Alphoid

Joined on Jun 24, 2011

Comments

Total: 355, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Satyaa: It could be a typo. They probably meant $99 a year.

Camera itself is at least $300, and probably has a lifespan of less than 3 years. Add 4G for photos (reasonably big transfers), and you're already over $99/year.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 00:05 UTC

I'd pay for a service where my photos went to India and were selected/edited by someone competent. I might not pay $1200/year, mind you, but I would pay.

The camera, though, that's another matter.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 00:03 UTC as 235th comment
On article Slik Lite tripods feature built-in LED lights (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

graybalanced: People are making fun of this, but if they were going to add a powered gadget to a tripod, a light isn't a bad thing to have. Useful for lighting up a subject to set the focus distance before taking a long exposure shot in darkness.

And, thank goodness, it doesn't use a proprietary battery.

Personally, I'd like a can opener, a corkscrew, a quartz clock, a calculator, and a torx screwdriver set.

(footnote: If I were to add a gizmo, the main thing I'd like from my photographic accessories is for all of them to be painted a nice, matching, neutral 18% gray)

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 16:49 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (162 comments in total)

Still looking for a roundup....

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 17:23 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Aroart: Sony, put a touch me screen and a bit of a grip and you would make alot more people happy.. oh and give it a $699 price tag... screw the view finder.. Oh wait, Panasonic just gave us that..

An LX100-sized version, with audio in and a flash hot shoe, would be ideal for me as well. Especially if they could squeeze just a smidgen more zoom in. 135mm is more than enough, but even if it just hit 85mm or 105mm....

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 10:08 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1395 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo_rb: How I wish when the 4/3 format was being developed, they would have made the sensor a teeny bit bigger...say APS-Cish.

photo_rb: That's called extrapolating, not interpolating, and extrapolations are often wrong. In this case, it is wrong.

You need about 12 bits dynamic range for most professional work. That's what you got out of a D300, D90, and similar, which were really the cameras that brought most high-end professional work to digital. More is nice, but not essential. Less, and unless you're doing studio work, you won't have enough headway for color correction, blown highlights, etc.

A 1" sensor, in 2016-era technology, will get you that. An RX100 is 12.4 bits. A 1/1.7" sensor will be a little short. A 1/2.5" sensor, as in a cell phone, will be quite far short.

There are similar requirements on optics, resolution, etc.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 16:06 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1395 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo_rb: How I wish when the 4/3 format was being developed, they would have made the sensor a teeny bit bigger...say APS-Cish.

interestingness: I agree. It's the magazines. They can't recognize my brilliance.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 15:41 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

coody: Panasonic is leading again. How amazing f1.4 is.

Now they just need the RX100V sensor. That thing is amazing. It's like shooting one of those old fixed-focus cameras, where you just don't think about it.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 17:43 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: So many variants but all with, essentially, little to no telephoto capability. Why the hell don't they just make a slightly larger version with a proper zoom range? Something in-between rx100 and the pointless 30x zoom of their small-sensor models? Also as mentioned by others, non-ridiculous design would be nice too.

@damian5000 I would say out of product choices. Sony has the RX100 series and the RX10 series. I'd like something in between. I'd accept a dimmer lens at telephoto, an LX100-grade increase in volume, or even a little bit more, an increase in price, but not significantly lower IQ.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 05:27 UTC
In reply to:

DaddyG: In these shootouts, Canon never feature in the recommended cameras.
So why are they always number one in sales, year after year?

No criticism, just genuinely interested.

A few issues:

1. Canon doesn't review well. Canon emphasizes image aesthetic over benchmark measurements, which makes for good cameras but poor reviews.
2. They have some pretty unique lenses. System is important.
3. They have a lot of marketshare. Someone with $10,000 of Canon gear won't switch to Nikon for some 25% difference on some random benchmark. And the systems go back-and-forth on who wins. 5dMKII era, Canon was the only choice on the market for video, for instance. I expect once they perfect dual pixel, they'll have a unique niche again.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 17:17 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: i think they are all flimsy junk with a very nice lenses and an awesome 1 inch sensor , and really nice iq

i wish fuji would make one with proper controls and the spectacular build and mechanical robust zoom lens .... i love my x 30 , but if fuji would give me a corner evf that didn't pop up like a chincy flash like the x30 has a one inch sensor ,,,, id drop a
8-900 bucks in a heartbeat for that the x30 was 600 usd so a litllle more for a bigger sensor ?

im really troubled by the build quality of the sonys , they feel rfeally cheap like an 80 dollar point ans shoot, and also i would never subject myself to sony controls and menus as intuitive as a sony betamax

sadly i think fuji has lost its way a little bit

Next line is important too: "The old Canon S100, IMO, was a prime example of this. It was very digital, kind of 'hard', built a bit flimsy and had horrible low light performance with awful grain at ISO 800 even. Oh how times have changed..you have no idea!"

In context, that's presented as a contrast to the well-built RX100 which delivers excellent build quality and excellent low-light. The S100 was used in that context since prior to the RX100 had been the best premium point-and-shoot series on the market. At the time, Canon was the market leader for point-and-shoots, and the S100 was their top-of-the-line pocketable camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 16:35 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: i think they are all flimsy junk with a very nice lenses and an awesome 1 inch sensor , and really nice iq

i wish fuji would make one with proper controls and the spectacular build and mechanical robust zoom lens .... i love my x 30 , but if fuji would give me a corner evf that didn't pop up like a chincy flash like the x30 has a one inch sensor ,,,, id drop a
8-900 bucks in a heartbeat for that the x30 was 600 usd so a litllle more for a bigger sensor ?

im really troubled by the build quality of the sonys , they feel rfeally cheap like an 80 dollar point ans shoot, and also i would never subject myself to sony controls and menus as intuitive as a sony betamax

sadly i think fuji has lost its way a little bit

@cosinaphile: Steve Huff doesn't share your opinion. Quite the opposite.

Steve Huff on the RX100: "It reeks of quality inside and out."

Source: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/07/26/the-sony-rx100-digital-camera-review/

RX100III: "It has class, style, grace and it performs without breaking a sweat. The build feels solid and nothing about it feels cheap or hollow. I like this."

Source: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/07/24/the-sony-rx100-iii-review-the-best-pocket-camera-ever/

Both Sony and Nikon make a fair bit of junk, and some very nice stuff. Sony's point-and-shoots are often worse quality than Chinese eBay off-brands. But that's not all Sony products. The RX100 series has a very nice, premium build (and consistent I-V). The Nikon entry-level cameras are a little better than the Sony, but still not great. But a pro-level Nikon is designed to stand up to a war zone or climbing Everest. There's a reason most pros use them. They beat Fuji for durability hands down.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 15:56 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: So many variants but all with, essentially, little to no telephoto capability. Why the hell don't they just make a slightly larger version with a proper zoom range? Something in-between rx100 and the pointless 30x zoom of their small-sensor models? Also as mentioned by others, non-ridiculous design would be nice too.

@noirdesir The ZS100 is a near-hit, but has several substantial issues. First, the lens isn't very sharp. It's sufficiently not sharp to bother me, and my standards aren't that high. Second, the lens is pretty slow.

I suspect those were compromises with going all the way to superzoom. I don't need true telephoto or sports. 250mm is overkill. I just want it to take decent portraits. That's the 85mm-135mm range.

(I'd also personally prefer LX100-sized, with hotshoe and microphone input, but others may have other preferences)

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 18:35 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: So many variants but all with, essentially, little to no telephoto capability. Why the hell don't they just make a slightly larger version with a proper zoom range? Something in-between rx100 and the pointless 30x zoom of their small-sensor models? Also as mentioned by others, non-ridiculous design would be nice too.

@noirdesir I had an original RX100. It was an almost perfect camera for the time. I have an LX100 right now. I think 135mm would be well into the "proper zoom range" Beckler mentions. Right now, this whole class of cameras is just a smidgen short from taking strong portraits. That makes them okay-but-not-great family cameras. But a few of the models are really quite close. Even going from 70mm to the original 100mm would be a pretty big leap forward.

Think of it this way: The 28-135mm f/3.6-5.6 is a standard general-purpose full frame lens which covers most shooting situations. In 1", that'd be f/1.3-f/2. If a 1" camera had 28-135mm equivalent f/1.8-2.8, it'd be a stop short of a very nice full frame setup. That's very good for something in your pocket.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 18:19 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: I think the super AF and burst rates are slightly wasted on a camera with very little tele reach. I have noted when I shoot wide to normal I rarely need super AF abilities or high burst rates. When I am shooting a long lens - I almost always need fast AF and high burst rates. But maybe I am weird.

I'll add dance and martial arts to the list. If you're shooting in a dojo, ballroom, or nicer outdoor setting with support from the participants (not photojournalism at a competition), the best shots for many such sports are in the middle of the action.

But honestly, for something like that, while this might work, I'd expect a photographer to use a $5000 Canikonypus (I think the new a99II and OMD might both work), likely with flash.

I really think this is a home/family camera. It's perfect for shots of the kids. I've recommended it to a number of parents, and they've been very happy with it.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 09:01 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: So many variants but all with, essentially, little to no telephoto capability. Why the hell don't they just make a slightly larger version with a proper zoom range? Something in-between rx100 and the pointless 30x zoom of their small-sensor models? Also as mentioned by others, non-ridiculous design would be nice too.

The RX10II is huge, though, and 200mm is outside the useful range. It'd be nice if the RX100VI could go as far as providing a decent portrait lens, even if it didn't hit telephoto/wildlife/sports.

135mm is more than enough for reach for good portraits. I'd even live with 120mm. Even 85mm would be a big boost over the newer RX100 models. 5x zoom is really kind of a sweet spot of covering all family shots.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 01:24 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)

My wish list for the VI is a hotshoe, a microphone input, and extending the reach to 135mm. I'd take it in an LX100-sized body too.

I actually prefer the LX100 and RX100 to the RX100V for size, shape, and weight. The RX100V felt a bit heavy and thick for the height and width. It was poorly balanced, somehow.

The autofocus system on the V is insane.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 01:20 UTC as 76th comment
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: i think they are all flimsy junk with a very nice lenses and an awesome 1 inch sensor , and really nice iq

i wish fuji would make one with proper controls and the spectacular build and mechanical robust zoom lens .... i love my x 30 , but if fuji would give me a corner evf that didn't pop up like a chincy flash like the x30 has a one inch sensor ,,,, id drop a
8-900 bucks in a heartbeat for that the x30 was 600 usd so a litllle more for a bigger sensor ?

im really troubled by the build quality of the sonys , they feel rfeally cheap like an 80 dollar point ans shoot, and also i would never subject myself to sony controls and menus as intuitive as a sony betamax

sadly i think fuji has lost its way a little bit

My RX100 (original) is still going. I bought it right as it came out. It's seen some pretty tough times. The Sony point-and-shoots are generally utter junk, but the 1" models and the dSLTs are very well built.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 01:17 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: I think the super AF and burst rates are slightly wasted on a camera with very little tele reach. I have noted when I shoot wide to normal I rarely need super AF abilities or high burst rates. When I am shooting a long lens - I almost always need fast AF and high burst rates. But maybe I am weird.

The AF and high burst makes the RX100V a perfect camera for preschoolers and similar shots.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 01:13 UTC

I like this type of video in general, but this one was made by idiots. If I were doing this, I'd know what a pentaprism is. It felt like they were trying to impress the audience when using simple words like "concave" and "convex."

If I were doing this, I'd use a video-capable camera, and leave it filming for as long as it would during the cut.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 17:56 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply
Total: 355, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »