RubberDials

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

Comments

Total: 151, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (406 comments in total)

If this were a Sony thread, it would be full of Canon users laughing at the poor battery life.

It seems however that the Canon mirrorless has the worst battery life of any mirrorless, much worse than the A6000, A6300 and A7rII, despite offering fewer features and the battery being slightly higher powered than the Sony at 1040 mAh versus 1020 mAh.

Rather than laugh at the irony I'll instead make the useful point that Sony have actually introduced more efficiency than people seemed to have realised in their implementation of the power-hungry mirrorless format.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 12:33 UTC as 52nd comment | 2 replies
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkSpencer: I call BS on the M3 re: battery life. I just bought one and have over 450 shots without recharging. My only complaint is that using the built-in WIFI to transfer RAW to iOS FORCES a "downgrade" to JPEG. I use Lightroom Mobile, which now natively supports RAW, and I have to transfer the images using the crappy Apple camera connection kit.
But nothing - NOTHING - matches Canon for its colour. So yeah, I paid for the EF-M Adapter & mount my L-Series glass. Something none of the competitors can match, or even come close to.

@MarkSpencer
Your Last sentence is not clear. Are you saying the competitors 'can't match or come close' to mounting Canon L glass on their bodies or that their lenses can't match or come close to L series' quality? Either way you're mistaken.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 03:35 UTC
On article Canon EOS M3 real-world sample gallery updated (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

PanchoVilla: The EOS M3 is an A6300 killer. You can even adapt Canon EF lenses. The sleeping giant has woken up!

BTW - Portland, Oregon looks great in these photos, I totally get that Portlandia vibe!

That's perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in a comments section on this web site. You think the company that made the A7s and A7rII 'lacks know how'?

Have you even handled a Sony camera?

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2016 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

bardick: The only teardown results I will believe are those by Lensrentals. They have no built in bias.

No, Roland, no irony. This is a Sony lens so clearly they used a cherry picked example. The first couple they tore down contained only peanuts, hair gel and a bubblegum card.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 13:05 UTC
In reply to:

Mauro.B: Looks like a commercial. No hint on how the lens works, what has been done good and what could have been done better (like the glued, non adjustable lenses in the front block of the 24-70/4).

Fun to hear that the focus ring makes the lens zoom ...

Unless you close your eyes, you'll see lots of 'hints' how the lens works.

'What could have been done better'. A shame that people on the internet always assume that lens makers don't really know what they are doing.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 12:56 UTC
On article Comparison Review: Sony FE 50mm F1.4 ZA vs 55mm F1.8 ZA (238 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: It's a 1500 USD-lens, still we are talking about lens variation.
Time will come when we don't talk about lens variation for Sony lenses, but I'm not sure when...

Sample variation is of no importance to users, only testers.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2016 at 17:22 UTC
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Ironic this over-priced, over-sized offerings come from the same guys who brought us the smallest FF cameras ever.

You can't ask anyone to grow up when you compare a pro lens to a 'big gulp cup'.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 14:03 UTC
On article Sony prices 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS G Master at $2600 (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

mezastel: Canon's 70-200/2.8 II is $2000. Why is this more expensive?

@villagranvicent.
Er...you know the Sony lens is actually smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon 70-200s right?

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 02:34 UTC
On article Sony prices 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS G Master at $2600 (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

osan: 6 years ago Canon 70-200 MkII didn't have much competition in this segment except for Nikon. If Sony want to compete they should have priced it closer to Canon/Nikon. They either think the lens is superior to the competition or relying on being spoiled by certain websites.

@photenth
The lens is technically a step up from anything else on the market. Apart from being designed for higher resolution sensors than are currently available it has two motors that focus front and rear optical cells independently. This will obviously allow for far greater corrections when zooming than moving just one optical cell which is what happens with all current 70-200s. It has an 11 blade iris (compared to 8 on the Canon) and it focuses down to 1m (Canon is 1.2m). It's also slightly smaller and lighter than the Canon.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 02:20 UTC
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joel Benford: The vignetting... Not awful, but not the best. That hurts if you want the lens for low light.

Unfortunately e-mount was designed for aps-c so it's not the best mount for vignetting with FF lenses.

Even the comparatively gigantic Canon EF mount is only about 8mm wider and of course designed for film. Software correction for vignetting is going to be with us as long as we use FF.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 13:48 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

whyamihere: This lens is emblematic of what I find wrong with Sony: they make brilliant products that are marred by confounding business decisions.

This is, what, the 6th lens that covers this focal length from Sony and/or Zeiss? (I count 4 primes and 2 zooms.) Were users really clamoring for this lens? Why didn't they consider other focal lengths? Even if it's a high quality optic, does Sony expect people are willing to spend $1500 for a 50mm f/1.4?

There's also the question of branding. Why is this a Zeiss and not a GM, other than the blue badge and the T* coating, and perhaps the exclusion of the XA element that makes the bokeh slightly different? Should we expect yet another 50mm that is a GM, which will make for a 5th 50mm prime? Why can't Sony just make GM and G lenses while Zeiss just makes their own brand products? Right now, we have Sony G & GM, Zeiss Batis and Loxia, and Sony/Zeiss. That's 5 lens brands from only two companies.

Sony needs to pick a direction and stick with it.

Shame that the most popular post is one of the most gormless ones.

Sony offers THREE lenses around the 50mm focal length. And where is the 'confounding business decision'? A 1.8 '50', a 1.4 50 and a budget 50 - exactly like Nikon and Canon (Who's lens ranges are truly confounding, being a rattle bag of film-era and digital specific designs, some years older than others).

Why include independent offerings like the Lox 50?

Why is it a Zeiss and not a GM? Because it was designed by Zeiss, not Sony. Should we expect a GM 50? Because there is a Batis 85 and an 85mm GM? The Batis 85 is nothing to do with Sony.

Are you asking Sony to build it's lens catalogue around independent lens manufacturers? Would you expect Nikon to consult Sigma before it decided to produce a lens?

As for whether people were clamouring for the lens - look at the forums. I recall many moaning of a lack of fast lenses and that the 55/1.8 was not worth the money because it wasn't f1.4.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 13:18 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Spectro: drop the Zesis name and drop $1k off the price. Sill haven't bought any new sony lenses for my original A7 with kit plus 50 1.4 a mount lens (which I got used for less then $250) with lap-3. I hardly ever get a tack sharp images focus peaking with large aperture and forget it it if you are in a dark bar.

If you rip the badge off a Ferrari it doesn't become a Ford. This is a Zeiss lens.

Not sure what your other point is? You can't focus well manually? Sell the LA-EA3 and at the 50 f1.4 and buy a 55/1.8. There should be a few more on the second hand market now if you can't afford a new one.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 12:33 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

EDWARD ARTISTE: This is one hell of a fun comment section - keep it coming, having a ball reading it all.

This site is so much more fun when the users pull the sticks out of their butts.

Huzzzah!

All I can say is you're easily amused. I find it profoundly depressing. Endless facetious comments about how big the lens is from people who appear to know nothing about the constraints of designing for digital over film, and forget that when Sony released it's first Full Frame camera back in 2008 (the 24mp A900) the only affordable FF was the 12mp Canon 5D.

Whether you use their equipment or not, Sony has transformed the digital camera market over the last ten years for all brands and users.

You wouldn't have a Canon 5Ds without Sony - hell, you wouldn't even have a flip screen on the D500.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 00:39 UTC
On article Sony prices 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS G Master at $2600 (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

acidic: I like how they made it look like a half-Canon/half-Nikon hybrid.

It looks like all the other Sony or Minolta 70-200/2.8s, you just aren't familiar with anything other than Nikon or Canon.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 02:34 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a bit annoyed. In the 1960-1990ies they could make small and nice 50 mm F1.4. Or even smaller and nice 50 mm F1.7. Small jewels. I am mainly thinking about the Pentax M, K, F and FA lenses, and actually also the M42 Takumars.

OK - the big monsters of today are better - much better. But, with today's computers and exotic glasses and aspheric lenses, you are bound to be able to make much better small lenses than yesterday's small lenses. Even better small jewels. And those small things could, of course come at a lower price than the monsters of today.

But, no, big and expensive. That is it. Or zooms. And more zooms.

I mean - an improved FA 20 mm F2.8? Not bigger, but much better. Sounds possible! Or maybe F4, if that is easier? Then it might even have a 49 mm thread.

And when they are at it - maybe also the mechanical quality of the Takumars? I mean, they are 50 years old. I mean, 2016 it should be easy and cheap to make what they did 1960?

@villagranvicent
Er... no they don't. It took Leica years to make a sensor that worked well with their M lenses. Why do you think the M8 was a crop sensor? They still rely heavily on software correction for vignetting and all lenses wider than 21mm suffer from colour shift in the corners to some degree.

When they got the chance to start from scratch they made the mount much bigger. SL mount is almost as big as the EOS mount.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 02:27 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: Feeling more and more happy about my D750 purchase every day ;-) Well, every day there's a news release like this. There are tons of great lenses at a great price for Nikon F mount. There are also some very expensive lenses, but the point is, you don't really need them to get great results.

@villagranvicent
Have you ever seen an e-mount lens in reality? They're actually very small. The only ones I can think off that are the same size as SLR lenses are the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.4. The rest are smaller.

And no lens is as big as a medium format one.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 00:59 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a bit annoyed. In the 1960-1990ies they could make small and nice 50 mm F1.4. Or even smaller and nice 50 mm F1.7. Small jewels. I am mainly thinking about the Pentax M, K, F and FA lenses, and actually also the M42 Takumars.

OK - the big monsters of today are better - much better. But, with today's computers and exotic glasses and aspheric lenses, you are bound to be able to make much better small lenses than yesterday's small lenses. Even better small jewels. And those small things could, of course come at a lower price than the monsters of today.

But, no, big and expensive. That is it. Or zooms. And more zooms.

I mean - an improved FA 20 mm F2.8? Not bigger, but much better. Sounds possible! Or maybe F4, if that is easier? Then it might even have a 49 mm thread.

And when they are at it - maybe also the mechanical quality of the Takumars? I mean, they are 50 years old. I mean, 2016 it should be easy and cheap to make what they did 1960?

You guys desperately need to acquaint yourselves with the differences of designing lenses for digital over film.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 00:48 UTC
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Ironic this over-priced, over-sized offerings come from the same guys who brought us the smallest FF cameras ever.

@villagranvincent
How many times are you going to post the same comment? Across every thread featuring this lens? We get it - you think it's too big.

The fast full-frame lenses YOU'VE DESIGNED are MUCH smaller. Well done. Have a biscuit.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 16:04 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2651 comments in total)
In reply to:

Docno: "It becomes the only conventional DSLR to offer a full frame sensor with image stabilization."

Could be a little clearer... you really mean the only FF DSLR still in production. The Sony a900 had in-body stabilisation, and is certainly still available used. In fact, I just sold mine last month. :-) The quoted statement makes it sound like this camera was pioneering in this aspect...

@Docno
I thought the same. I'm certain that this is only because the review team is not up to speed on the Sony DSLRs/cameras from more than a few years back and didn't have the time to look it up.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 12:14 UTC
On article DxOMark confirms Canon EOS 1D X II sensor advances (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

melgross: Oh, I also wanted to say that most of the fifferences between sensors in dynamic range and noise are mostly seen in on screen pixel peeping. When making prints, most of the differences disappear. When doing 4 color printing, they go away completely.

Today's digital files are way better than what the best film had to offer. I ran a commercial film lab in NYC for some time. We had the worlds only pro Kodachrome processing line. Cameras have gotten so good in recent years that these differences have exceeded physical media.

It's 21st. They've only caught up with themselves.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
Total: 151, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »