kaiser soze

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 1, 2008

Comments

Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Hands on: Sony FE 50mm F1.8 and 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 (137 comments in total)

The new 70-300 G looks like it will be a fantastic lens, and not priced outrageously for the quality it looks like it will offer, especially in terms of sharpness and contrast. It gets very long in use, but as for compactness in the camera bag, it is shorter by more than an inch compared to the present 70-200 G F4. For me, the thing that concerns me is the lack of a tripod mount ring. And there does not appear to be any room along the barrel for one to be fit, even if someone else decided to make one as an accessory. To my way of thinking this is a serious drawback to this lens. Were I to mount it on my NEX-7 and then mount the camera on a tripod, there would be strong potential for damage to the camera body. For this reason I think it is probably best that this lens be used only with FF cameras.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 14:45 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (306 comments in total)

Dpreview: You're really getting on my nerves. What is the point of mentioning the "equivalent" f-number (f11). Have you all lost your senses? All this is going to do is cause confusion. All this is, in total, is a way of saying that the total amount of light captured is the same as it would be with a 35mm camera and a lens at f11. Why do you think that it is meaningful to point this out? I think it is bizarre.It has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that matters. Nothing at all. The camera exposure value is the same as it would be 35mm camera and a lens at f4, correct? So it has no relevance to exposure settings, and the angle of view, expressed comparatively, is determined by the relative difference in sensor size, i.e., the "crop factor". So what is the point? I find it downright BIZARRE. You have simply come up with something that you think makes you look smart. It doesn't make me think you are smart. It makes me think you are a bunch of WEIRDOS.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 02:19 UTC as 17th comment | 14 replies
On article Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses (289 comments in total)
In reply to:

GCHYBA: If it isn't pocketable, wouldn't an SLR make more sense?

It amazes me that there are still people who think that compactness is the principle or even only advantage of mirrorless cameras. Or who think that all cameras that won't fit in a shirt pocket are essentially the same size and weight. The more difficult thing to justify, by far, is when you turn it around, and take mirrorless for granted and question the reason for the mirror.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 18:02 UTC
In reply to:

kaiser soze: Even though FE lenses are compatible with the APS-C cameras in a nominal since, you do not get the same resolution, that you get with the FF sensor. This is evident if you study DXO's tests of lenses tested on both classes of camera. For people with APS-C cameras, these lenses will not likely offer any advantage nearly strong enough to justify even half the price. Since Sony switched over to E-mount for FF cameras, they have barely even given lip service to the early adopters of E-mount. We have several prime lens options that are very good, but no really good zooms other than the big one. Still no "standard" zoom that comes anywhere close to doing justice to the high resolution 20 or 24 Mpixel sensor. I want a really good standard zoom, for APS-C, and affordable. It's a no-brainer. Been waiting now for too many years. I suppose it's time to give up and move on to a different camera, and probably a different brand.

I wanted to add this: You almost certainly will get a sharper, higher resolution image wih these new lenses even when using them on an APS-C camera, compared to the other lenses presently available. Even compared to the 70200G at its best aperture setting. But, that combination of lens and camera will not give a good cost-benefit solution. Yes, cost is subjective, as is benefit, but cost/benefit ratio can be assessed and a number assigned to it, and comparisons of different cost/benefit ratios are objective. By the time you have two of these very costly lenses, you could replace your APS-C camera with one of the newer FF cameras and buy a couple of the existing FE lenses, and you'll end up with sharper images compared to your APS-C camera with one of these newer, costlier lenses. This is almost certainly true, and before factoring in the additional cost saving by selling your present stuff.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

kaiser soze: Even though FE lenses are compatible with the APS-C cameras in a nominal since, you do not get the same resolution, that you get with the FF sensor. This is evident if you study DXO's tests of lenses tested on both classes of camera. For people with APS-C cameras, these lenses will not likely offer any advantage nearly strong enough to justify even half the price. Since Sony switched over to E-mount for FF cameras, they have barely even given lip service to the early adopters of E-mount. We have several prime lens options that are very good, but no really good zooms other than the big one. Still no "standard" zoom that comes anywhere close to doing justice to the high resolution 20 or 24 Mpixel sensor. I want a really good standard zoom, for APS-C, and affordable. It's a no-brainer. Been waiting now for too many years. I suppose it's time to give up and move on to a different camera, and probably a different brand.

Please clarify. Do you mean FF on APS-C work better than lenses designed specifically for the smaller sensor? If this what you mean, I have to ask why you think this. From a couple of standpoints perhaps: light falloff and geometric distortion. But certainly not from standpoint of overall sharpness. Tamron, for example, recommends specifically against using FF lens on APS-C cameras, and like I already said, if you study tests of lens sharpness on DXO Mark, it is obvious that any E-mount FF lens will produce a less sharp image on an APS-C camera compared to a FF camera, for same or similar sensor resolution. In fact, it is likely true that the 70200G is the only FE lens that offers any significant advantage over the typical APS-C lens, on an APS-C camera. Some of the other FE lenses are excellent on FF bodies, but that better performance vanishes when used on APS-C bodies. Study their tests. It's obvious.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 17:46 UTC

Even though FE lenses are compatible with the APS-C cameras in a nominal since, you do not get the same resolution, that you get with the FF sensor. This is evident if you study DXO's tests of lenses tested on both classes of camera. For people with APS-C cameras, these lenses will not likely offer any advantage nearly strong enough to justify even half the price. Since Sony switched over to E-mount for FF cameras, they have barely even given lip service to the early adopters of E-mount. We have several prime lens options that are very good, but no really good zooms other than the big one. Still no "standard" zoom that comes anywhere close to doing justice to the high resolution 20 or 24 Mpixel sensor. I want a really good standard zoom, for APS-C, and affordable. It's a no-brainer. Been waiting now for too many years. I suppose it's time to give up and move on to a different camera, and probably a different brand.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 13:00 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
On article Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study (358 comments in total)

"...a camera with a very low noise floor (high dynamic range) minimizes the need to amplify the sensor's signal in order to keep it above that noise floor (which is what ISO amplification conventionally does)"

This is as wrong as it could possibly be. Amplifying the signal does not have the effect of elevating the signal above the noise floor. The signal is amplified to bring it into the range that the A/D convertor expects. If the signal is too weak, too much of the signal will be below the threshold at which a non-zero quantization value will be recorded. A low noise level simply means that at whatever amount of signal gain is applied, the S/N will be better. That's all. Your entire approach to the subject is based on an understanding that is patently incorrect. Your article is just plain bizarre.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 04:36 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (233 comments in total)

I don't like the fact that he has effectively stolen the acronym HDR, using it as a label for his creations that have little if anything to do with HDR per se. People who don't like this criticism prove the point, because as a rule, they don't know what HDR means. It means taking multiple exposures and combining them into a single image FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF OVERCOMING THE SENSOR's DYNAMIC RANGE LIMITS. That's what HDR means, no more and no less. Only when truth is stretched to the breaking point does Ratcliff's work have anything to do with HDR in the true sense. But he insists on calling it HDR, and the only reason he does is that HDR was getting a lot of attention and this provided a way for him to get a lot of attention, by associating his work with HDR. This is the plain truth of the matter, and to my way of thinking it is a very strange thing for anyone to do. He needs to stop calling it HDR, and find some other label. His work is NOT HDR photography.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2015 at 03:25 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony Alpha a7 II Review (861 comments in total)

Bad review. Concerning IS, the ability to use slower shutter translates to either lower ISO or better DOF. These are real advantages, and not just when wanting to hand-hold. Put a long lens on a camera on a tripod, and you have shake. You end up either using higher ISO than is desirable, or larger aperture. IS helps greatly. Also, in situations where IS will help with picture quality, it also helps with autofocus. With the a7II, if you find a lens you like but it doesn't have IS, no worries.

My mind is blown by the fact that they gave the a7II demerits for bigness! The rationale: It is a tad bigger than the smaller mirrorless cameras that people who do street photography prefer. What did John McEnroe say? The only thing that truly makes sense is to asses its size in comparison with other cameras with similar capability, i.e., other FF cameras. What they did here is patently absurd, and it reveals the strong prejudice in their mindset. What a horrible, sophomoric review.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 21:56 UTC as 49th comment

Many of the criticisms seem to be doing a dubious comparison, comparing this setup, complete with lens and smart phone, vs. carrying only an alternative camera. For the comparison to be valid, the alternative is to carry an equivalent camera and additionally a smart phone. Unless of course you do not ordinarily carry a phone. But if you do, and you want to regularly carry a camera that is a good deal better than the one in your phone, then this setup seems clearly advantageous, as compared to always carrying around both smartphone and a camera. Certainly it is a niche, but I like the idea, and also like the fact that you can use it with the camera and smart phone physically detached.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 18:15 UTC as 64th comment
On article Battle of the titans: Top ball heads tested (315 comments in total)

I glanced at a few of the reviews just to confirm my suspicion that the group test were rather expensive. I think that the readership would be far better served by a similar review of ball heads that can be bought for under $100. The cost of these ball heads is more than what the typical camera owner spent on their camera, and the reality is that only a very small percentage of camera owners would even consider buying a tripod head in this price range. There are a good many ball heads that sell for less than $100 and that easily meet the needs of the vast majority of enthusiast photographers.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2014 at 15:32 UTC as 49th comment | 4 replies
On article Battle of the Wi-Fi Cards: Eye-Fi vs. Transcend (184 comments in total)

This article is so badly written that I could not stand reading it. Mike Perlman really, really needs to take a good writing class or two. Here is what I mean: Under the "Key Features" bullet list, he wrote for the Transcend, "Wirelessly transfer photos and video to a smartphone, tablet, or computer". There is no corresponding statement for the Eye-Fi. Very poor. Just a little further below, he wrote, "while both cards possess the ability to ... upload to iOS and Android devices, the Eye-Fi can do the same on a Wi-Fi enabled laptop or desktop computer. The Transcend card does not have this capability, and can only connect to a laptop or computer through a clunky and time-consuming Internet browser." Huh? The Transcend can connect using a browser, but does not have the ability to connect? Does the phrase "only connect" mean connect vs. something else, or does it mean "connect only to", and if the latter, is there a missing, very important comma before the word "through"?

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2013 at 15:38 UTC as 52nd comment | 3 replies
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (626 comments in total)

There are two ways to look at it. It is a cheap camera that seems intended to offer showroom appeal to people who aren't very sophisticated in their knowledge of cameras. But it also is a camera thay will produce outstanding image quality, even without consideration of the very low price. Unquestionably, it is a great value for the people to whom it is intended to appeal. It is difficult to guess whether a camera of this sort will sell, but given that it is a great value notwithstanding the many corners that were cut, it deserves to be a very popular model. If it does prove to be a popular camera, it will increase the owner base for E-mount lenses, which will be a very positive thing for all owners of E-mount cameras. This is a very, very smart move by Sony. Compare it to what Canon and especially Nikon have done in mirrorless, and you can't help but sense that Sony has the brightest future in camera manufacturing.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 14:37 UTC as 158th comment | 1 reply

Garmin? Seriously? I've owned three of their GPS, starting with the GPS V, then one of their most expensive automotive models in 2007, then one of the most expensive Nuvi models in 2009. They were all RIDDLED with software bugs. All marginally junk, as far as I am concerned. They integrate software from multiple sources, and do a horrifically bad job of it. Driving on a road not in their map was guaranteed to cause a crash, and this was not even fixed until just a couple of years ago. For more than a decade, this bug was in their software base, and it took them more than ten years to get around to fixing it. And many, many bugs remain, with new ones introduced with each new release. With respect to software enfineering, they have no discipline at all. And they are slow as thick mud with updating their maps. A new, major freeway near me under construction for many years finally opened about a year ago, and still is not in their map. I DESPISE Garmin.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 16:46 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

If you go back fifteen years, this probably seemed like a good way to take advantage of a high-quality SLR camera. I think it is difficult today judge the sensibility of this approach fifteen or so years ago. But I think that by 2003, ten years ago, it should have been apparent that it just wasn't that good of an idea. Presently, something superficially similar but different probably does make sense. The lens cameras or whatever they are called, that Sony is coming out with and that we've seen the pictures over the past week or so, is interesting, and useful. The natural evolution of this approach is to separate the lens from the sensor and shutter. In fact, this approach that Sony is taking won't come into its own until this is done. But what if there is a module with a sensor, shutter and lens mount to accept your existing lens collection, that mates with a range of smart phones? To me, this makes very good sense.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 18:19 UTC as 63rd comment

When I first read about the Nikon 1 cameras, my assumption was that they would be priced far lower than other mirrorless cameras with much larger sensors. Then at some point I was aware that the pricing was not much lower, if any lower at all. I scratched my head, because it obviously did not make sense. And it is obvious that lots of other people had the same reaction, asking how that could possibly make any sense. Why did something that did not make any sense to lots of people nevertheless seem to make sense to the executives at Nikon? It reminds me of how time and again it is easy to observe that the top level executives of many large corporations are screw-ups. In the U.S. auto industry this is more the norm than the exception. But they get paid tens of millions of dollars per year, for being major screw-ups. If Nikon knew that they could not make the camera more affordable, they should not have bothered to make it. Dumb.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 03:50 UTC as 158th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ScottRH: DSLR or a phone. That's it. Nikon should go full force with DSLR.

That's a troll comment, dude. Can't believe that three other trolls "liked" your stupid comment. DSLRs are big and clumsy, and unless the sensor is FF and the focusing screen is therefore of similar size, you get a small image to focus your eye on, which means a conflict between brightness and size. And no menus in the viewfinder, and you do not get all the same information in the viewfinder, that you get on the LCD panel. Ever taken a picture outdoors in the full sun and had no choice but to guess what settings applied? Nikon's mistake was NOT in attempting to make a mirrorless camera. Their mistake, and it was a really, really dumb mistake, was in doing it with a sensor that was far smaller than what was easily possible with the size of camera body, and trying to get people to pay as much for it as they would for mirrorless cameras with much larger sensors. Of course I am not saying anything that you do not already know, but you seem to be in some sort of denial. Your comment is dumb

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 03:44 UTC
In reply to:

retro76: It's a shame. I feel like crappy cell phone pictures and videographers are ruining what once was a great market. I actually think the Nikon 1 system is brilliant, as a previous owner of many mirror less systems such as the OMD and Sony NEX, I really feel like the Nikon 1 is the most satisfying product striking a good balance between design, performance, and image quality. I think for Nikon to win the formula is very simple, lower your prices. The V2 isn't worth more than $500. Look at Canon, they lowered the price on the EOS-M and people bought like crazy and now there is am established market (even though I figure the M is over)

By my count, you posted this comment seven times. And I couldn't disagree with your comment more. And just about everyone else here does not agree with your comment. The Nikon 1 system did not strike a balance between anything at all. You are right about the need to lower the prices, but ultimately it is always about price. Any camera will make sense if priced appropriately. The Nikon 1 cameras were priced similar to other mirrorless cameras using either APS-C or micro-four-thirds, but were inherently inferior owing to the dramatically smaller sensor. If they had been priced to give a substantial cost savings compared to the others, they would then have made sense. Evidently Nikon can't manufacture them cheaply enough to be competitive, or else just made a really stupid mistake in thinking that consumers would pay as much as they would for the others.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 03:34 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Hands-on Preview (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

kaiser soze: With this camera and the other larger MFT cameras that Panasonic makes, it is obvious that the body is large in relation to the lens. It is further obvious that the reason is that for these cameras, the body needs to be larger in order to allow a useful quantity of physical controls. This is all very obvious. There can be no argument on these points. There can be no question that this camera could just as easily take advantage of an APS-C sensor, and not even the lens would be larger, because similar lenses that Sony makes for NEX are not any larger. None of this is in any way deniable. Furthermore, when the various size differences are all considered, it seems apparent that if Sony were to make a mirrorless camera with FF sensor, it would be about the size of this camera, albeit with a somewhat larger lens. (The lens would not be nearly as large as a lens for FF with mirror.)

Arrgh. DaveMarx, as to your other point - You say that you don't get why Sony could do that "no other maker does", and talk about "physics is physics", etc. Well, comments of that sort are silly. OBVIOUSLY, the reason would only have to do with the manufacturer's demonstrated capability. You apparently have not bothered to compare the size of Sony's NEX lenses to the MFT lenses. One of the invalid assumptions that some people are evidently making is that a mirrorless FF camera would use the same size lenses as existing FF cameras with mirrors. This is wrong. When the lens moves closer to the sensor, it also gets smaller in diameter. Take the NEX-7, scale the lens diameter up by a factor less than 50%, and ditto for camera height. Why is it so difficult to visualize this being done, and how is it not obvious that the resulting camera body would be no larger than this? The lens itself would be larger in diameter than this lens, but by less than 50%. Not all of the diameter is optics.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2013 at 16:39 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Hands-on Preview (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

kaiser soze: With this camera and the other larger MFT cameras that Panasonic makes, it is obvious that the body is large in relation to the lens. It is further obvious that the reason is that for these cameras, the body needs to be larger in order to allow a useful quantity of physical controls. This is all very obvious. There can be no argument on these points. There can be no question that this camera could just as easily take advantage of an APS-C sensor, and not even the lens would be larger, because similar lenses that Sony makes for NEX are not any larger. None of this is in any way deniable. Furthermore, when the various size differences are all considered, it seems apparent that if Sony were to make a mirrorless camera with FF sensor, it would be about the size of this camera, albeit with a somewhat larger lens. (The lens would not be nearly as large as a lens for FF with mirror.)

The point is self-evident. A camera this size and with this size lens will be a better camera if it uses a larger sensor. The point is not for Panasonic to abandon MFT. The point is that for this size camera, the MFT sensor is smaller than is ideal. I am only really pointing what is obvious, but it has to be pointed out, because few people are saying it, and some people are trying to argue that it is not true. It obviously is true. For smaller, genuinely compact cameras, the MFT sensor makes perfect sense. But with every camera, the size of the sensor needs to be a good match to the size of the camera. You alternate hypothesis is moot, i.e., if the camera body is larger for reason A rather than reason B (and reason A and reason B being so closely coupled as to be nearly indistinct), the pertinent fact is still that the camera body is large relative to the sensor.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2013 at 16:28 UTC
Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »