Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 1481, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

I don't get it. I have two SX70s in my attic right now collecting dust.

These were great cameras 40 years ago when instant prints were a popular fad, but the image quality was never very good. It was a novelty format, so you could take photos at parties and pass them around. And everyone had one.

Today, we have digital cameras ten times better for half the price. And digital is "almost instant." Plus ten prints cost $2.50 and not $25.00.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 03:53 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

bluevellet: If Olympus had priced the EM1 mark II 2001$ instead of 1999$, it'd automatically would become a semi-pro camera.

I agree that the EM1 II certainly is a pro grade camera, but is simply isn't in the same league with cameras that have sensors four times larger. There are many advantages and benefits to having a system based on a much smaller sensor. But I can't kid myself and say "every well made camera that costs a lot are in the same league." They simply aren't. Sensor size actually does have some effect on image quality, DOF control, and shooting at high ISO. Size does matter.

Ask yourself... why aren't there any medium format cameras in this roundup? Every one of them is "$2,000+"

Ask yourself... why are Fuji X and M4/3 users in their respective forums starting threads about "when will Olympus/Fuji make a full frame system?'

For the record, I am pretty much an M4/3 fanboy, owning three M4/3 cameras and twelve M4/3 lenses.

But I am also a realist. I chose a smaller sensor for other reasons, and I am glad I did.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: If Olympus had priced the EM1 mark II 2001$ instead of 1999$, it'd automatically would become a semi-pro camera.

Lets not forget, every camera in this group has a full frame sensor.

If you were to put the EM1 Mk II into this group strictly based on price, then it sinks right to the bottom for image quality and low light performance.

It would probably do very well, but this is rarefied territory now. I know Dpr would be telling us "great camera, but doesn't rise to the competition in this group."

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 22:29 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dabbler: Why not review the RX10III? It has many improvements over the RX10II, unless you're trying to save money I would buy the better newer product.

You probably should realize my post was written six months ago.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 21:05 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (302 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: These small high end cameras are in a dangerous niche.

If IQ matters most, then there are much cheaper options with much better IQ. You can get a truly outstanding Pentax K70 or Fuji X70 for less, and Fuji X100T for around the same price as a Sony RX100 V.

If small size matters most, then those smartphones are getting pretty good. And those Panasonic GM cameras are simply amazing, and also very small.

So what market is left for them? "Someone who wants to pay a lot of money to get a more portible device that takes better photos than a smart phone can."

Fortunately for Sony, those people still exist. At least for the time being.

Which was precisely my point. This niche is for people who need shirt pocket cameras, and for whom smartphones simply aren't good enough, and don't require much better IQ than these cameras already provide.

I just wonder if that niche will grow or shrink as camera phones get better? After all, if convenience trumps everything else, then what could possibly be more convenient than a phone you are already carrying? That is, assuming camera phones improve enough.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 16:56 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (302 comments in total)

These small high end cameras are in a dangerous niche.

If IQ matters most, then there are much cheaper options with much better IQ. You can get a truly outstanding Pentax K70 or Fuji X70 for less, and Fuji X100T for around the same price as a Sony RX100 V.

If small size matters most, then those smartphones are getting pretty good. And those Panasonic GM cameras are simply amazing, and also very small.

So what market is left for them? "Someone who wants to pay a lot of money to get a more portible device that takes better photos than a smart phone can."

Fortunately for Sony, those people still exist. At least for the time being.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 15:27 UTC as 49th comment | 5 replies
On article Xiaomi Redmi Pro quick review: dual-cam on a budget (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Creating a better camera phone is pretty much a fool's errand.

We camera geeks think the world is demanding better camera phones. Ones with enhanced fake bokeh, and dual cameras for "real optical zoom" and all sorts of modular snap on gadgets for a more "camera like experience."

But the truth is.... camera phones were good enough for ordinary users two years ago. Good enough for snap shots. Good enough for facebook. Good enough for web sharing, and for selfies.

And making them even better won't sell very more of them. This is just a fantasy promoted by the camera geeks. The numbers tell the real story. The market for cheap P&S cameras has collapsed, but it is stable or growing for ILCs, superzoom cameras and rugged cameras. Beyond that point, market declines are due to the maturity of the technology and market saturation, and not because "enthusiasts want smart phones instead."

There is absolutely no doubt that camera phones can be improved. And there is also no doubt that someone will want a "better camera phone."

But I still refuse to believe that most camera phone users are unhappy with the image quality they get and would switch phones to get better image quality.

If it were true, then those "better camera phones" would be selling in the hundreds of millions rather than in the tens of thousands.

Those high end Lumina, Lenovo and Google phones barely have any noticeable market share.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 03:34 UTC
In reply to:

Leonp: Next will be the replace the model feature, the mow the grass feature, the autoremove bystanders feature and the renovate the old building feature, all in await for the render the whole picture feature. ;-)

Then comes the "make the girl prettier" feature... also know as ReplaceWife.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

eaa: What's with all these cheating options?
Where did the true merits and talent of the photographer go?
However convenient, this is by and large detrimental to photography, because it will be misused, and thus diminish the overall credibility of photography as such. Yes, I know, you can postprocess in sw already, but the easier cheating becomes, the worse it will get. I find this development somewhat saddening, to be honest. Sorry for raining on the parade... :/

Well yes... it is cheating if you are a purist.

But so are any other auto features like automatic white balance, automatic exposure, or automatic focus. The entire concept of photo editing could be considered cheating too.

This is just one more nifty tool that you can use or not use. Another reason to pay Adobe $10 a month for the rest of your life. Personally, I am still using CS5, and converting raw files to DNG if they come from a newer camera that isn't supported by CS5.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 17:53 UTC

This is really fascinating, and is probably the future for photography. Software solutions might replace needing better cameras, better lenses, or even better skills!

And a special note to Adobe....... the blonde girl who kept shouting "wooooo" and clapping was completely unecessary in this video.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 17:49 UTC as 76th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)

Canon missed a golden opportunity here.

Leica would have called it a "Titanium Grey Special Edition" and market it up an extra $4,000.

$50 more? Sheesh..... chicken feed!

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 18:56 UTC as 51st comment | 1 reply
On article The Leica TL is an upgraded Leica T mirrorless camera (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: 2 years later and the only thing they can do is come with a new titanium finish. Oh, the internal memory is ok, not that we don't have enough SD cards.

I guess that means that Leica has followed the same path as Sony with their E mount being usable on E or FE cameras. I wonder if there is any vignetting when you use a TL lens on an SL body?

The reverse is also interesting. You can buy a $6,000 SL lens because there is no equivalent $1,500 TL lens. But just like using an FX lens on a DX body, the lens will perform great. Because you are only using the center portion...

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 00:40 UTC
On article The Leica TL is an upgraded Leica T mirrorless camera (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: 2 years later and the only thing they can do is come with a new titanium finish. Oh, the internal memory is ok, not that we don't have enough SD cards.

Perhaps you could get SL full frame lenses to work with a TL body if you had the right adater, but the SL mount and the TL mount are two different lens mounts.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article The Leica TL is an upgraded Leica T mirrorless camera (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

albert2014: a Leica cheaper than an olympus?? i must be in some parallel bizarre universe

This Leica model compares closest to the Olympus EPL8, a camera you can buy for around one third the cost of the Leica.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 20:48 UTC
On article Xiaomi Redmi Pro quick review: dual-cam on a budget (41 comments in total)

Creating a better camera phone is pretty much a fool's errand.

We camera geeks think the world is demanding better camera phones. Ones with enhanced fake bokeh, and dual cameras for "real optical zoom" and all sorts of modular snap on gadgets for a more "camera like experience."

But the truth is.... camera phones were good enough for ordinary users two years ago. Good enough for snap shots. Good enough for facebook. Good enough for web sharing, and for selfies.

And making them even better won't sell very more of them. This is just a fantasy promoted by the camera geeks. The numbers tell the real story. The market for cheap P&S cameras has collapsed, but it is stable or growing for ILCs, superzoom cameras and rugged cameras. Beyond that point, market declines are due to the maturity of the technology and market saturation, and not because "enthusiasts want smart phones instead."

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 12:55 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies

The next generation Macbook will probably require their own proprietary Apple WIFI™.

And it will only cost $100 per month for a limited time. Many men with Victorian beards have left Starbucks, and are currently lining up at Apple Stores to sign up for this exciting new service!

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:52 UTC as 153rd comment
In reply to:

Stereodesign: Quite frankly these adapters should be included in the box.
they are still over priced.

Or even better... built right into their laptops. Just like they used to be.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:45 UTC

Yes... having all those dongles hanging off your laptop is part of the Apple mystique, and adds to their advanced style!

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:44 UTC as 155th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

grasscatcher: I am wondering when this great technology will start showing up on standalone cameras that have good lenses.

I suspect it will show up on m43 cameras first, because they have fierce competition and not afraid of tech. The mirrored camera stalwarts, Canon/Nixon, are conservatively slow to adopt the latest tech.

Next, I would suspect the tech would show up on Super zoom compact cameras (I wonder how many people will mention that super zooms are not compact?). What better place to utilize tiny sensor tech and long lenses? Competition is stiff in that field, also.

I suspect you are right, and simply because smaller sensors benefit MOST from software technology that overcomes the inherent disadvantage of a small sensor. So M4/3 and bridge cameras are likely targets.

You probably could apply a lot of this mobile camera tech to larger sensor cameras, but the results might not be as dramatic an improvement.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2016 at 12:57 UTC

Is it really "digital zooming" when you have two different lenses, with two different focal lengths?

I had always thought that "digital zooming" referred to in camera cropping.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2016 at 12:54 UTC as 28th comment
Total: 1481, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »