SDF

Lives in Switzerland Switzerland
Joined on Apr 21, 2008

Comments

Total: 79, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

James First 007: Not a great lens. The DxoMark review got it right…
When compare to the 55mm, it is very disappointing…

In fact, the reason why I am staying away from the A7R is because there is no 35mm capable of performing well on this 36 mg camera !

However, the 55MM is an outstanding lens…worthy of its price tag !

James wrote: "Not a great lens". Did you even read the review?

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2014 at 03:44 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Nothing to write home about for that price. They took the "Sigma" path, making the lens sharp in the centre but not so much the edges. Also, why does the body have to be as large as it is when the elements are so small (35mm f/2.8 only needs elements about 15mm across)?

Just curious, the Sigma 35mm F1.4 same size as Zeiss 35mm F2.8?

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2014 at 03:42 UTC

I agree with the review. Like everything about the lens except the price. I will pick one up when it drops to $600 used.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2014 at 14:57 UTC as 62nd comment
On article Sony Alpha 7R Review (812 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rawmeister: Lets see a serious review on the Sony FE 70-200 f4 OS.
It costs 1500 smackers. More than the legendary Canon IS version.

One would suppose it's an even better lens.
Pffftttt.

I'm not holding my breath over this vapourware that should define the usefulness of the system. All the other Zeiss for Sony products have been only so-so. Why should things change now, er I mean in the future?

Well, lets see some serious comments first.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2014 at 05:07 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R Review (812 comments in total)
In reply to:

McJ: If this was a dslr, it would have been panned as the worst performing camera of the last 10 years. But since it's mirrorless, it magically gets "gold".

I will probably buy this camera myself as a slow digital back for my 30+ year old primes, but I feel sorry for those that buy this as a general purpose camera because it got "gold" in this test.

@McJ, Do you even read the review? or you just skim straight to the award logo?

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 20:55 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R Review (812 comments in total)
In reply to:

Noham: Anyone got a good review on the F4 24 -70 - only one i saw was mixed bags... before moving at a7 /a7r or om1 - getting the lense right is crucial (or can wait for nikon and canon to launch their own full frame mirroless.

http://phillipreeve.net/blog/rolling-review-carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-424-70-za/

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 17:08 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7 Review (1599 comments in total)

Are we still going to get an A7R review or this is it?

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2014 at 01:25 UTC as 101st comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

yabokkie: Sony is more rubbish than rubbish for using a rubbish brand Zeiss.

I love rubbish. Give me more rubbish Zeiss please.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 00:53 UTC
In reply to:

Erick L: Instead of the QX100, why not make an RX100 with a phone in it?

There is one called Samsung Galaxy NX.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

RedFox88: 'Every six months I want to do something new'

That's the exact reason why I avoid sony products like the plague. They don't concentrate on their products long enough for them to be trusted by buyers. I want to know I'll be able to use my lenses on new cameras while sony clearly now wants to make new things, who cares about the old, right? Geez.

Really? Because I'm still using the original Minolta 50mm f1.7 lens bought since 2005 on the new alpha camera. Geez.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 00:48 UTC
On article The Sony QX10 in action, cyborg style (18 comments in total)

Is that your next cybershot camera or you're happy to see me? lol

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 17:43 UTC as 14th comment

I cannot wait to slap this baby on my Ipad. My cats are going to hate this little lens lol

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 16:59 UTC as 76th comment
In reply to:

whtchocla7e: This is what the Galaxy NX should have been.
Man, if only these Sonys were leaked earlier, Samsung would've copied the correct design. Darn it.

According to SAR, Samsung clone of QX100 is coming out later this year.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

garyknrd: Really a non starter for me. No RAW, some one spiked the cool aid in the R&D dept.

Do you think smartphone users care about RAW file? It will eat up their data usage.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

ezradja: too expensive imo

Definitely cheaper than Samsung NX camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 16:14 UTC

I would buy if it comes with lifetime unlimited data plan.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2013 at 19:29 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (622 comments in total)

Hey guess what, for those looking for a higher resolution lcd and touch screen can check out the new Samsung NX camera. $1599 body only and 1699 with lens bundled.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2013 at 14:00 UTC as 55th comment
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

mad marty: "Wolf in sheep's clothing?"
It's clearly the oposite : A sheep in wolf's clothing"
It only makes sense for somebody who wants to look like a pro with a dslr and would need a point and shoot actually.

We will find out soon from DXOMark on how well the new 20MP sensor perform on test.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:37 UTC
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: Who does yabokkie work for?

Give him a break. He's mad because he just spent $750 on a DSLR 2 weeks ago while he can buy this for $399 :)

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 19:02 UTC
Total: 79, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »