EvilTed

Joined on Mar 2, 2012

Comments

Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (556 comments in total)
In reply to:

EvilTed: @Nowelly

It's useless as a street camera.
I tried one yesterday and the AF is too slow and sluggish and then there's the extreme high resolution that is none too forgiving of bad technique.

The result of my 1 hour test shooting F8 1/500s on the streets yesterday was ZERO sharp or in focus images.

If you favor the camping style of street photography (wait somewhere for someone to walk into your scene), this may be an acceptable camera, but for those of us who shoot one-handed and constantly on the move, it's just not going to cut it.

I'm a very experienced street photographer and I've used all the leading cameras, both film and digital.
IBIS does nothing for movement, so it isn't going to help you on the street, except for stationary subjects.

Silent mode is passable on the street with the A7s because of the small resolution.
I shot with one and a 35mm F2.8 for over a year.
Silent mode is useless on the A6300/A6500, because of the larger resolution and finer pixel density.
It is even worse on the A7r II because of the larger sensor.
Jim Kasson wrote a good article on this, you should check it out.
Basically anything moving in the plane of the sensor will create horrible distortion, so unless you are shooting stationary targets, silent mode is not much use.

I've already had a Fuji X100F and hated it and flipped it the next day for what I paid for it.
Sorry, but the small Ricoh is still the superior street machine compared to any other I've tried.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 02:54 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (556 comments in total)
In reply to:

EvilTed: @Nowelly

It's useless as a street camera.
I tried one yesterday and the AF is too slow and sluggish and then there's the extreme high resolution that is none too forgiving of bad technique.

The result of my 1 hour test shooting F8 1/500s on the streets yesterday was ZERO sharp or in focus images.

If you favor the camping style of street photography (wait somewhere for someone to walk into your scene), this may be an acceptable camera, but for those of us who shoot one-handed and constantly on the move, it's just not going to cut it.

No, but it is useless for street photography for the way I shoot.
Too much resolution requires good, steady, hand-held technique and this doesn't equate to shooting one handed, while moving (which is how I shoot on the street).

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

josseee: Im not sure if it was soo wise from fuji to skip FF world. I dont think its saturated at all, especially the mirrorless portion, which is practically a one man show by sony without any real competitor (sorry leica...)
Might it be that sony just said "we wont sell you any FF sensors if you enter the field" to fuji? just wondering ...

Sony have just announced they will start keeping their best sensors for Sony cameras, so Nikon and Fuji are potentially in trouble unless they are strategic "partners" to Sony's vision.

There is probably a very solid business reason why Sony has FF and Fuji has APS-C and now cropped MF market...

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 13:39 UTC
In reply to:

Tony Northrup: Awesome article, Rishi. Brave, too; nobody knows better than I how mathing crop factor and equivalence enrages people (yet accurately predicts performance).

The recent medium-format craze is reminiscent of the micro-four thirds craze almost a decade ago. Remember when everyone was excited to see tiny MFT 12-35 f/2.8 lenses that produced the same results as huge FF 24-70 f/2.8 lenses? That misconception launched an entire industry, and buyers spent millions assuming they'd get results that were simply impossible.

I do think the new medium format system cameras are compelling for reasons like the Fuji's interchangeable viewfinder, which is useful and needed. But most people seem to be buying into it for "separation" and "compression" and "that medium format look"... reasons that just don't exist.

and don't forget, it took Fuji 5+ years to get APS-C right...

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 13:11 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (674 comments in total)
In reply to:

EvilTed: I liked mine so much, I immediately sold it for what I paid for it after one day shooting it on the street.

I didn't think it has improved IQ much over the X100S and it certainly is no match for a Sony A6500/A6300 + 24mm F1.8 for AF speed or IQ.
I thought the lens was soft and not really good enough for the previous sensor, but it definitely feels dated now.

RAW images were very noisy at 3200 ISO and it had a tendency to miss focus completely on some shots, even at 1/500s and F8 with flash.

When I put mine on Craigslist there was someone else immediately flipping his and deciding to stick with his XT-2 and 23mm F2.
Not for me, and I'm not alone in not being that impressed either...

@wolfloid
Yes, you got me. I've never used any of the cameras or lenses.
I just hang out on camera forums to chat with people like you.

As for how a camera can be too small to wear around your neck?
Child!!!!
Do you ever look in the mirror before you go out?
University Lecturer, hmmm...

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 13:30 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (674 comments in total)
In reply to:

EvilTed: I liked mine so much, I immediately sold it for what I paid for it after one day shooting it on the street.

I didn't think it has improved IQ much over the X100S and it certainly is no match for a Sony A6500/A6300 + 24mm F1.8 for AF speed or IQ.
I thought the lens was soft and not really good enough for the previous sensor, but it definitely feels dated now.

RAW images were very noisy at 3200 ISO and it had a tendency to miss focus completely on some shots, even at 1/500s and F8 with flash.

When I put mine on Craigslist there was someone else immediately flipping his and deciding to stick with his XT-2 and 23mm F2.
Not for me, and I'm not alone in not being that impressed either...

Yes but it is still a crippled little fuss pot of a camera.
I've owned a lot of Fuji's including the X100s, but Fuji is a brand that once you leave it, you never go back.

The lens is it's biggest problem.
Fuji could have updated it with a new 18mm pancake and pleased a lot of people.
The AF is fussy, the ergonomics are still not right.
The Q button and the edge of the flap on the right side hit the palm of your hand all the time and there is still no real Back Button Focus ability with AF-C.

It's cute and almost girlie in it's little form.
Too big to shoot one handed and too small to have around your neck.

and don't get me started on their brain dead menus.
Everyone complains about Sony, but since when does Format belong under User Settings?
And why have they never fixed the ridiculous save settings behavior that they've had since day one?
It took me 10 or more attempts to get it to save settings before I remembered the stupid way it is implemented...

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 03:22 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (674 comments in total)

I liked mine so much, I immediately sold it for what I paid for it after one day shooting it on the street.

I didn't think it has improved IQ much over the X100S and it certainly is no match for a Sony A6500/A6300 + 24mm F1.8 for AF speed or IQ.
I thought the lens was soft and not really good enough for the previous sensor, but it definitely feels dated now.

RAW images were very noisy at 3200 ISO and it had a tendency to miss focus completely on some shots, even at 1/500s and F8 with flash.

When I put mine on Craigslist there was someone else immediately flipping his and deciding to stick with his XT-2 and 23mm F2.
Not for me, and I'm not alone in not being that impressed either...

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 03:12 UTC as 80th comment | 12 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (889 comments in total)
In reply to:

gcbodie: OVF is better because I can tune it to my eyesight with the diopter whereas the EVF requires me to be wearing my reading glasses to use that screen.

You need glasses to see the controls on the camera though (unless you have memorized their position) :(

I find that when I use my Nikon DSLRs, my work flow is a lot slower than when I use my Sony A7r II, for this reason.

You are also wrong about checking things.
The EVF can be used 100% instead of the LCD and, in fact, it is the preferable method of shooting landscape photography (go read Lloyd Chambers blog).

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 18:29 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (889 comments in total)
In reply to:

gcbodie: OVF is better because I can tune it to my eyesight with the diopter whereas the EVF requires me to be wearing my reading glasses to use that screen.

@gcbodie

Actually, you got it the wrong way around.
Even if an OVF has a diopter, you still need your reading glasses to see what you shot, make adjustments or anything else.

With an EVF, you never need reading glasses because you can see everything, including all the settings menus directly in the diopter controlled viewfinder.
This is a major selling point of EVF vs. OVF for middle aged and older ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 16:53 UTC
In reply to:

ijustloveshooting: Landscape comparison shot at F1.4 clearly (yes clearly) shows GM is sharper...sharper up to F4-5.6---at F8.0 i call even...

as a long time GM85 user, i can definitely know it's sharpness at F1.4 and i could never seen similar sharpness on Sigma F1.4 shots available on the net so far. GM85 at F1.4, in terms of sharpness, winner.

for portrait shots, it's always very hard to frame same photo in order to eliminate focus distance caused dof differences, and in these shots, it's also very visible .

I had two brand new copies of the 85mm F1.4 GM to test and to be honest, I wasn't that impressed.
The Nikon 105mm F1.4 on Sony via Novoflex is much nicer.
The GM is also noisy and vibrates all over the place.
I sent them both back...

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

iamatrix: Unfortunately so many people who praise lenses these days are paid by the manufacturer to do so, so it's extremely hard to discern the truth.

Here is a great example - sorry Jason but this is a BS video.
I have 2x brand new copies of the 85mm F1.4 GM and they are going back tomorrow.
The noise and the constant vibration as the lens chatters in AF-C is not what I expect from a flagship lens.

Don't take my word for it. Watch the video then read the responses...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEePLbHD3vI

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 03:43 UTC
In reply to:

iamatrix: Unfortunately so many people who praise lenses these days are paid by the manufacturer to do so, so it's extremely hard to discern the truth.

@Flruckas

I thought I gave a very valid reason why these things were never reported? :)

I'm not trying to change anything, just letting them all know that they are too obvious. It only happens with Sony and this is why I cannot trust any of these people to give honest, technical reviews of Sony products including the bad parts.

Sony are the only company that employs this type of "marketing".
I find it all somewhat disingenuous, that's all...

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2017 at 05:49 UTC
In reply to:

iamatrix: Unfortunately so many people who praise lenses these days are paid by the manufacturer to do so, so it's extremely hard to discern the truth.

I didn't say that they were paying people directly to say nice things.
I just suggested that it is in their collective interest not to make waves (if they want to get a future invite).

I just find it hard to believe that none of the set of people, and they represent most of the blogs and review sites we all read, can find problems during these initial review sessions that we, the paying public find out immediately.
Maybe they are all drunk on the free champagne and not paying attention? :)

Two recent examples include the Sony A7r II locking up the UI when writing a file and the Sony 85mm F1.4 GM being a noisy clunker :(

How come nobody in their collective set found either of these problems?

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2017 at 05:10 UTC
In reply to:

iamatrix: Unfortunately so many people who praise lenses these days are paid by the manufacturer to do so, so it's extremely hard to discern the truth.

There's being invited to the next Sony show, being flown down and put up in a nice hotel and being given exclusive access to the new cameras and lenses so you can feature them on your blog (if you say nice things and omit the obvious bad things).

Not exactly "getting paid" but it has a huge influence on the information being put out. I don't trust any of them any more...

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

ARB1: I own a Sony A7Rii system which I love, and I'm thinking about getting the X100F as a no fuss walk around camera but I'm not sure about the AF. Can you folks with the X100T chime in and share your feeling about T's AF?

I suspect the AF will be even better on the F but I'm just interested to know folks feel about it no the T, especially since the T may have a price break and I would consider it if the discount is sizable.

Why not get a A6300 or A6500 and use either the excellent 35mm F2.8 to get 50mm equivalent and much better AF in a smaller package?
You can go even smaller with the 20mm F2.8, set the camera up to be MF, F8 + 1/500, silent shooting and then lock all the controls by holding in the Fn button.
Now you have a smaller, stealthier street shooter than the Fuji that can actually be shot in AF-C using Back Button Focus...

and you can use the Sony A6300/A6500 with all your Sony FF glass and get extra length + faster focus, bigger buffer and pretty decent sports performance to use as part of a Sony system.

I've owned most of the Fuji's including the X100s but sold it after a few months. The Ricoh GR is a better fixed lens street camera IMHO.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

Vince P: This really looks amazing. I have the 24mm and 35mm variants and they really perform well. I replaced the Nikon 35 with it, they are that good. I am sure this will be sharper than the 85 1.4 AFG that I use (Never not found it sharp enough) but in an 85mm I think I need weather sealing and an 86mm filter thread will cause me all kinds of problems. If you work exclusively in a studio then none of these issues apply except you seldom work at 1.4 in a studio and stopped down most of the competition probably out resolves even the really high MP sensors we have these days.

So you put up without weather sealing on the 35 or realize the mistake in buying it?
I have a 35 and while it is nice when it focusses reliably, that is it's Achilles heal...

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 14:19 UTC
In reply to:

pierre1: So far looking at the Flickr groups samples from this 85 ART vs the Nikon 105mm f1.4E groups samples IMHO I prefer the rendering and pop from the 105. Having said that value-wise the 85 is right up there!

I had a 105mm on loan for a couple of weeks over the holidays.
Without question it is the best rendering lens I've ever shot on a Nikon DSLR.

Even mounted on a 20MP Nikon D5, the results were better than a 42MP Sony A7r II with a Zeiss Basis F1.8, which is no mean feat!

I'll buy one when the price comes down because I won't risk buying another Sigma. Too unreliable in the focusing for me, except using single point.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

EvilTed: Can you use the USB port to copy files off the drive too?

I'm thinking a LaCie Rugged 4TB drive as a backup to a 2TB version of the WD?

@Peter Galbavy
It's 4x to 6x slower when copying files through the MyCloud application to another USB drive. I don't think it is going direct at this point and is probably going through the wireless connection?

Yes, when plugged into a computer it is as fast as regular USB 3.0.

The SD Card reader is slow too :(

I tried the RavPower File hub too, but that just wouldn't work reliably.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 14:45 UTC
In reply to:

EvilTed: Can you use the USB port to copy files off the drive too?

I'm thinking a LaCie Rugged 4TB drive as a backup to a 2TB version of the WD?

Unfortunately the drive is not 100% reliable and it's 4x - 6x slower than using a computer.
I was able to figure out that the SD card is read, the LEDs fill in one by one until they are complete.
However, sometimes this wasn't working correctly and when it said it was done, checking the drive showed there was the parent directory structure but no files :(
I can't risk going into the wilds for a month to shoot with something as flaky as this.
Maybe third time around they will nail this?

I'm going back to my 2013 MacBook Air 11" and 2x LaCie 4TB drives.
This is not much heavier than the iPad setup and a lot more reliable...

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 02:12 UTC
In reply to:

DenWil: They need to move forward to SSD. Platters simply cannot deal with hundreds of 165MB files at a time. I will be adding SSD external drives to both my iMac 1T and my brand new MBP. I would never consider an external hard drive -wireless or otherwise.

Actually, while SSDs are less prone to shock and work faster than spinning disks, they are still flash based and have limited write capabilities.
The point about platters not being able to deal with hundreds if 165MB files, I don't get?

http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-jargon.html

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 03:45 UTC
Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »