ET2

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 25, 2010

Comments

Total: 1100, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: Conclusion: Gold award now meaningless.

Stu 5 , the reviewer shot a piece using R6300

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ5brDCz484

obviously overheating is non-issue/.

As for IBIS as a requirement for video, really? Many E mount lenses have lens stabilization, including the kit

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2016 at 07:12 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: Conclusion: Gold award now meaningless.

Funny that Canon doesn't even offer 4K most of the time, and A6300 does not overheat at all in 1080p. How is that an issue for you, JackM?

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 20:05 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

weathersealed: In the studio test scene seems like the A6300 has a slight green mix to the yellow colors compared to Canon 80D.

That's not an issue. Just adjust color balance a bit (incamera) if you like warmer/magenta tint. That's not a con.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 12:53 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: When is Sony going to produce a sensor that does 16-bit images. We're never going to compete with the medium-format people using our mediocre 14-bit pictures.

pkcpga, the difference isn't due to 16 bit. The difference is due to larger sensor on MF (more light) and larger pixels.

You will not see any improvement even on FF (let alone on APSC) by moving to 16 bits. See this article

https://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

16-bit is just waste of space (cards) and speed (slower buffer and slower burst) for zero gains.

You won't see any difference in image quality as 14 bit is more than enough to record all the data captured by the sensor

Sony, Red, and others also have 16-bit video cameras but that too is just pure marketing. Nothing more.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 05:26 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

jazzblueAE: Cons: "USB charging makes it hard to keep a spare battery charged"

Am I the only one that doesn't understand this being listed in so many camera reviews as a con? Even if they HAD included a stand-alone charger (which would admittedly charge much faster), you still can't charge two batteries simultaneously, and is equally as inconvenient. If you choose to buy spare batteries, you should be buying spare chargers as well or it will always be "hard to keep a spare battery charged."

The only consideration I could see is if you are shooting with the camera, and a spare is charging at home, but then that's not very useful as a spare battery, is it?

Richard Butler wrote: "Being able to USB charge can be handy but if the camera doesn't include an external charger, then you can't have a second one charging while you shoot"

This sentence is bogus, dude. The camera doesn't also include a second battery so you don't even have a second battery that you need to charge. If you are planning to buy a second battery, you can buy a charger with it as as both the battery and charger are about $10

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 05:13 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.

pkcpga, you are posting nonense. As far as image quality goes, Nikon isn't better than A6300. In fact, Nikon isn't even that better than 2010 cameras like K-5 and Nex5n. As I said, there hasn't been that much jump in image quality with bayer sensor since 2010.

If the reviews were only about image quality, why would you need a camera review anyway? Just read the numbers on dxomark, and take a note that D7200 is better by 1/3 compared to 2010 cameras, a difference that isn't perceptible to human eye.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 19:04 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

jazzblueAE: Cons: "USB charging makes it hard to keep a spare battery charged"

Am I the only one that doesn't understand this being listed in so many camera reviews as a con? Even if they HAD included a stand-alone charger (which would admittedly charge much faster), you still can't charge two batteries simultaneously, and is equally as inconvenient. If you choose to buy spare batteries, you should be buying spare chargers as well or it will always be "hard to keep a spare battery charged."

The only consideration I could see is if you are shooting with the camera, and a spare is charging at home, but then that's not very useful as a spare battery, is it?

DPR has posted this bogus con for years now. Anyone who buys extra battery can buy a charger with it. Third party ones are 10 dollars and include extra battery.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 17:34 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: When is Sony going to produce a sensor that does 16-bit images. We're never going to compete with the medium-format people using our mediocre 14-bit pictures.

You won't see any difference with 16 bits as even for A7R II (much larger sensor than APSC) 14 bits is enough to capture all the DR at pixel level. See this article:

https://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 17:30 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.

HowaboutRAW, This says a lot about your credibility if you think A6300 is 2 stop better than cameras like D7000, K-5, A580 when even D4 is hardly 2 stop better than these 2010 APSC cameras. Given you believe something this stupid, tells us a lot about your credibility.

However, you have always been a clown on this website, given you also think lenses produced color and that D4 is a stop better than A7s. You have no credibility. You are simply a clown on DPR.

The difference between 2010 sensor and 2016 sensor isn't more than 1/3 stop. We are at peak of what can be achieved with a bayer sensor so it's idiotic to expect much change in image quality, and indeed there is just 1/3 stop change since 2010.

pkcpga is clueless if he expected a big jump in image quality.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 16:34 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.

No, you are the joke. There has not been a lot of change since 16 MP sensor of 2010. The difference at best has been around 1/3 stop.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 15:09 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

NickyB66: Not as good as the X Pro 2 in most areas, but a decent effort by Sony.

X Pro 2 weighs 1 ton? I won't buy it. It's useless. Too heavy even for my truck.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 14:13 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.

Cameras are not rated on image quality alone. Image quality on cameras have not changed much (at best 1/3 stop according dxomark) since 2010. Even more importantly, if cameras were only rated by image quality, most cameras will score same as most cameras use the same Sony flagship sensor. It was same story 5 years ago with 16 MP Sony sensor that was used in 20 or so cameras by different companies.

There is a a lot to a camera than just image quality.

Also, we are at peak of what can be achieved with bayer sensor, so its idiotic to assume if you expect to see a large jump in image quality when that has not been done for 6 years.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

jesus_freak: Sony is marketing this as having "pro-grade" video capabilities, but the usability regarding focus is anything but.

A fly-by-wire manual focusing ring, CDAF, and no touch screen make it difficult to do ANY follow focus/ focus pulling effects (manual or auto).

Pro video people don't use AF.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 22:45 UTC
On article Sony may split off its imaging products business (71 comments in total)
In reply to:

cgarrard: That is something Sony needed for a while now, too bad they couldn't have done this when they acquired Minolta :).

LOL @ A600. I remember that false rumor, clickbait, by cgarrard. Minolta cameras were already dead (1% marketshare) before Sony.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

ttran88: If it weren't for Sony sensor advancements, Canon would have been perfectly fine offering their old sensors.

tkbslc, no 12 MP sensor had more DR than Canon and was rated higher on dxomark especially in cameras like D90, Kx and others.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 01:37 UTC
In reply to:

ttran88: If it weren't for Sony sensor advancements, Canon would have been perfectly fine offering their old sensors.

Sony's 12 MP Exmor Cmos sensor (D300) was released in 2007. It was better than anything Canon.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 04:39 UTC
On article Samsung NX500 shown as discontinued (273 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: lol.. this story.

I don't know maybe the fact that they haven't released a new camera in over a year, and any new lenses in over 20 months may be a hint?

or the fact that they shut down samsungcamera.com in January?

or the fact they pulled out of photokina?

does anyone REALLY need to reach out to samsung and ask?

The Photokina website is not updated with 2016 exhibitors and booths. Even if it turns out Samsung would pull out, you are posting hot air from rumor sites.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
On article Samsung NX500 shown as discontinued (273 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: lol.. this story.

I don't know maybe the fact that they haven't released a new camera in over a year, and any new lenses in over 20 months may be a hint?

or the fact that they shut down samsungcamera.com in January?

or the fact they pulled out of photokina?

does anyone REALLY need to reach out to samsung and ask?

No, he used a past tense to describe photokina. Samsung was at photokina in 2014? No one is wagering bets on future.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 07:14 UTC
On article Action packed: Shooting the Sony a6300 in Miami (241 comments in total)
In reply to:

Siobhan A: "Most of what I shot using the 16-70mm was up at ISO 6400 or beyond and frankly, looked pretty noisy and unappealing."

Sony is still a long way behind where no defunct Samsung was 2 years ago. With no affordable F/2.8 zooms, and no sub-$1000 F/1.4 native lenses, they can't compete with a cheaper Nikon, Pentax, or even a higher resolution NX500 in low light. The $1000 A6300 body with those native F/4 zooms is comparable to cheaper M43 bodies with much smaller F/2.8 primes.

From what I have seen from unbiased reviewers so far the A6300 is still behind the NX1 and GH4 for action and not close do a decent Nikon.

If anyone is wondering, Siobhan A appears to be account of banned M4/3 troll (Everdog, JustHavingFun, etc banned) who uses several dozen accounts

That's his typical standard anti-Sony rant that he has been doing for 5 years.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 17:56 UTC
On article Samsung NX500 shown as discontinued (273 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: lol.. this story.

I don't know maybe the fact that they haven't released a new camera in over a year, and any new lenses in over 20 months may be a hint?

or the fact that they shut down samsungcamera.com in January?

or the fact they pulled out of photokina?

does anyone REALLY need to reach out to samsung and ask?

2016 Photokina is in Sept. You are posting in March.

Admit mistake when you get your simple facts mixed up.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 17:13 UTC
Total: 1100, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »