RubberDials

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on Mar 25, 2008

Comments

Total: 408, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I can see this being very popular with Canon users.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 15:48 UTC as 25th comment
On article Canon granted third most US patents in 2016 (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: Jeepers, the folks whose main form of recreational activity is disliking Canon are taking this pretty hard.

You don't know hard till you've seen a Sony/m43 thread trolled by Canon users.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 14:47 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: "This is the best 35mm F1.4 prime currently available. On performance overall, it leaves all-comers floundering in its wake with outstanding image quality, especially at F1.4, and extra-robust build. Some rivals come close optically, but none offers a total package to match the Canon 35mm F1.4L USM MkII."

You know that DXOmark ranks the Sony 35/1.4 above this lens, overall, on a lower resolution sensor? The Canon has an overall score of 42 and a sharpness score of 37. The Sony is 44 and 36.

Obviously you don't rely solely on DXOmark's data but as far as I can see the only other 35/1.4 you've tested is the Sigma art, so how are you deeming this the best available?

You really are quite a stupid man. I have done nothing but praise the Canon lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 23:35 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: "This is the best 35mm F1.4 prime currently available. On performance overall, it leaves all-comers floundering in its wake with outstanding image quality, especially at F1.4, and extra-robust build. Some rivals come close optically, but none offers a total package to match the Canon 35mm F1.4L USM MkII."

You know that DXOmark ranks the Sony 35/1.4 above this lens, overall, on a lower resolution sensor? The Canon has an overall score of 42 and a sharpness score of 37. The Sony is 44 and 36.

Obviously you don't rely solely on DXOmark's data but as far as I can see the only other 35/1.4 you've tested is the Sigma art, so how are you deeming this the best available?

CONTINUED...
I prefer Zeiss rendering to Canon, but if I was in the Canon system I would accept giving it up. If you re-read my comment you'll see that I'm not a Sony fan claiming their lens is better - I'm really not, my complaint is with DPreview using DXOmark data which says the Sony lens is better overall (44 against 42 for Canon) and saying: "This is the best 35mm F1.4 prime currently available. On performance OVERALL, it leaves all-comers floundering in its wake."

Since OVERALL DXOmark considers the Sony 35 better and DPreview get most of their data from DXOmark, and they appear to have only tested one other 35 (Sigma) I wondered how they justify this claim. That is all. The key word being 'overall' and DXOmark supplying DPreview with an overall score.

And as i said before I would never buy the Sony 35/1.4 and the Canon lens is the first I would buy if I were a canon user. It's an exciting and impressive lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 15:54 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: "This is the best 35mm F1.4 prime currently available. On performance overall, it leaves all-comers floundering in its wake with outstanding image quality, especially at F1.4, and extra-robust build. Some rivals come close optically, but none offers a total package to match the Canon 35mm F1.4L USM MkII."

You know that DXOmark ranks the Sony 35/1.4 above this lens, overall, on a lower resolution sensor? The Canon has an overall score of 42 and a sharpness score of 37. The Sony is 44 and 36.

Obviously you don't rely solely on DXOmark's data but as far as I can see the only other 35/1.4 you've tested is the Sigma art, so how are you deeming this the best available?

@OSDphoto
I think you misunderstand me, really. I'm no DXOmark junkie. I've only started quoting their tests because most people on here seem to respect their evaluations. None of their tests of lenses I own reflect my own experiences, and as you shrewdly point out, their metrics do not account for certain attributes of a lens - for my part the most important being micro contrast. (I'm routinely informed by Sigma users how sharp their lenses are in comparison to Zeiss, but they have no understanding of how sterile and lifeless the Sigma rendering is compared to Zeiss).

So don't think I think the Sony is better than the Canon - I don't. The Canon lens looks to be a near perfect lens of what is in my view the ideal focal length. If I was still a Canon user (and I was once, many years ago) I would buy it before I chose the body. The only thing it lacks is an aperture ring.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 15:54 UTC
On article Our favorite gear, rewarded: DPReview Awards 2016 (271 comments in total)

Isn't DPreview supposed to be a secret arm of Sony's marketing department? What went wrong?

Hopefully we'll have less of this nonsense going forward.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 01:41 UTC as 10th comment
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: Sony greens...

I wonder in what capacity you lecture? You once told me that Sony wasn't even a camera company and wasn't worth buying into as they might at any moment start producing fridges.

Generally I find your posts to be lacking in thought, let alone the intellectual rigor one might associate with an academic lecturer.

A polite adjective for your additude to Canon would be 'uncritical'.

Even your opening gambit in this thread is essentially threadbare: 'Sony greens.' What about them? Not lurid enough for you? I can get get 'Canon colours' out of any Sony by using non-Zeiss lenses, a 'vivid' picture profile and whacking the saturation up to 11.

I prefer my colours to resemble reality.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 19:29 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

jackspra: Not my favorite bunch of recent samples but the look and color from the camera was very nice.Canon/Fuji like.

Lol.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 02:04 UTC
In reply to:

CanonKen: To me, the Sony 16-70mm f/4 is the PERFECT travel lens. Very small, f/4, and good image quality (I must have the only good copy in the world...or whatever). I own it, love it, and this lens is what will keep me with Sony for a light travel rig.

The 16-70 is a lot better than the ef- m 15-40 according to the photozone review.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 03:24 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

Attilasz: I understand digital evolution cannot stop, but still think that 4k video is useless for most users. Few have 4k tv, and honestly how many are watching the videos on a tv screen? Not to mention that 4k is producing huge files that are hard to use, copy, etc.
And I know a lot of ppl have or getting 4k screens, but those who do probably wont buy a M5, but something more expensive.

That's fair enough, the situation is likely different in the states. Incidentally I've been to NY and have to say it is one of the best places I've visited and I would happily live there, although the subway didn't do anything for my tinnitus...

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 03:06 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

Attilasz: I understand digital evolution cannot stop, but still think that 4k video is useless for most users. Few have 4k tv, and honestly how many are watching the videos on a tv screen? Not to mention that 4k is producing huge files that are hard to use, copy, etc.
And I know a lot of ppl have or getting 4k screens, but those who do probably wont buy a M5, but something more expensive.

Your posts reveal that you do have an issue. You actually explain it in your fourth paragraph when you reveal that you're a pro (presumably a photographer) but that you don't yet edit video.

Essentially, you appear troubled that something can be considered a standard when you don't do it or have any capacity to do it yet you're a professional.

I'm not sure I can help you resolve this. As I said, some people don't even have TVs. That doesn't mean 4K is not the standard.

Also you talk about support - I can't speak for America but in the UK xbox and playstation is 4K, and we get 4K from Netflix, BT, Sky and Virgin. This doesn't mean that everything is 4K. That's not how standards work.

Blu-ray is currently the standard for disk media, but new DVDs come out every day. Would you buy a machine that played DVDs but not blu rays? Probably not. This is why 4K is important to the M5,

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 20:53 UTC
On photo Lone Xmas tree in the Christmas lights challenge (5 comments in total)

Absolutely love it. Brilliantly seen and handled Hank.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 15:07 UTC as 4th comment
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

Attilasz: I understand digital evolution cannot stop, but still think that 4k video is useless for most users. Few have 4k tv, and honestly how many are watching the videos on a tv screen? Not to mention that 4k is producing huge files that are hard to use, copy, etc.
And I know a lot of ppl have or getting 4k screens, but those who do probably wont buy a M5, but something more expensive.

I'm not sure what your issue is, Edward. 4K is the current standard. You might not have it, lots of people don't even have a TV - but they don't enter into the equation.

This isn't a question about film-making, as I said above, if the question was about editing 4K I would have a different view, but people do genuinely come back from their holiday and stick the SD card into their TV or blu ray player and watch 4K footage.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 15:04 UTC

Is it an iJoke - the campus is a giant HOME button?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 15:59 UTC as 13th comment
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

sproketholes: Great to see Canon being serious about mirrorless for enthusiasts, though I suspect it will be 1 or 2 generations more before we have a Canon semi-professional mirrorless camera. I use the Sony A6300 as a benchmark for this, an astounding camera and a hard act to follow; especially if your product lines are competing with each other, rendering a degree of dumbing down models to protect others.

Well, I didn't lose my money. 4 months ago I said I'd lay money on the next e-mount camera having a touch screen and the next e-mount camera was the a6500...

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 03:57 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

Xentinus: Almost** as good as Sony a6000.

The problems with shutter button responsiveness and long viewfinder blackout sound quite painful.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 03:45 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mateus1: X-T10, X-E2s, X-T1, A600/6300, even GX-85, GX-8, G8, Pen-F, E-M5 II, E-M1 is a better choice then M5 with that serious cons and poor lens choice.
M5 It's worth not more then $500 for what the competiton offers nowdays. It's overpriced like 5D mkIV.

Why would he be kidding? The specs of the cameras are virtually identical.

M5 specs: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m5-review/2

A6000 specs: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000/2

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: For the pixel peepers note that the test scenes are shot with an adapter using a lens designed for film almost a quarter of a century ago.

I believe this is the only mirrorless system tested by dpreview tested using an adapter and such a cheap ($350ish) / ancient lens. By contrast the sony APS-C systems get tested with a modern $1000 chunk of zeiss glass.

I'm not insinuating any bias, just pointing out that when you compare you are not only comparing sensors/cameras but different generations and classes of glass.

@keeponkeepingon

The EF 50mm 1.8 + EF-M adaptor is 68mm x 50mm + 28mm (minus the height of one bayonet) and the 55mm/1.8 is 64mm x 71mm, so the Canon lens plus adaptor ISN'T SMALLER than the Sony lens as you claim. The SEL50F1.8 is 62mm x 62mm so is even smaller than the 55mm.

I find the fact that you think it's worthwhile to measure the length of Canon lenses against Sony ones almost unbelievably depressing. You should be raging against Canon for not developing more and better lenses for their mirrorless cameras.

Incidentally, the only thing the Canon 50 and the Sony 55 have in common is that they are both lenses.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2017 at 22:53 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

Attilasz: I understand digital evolution cannot stop, but still think that 4k video is useless for most users. Few have 4k tv, and honestly how many are watching the videos on a tv screen? Not to mention that 4k is producing huge files that are hard to use, copy, etc.
And I know a lot of ppl have or getting 4k screens, but those who do probably wont buy a M5, but something more expensive.

Outside of the rarefied world of DPReview forums, 4K is the standard for the average consumer.

Many people already have 4K TV and are watching 4K content and gaming in 4K. When it comes to video, they just hook up the camera or plug the SD card in. If you said no-one edits 4K I would have agreed with you, but they do watch it and they do want it.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 14:53 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: For the pixel peepers note that the test scenes are shot with an adapter using a lens designed for film almost a quarter of a century ago.

I believe this is the only mirrorless system tested by dpreview tested using an adapter and such a cheap ($350ish) / ancient lens. By contrast the sony APS-C systems get tested with a modern $1000 chunk of zeiss glass.

I'm not insinuating any bias, just pointing out that when you compare you are not only comparing sensors/cameras but different generations and classes of glass.

The best choice would be a 50mm ef-m lens. The fact that there isn't one after four/five years tells you all you need to know about this system,

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 14:40 UTC
Total: 408, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »