Babka08

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Oct 17, 2006

Comments

Total: 110, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I've had apsc, then full-frame, then apsc, then full-frame, and now I have Olympus 4/3rds. I bought it for lenses like the Olympus 9-18 ultra-wide angle, which is the size of three Oreo cookies, and the Panasonic 35-100 telephoto, which is the size of three peanut butter flavoured Oreo cookies. The whole kit weighs less than a single full-frame zoom. And, the price of the body and the lenses is one third to one quarter that of a full-frame setup. Shopped for Sony lenses lately? What's not to like if you want a small kit for travel, hiking and taking lots of great pictures, and you understand the pros and cons of the sensor size? Lot's of reasons for 4/3rds. (Olympus, just fix your botched firmware and stop offending your valued customers with sugar coating.)

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2016 at 03:28 UTC as 6th comment
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (302 comments in total)
In reply to:

bzanchet: I still have the original RX100. I bought all the next generations up to the IV and returned them all. The original still has the best JPEG for low ISO, best DR, best colors (at Landscape mode) and the best skintone (portrait mode).

Good that you think the quality is so high. I have the original and have only thought of upgrading.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 04:30 UTC

This reminds me of the proprietary video cables they used to use before going VGA like the rest of the universe. I've been using Macs since 1990. This is the first time I've thought about switching.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 05:37 UTC as 12th comment

If you combine this camera with this article: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/10/31/how-to-hack-a-drone-researcher-develops-method-to-take-control-of-consumer ... you're in trouble.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 16:00 UTC as 5th comment
On article Fast Five: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V Review (416 comments in total)

It's a point and shoot. I still have the original RX100. As noted in this review, the interface of these cameras funnel them into the camp of point-and-shoot. And despite the great photo quality, technology and lenses Sony uses, it's frankly a boring camera for a photographer to get engaged in. I enjoy my iPhone 6+ experience with the 5.5" screen and always there pocketability. And then I jump to my interchangeable lens camera and skip the RX100.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 15:51 UTC as 73rd comment

I'd have preferred if they had simply added a DC motor to the existing 55-300. It's a much faster lens and has good optics.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 23:11 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2157 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobfonte: I agree: Great Review!
It's not hate. But unrequited love. I'm rooting soon Sony has a range of good quality and affordable lenses. Then I'll be in the front row defending it and hoping for success.

Like what, say, Canon and Nikon offer. Or Olympus. Or Panasonic. As opposed to luxuriously priced Sony and Ziess lenses? Maybe? Perhaps? But it's a nice body to go with whatever lenses you want to spend heaps of money on.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: That 18-50 compact sounds intriguing. I would like the mechanical shutter to be faster, but I understand this is a common limitation with those cameras.

I agree. Unique. The 18-50mm is an extremely interesting camera. Nice thinking, Nikon. Sounds like the perfect hiking and travel camera for those who like wide angle. Or a slick little star gazing camera. I'm still glad I got a 4/3rds with 18-36mm equiv lens, because then I can switch to a telephoto or bright prime. But the Nikon is compelling.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 21:14 UTC
On article Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses (289 comments in total)
In reply to:

Babka08: Nice sounding camera. However. This is the incongruity of the Sony system. Lenses........ The lenses are either limited in availability (55-210 forever remains the only e-mount tele lens). Or they are ridiculously expensive (you get way more value out of Canon lenses for example). Or you are mounting some full-frame behemoth on to it with the additional size and weight of an adapter. People call them 'bulky' dslrs. When you add an adapter to a mirrorless they aren't bulky as well? It's the lens thing that doesn't add up here.

Sony is absolutely the most flexible with all of their adapters. In terms of their own lenses, less so, and expensive, and not small. Sony have had several years to offer another apsc e-mount tele. That's a long time, like, forever. They've obviously chosen not to. I think that's an oversight. I'm mainly pushing back against all of the fuss about Sony mirrorless being a "smaller" system and these dslr's so "bulky". It just isn't so when you piece it all together. All of this said, while I still have a Canon 6D and 20mm and 40mm pancakes, I've gotten into 4/3rds with an Olympus EM10-II and four teeny tiny lenses that were very good value for high quality. Each lenses is between 1-3 oreo cookies in size and a small measure heavier if the cookies are submerged in milk. Now that's a "smaller" mirrorless system by a long shot.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 23:19 UTC
On article Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses (289 comments in total)

Nice sounding camera. However. This is the incongruity of the Sony system. Lenses........ The lenses are either limited in availability (55-210 forever remains the only e-mount tele lens). Or they are ridiculously expensive (you get way more value out of Canon lenses for example). Or you are mounting some full-frame behemoth on to it with the additional size and weight of an adapter. People call them 'bulky' dslrs. When you add an adapter to a mirrorless they aren't bulky as well? It's the lens thing that doesn't add up here.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 18:29 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

agaoo: Any video features?

Don't count Pentax on being much for video.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2015 at 19:31 UTC

Canon releases the M10 (four years late), and Sony is evolving its Leica killer already. Canon owns the lens market for sure, but Sony is the innovator in cameras.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 17:32 UTC as 164th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Dheorl: I sure hope that viewfinder is considerably better than the one in the RX100.

The mark IV evf is quite nice already.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: Would love to see this baby scaled down for 1" sensor.

Isn't the RX100IV already an f2 at 35mm? And isn't there a market of like three people for what you're suggesting? I think the Fuji apsc and Panasonic 4/3 has answered that question for everyone. And on the lower, ubiquitous end, Apple and Samsung phones.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

Mathias Japri: why would sony design a "wart" viewfinder like that... is it just me? :(

Yes, you. The viewfinder on the RX100IV is very effective.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 17:23 UTC
In reply to:

Anastigmat: Many Pentax users have moved on, tired of waiting for a Pentax FF. Not sure if they will return. It is one of the biggest blunders in Pentax history to have refused to release a FF until the DSLR market took a downturn.

Agreed. Hoya was a blunder. Ricoh has really been pushing things forward.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2015 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

DukeCC: If this lens played better with Canikon they would sell a bunch of them--assuming the price comes down to a reasonable point.
When you pay a lot for a lens you want to be able to say, 'Look at this great picture!' That will never happen with a superzoom.
Nobody buys a DSLR to compromise it with a $650 mediocre-image-quality lens.

You can take amazing shots with this lens. You can take amazing shots with your iPhone. Or not. Up to you.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 18:50 UTC
In reply to:

Bram de Mooij: Out of curiosity and as a reaction to some reviews I bought this lens, but I returned it the same week I bought it. Some talk here about elitism, but in my opinion you are better off with some of the compact cameras that cost us much as this lens. For instance the Stylus 1. Sharpness was not there and the purple fringing was the worst I have ever seen. Maybe I had a bad copy, but this was really the last APS-C or FF superzoom lens that I tried.

I immediately wondered if a Sony RX10 or Panasonic FZ1000 wouldn't be a much better idea in this category. You almost get the same depth of focus as well with f/2.8 or 4.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 18:47 UTC
On article Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anastigmat: That is long overdue. Manufacturers have been profiteering from artificially high prices on FF DSLR cameras, refusing to lower the prices even though the sensors do not cost all that much to make. The old excuse made about 10-12 years ago was the FF sensors were prohibitively expensive. Sony has in fact successfully made even larger medium format CMOS sensors so economically that most manufacturers have switched to them. It takes a slump in the DSLR camera business for manufacturers to finally reduce prices on FF models, but only at the low end, and we are given plastic bodied low end FF models as punishment for not spending more money on more expensive FF models. FF cameras need to come way down in price, and APS-C cameras should be phased out completely. There is no reason for APS-C models since most DSLR cameras are large enough to accommodate FF sensors.

I actually think the proliferation of apsc in the digital age is great. The lenses and bodies are in fact smaller. Take the brilliant Canon SL1 and their very light but high quality 10-18mm STM. That whole combo is lighter than either the camera or the lens in equivalent full-frame (including Sony mirrorless!). The viewfinder is a big difference when compared, but depending on the photographer, the apsc is more than sufficient in quality and image dynamics.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 18:11 UTC
On article Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike FL: If SONY can start all over again, there will be NO "Translucent Mirror Digital SLR".

They were an interim step that they had to take. It's actually quite amazing that they have kept making them this long. I think they still see the huge market share of the DSLR and aren't willing to give that up. They would also disenfranchise a huge part of their customer base who might go to Canon Nikon. At the end of the day, the Canon Nikon lens selection is so vastly diverse and superior, and everyone forgets that lenses drive the detached lens camera market. Just look at lens value after 18 months vs the disposable computer technology of camera bodies. The death of the DSLR is a LONG way off. An a7 with a lens adapter basically mitigates any size disadvantage of a mirror box. The a7 weighs almost as much as a Canon 6D, and then the Sony lenses are all $1000-2000 and still quite large. I'll take the Canon 24-70 or 70-200 f4 is any day over the Sony.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
Total: 110, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »