thx1138

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Senior Researcher - Canon Australia
Joined on Jul 17, 2004
About me:

Canon 1D X, 5D III, 17-40 f/4L, 45 f/2.8 TS-E, Sigma 50 f/1.4 Sigma 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2L, Canon 100 f/2.8L IS macro, 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II, 300 f/2.8L IS, 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS, 500 f/4L IS mk II, 1.4x TC III, 2x TC III, 600 EX, Sigma 24 f/1.8 EX, Canon 24-7 f/2.8 mk II, Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro EX HSM DG

Comments

Total: 1082, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2197 comments in total)
In reply to:

thx1138: So comparing the RAW output to say the a6300, similar sensor or even the D500 the Fuji is not producing as much detail, and looks a little soft even smeared. Is this more the fault of the RAW converter or the X-Trans filter array?

Interestingly the D500 4K also looks crisper but the a6300 is noticeably better than both, too bad about rolling shutter.

Thanks, I suspected it was LR that was mostly at fault. Any idea if say C1 Pro 9 or DxO 11 can do a better job?

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 08:58 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2197 comments in total)

So comparing the RAW output to say the a6300, similar sensor or even the D500 the Fuji is not producing as much detail, and looks a little soft even smeared. Is this more the fault of the RAW converter or the X-Trans filter array?

Interestingly the D500 4K also looks crisper but the a6300 is noticeably better than both, too bad about rolling shutter.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 01:31 UTC as 113th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Martinka: Even more expensive than Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS. Uff

Tell me how much those NIkon superteles have dropped in price especially the ludicrous 800 f/5.6. In Nikon land time doesn't mean a thing when it comes to prices. What's even more obscen is true price of the 19 PC-E, at $3400, the CAnon 17 f/4 TS-E was around $2400 at launch. Nikon has always been legendary for it's higher lens prices.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

RayVagh: Fluorite and an electronic diaphragm...Nikonian used to bash those things in Canon Lenses.

And let's not mention the FF sensor denial before the D700.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

Martinka: Even more expensive than Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS. Uff

Both look pathetically overpriced compared to Canon's offering which is often found under $2K

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 09:26 UTC
In reply to:

Yxa: 33% increase in price, that was about what I expected

Yes, when your sales are tanking badly, it's always a smart move to raise prices drastically. Serious these guys are smoking crack and part of me wishes they would go bust.

Also yet again we see Nikon producing only high end uber expensive lenses for FX and letting DX rot on the vine, hoping the third parties pick up the slack.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 09:25 UTC
In reply to:

Timur Born: Minimum focus distance of only 1.10m, which is always welcome. Albeit I wonder at what end this is measured? My understanding is that usually this comes at the price of focus breathing, so I'm curious how they solved this in practice.

Maximum magnification suggests that it could magnify the same as the Canon on the long end, but do we know at what end the Nikon achieves its maximum magnification? The shorter minimum focus distance might also suggest that you have to step forward to achieve that magnification compared to the Canon.

It's a dramatic improvement for Nikon, the current lens has appalling focus breathing at mfd and has a FL closer to around 110mm.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 09:23 UTC
In reply to:

bleeboo: The optical stabilization in 4K is a showstopper, along with the 5 minute limit, along with overheating, like on the mark IV.

Looks like I'll have to wait for the "mark VI", hopefully with the heat issue and time limit rectified, and 5 axis IBIS in 4K.

I can dream, can't I?

a6500 might be my first Sony despite price.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: @Thematic What setting is 8k? How big is the file size? Does the camera overheat during the few seconds it can record in 8k mode?

How is a 20MP still equal to 8K video. 8K video requires a minimum of 32MP. At best you can do 6K with 20MP, but due to the different aspect ratio of the sensor you need a lot more pixels than the minimum.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 23:19 UTC
On article Modest Updates: Nikon D3400 Review (378 comments in total)

Nikon and Canon only make an effort at the top of the food chain and the effects diminish twards the bottom with the end result the D3400/1300D cameras are essentially left so feature crippled it's farcical. Yet this is the market segment they would make the most money. This top down crippling has to end.

The D3400 is up there with the lamest updates in DSLR history and frankly even a Fuji fw update offers a lot more than this.

Ignore the entry level at your own peril. Oh and another reason they will both continue to struggle is the totally pathetic DX and EF-S lens line-up. They seem happy to let the thrid parties do their work for them

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 23:13 UTC as 72nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bleeboo: The optical stabilization in 4K is a showstopper, along with the 5 minute limit, along with overheating, like on the mark IV.

Looks like I'll have to wait for the "mark VI", hopefully with the heat issue and time limit rectified, and 5 axis IBIS in 4K.

I can dream, can't I?

Surely the a6500 would be a better tool if 4K is that important to you?

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 01:34 UTC
In reply to:

Beckler8: I'm not sure what's going on here. Even viewing on an HD (1920x1200) display, the amount of extra detail in the 4K shot is unbelievable. It's not just youtube - I downloaded the clip and it's the same thing. So the player is downscaling the video but I wouldn't have expected that much difference. To those saying you don't need 4K - well you're wrong (and even if you couldn't see any difference, you'd still want it; to suggest otherwise is to be shortsighted).

Canon does the same, the 1080p on the 1DX II is basically not worth using, well it's rubbish truth be told; you have to resample 4K down to 1080p for good quality. It's the same on the 5D4 too.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 01:32 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: Those images all look very, very soft? There's nothing sharp about any of those sample images? Worse than a lot of legacy lenses. Is the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS really this awful? With mirrorless cameras, there can't be any front or back focus issues? Did Sony just make the worst recent 70-200mm F/2.8 or is this just an awful copy? Test charts?

@photomedium

Sounds like you own one and are in denial to justify the price.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2016 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: Those images all look very, very soft? There's nothing sharp about any of those sample images? Worse than a lot of legacy lenses. Is the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS really this awful? With mirrorless cameras, there can't be any front or back focus issues? Did Sony just make the worst recent 70-200mm F/2.8 or is this just an awful copy? Test charts?

Nothing special at all about this lens based on the low ISO samples, they aren't bad but given the sensor I'd expect better, much better. Then again the jpg engine maybe crap, although I thought the Sony wasn't too bad in that area.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 09:18 UTC
In reply to:

msstudio: So sad, but turning amusing, how Sony promised this lens for March 2016 and here we are, mid October with no solid delivery date (and i just saw a Sony Rep at my dealer without any answer). Not quite the pro league they want to play at. Happy the lens works and seems to be doing well. Now, if we all could have one and actually use it on shoots that would be something...

A little earthquake you may have heard about has delayed a lot of things from Sony and Nikon.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 09:06 UTC
In reply to:

Scales USA: Li-on batteries are dangerous, and difficult at best. Larger ones have more energy and are potentially nasty. I'm not happy with IOS 10 and my IPhone 6 plus, so was considering selling it. The hardware is fine, but I just do not like the new OS and having to learn to shut down or bypass some of the features that are a nuisance. Its too bad that Samsung has booted it, I am leert of the Google phone, I'll wait and see.

I much prefer ISO10 to IOS10.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 02:30 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: I'd just get the S7. Where as the iPhone 7 doesn't get all the camera goodies the plus has (OIS and telephoto prime), I honestly can't figure out what the Note 7 does that a S7 doesn't except explode! Also disappointing that no one has used extinguished as a pun. Otherwise yah Google Pixel looks nice, not as weather proof as the Samsungs but more fireproof.

You can buy a stylus for the S7 (Edge) I believe if it's that important. Sure it won't fit inside, but S7 Edge is a great phone and hardly different at all to Note 7

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 02:29 UTC
In reply to:

Elite83: Can't wait till battery tech advances past the Li-Ion cells, it's about time I got my bendy/flexible smartphone!

femto fusion generators!

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 02:26 UTC
On article BenQ announces 32" 4K high dynamic range monitor (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photoman: I feel a Eizo CG monitor would be a better quality. I have been using for over 11 years now and no problems.

Well Eizo is not an option in Australia unless you can get someone to buy it for you. Entry level starts at around $2.5K and a monitor like this would run well over $5-6K. This BenQ looks very interesting and no doubt will be 25% of the price.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 01:01 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony RX100 Mark V real-world samples (275 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan51: With smartphone sensors getting better and better I wouldn't get a camera like this. I love a 1" sensor on the FZ1000 where you can get 400mm zoom. For wide angle and short 50mm I will just use my smartphone if I need it be pocketable. For serious photographs I will use a DSLR.

Have to say while overall I think smartphones have been crap for imaging, there have been some great improvements. I cannot beleive how quick the AF is of my S7 Edge and the IQ at least that I've tried in daylight is very good. You could now easily make an 8 x 12' print, whereas a lot of phones are probably only good for a 5 x 8' and 5 x 3' at high ISO.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 22:48 UTC
Total: 1082, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »