Babka08

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Oct 17, 2006

Comments

Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

We all, slaves to Adobe. They own their category. I just wish they didn't have the WORST (x1,000) customer service on the planet. Cough up a little profit for some knowledgeable staff, there, Adobe. You're at the bottom of the trash bin in this regard.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 03:40 UTC as 68th comment | 4 replies
On article Canon EOS Rebel SL2 / EOS 200D Review (524 comments in total)

This is a stills SLR primarily, in a small size. Pentax owns this category, and they have the equally tiny lenses to go with. And here's the #1 issue under consideration that the reviewers gloss over: the viewfinder. Pentax committed to pentaprism finders a while back, and it makes all the difference on every shot. For those of us who have tried (good) EVF's and just can't stand them compared to a good optical finder, the little viewfinder in the SL models totally misses the mark. I'll just use my teeny tiny Olympus OMD10ii with its teeny tiny lenses and it's biggy wiggy EVF. Conversely if you're using an LCD, or you like EVF's (did I mention I don't?) why wouldn't you go mirrorless if you want a small camera? Not sure at all what is the why of the SL2. I like the idea...until I look through the tunnel to try and compose a photo.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 03:36 UTC as 36th comment | 7 replies

It's success will be all about the lenses, how quickly they come out with a wide selection, and then whether they get into adapters like Sony. They can't overlook the success Sony have had with adapters. APSC doesn't make sense for Nikon because of the 1 Series. They'd kill that dead if they went APSC mirrorless.

But it's the approach to lenses that'll make it or break it. Too bad though, EVF's either way. Yuck. Don't like em.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 04:18 UTC as 106th comment

My first DSLR and it catapulted me back into photography. Found a bag full of top-shelf Minolta lenses on Craigslist right after, including the amazing 200mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2.8 macro. Still some of my best shots.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 02:20 UTC as 10th comment
On article Hands-on with the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III (209 comments in total)

Looks like this should have been named Mark 2.1...
I guess 4K video if that's important to you, and I guess to keep up with Panasonic.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 05:29 UTC as 32nd comment
In reply to:

M Chambers: So how is this better than just connecting the camera and phone via wifi?

If your camera doesn't have wifi. And I'm guessing this will be an instantaneous and non-finicky connection (which is what so many wifi connections are not).

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: I realize it's the end of summer but really, this is just filler. Both cameras have been tested and anyone considering spending $2000 on a 6D2 already knows the pros and cons of full frame. If you didn't know this, why would you even consider a 6D2?

Tons! The #1 consideration for me is the viewfinder. It frames and influences/determines every single shot. I've used apsc, full-frame, 4/3rds and now I'm back to full-frame mainly for this reason. And while I've tried, I just can't like an EVF; for me an OVF is it, and full-frame gives you the best view. #2 is the depth of focus control. I like to be able to throw things creatively out of focus. #3 is image quality, especially when printing large. I can't begin to compare a 4/3rds image to what I get from Canon or Nikon full-frame. Apsc is less of a difference but still lower quality. And the basic fast/prime lenses for DSLR are way better value than the high priced primes from Sony and Fuji. I bought my latest D600 used for under $1000 with a 50/1.8G attached. Got an 85/1.8 and a 24/2.8. Couldn't be happier for well under $2000. Full-frame is a lot more satisfying and worthwhile experience for my stills photography. My first paid outdoor portraiture shoot proved this again.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 21:19 UTC

The new range of Sigma lenses are so much nicer designed than previous and also than Tamron. Somebody high up in Sigma has really revolutionized that part of their business.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 04:35 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies

iPhone 7?
(honestly, it's hard to bring along my Oly OMD 10ii + Pan 20/1.7ii when the phone is always in my pocket)

For a while I had a Canon 6D with 40/2.8 and Voigtlander 20/3.5 pancakes. Not your classic rangefinder, but pretty compact full-framer.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 23:58 UTC as 20th comment

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? (306 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 13th 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 6th comment
On article Fast Five: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V Review (427 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 84th 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 (2165 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
Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »