JonathanFV

Joined on Aug 15, 2012

Comments

Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

photog4u: Is the A7R III the perfect camera? Well, for me, yes possibly...that is, if the new features are as good in real use, as they are on paper - to within a few degrees of course - allowing for marketing hype ;) Here's why; each of the past Alpha 7 cameras has been missing important feature(s) which we often got in the next version. I've spent a fortune upgrading: A7>A7R(resolution)>A7S(low light)> A7II(IBIS & new body)>A7RII(resolution again)>A9(speed, EVF and Haptics). The A7R III appears to have finally ticked all of my boxes. I'm even wondering if and hoping it is going to make my A9 redundant? If I sell my A9 and A7RII, I may actually come out ahead on this upgrade ;) Unheard of with Sony FF FE gear since 2012...

photog4u You bought all of these bodies? Holy cr*p, that's so many! :O I started with a 5N. I later for an A6000. Then I got a used A7R, and then I sold both the A6000 and A7R to afford my A7R II. It seems like you've upgraded every year at least, if not more than once a year! :O

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 06:36 UTC
In reply to:

Hellstrom: Storage?

On the inside the HTC U11+ has a Snapdragon 835 chip, with either 4GB of RAM and 64GB of storage or 6/128GB, depending on region. In all cases you get a microSD card slot too.

GSM Arena.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

armandino: DPR:
"The camera features essentially the same body as the a7R II, but Sony has found room for a focus point selection joystick, AF-On button, twin SD card slots, flash sync socket and, most importantly, the higher-capacity battery of the a9. "
you should really change that, it is misleading, it should be more:
"The camera features essentially the same body as the A9, without the left control dials."

According to hands on videos, the A7R III has the A7R II body. Pretty much the same size, so no bigger grip like on the A9, sadly.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

endofoto: The sensor is great. However main problem with speedy small bodies is overheating. This is a very fast computer and even in laptops heating is the major problem due to small size, shrinking pro cameras to tiny sizes will lead to overheating. And there is not enough space for stronger batteries.

endophoto - But Sony just managed to put a bigger battery in the A7R III, without the body being bigger than the A7R II. According to their respective specs, the III is only about 20g heavier than the II. Sure, the battery isn't as big as a Nikon battery, but honestly, a battery with twice the previous capacity is a serious improvement, and is very likely enough for most people. And if you need more, then you just get the battery grip, or use a USB powerbank if you're doing long timelapses.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 08:18 UTC
In reply to:

Charrick1: Sony...this camera is pretty cool. But don't throw your less wealthy potential customers under the bus. The a7ii came out months before the a7rii, yet the a7riii has come out before the a7iii. I am waiting for the a7iii, and I HOPE that it will still come out, as there needs to be some good competition at the lower end of the full-frame scale. A sub-$2,000 a7iii needs to be made...but now I'm worried. Well, if it does come out, hopefully we will get something for our waiting, namely a camera that, while having 24 megapixels (my current sweet spot), will also have many features of this camera (especially the improved focusing), just as this camera has some features from the more expensive a9, which came out earlier.

The good thing about it for A7 II owners, I think, is that the A7 III might come with extra features that didn't come out in time to be in the A7R III. So that's nice. The A7R III didn't see a price increase, and maybe the A7 III won't either. Not bad. That's the optimistic point of view. :)

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 08:14 UTC
In reply to:

Zoom Zoom Zoom: :
I find it impossibly hard taking this camera seriously even just as an "upgrade". But labeling it a "new" camera?.. that's pure non-sense. I could start a long list if items to justify my thought but just the fact AT THIS PRICE POINT AND TIME IN THE INDUSTRY that it excludes 10bit and/or 4K60p, is a total and complete absurdity. I hope this is no more than a forgettable misstep from Sony and NOT the beginning of an innovation decline, aka, Apple, GoPro, Canon, Nikon, etc. etc. etc.

So, staying optimist, let me cheerfully anticipate this product as being kind of a quick extra cashing-in move from Sony, to later see the release of some sort of an a9Rxx that will be what this camera should have been now already and WITHOUT costing another grand or two ON TOP of this one or the a9.

4k/60fps is only one feature. As a hybrid photo/video camera, it's still doing really well. If the feature you're waiting for the most is higher framerates in 4k, you'll be better off waiting for a more video oriented camera. The A7R series isn't bad at video, but it's not its main focus.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 08:11 UTC
In reply to:

Wild Light: 42MP is a great disappointment after the long rumoured 70-80MP. I won't be buying.

Dude, it's an improved A7R II. It doesn't need more megapixels. I was hoping they'd keep the same sensor, but just improve what's around it.

One thing I would have liked for Sony to add would have been smaller RAW file sizes downsampled from full size.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 08:08 UTC
In reply to:

armandino: I think this upgrade polished up the A7Rii nicely. I also think that a new sensor will go in the A9R

A9R makes sense if it offers a bigger body with features only possible through the use of a bigger body. For example, processing bigger images. Maybe Sony will come up with a 60-80 MP BSI sensor with insane electronics to avoid adding extra noise to the image. Imagine if they could come up with a sports camera with a sensor/electronics performing so well it can compete with lower pixel count sensors at a pixel level (not just overall). I can see it being useful for cropping, it would make following fast moving subjects with long lenses easier because you could just zoom out a little bit. Or you could use, let's say, a 400mm lens instead of a 600mm one, and still get super detailed, high quality shots.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 08:03 UTC
In reply to:

huremics: Really hoping that Eye-AF is dramatically improved. I find that feature on the A7rii to be quite limited in its ability to track the eye.

Depends on the lighting. Eye AF sucks with a backlit subject. I wanted to use it on a backlit subject (half body shot, so the face wasn't too big in the frame either) with strobes placed in front of her, and it wouldn't work well enough, I had to use a regular AF point.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 07:54 UTC
In reply to:

Sc1920: So I'm a little confused here about the shutter. If you shoot with the mechanical shutter, you get 10fps but with a longer blackout than if you shoot with the electronic shutter at 8fps? It seems a bit opposite to my other experiences. Usually, the mechanical shutter gives a slower frame rate than the electronic?

Of course there will be more blackout with the mechanical shutter! The shutter blocks the view of the sensor! When using the silent shutter, there is nothing physically blocking the sensor, so the light still makes it.

One of the reasons why the frame rate would be faster with the mechanical shutter compared to the electronic shutter could be because the electronic shutter requires extra processing to compensate for a non-instantaneous readout of the sensor. It would make sense, as the A7R III is a pretty small camera compared to the A9, which with its bigger size could afford more intensive processing. Also, the A7R III's processor has to pump out a lot more data.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 07:52 UTC

This is just a test from the North Shore of Vancouver, Canada. Not too bad for being in the city:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7JbGWD3Fp4

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 10:40 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

JonathanFV: Hmm, this seems to be a pretty contentious issue, but here, I'm going to write my opinion trying not to seem backward. Yes, the media most likely has an influence on people. But at the same time, I cannot help it but find people that are easily influenced stupid. Yes, stupid. If you look at social expectations and you're willing to mess with your health to comply, you're making a stupid decision.

Why don't we talk about something similar? Suicide. There are known factors to influence the suicide rate, like seasonal depression, winter holidays or celebrities committing suicide. Should we enact laws to prevent publicising suicides? I am aware that some news stations will avoid the topic out of ethical concerns that they will make the suicide rate spike, and I command them for that. But should it be law?

Is it really okay to make laws to prevent people from having stupid ideas? What do we have to lose in the process, and isn't going a bit too far?

By going too far, I mean... By those rules, if I was to take a photo of someone and they asked me to make them just a little bit thinner, it wouldn't be allowed. When asked to take someone's photo, I only remove temporary blemishes, not permanent ones, but I often have people asking me if I would fix a few things for them, like making their waist look a little bit smaller (which I am always careful not to overdo, as I want it to look natural) or removing skin folds due to positioning.

So, why is the law simply not to make girls look anorexic, or not to glorify anorexia? Offer some standards and guidance, and then let judges evaluate it, maybe? Why would there be a problem with small, reasonable enhancements?

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 21:03 UTC

Hmm, this seems to be a pretty contentious issue, but here, I'm going to write my opinion trying not to seem backward. Yes, the media most likely has an influence on people. But at the same time, I cannot help it but find people that are easily influenced stupid. Yes, stupid. If you look at social expectations and you're willing to mess with your health to comply, you're making a stupid decision.

Why don't we talk about something similar? Suicide. There are known factors to influence the suicide rate, like seasonal depression, winter holidays or celebrities committing suicide. Should we enact laws to prevent publicising suicides? I am aware that some news stations will avoid the topic out of ethical concerns that they will make the suicide rate spike, and I command them for that. But should it be law?

Is it really okay to make laws to prevent people from having stupid ideas? What do we have to lose in the process, and isn't going a bit too far?

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 20:51 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

That's crazy! Some video editors and animators will be really happy.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 06:28 UTC as 1st comment
On article iPhone X vs. Samsung Note 8 (380 comments in total)
In reply to:

ArchiDeos: None of the above.. IMHO, Sony Xperia XZ Premium is my bet. A little bit of small in screen size, but I can live with that. More features and less $ to spent.

Wow, I hadn't seen the Xperia XZ Premium! What a feature packed phone! If I had to buy a new phone, I would definitely choose this one. All its features are great, and it can even take two (!) microSD cards. Awesome.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 07:23 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: Chinese (Shenzhen based) company Laowa now making absolutely amazing lenses in very good prices. Technology of make that lenses was implemented to that company from German and its work!

Right, they do make excellent lenses. I have their 12mm f/2.8, and really like it. I'm tempted by that 15mm too, but I don't have money to buy it at the moment.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 07:29 UTC

I always wanted to have a drone, but I feel like I could get in trouble too easily by using one. Some of the photos I've always wanted to take include using a drone on fairly narrow streets between tall buildings. Also, according to the rules set by Transport Canada, you're not supposed to fly drones in most of Vancouver, including on Granville Island:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/flying-drone-safely-legally.html

As sad as it is, I shouldn't get a drone because almost all the ways in which I'd be interested in using it are prohibited. I could probably get away with it, but not forever, and it would be pretty irresponsible (and that's coming from someone who will climb buildings to explore and come back at times to take photos).

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 23:24 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: I can tell you the results are not going to be great. This adapter uses a lens or lenses to enlarge, rather than concentrate as done by Speed Booster, the image circle to provide a bigger image necessary to allow shifting. That means loss of quality and resolution. A very high quality lens will be necessary to minimise such loss.

The example, 12mm to 17mm, shows a 1.42 enlargement, which seems quite significant. There will be further image degradation, the amount depending on quality of the optics in the adapter. No magic here. I think there will be a corresponding decrease in light, ie possible a loss of a stop, which can further degrade the image.

It will be interesting to see how much you can gain from using this, instead of just taking the shot with that same 12mm lens and cropping.

🤔

Other lenses not designed to be shifted may have curvature of field, uneven resolution across the frame, CA and vignetting causing further magnified issues in quality.

Of course it'll work with other fully manual lenses (or lenses with aperture rings) from Canon or Nikon, but its intent is still to be used with the Laowa 12mm. Laowa might have tested it with other lenses out of curiosity (I know I would've), but the results might be a bit funky with other lenses. I personally wouldn't buy it for lenses other than the Laowa 12mm (which I have).

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 06:01 UTC
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: I can tell you the results are not going to be great. This adapter uses a lens or lenses to enlarge, rather than concentrate as done by Speed Booster, the image circle to provide a bigger image necessary to allow shifting. That means loss of quality and resolution. A very high quality lens will be necessary to minimise such loss.

The example, 12mm to 17mm, shows a 1.42 enlargement, which seems quite significant. There will be further image degradation, the amount depending on quality of the optics in the adapter. No magic here. I think there will be a corresponding decrease in light, ie possible a loss of a stop, which can further degrade the image.

It will be interesting to see how much you can gain from using this, instead of just taking the shot with that same 12mm lens and cropping.

🤔

Other lenses not designed to be shifted may have curvature of field, uneven resolution across the frame, CA and vignetting causing further magnified issues in quality.

The adapter is meant to be used with Laowa's 12mm f/2.8 lens, not with any other lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 08:37 UTC
In reply to:

Lutz - Luigi Gallerani: Interesting opition but I agree it's optical acrobatics.
You add Tilt a shift but you loose wide angle area with 1.5x multiplication,
So suppose you start from a superwide 14mm Nikkor ... you get a 20mm shift, and both canon and nikon have TS lens ... that also TILT not only shift.

After years of 28mm PC Lens and lot of Large Format camera, I am convinced that if you do not need a tilt, cropping a 18mm is much better and faster.

This adapter is only meant to be used with Laowa's 12mm f/2.8 lens, and has a teleconversion factor of 1.4, not 1.5. So the intended combination gives a 17mm f/4 shift lens.

I used to use a Tamron 15-30 with a Kipon Tilt-Shift adapter on a Sony A6000, but once I switched to full-frame, it wasn't worth it anymore. Decent solution if using an APS-C sensor, thought.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 08:33 UTC
Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »