

The low end Nikon lenses wiggle when they extend - none of the Fujis do. They're just put together better. In the long run, you'll find less dust in the interior, less likely to have fungus, etc.

I converted from Nikon FX to Fuji. If you say Fuji lenses are overpriced for what they are - tell you what, ALL Nikkors are overpriced for what they are.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 21:46 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (497 comments in total)
In reply to:

chj: AF is better in a Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and Olympus. So basically Fuji has the worst autofocus in the industry. So it's good for stationary subjects and cameras. Just about ANY camera can take good photos if the subject and camera are completely stationary. Fuji's reputation for the best color in the industry doesn't make up for it even remotely. You can easily adjust color. You can't fix bad focus. There is nothing more frustrating than a camera that can't lock on.

I can guess the response from many at DPR. "Use manual focus." Well it seems you have to with a Fuji. P.S. I'll put my money on Panasonic's AF against any experienced manual focuser in a tight focus shootout anyday.

@chj the only reason Canon wasn't mentioned is because their mirror less bodies AF like 2003-ish PowerShots did.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 01:47 UTC
On article Video Overview: Fujifilm X-T10 (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

BRPWS: 4k. Great. I would like to see a real survey from Dpreview or any of the other review sites to find out how many people are really interested in 4K video as a feature to be incorporated in a still camera.

I have a lot of respect for good videographers. Good videos are a lot more difficult to produce than good stills, much more time spent on post, etc. Of course the best photos and the best videos are mostly incomparable due to considerable artistic insight, but most people don't achieve either anyway.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 01:56 UTC
On article Video Overview: Fujifilm X-T10 (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

Papi61: I think that in 2015 many people would consider the absence of 4K video a deal breaker. Especially now that the Lumix G7 is out.

Papi61...as much as I agree with what you say about video...made in China would be a deal breaker, and I'm an ethnic Chinese. A lot of things made in that country...simply explode.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 01:34 UTC
On article Video Overview: Fujifilm X-T10 (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

BRPWS: 4k. Great. I would like to see a real survey from Dpreview or any of the other review sites to find out how many people are really interested in 4K video as a feature to be incorporated in a still camera.

What's the big deal, if you don't like video, do not use it. A lot of these "I don't like video" arguments carries the misguided assumption that the same camera without the video feature would be more affordable - that cannot be further away from the truth.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: Cynics would say Fuji has a strong habit of releasing buggy, unfinished cameras to then try to fix them years down the line through the line. Yes, it's better than not fixing them at all. But it just doesn't encourage you to run out and buy the latest Fuji product since it is expected to be crippled.

@bluevellet

Since you're not very clear with your assumptions, let me spell them out for you.

a) Fuji's initial release firmwares were buggy and not do things they promise
b) other manufacturers' firmware were not buggy that's why they're not fixing anything.

2 very questionable assumptions, to say the least. I'd say some of these "Cynics" are probably "astroturfers".

Link | Posted on May 11, 2015 at 16:26 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Imagine that. Actually upgrading a camera's focusing system without requiring the user to buy a new body. Would that other companies followed this.

As if any other manufacturer unlocks their cameras' full potential (CHDK, Magic Lantern anyone?) or gets things right for the first time?

Whether your assertion is correct or not, Fujifilm seems to be doing better than _ALL_ other manufacturers in this regard - which is what matters.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2015 at 16:19 UTC
In reply to:

Woody W.: Depends on what about it is being patented. It has to be both "novel" (new) and "non-obvious". I'll give them novel, but not non-obvious. Basically, once you have the ability to create a transparent display - a true invention, it is obvious to apply it in virtually any scenario in which a non transparent display might be used. (Note: the US Supreme Court has said "obvious to try" is, by definition not non-obvious.)

have you read the patent? "non-obvious" does not apply to the idea. It applies to the implementation of the idea outlined in the claims.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 15:02 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: Sony and Fuji made the same mistake in releasing too many products.
They should take a page from Apple and focusing instead in few refined products. Simpler, cheaper and customer doesn't get confused .
I would have only 2 models in the mirror-less segment. Basic and Premium with a 2 year hardware cycle but several firmware upgrades along the way.
If they need more variety, at least make a more distinct product like a mono chrome model. I know many people would buy a second body to have it .

Oh my, don't put Fuji and Sony in the same sentence. For your reference: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53109309

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 23:44 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T1 real-world samples gallery (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

ijustloveshooting: lower IQ than 24mp nikon aps-c sensor, not different than my 5N but the price of an A7....this camera is extremely priced for what it offers in terms of IQ...

@ijustlovesshooting
What's the equivalent Sony 5N lens to the Fuji 56/1.2? Is the 5N weather sealed? Gosh, apart from the same size sensor and that both are mirrorless your 5N cannot be more different than the X-T1.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2014 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

Identity: I'm sure this is a lovely lens, but I was expecting shallower DOF in an F/1.2 lens. For me, APS-C is still the best balance of size, image quality, cost, and DOF control.

berni29...since you bring this up. I have had used all of MFT, APS, Fuji X and FF and I can tell you that the "equivalent lens" is smaller on FF.

Body size: smaller format wins
Lens size to achieve the same composition: larger format wins

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2014 at 18:34 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Even with misleading f1.2 aperture the DOF control (or lack thereof) looks worse than lowly 50mm 1.8 on APS-C camera. If you're after portrait, save your money and go to larger format period.

Naveed, f/1.6 is equal sure for a particular focal length and if you don't worry about composition and subject distance. for real photo taking...Den Sh is right.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2014 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

Oleg Vinokurov: Seems most people here concerned only with sharpness and equivalence of dof on FF. Well, it's sure sharp and has more than enough dof control, but hey, don't miss this awesome bokeh. Saw other samples with rather busy background, but bokeh was still really smooth and soft, seems 9 aperture blades do help here.

pdelux, wider than full body shots are not appropriate for demonstrating subject separation...as is head and shoulder shots. 85mm is used quite often for half body portraits from waist level up. Wide open this lens should demonstrate a good degree of subject isolation with that composition.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2014 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

BBking83: I know! How ridiculous!! Check out this photo: http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors001/Bildschirmfoto2014-01-07um121412_zpsc083a830.png

Can you believe that the 5th skin pore on her nose is still slightly in focus!?!?! I mean, look at her cheeks and eyes! They could be WAY more blurred if you used a FF camera!

This lens is JUNK!

EDIT: Because a whole lot of people will argue against it, it's from here: http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/leica-nocticron-42-5mm-f1-2-analisis-fotos_11255

Can't read Spanish? Google translate can help you. :)

It has a lot more to do than what is in focus and what is not. The more important thing is for things that are out of focus, how blurry they can become.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2014 at 18:24 UTC
In reply to:

ThorstenMUC: here is another gallery shot under controlled conditions (not mine):
http://deadwolfbones.smugmug.com/Other/Nocticron-Samples/

Stand back! This and the cameralabs shots are too close to the subject.

This lens is designed as a 85mm equivalent - quite a few people would love to see compositions where half the subject (from waist up) is included and evaluate the bokeh for those shots wide open.

head and shoulder portraits and close distance shots are not enough. Almost any lens can throw the background OOF nicely when sufficiently close to the subject.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2014 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: I'm not on MFT, but MFT sure gets a nice lens.

Bring out a 20mm f1.2 (40mm equivalent) and I might just take a look at the MFTs.

MichaelJP, it is not just about how shallow the DOF is, it is also about the subject separation and bokeh. Even if the background is out of focus on both the f/1.4 and f/0.7, the f/0.7 background is creamier all else being equal.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

samhain: Nice price. But only 7 aperture blades? Hmmm....

If they are rounded even 6 can work...

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

audiobomber: The K-3 is a better photographic tool than the EM-1, with higher resolution, lower noise, broader dynamic range, switchable blur filter, -3EV sensitivity, three f2.8 AF points, dual card slots, more capable AF-C and tracking.

The EM-5 beat the D800E in this same poll. That says more about the number of m4/3 fanboys around here than it does about the cameras.

E-M1 has tiny sensor that makes images full of moire, microscopic LCD screen, viewfinder unusable at night, confusing control, useless scene modes, limited video resolution choice, insufficient storage slots, snail-pace USB speed, inferior battery life.

It is a lot of fun to write like bluevellet when you exaggerate everything.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2014 at 06:52 UTC
Total: 77, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »