JonathanFV

Joined on Aug 15, 2012

Comments

Total: 58, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article How do you know you need a new camera? (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: I have over 200 cameras, 80% film, and 90% previously owned. Over 50 Nikon SLRs. I would love to buy a used F6 if it ever got down to $500. I have a dozen Leicas, 4 Ms and 8 screwmounts. I could never afford a 35mm camera, until I was sent to Vietnam, over 50 years ago, and I am making up for lost time. I now love digital Sonys because with cheap but effective adapters, I can use nearly all of my old but great lenses. I also have a ton of photography books, emphasis on Leica. I hope to be buried with my Zeiss Contax IIa.

James, Sony cameras are really nice indeed, and are a pleasure to use with old manual lenses.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 09:23 UTC
On article How do you know you need a new camera? (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: I have over 200 cameras, 80% film, and 90% previously owned. Over 50 Nikon SLRs. I would love to buy a used F6 if it ever got down to $500. I have a dozen Leicas, 4 Ms and 8 screwmounts. I could never afford a 35mm camera, until I was sent to Vietnam, over 50 years ago, and I am making up for lost time. I now love digital Sonys because with cheap but effective adapters, I can use nearly all of my old but great lenses. I also have a ton of photography books, emphasis on Leica. I hope to be buried with my Zeiss Contax IIa.

Guys, why be so mean to the guy? He loves cameras, and collects them. Why would it not be fine? He has his own motivations.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 09:21 UTC

That first photo tho! Beautiful!

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 19:18 UTC as 5th comment
On article How do you know you need a new camera? (409 comments in total)

I started with a NEX 5N. When the A6000 came out, I bought it because the 5N had crappy menus and the A6000 offered a lot of software options that were never made available on the 5N, on top of a much better autofocus and slightly better low light performance. Being into night photography, I eventually bought a used A7R for the improved low light, and used both the A7R and A6000 side by side. The A7R's autofocus was slow and fairly unreliable, but it's low light performance and dynamic range were much better than the A6000's. So I sold a bunch of gear to get both cameras in one body with the A7R II, and I'm now a happy camper. The only reason for me to switch body would be for a better buffer write time (the main thing I find annoying on the A7R II) for when I use it on events.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 19:16 UTC as 17th comment
On article How do you know you need a new camera? (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Spectro: what a silly question, most people here are gearheads. they need some minuscule reason to buy a new toy to get them outside to take the same photos over and over, since their back hurt now. some pros need the small edge of maybe 5% or so advantage a new device can provide. as a nopro, and been buying lenses laterly, but cut down buying digital camera until it break or some 3d features come out.

the d750 as the main body as 24mp is good for workflow with a good indoor af. maybe the rumor d820 for a backup largr mp on group shots. d750is a very complete camera with good iq and balance features. wedding is indoors, so stay full frame. more noise in apsc and then you have to put noise reduction and thing looks like wax. more out of focus area and you dont have to stand 1.5x as far.

If I were to use Nikon, I've very likely buy a used D750. Great camera, and great value.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 19:10 UTC
On article Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G sample gallery (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

David610: I really like the size and weight of the 12-24mm. I would buy this lens and a Sony body to put it on as I have Nikon gear, however corner sharpness at 12mm even at f/8 is extremely worrying. You can ignore lack of corner sharpness in a portrait lens but not for landscape. Sony should update its MTF charts as 30 lines per mm is for film era of decades ago. I expect that using this lens an A7R II with 42 MP would show even greater softness in the corners.

Why not wait to see a comparison between the Sony and the Sigma 12-24? Or if money isn't an issue, maybe the Canon?

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 23:14 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Is this the holy grail of spray and pray photography for techies?
Thank you Sony; you have fulfilled the ultimate techie's dream — now no one has to know anything about photography, or cameras, but only keep the shutter release pressed down. Not even fingers are needed; stick it with a tape. Mystery and learning thrown out of the window. Basically, this is a thick, FF version of the iPhone concept.

This is a camera meant for sports photographers, professionals who don't want to miss important moments that cannot always be predicted. Refusing technological advantages to help them capture images they might otherwise miss would be absolute folly. Yes, stunning images were taken with all kinds of gear. But many possibly stunning images were also missed because of technological limitations.

And a person who doesn't have photography skills would obviously not get as good and consistent results as someone who has them, even with such an expensive professional camera.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 06:42 UTC
In reply to:

Franz Weber: Only Ethrnet port, and all the new MacBooks only sport USB Type C!
Sony does not like Apple very much

Apparently, they also have micro USB.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 06:31 UTC
In reply to:

lambert4: This is enticing to me. New Nikon owner building my lens assortment. Have 16-80 2.8-4, Tokina 50-135/2.8, AF-p 70-300 variable. 70-200 seems the sweetspot and this seems the best option when looking at cost to performance inbtjis focal range. I came from m4/3 and the third party offering was always a compromise, either AF, focal range, weight etc. i am watchingbthe experience and teviews on this lens since optically it appears to be stellar.

I have one and I use it on a Sony A7R II. I took it for a first big shoot today, and it performed great, and there was no lack of detail in the photos. I'm really happy about it. Autofocus was surprisingly good for an adapted lens. I heard AF is very good on NIkon bodies, so I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger if I were you. It's also a very nicely built lens.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 07:37 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

But it's not the same! No matter what size the wall is, the light from the window can't cover it all. Where the light coming from the lens is not all caught by the sensor. The illumination (brightness level) is the same. Just, the total light is different if you add up the light from the entire area that receives light. It's like rain. There's 2mm of precipitation. There's 2mm everywhere, but a larger area will still get more rain in total. So basically, when comparing cameras of different sensor sizes, you can compare two things. Illumination, which is the same. Total amount of photons caught, which is different. In the articles about noise on this same site, they talk about how photons are collected by photosites. The more photons are collected, the highest the signal to noise ratio, because the photons "weight" a lot relatively to the electronic noise.

Also, you can't compare depth of field using the same f-number for different sensor sizes without accounting for the crop factor.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 02:19 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

But Arastoo, the wall example doesn't really work because it doesn't matter what size the wall is, it gathers all the light anyway. If it wasn't in a room and the light coming out the window was very directional and projected a spotlight... If you had a piece of paper in the middle of the square of light that didn't cover the full area, the piece of paper would only gather the light that falls within its area, the light falling outside of it would be "wasted". But if you had a piece of paper big enough to cover everything, that piece of paper would gather all the light.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 22:30 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

I'm not overly worried about it. But can't we agree that at the same aperture, the illumination is the same? But that the area being illuminated is bigger on a bigger sensor? So in total, the bigger sensor does receive more photons (at the same concentration per area)?

If not, why not? If I'm wrong, I want to understand why. Cause even if I take two photos with the same camera, let's say, at ISO 12800. All the settings are the same. With one photo, I fill the frame well. With the other, I have to crop it. Then I resize the biggest photo to match the size of the crop. Which photo will look better?

Also, isn't there a difference of depth of field? Isn't it true that if you take a 25mm f/2 lens with a m43 sensor, the depth of field and framing will match a 50mm f/4 lens on a full-frame sensor?

Indicating that we have to either make the illumination equivalent, or the depth of field. But you can't have both be the same.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 17:47 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

ISO is calibrated to give the same exposure across different systems given the same aperture size. Have you noticed that it varies between manufacturers? If you shoot to get the exact same exposure on a Fuji (APS-C) vs a Sony... Let's say you use the same shutter speed and aperture, you have to set the Fuji's ISO slightly higher than the Sony's. ISO is the man-made convention. Aperture size, image circle size, sensor size, focal length... It can all be measured.

If you were to take two sensors from the same generation and technology but different sizes... Like, a m43 and a 35mm sensor. You shoot both with a 25mm equivalent lens (12.5mm and 25mm) at f/2, 1/10th shutter speed and ISO 3200. The 35mm sensor will yield a cleaner image at that ISO. The m43 will have a deeper depth of field. If you were to shoot for equivalent depth of field and shot the same image at f/1, you would be able to use ISO 800 instead of 3200. The image would probably be as clean on both sensors. Because the smaller sensor got as much light as the full frame did.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 00:35 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Here, it's a really good explanation. Read the part about ISO and the amount of light hitting a sensor.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

Arastoo, there is such a thing as equivalent aperture. If you were to compare a m43 camera with a 25mm f/2 lens and a 35mm camera with a 50mm f/4 lens, you should find that the framing, perspective and depth of field will be almost the same. I don't think there is such a thing as "equivalent ISO" or "equivalent shutter speed", but there is a case to be made for equivalent aperture. And it is true that if using the same lens, a m43 sensor would capture only a quarter of the light a full frame sensor would. That 25mm f/2 lens should capture the same amount of light as the 50mm f/4 on a full frame.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 00:02 UTC
In reply to:

Pan50: All well and good but you use a medium format camera for landscape shots and commercial work where Resolution is important and shallow DoF is not so relevant. If you're shooting at f5.6 and higher, then medium format captures more light than FF.
I wish Fuji had gone into the FF market but they do such a great job at APS-C that I can see why they skipped over it.

But if you shoot at f/5.6 with medium format, you could also shoot at f/4 with the full-frame. Most modern lenses perform really well at f/4. If DoF is irrelevant, I could shoot my 25mm Batis at f/2.8 and have uniform sharpness across the frame and less vignetting than at f/2.

But don't get me wrong, I like Fuji and hope they develop a nice and successful platform. I just agree that shelling out the extra cash might not be worth it - for me.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 10:22 UTC
On article Capturing the unseen: Sam Forencich's Invisible Oregon (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Very cool, but there's a little piece of this that's really unfortunate. But 99% of people (at least) would never notice.

Wow, as you said... I hadn't noticed. I don't even know what side turbines are supposed to turn on.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 19:22 UTC
On article Sony FE 85mm F1.8 sample gallery and first impressions (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

PAntunes: Too bad it isn't an option for an A7II and studio work.

Zeiss it is, I guess...

Nevermind, I read the full thing and I should've paid more attention. I hope the problem gets fixed in firmware update.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 07:41 UTC
On article Sony FE 85mm F1.8 sample gallery and first impressions (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

PAntunes: Too bad it isn't an option for an A7II and studio work.

Zeiss it is, I guess...

Why is not not an option for the A7 II?

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 06:36 UTC

I think those samples look good. Sharpness seems good, distortion minimal (seriously, it's really wide, there's some barrel distortion, but it seems very acceptable and easy to fix), CA isn't a big problem (I can see it zoomed in, but man, it looks like it's maybe 5px wide, and that's on a 50MP sensor)...

I don't think I can afford to buy it right now, and my Tamton 15-30 does an excellent job. But if I had the money, I'd get it. I'd just wait to see how stars look first.

But 14mm f/1.8 is an extreme design. It performs really really well.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 06:33 UTC as 20th comment
Total: 58, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »