rrccad

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Jul 5, 2012

Comments

Total: 1976, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (265 comments in total)
In reply to:

King of Song: There is no doubt that the Sony A99 II is the absolute best camera body in the world as of January 2017. I hope it gets the all-time highest DPR rating, because it deserves it.

But, there are 2 things I don't like....

1. The lens lineup is not good enough. The old Minolta lenses are too old. The Zeiss line up is also not the latest Batis, or Otus, both unavailable for the best camera in the world. Sigma Art also unavailable for the best camera in the world. And Sony's own top of the line G Master, also unavailable..... For me totally stupid and unacceptable.

2. I know it has an important function, but I'm not crazy about the translucent mirror. Another piece of glass in front of the sensor. But, of course the auto focus pays huge dividends. Again the latest Batis lenses with faster motors would even make the focusing faster yet.

Bottom line.... Zeiss, Sigma, and Sony itself need to build their best lenses in A mount, for God sakes !!!!

the CZ 24-70 2.8 has seen it's best before date.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 15:11 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (265 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marco Cinnirella: the 42MP a7RII sensor as used in the a99ii does produce a bit of shadow noise even at mid ISO levels but it is easily dealt with, with a touch of luminance NR and dialling back the raw sharpening a bit. Noise is pretty much a non-issue with properly developed raws or JPEGs and the IQ is good enough for almost any pro use. BTW how many of you pros provide raws to your clients?! Once you have a raw workflow nailed, you will be happy with the output - having to dial in a bit of luma NR or tweaking the raw sharpening is needed with 42MP images and current sensor tech. It's not a big issue.

"touch of luminance NR and dialling back the raw sharpening a bit"

you could say that about most cameras these days.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 15:08 UTC
On article CES 2017: hands-on with the Canon PowerShot G9 X II (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

NYCman530: Sounds like decent upgrades but you'd think they would have added a viewfinder. For me, that's a deal breaker. I'll stick with my G5X, very good for low light in pubs, restaurants, and concerts.

@mcshan.. to repeat .. you didn't just compare a GM5 with a lousy 16:9 LCD screen and no lens, against a compact camera with a 3:2 screen, AND including it's lens .. and think it's comparable?

here you go .. now do you think it's comparable?

http://camerasize.com/compact/#697,570.397,ha,t

that lcd screen?

http://camerasize.com/compact/#697,570.397,ha,b

that's the reason you can fit an EVF in there. I'm glad Canon didn't gimp the LCD as much as this one is. you have a 2.5" or less LCD view of the image after the aspect ratio is taken into account.

Also the GM5 doesn't have a flash something casual users find far more handy than an EVF when most of them never used one before, but they have used built in flashes.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:38 UTC
In reply to:

Josh Leavitt: I thought it was an overall weak showing with regards to photography. I was expecting an announcement for the Nikon D620, more info on the Fuji GFX 50S, Sony hinting at an upcoming a7R III and such.

CES is never a big camera show.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:33 UTC
In reply to:

AngularJS: The Sony support #17 is the most impressive! The future is definitely now.
Hope he won't loose many screws and will be able to put that damn thing together.

Probably the only sony staff member that can take it apart and put it back together.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:33 UTC

so when are the dpreview action figures going on sale?

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:31 UTC as 8th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

plantdoc: Can not comment on the optical quality. However, $500 does seem a bit steep for a slow lens and the plastic mount is disappointing. I know plastics can be amazing, but when the 18-135 stm versions have metal mounts and a bit more speed for the same price. Even the under $150 stm primes have metal mounts. Still I prefer metal over plastic unless the price put the lens in a throw away category if something goes wrong. $500 isn't throw away for me. I will just continue to use my 18-135mm stm with adapter. With box versions can be had for about $300 as well.

Shoot alot .. but those becrying the difference between 5.6 and 6.3 are a little out there.

Especially considering one thing you do get .. a very small and compact lens. especially when you have to tack on adapter cost.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:25 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: I just so like Canon Color ... the red pops ... so does yellows
Sony Color is cooler ... which i do not fancy ...
Nikon Color? Well, if they have the time in darkroom to tweak it to look like Canon Color this is good for them.

it would be a hot red .. that plant in direct sunlight?
however ACR blew out the entire channel.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:58 UTC
In reply to:

DongaMogudu: Canon suppose to be discounting 18-55mm and use 18-150mm as a kit lens. We can see significant drop in price over the time if it happens. Used 18-135mm EFS version is available for around $200 price.

I think the default kit lens will be the 15-45. this will be an alternative kit lens. very similar to the aps-c EF-S crop camera kits.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: I just so like Canon Color ... the red pops ... so does yellows
Sony Color is cooler ... which i do not fancy ...
Nikon Color? Well, if they have the time in darkroom to tweak it to look like Canon Color this is good for them.

here's how different it is: https://gyazo.com/9ac51b57dd4d9a64d775a868c1cb71ea

DPP is on the left.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

CreeDo: Can someone clear something up for me?

• The images you see in the web browser are jpegs, and these jpegs are created by loading the raws into ACR, doing whatever corrections, then saving a jpeg, right?

• Are the jpegs you can download, just full-size versions of the ACR-converted jpegs? To my eyes they appear to be. They appear in-browser to be identical, no different than what you see when clicking the "100% details" button.

•If so, that means they're different from whatever jpegs you get from the camera, right? Because the camera chooses how to interpolate and post-process those. So the in-camera jpegs might have totally different colors, contrast, etc.

• So doesn't that mean all of these comments about the colors are off-base, because none of these colors were created by canon's software, either in camera or on the computer? These are 100% adobe's colors.

• If DPreview's jpegs are saved from ACR, shouldn't they be offering the camera's jpegs for download instead?

if you click on the image in the gallery it will show you the information. where dpreview clearly states: "Camera Standard profile used in ACR. Exposure adjusted to taste."

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: I just so like Canon Color ... the red pops ... so does yellows
Sony Color is cooler ... which i do not fancy ...
Nikon Color? Well, if they have the time in darkroom to tweak it to look like Canon Color this is good for them.

it's ACR blowing the reds. loading the same image in DPP gives an entirely different look, and far better details in the red channel.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

Chippy99: Strange (and a bit disappointing) to see CA like that from in-camera jpegs. Very noticeable in the first image, for example.

because the comments on each image say so.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

Jaythomasni: If you use any L lens the sky will be naturally bluer whites will be pure white. leaves will be natural green without red cast. those red flowers will look natural real red not like plastic flowers..
whether its the lens coating or processing L rendering is the only faithful from Canon.
except for some other EF lenses most show outstanding red hues ...which spoils the color purity and quality and natural look..

it's ACR default processing. hard to blame the lens here.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: These look pretty good to me, but until the M5 comes down in price, it will attract people who are fussy and want lots of expensive lenses. I know this isn't Seattle and the sun is out, but the shadows seem really dark as in low dynamic range. Camera & lens for around $900-1000 seems about right.

shadows dark = contrast.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

plantdoc: Can not comment on the optical quality. However, $500 does seem a bit steep for a slow lens and the plastic mount is disappointing. I know plastics can be amazing, but when the 18-135 stm versions have metal mounts and a bit more speed for the same price. Even the under $150 stm primes have metal mounts. Still I prefer metal over plastic unless the price put the lens in a throw away category if something goes wrong. $500 isn't throw away for me. I will just continue to use my 18-135mm stm with adapter. With box versions can be had for about $300 as well.

1/3 of an EV is rarely invaluable in this day and age. you can boost 1/3 EV without even batting an eye in post.

every canon lens that is in a kit ends up being white boxed over time, so it's a false comparison to take a LIST price and compare it to a white boxed price of another lens.

and are we actually comparing this:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,684.25.2,ha,t

sorry to save a few bucks .. why bother go mirrorless then? this would make much more sense on an 80D than on an M5.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:26 UTC
In reply to:

bdbender4: I bought this lens with the M5, and have been fooling with it for the past two weeks. Nothing formal, and I am not much of a pixel peeper. I use the DLO corrections in-camera and shoot JPEGS (I spent 20 years sitting at a computer for work, that was enough).

I use the "fine detail" color pre-set, and when I fiddle with it I like the results less than the default. This is an improvement on my other Canons. I use Av set at f/5.6, which of course bumps to 6.3 as you zoom. I did some comparisons with f/8, and it is just a bit sharper at mid-zoom, but generally not worth fussing about. Grain at 100% is good up through 1600, OK at 3200, not OK at 6400. I have been using auto ISO set at 3200 - it only lets you set the maximum - but so far it has been making good choices.

This is a great casual photo setup. (For fancy, I grab my D6 with 24-70 f/2.8 ii.) I hope they come out with the rumored ef-m 15-85 f/3.5-5.6, I would like more at the wide end.

how quick is the camera with DLO turned on?

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

mmcfine: The RAW images are locked and cannot be edited/ evaluated in DPP (v4).

download the latest DPP from canon.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

Chippy99: Strange (and a bit disappointing) to see CA like that from in-camera jpegs. Very noticeable in the first image, for example.

maybe because they weren't in camera JPEG's? they were ACR converted with CA turned OFF.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

Jaythomasni: If you use any L lens the sky will be naturally bluer whites will be pure white. leaves will be natural green without red cast. those red flowers will look natural real red not like plastic flowers..
whether its the lens coating or processing L rendering is the only faithful from Canon.
except for some other EF lenses most show outstanding red hues ...which spoils the color purity and quality and natural look..

poor IQ cam? *eyeroll*

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:20 UTC
Total: 1976, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »