ecka84

ecka84

Lives in Lithuania Lithuania
Joined on Sep 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 657, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X-A3 sample gallery (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

pepeta: I am impressed by these shots! Is it colors? contrast? shadows and highlights? sharpness? Why do they look far better than Nikon D7500?

In terms of image quality, they don't look better than any other Bayer APS-C samples. You are imagining things :). But they do look better than Fuji xTrans.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 12:22 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

You are hopeless. When (If) you grow up you'll be a looser :))

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

Watch this https://youtu.be/pD-HMUTfhu0?t=7m32s for 30 seconds
:))

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 15:57 UTC
In reply to:

damian5000: My cat is cool. Can we post a story about him?

Only if it is as large as a Boeing and can fly :)

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 08:22 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@stevo23
Oh, wow half a stop difference :)). DR is not everything! You are forgetting that 5DIII DR applies to a much higher amount of information, due to less false color situation of more than twice larger sensor.
Noise ... The noise that Fuji filtered and blurred out before showing you anything? That noise? Yes, it's lower ... at a cost of smeared detail and $h!T. It would be even lower if it produced blank images :D (don't tell Fuji, they might use that). Didn't I tell you already that Fuji ISOs are shifted to the right? (secretly :), by Fuji) So, there's much more BS than data in your charts :)). No Xp2 advantage, at all.
"valid several years ago" - Well, of course, now there's 5D4.
Fuji IS COOKING RAW FILES :). Why are you refusing to see that? Too lazy to check it? You are putting your trust in a company that cheats and lies on every step.
"The fact is, 5DIII has been accused of that for years" - What delusional fact? You are the fool here and you are not alone.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 06:46 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@stevo23
You crazy? Look where? Freaking DR diagrams? - Look at the images! 5DIII is twice better :)). I don't care about fake Fuji resolution. It makes people look like wax sculptures with pasta-like textures, artifacts and smeared detail. In fact, if you google for "smeared detail" you'll find references to Fuji in top 10 :D

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@Ultraphox
Size has a lot to do with camera class too. 5DIII is very comfortable to work with - long battery life, because there's enough space for big and juicy battery, its ergonomics have been polished for decades, it feels like a proper tool, it's sturdy as hell, built like a tank, it's weather-sealed and you can mount a white EF "bazooka" on it :). Maybe it is too big for people with small hands, I'm not arguing that. But even small cameras need large lenses if you want equal results. For me, tiny cameras with huge lenses are awkward to use and battery grips make them larger than I need them to be. The A7RII grip is too small for my taste, need more depth. But with a battery grip it's almost twice the size, which is crazy. I don't need that. Of course there are special third party ergonomic grips, but they don't add any battery juice.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2017 at 21:35 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@Ultraphox
X-T20 is a lower tier camera. Why don't you compare it to the A5100? Right. Because A5100 is even lower than X-T20. And the A7RII is higher than both X-T2 and X-Pro2, much higher. A7RII is entirely different animal. Even the old 5DIII is too high for the X-T2 to reach. It just is. Feature-wise, X-T2 is much more up to date and fun, but in term of image quality it is not as good, unless you are shooting JPEG or smth (which in my opinion makes all cameras equally bad :)) ). In other words, it's not a horse, it's a donkey on steroids.
It is much easier for camera manufactures to make products in classes unmatched by rivaling brands. They always tend to produces either a bit "higher" tier camera but considerably more expensive, or a considerably "lower" tier camera but a little bit cheaper, either way they win some $$, which is smart.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2017 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@cosinaphile
No, you still don't understand how it works. You are not even trying. You have to realize that I'm not going join your fantasy world, ever, no matter how much delusional BS you try to throw at me. Because your "theory" makes no sense. It's not even a theory, it's a superstitious folklore myth with all kinds of ridiculous beliefs, magic F-numbers and $h!T. I'm done with you, you cannot be fixed :(
Your raging ignorance is an insult.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@cosinaphile
Looking at your chaotic text typing style, I assume that you are doing it on your phone. So, no it's secret that you can't see $h!T there :))

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

JohnBaker: I'd love to buy a Fuji camera, but only when they start using good non-X trans sensors, such as those from Sony. Great cameras and lenses, but lousy blurry sensors.

@Hugo808
Have you seen the sharpness setting scale on Fuji cameras? It starts at negative numbers. Keeping it at zero means the sharpening is ON. And you probably need it to be ON, because even in RAW data the noise is being filtered and blurred out, without your permission. Just to fool everyone into thinking that xTrans got superior noise levels. Plus Fuji is cheating on ISO numbers. If you put side by side, xTrans vs Sony (same sensor basically, different CFA), you will see that Fuji ISOs gather almost full stop less light than the same ISO numbers on Sony. Which explains why Fuji base ISO is 200 :). So, in studio comparison you either need to set a longer exposure time, or you will get a lower exposure value.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 20:05 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@cosinaphile
Oh, the plant ... :D It doesn't matter how big is the window. If you put a bigger plant there, like 2.35 times bigger (FF is 2.35 times bigger than 1.5x APS-C), then it will gather 2.35 times more light. Stop confusing the amount with intensity.
Speedbooster work exactly right, in perfect sync with equivalence.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@tedolf
And you are not going to see anything in any format on any display ever, if you won't get better glasses.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 19:31 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@cosinaphile
FF is the most bang for the buck these days. Both APS-C and 44x33 are economically bad choices. Just compare the prices.
XF 56/1.2 vs FF 85/1.8 vs GFX 110/2 - any of those will get you the same image. Only Fuji XF is $1000 and Fuji GF is $2800, while Sony FE is $600.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@tedolf
When you look at it at 1:1, you can see all the missing parts being replaced by the noise, close enough color and the right color in wrong places. You can try to replace the noise with surrounding colors, but that won't add any information, because the machine cannot know for sure which colors are true and which are false. Even base ISO produce plenty of noise. Not seeing it is your problem. When you are pushing the shadows and the noise appears, this doesn't mean it wasn't there before you touched the slider. It was there, you just couldn't see it that well.
How is that your blindness makes my eyes unusual? You are weird.
"4k screens don't have great dynamic range anyway" - are you nuts? koo koo? It's a 10bit IPS panel with 100% sRGB coverage, over 1 billion colors and great contrast ratio. Who told you that your printer is 100% accurate? That's BS.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 18:10 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@tedolf
From resolution standpoint, digital imaging sensor with Bayer CFA (or Xtrans for that matter) cannot possibly capture the amount of information equal to the resolution stated. In ideal studio conditions, with perfect lenses (which do not exist), with no vibrations, on best sensors at base ISO, etc ... you are still getting like 30% of information and the rest is just noise, aberrations, false color, distortion, etc.
So, viewing images at 1:1 ratio will always look worse than their downsized versions. Just stop making a fool of yourself already. You can't win this. Physics is not someones opinion.
I see that you don't even know what's a digital image. Technically speaking it is a set (matrix) of color pixels. And in comparison with reality there can only be true color, false color or close enough color. There is no dynamic range in a digital image. There's only the bit depth of the color matrix, the number of shades. The information can only be there, or not.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@cosinaphile
"the iso the fstop the shutter speerd of a 1.2 lens for a 1 inch sensor or a medium format sensor is exactly the same for a given exposure
your cranking iso comment is simply nonsense"
- You are absolutely wrong. You have to use different ISOs, otherwise the amount of noise will be different. If you feel like you are smarter than people making these cameras, then why don't you write a scientific paper or something and explain that they are doing everything wrong, that professional cameras should have much smaller sensors. Please, do it.
No? - Then shut up!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 17:25 UTC
In reply to:

TheWhiteDog: Fuji has the luxury of being known as a photographic company(from its film days) that no longer depends on that for its survival(Last I saw photographic products makes up 10% of its income and Instax is the lions share of that.). this allows them to take a thoughtful, deliberate and unflappable approach to the business- all good. But there are downsides: You can't introduce a camera(X-T2) nine months ago and another one(X-T20) six months ago and still have them unavailable at the major retailers! You have to get them in the hands of eager consumers who then will support you by investing in your nice lens lineup. This breeds frustration and lost sales. And, since they have an extended product cycle don't cripple your top flight items. Why doesn't the X-Pro2 have the T-20's 4k(I understand why it can'tt have the T-2's)capability? And a tilt screen? Why doesn't the T-2 have a touchscreen for video? These additions would keep your products relevant longer. But overall, Fuji is doing well.

@webber15
So what?! Who cares?! You can own whatever toys you desire. That doesn't make you an expert in anything.
You don't have to believe me. Just try to learn how it works, objectively. Stop reading marketing propaganda and fanatical nonsense from Fujivangelists, be critical ... instead of spreading BS about thing you know nothing about.
There are no perfect cameras. Why is that you cannot squeeze out a single bad word about your xpro2? That's because you are obsessed with Fuji. You cannot think clearly. You don't care about better tools, because you don't need them. You just love buying overpriced toys. That's your fetish. If you want to pay for being lied to, then go to church or smth, watch TV commercials, hire a psychic, talk to gypsies. Why bother with boring Fuji worshiping forums?
"I've captured some of the best images I've ever taken" - Fuji has nothing to do with that, trust me. You've captured those images despite trolling for Fuji. Just stop it. Have some self respect!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Overpriced APS-C system - don't care, not interested, FF costs less, dramatic size difference is a myth.
Cheaper but still too expensive medium format - don't care, not interested, niche product, cannot afford.
Nice and reasonably priced FF - Hello Canon, Nikon and Sony, my old friends :).

@cosinaphile
Equivalence is not about OOF rendering. DoF is just a side effect. What really matters is the amount of light, not the F-stop (light intensity). To produce the same image on any format camera, you need the same amount of light.
APS-C 56mm F1.2 1/200 ISO 200 = FF 85mm F1.8 1/200 ISO 500 = 44x33 110mm F2.2 1/200 ISO 800

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

TheWhiteDog: Fuji has the luxury of being known as a photographic company(from its film days) that no longer depends on that for its survival(Last I saw photographic products makes up 10% of its income and Instax is the lions share of that.). this allows them to take a thoughtful, deliberate and unflappable approach to the business- all good. But there are downsides: You can't introduce a camera(X-T2) nine months ago and another one(X-T20) six months ago and still have them unavailable at the major retailers! You have to get them in the hands of eager consumers who then will support you by investing in your nice lens lineup. This breeds frustration and lost sales. And, since they have an extended product cycle don't cripple your top flight items. Why doesn't the X-Pro2 have the T-20's 4k(I understand why it can'tt have the T-2's)capability? And a tilt screen? Why doesn't the T-2 have a touchscreen for video? These additions would keep your products relevant longer. But overall, Fuji is doing well.

@webber15
You are paranoid, Mr. troll :). And allergic to logic :).
Seriously, xTrans is bad. Fuji knows that, they didn't spoil the GFX with xTrans. But they will never admit anything, because they are terribly dishonest. They have invested so much into their BS propaganda, so now it is too late to change. They need to keep all the fanboys and fangirls ignorant. Otherwise it could be the end of XF success. They'll just keep telling you fairy tales about the lack of processing power and other BS. Somehow there's enough power for noise reduction in RAW images, whichis why they are soft. They can process (and filter) 24mp at 14fps, but they cannot process 50mp at 3fps? Liar liar pants on fire!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 12:59 UTC
Total: 657, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »