ecka84

ecka84

Lives in Lithuania Lithuania
Joined on Sep 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 495, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg7579: I love this camera. It is absolutely stupendously incredibly awesome. If you are a Nikon or Canon FF guy -- just hold this camera and take one image with it. Then stare at it for a minute or two.... If you are a professional sports shooter you will no doubt hang onto your FF gear and big lenses for a bit longer. But whenever you are shooting anything else or walking or traveling anywhere, you will go out the door with the XT-2 and those magical FX lenses. That I know. Happened to me and so many pro's I know.....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Yes, I did. It was awkward. Specially those humongous zooms like 100-400mm, 50-140/2.8 and 16-55/2.8. And the battery life is terrible. I don't use huge lenses on my FF, but if I would, I'd just get the 24-105L, which has more range than XF16-55/2.8 (16-70/2.6 XF equivalent), similar size, lower price (even the new version is $100 cheaper than the XF monstrosity) and most likely better optics. Same deal with 70-200/4L. And for real telephoto I would get a 5DsR first, so I could just crop into the 300/4L (maybe +1.4xTC) or 400/5.6L and get much better results.
Where can you buy a small FF lens? - In a camera store, perhaps? There are plenty - $600 35/2 IS instead of XF23/1.4 freaking $900, $120 50/1.8 STM instead of XF35/1.2 (you wish it existed :D and cost $120), OK, OK, there is XF 35/1.4 for $600 :), 85/1.8 instead of XF56/1.2, 40/2.8 STM (XF26/1.8), 24+28/2.8 IS ... even Samyang 14mm is not that big. And please don't tell me about touchy-feely Fuji fetishes, I'm not into that.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 22:51 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg7579: I love this camera. It is absolutely stupendously incredibly awesome. If you are a Nikon or Canon FF guy -- just hold this camera and take one image with it. Then stare at it for a minute or two.... If you are a professional sports shooter you will no doubt hang onto your FF gear and big lenses for a bit longer. But whenever you are shooting anything else or walking or traveling anywhere, you will go out the door with the XT-2 and those magical FX lenses. That I know. Happened to me and so many pro's I know.....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Actually, I don't like what I see there. Too much smearing and artifacts, which makes it really bad choice for landscapes or macro and stuff where details matter. Maybe people and architecture look cleaner with Xtrans, but that look is fake, unnatural and even weird. It may be just fine for small viewing format, where you won't notice what's wrong with it. But I find it insulting when each and every Fuji fanatic is spreading lies about it being as good or better than FF. IT IS NOT! Please, stop.
There are small FF lenses too. And some few hundred gram extra weight won't break your neck.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 19:47 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: So no advantage then over an old 24mm f2.8 A.I.S? Or the 24-85VR? which also improves as you stop down at 24mm, but is still pretty sharp at f3.5. Bit of a shock to discover that even a 35mm sized sensor is way too difficult , WITH A MIRROR THERE, to be really crisp. Not as good as the 24mm f1.8 on my LG G4, what a shame!! The lens on the LG G4, and the V10 is sharp edge to edge and corner to corner at f1.8, despite the problems of miniaturization with optical stabilization, and the lens on the Pureview 808 Nokia IS as sharp, but hey its only 26MP, albeit on a 38mm sensor!! Yes, folks, it really is sharp, edge to edge and corner to corner, but there's no mirror in the way. Now, all they have to do is to scale it all up to 35mm size, and there you go, problem solved, OIS, sharp wide open, no vibration as no mirror slap, and much less noise, and if anybody else claims 1.8 = 2.7 on APS-C I'll scream. This relates not to aperture, but ONLY to relative depth of field.

Well, I guess, ignorant must suffer.
:)

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2016 at 00:54 UTC
In reply to:

pinoyboy: By the time it becomes mainstream will there be DSLRs using it? CFast is late to the party with XQD and SD cards taking the lead.

Not to mention the decline of dedicated still cameras in the market place.

@The Davinator
It is :). In camera, for stills burst, 60MB/s CF works faster than 95MB/s SD.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

Chaitanya S: One of the biggest issues has been many camera makers are reluctant to adopt CFast in the first place. When it came to industrial/embedded pcs that industry quickly got rid of CF in favour of CFast. I hope when it comes to CFexpress it gets adopted quickly.

It depends on CFE prices. If it will cost like $5 per gig, then I don't want it to be adopted at all, ever :). The expensive CFast now costs around $2~3$ per gig and XQD goes for $1.5-2$ per gig, which is still two ~ three, or even four times more than SSD. While UDMA7 CF goes as low as $0.70 per gig (SanDisk Extreme, Lexar Pro).
It would make a lot of sense if they'd make some sort of CF to CFE adapter, for those who want/need the speed. Because price won't drop until it becomes popular and it won't become popular until the price drops. And those who don't need it, could just use the regular cheap CF cards. Sadly, the world is ruled by greed and stupidity, therefore such things never happen. Same deal with CF+SD. If they'd just put 2xCF slots, then we could use 2 CF cards or 2 SD card via adapters. But no, they've decided to cripple it in favor of SD admirers. They want us to ditch CF and go SD, so that later we'll have to switch to something better anyway, because SD is the worst :).

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 15:23 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: What's wrong with XQD? I don't understand memory cards politics.

@HowaboutRAW
Strange thing :D
XQD can be faster, but it isn't.
CFast cannot be faster, but it is.
Go figure ...

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 00:42 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: What's wrong with XQD? I don't understand memory cards politics.

@HowaboutRAW
I can't find any 1GB/s XQDs as well. ATM, CFast is just as fast and even a bit faster (CFast 540/445 vs 440/400 XQD).
I realize that not all Chinese production is knockoff :). Do you know what a knockoff is?

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2016 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: What's wrong with XQD? I don't understand memory cards politics.

@HowaboutRAW
Expensive or not, I don't really care about CFast. Both XQD and CFast are too little too late. Maybe XQD 3.0 will bring the same 8GB/s speed, who knows.
Just don't use those cheap Chinese knockoff CF cards and your pins will be alright. Plenty of people tried to insert the card sideways, maybe that's the main reason for bent pins...

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2016 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: What's wrong with XQD? I don't understand memory cards politics.

@HowaboutRAW
First. What pins? :) CFast has no pins. It's SATA-like connection.
Second. Those in-camera pins work fine. Never had any problems with CF. Unlike all those cards with external contacts like SD, which tend to get corrupted or die, If you touch them with some static electricity on you. XQD may be faster, but CF is fast enough for most people to this day. I mean 160MB/s is fine.
However, this CFE will replace the CFast, which (IMHO) was a mistake, because making small SATA drives with already too slow 550MB/s speed limit (for things like RAW 4K video), is just silly.
SD ~ USB
SDHC ~ USB 2.0
SDXC ~ USB 3.0
CF ~ ATA up to 167MB/s, most HDDs still operate at those speeds
CFast ~ SATA up to 600MB/s, SSD like
XQD 2.0 ~ PCIe up to 1GB/s, next gen SSD (today's tech)
CFE ~ NVMe - PCIe x8 up to 8GB/s, future SSD (tomorrow's tech)

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2016 at 20:48 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: What's wrong with XQD? I don't understand memory cards politics.

XQD is as wrong as Memory Stick :). Rare, expensive and obsolete.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2016 at 12:35 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: "If you're an APS-C shooter the 36mm equivalent focal length with an equivalent aperture of F2.7."

Folks, you're buying a lens having a fast aperture of f/1.8.

Exactly ...

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 15:50 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: "If you're an APS-C shooter the 36mm equivalent focal length with an equivalent aperture of F2.7."

Folks, you're buying a lens having a fast aperture of f/1.8.

There is no expanse and nothing cancels out. If you put that same Rodenstock on a FF camera, you won't use all the light, only a tiny crop of it and the rest of the light simply doesn't hit the sensor. While larger formats are using more light to create the same image. And the DoF differs because you will need to change the distance to keep the same framing.
It is possible to shoot LF-like images using FF or even smaller formats - the Brenizer method. You will get the same effect. Stitching images means that you add the light used to create each image (excluding the overlapping parts of course).
There is another trick - the speedbooster. Just like the popular Metabones adapter made to adapt FF lenses on APS-C mirrorless cameras while squeezing all the light (maybe not all, but the most of it) into a smaller APS-C image circle, same thing could be done with this Rodenstock lens and you would get the equivalent 28mm F0.65 projection on FF.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 11:59 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: "If you're an APS-C shooter the 36mm equivalent focal length with an equivalent aperture of F2.7."

Folks, you're buying a lens having a fast aperture of f/1.8.

Exposure in its original sense is the process of exposing a light-sensitive media (like film) to the light of a certain intensity (limited by the aperture), for a certain amount of time (limited by the shutter speed). While media sensitivity has a role of adjusting the formula, just like the light meter. Sometimes exposure is wrongly called the amount of light, which it is not.
Simple experiment:
Camera A got twice larger sensor than camera B. Then we set the same exposure for both cameras using the same lens, same F-stop, same shutter speed, same ISO. Now, while using the same shutter speed, half of the camera A sensor is getting as much light as the whole camera B sensor.
I'm not sure if your math is correct, but the LF is getting much more light than FF at the same F-stop. According to B&H, Rodenstock 240mm f/5.6 Apo-Sironar-S is a wide angle 8x10 capable lens with 75 degrees coverage, which is equivalent to 28mm F0.65 on FF. Impossible? - I don't think so. 6 elements - 1kg!

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 00:01 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: "If you're an APS-C shooter the 36mm equivalent focal length with an equivalent aperture of F2.7."

Folks, you're buying a lens having a fast aperture of f/1.8.

You mean exposure settings? I don't need a definition for that. It is what it is. However, assuming that the same exposure will get you the same amount of light for all cameras is WRONG. Because the same ISO numbers on different formats produce different results. They are basically lying to you. Smaller sensor needs more sensitivity to get the same image brightness, which is why you get more noise.
Exposure gets you similar image brightness. Equivalence gets you similar everything - image brightness, DoF, noise, perspective, even size and weight.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2016 at 14:50 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Fujifilm Interview (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

raindance: To me Fuji represents everything that is exciting about the art of photography. While Canon and Nikon continue to churn out good, but very status quo products and Sony seems like a lost puppy trying to figure out what they want to be, Fuji concentrates on what diehard passionate photographers want. No this isn't fanboyism, I own several brands (Canon, Sony) and just have a deeper connection with Fuji products. Thank you Fuji for making photography great again ;)

Not for $9999. Would you? :)

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 12:58 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: "If you're an APS-C shooter the 36mm equivalent focal length with an equivalent aperture of F2.7."

Folks, you're buying a lens having a fast aperture of f/1.8.

It is not only DoF or about the DoF. DoF is the most obvious difference to notice when you compare two formats, but it is only a side effect of the actual difference, which is the AMOUNT OF LIGHT.
It is equivalent in everything. Basically you can reproduce the 24/1.8 APS-C image using 36/2.7 (or something close to that) on FF. The poison here is your ignorance of how it works. The amount of light and light intensity are two different things. Intensity (delta) can be described by just the F-stop (or T-stop), but the amount of light depends on F-stop, time (shutter speed) and area (sensor size). In a fair comparison, the time is the same, because the shutter speed is equivalent by itself. In larger format cameras it travels longer at the same speed. So it's just the F-stop and the sensor size. Twice larger sensor gathers twice more light at the same intensity. You cannot get the same amount of information from less than half the amount of light (APS-C), while using similar technology.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 12:54 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Fujifilm Interview (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

raindance: To me Fuji represents everything that is exciting about the art of photography. While Canon and Nikon continue to churn out good, but very status quo products and Sony seems like a lost puppy trying to figure out what they want to be, Fuji concentrates on what diehard passionate photographers want. No this isn't fanboyism, I own several brands (Canon, Sony) and just have a deeper connection with Fuji products. Thank you Fuji for making photography great again ;)

I think that film and digital are absolutely different things with different roots. It is possible to emulate film colors for whatever images from whatever cameras. I don't see Fuji being the benchmark for judging which colors are right and which colors are wrong. It is more a nostalgia thing, than anything useful for me personally. Nobody's stopping you from shooting film, it is still available.
About paying attention to customer interests - Why is that Fuji didn't make any X-T or X-PRO bodies with a regular Bayer array sensor, which many are asking for? How about touch screen? Bigger battery? See what the propaganda does to people ... they forget to think critically and logically. Photography never was purely about art. I have not seen a single perfect out of the camera JPG, ever. But I know for a fact, that it is pointless to argue with lazy people and their low expectations (the majority). The problem is not me asking for better tools, it's the dumbing down of an average consumer.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 01:55 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Fujifilm Interview (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

raindance: To me Fuji represents everything that is exciting about the art of photography. While Canon and Nikon continue to churn out good, but very status quo products and Sony seems like a lost puppy trying to figure out what they want to be, Fuji concentrates on what diehard passionate photographers want. No this isn't fanboyism, I own several brands (Canon, Sony) and just have a deeper connection with Fuji products. Thank you Fuji for making photography great again ;)

What are you talking about ... Photography is a tool and all these tool-making corporations are seeking profit, not friendship. They are not rushing the progress. Fuji is no exception. Sometimes it seems like they don't even try to compete with each other. All they care about is money and the rest of it is just politics (aka. deception).

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 17:54 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (562 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: I would buy a mirrorless camera (system):
- when it will deliver as much utilizable stuff as my DSLR (which I believe is underutilized for my needs), at a lower price, because there is actually less stuff in it (no mirror, etc.) and it is cheaper to produce. (makes sense?)
- or when it will have more of the right stuff, for the same price. Paying more for less is not my nature.
Now about the stuff I don't need:
- don't need a heavy tank-like build that could kills someone if I accidentally drop it.
- don't need crop sensor.
- don't need the smallest, gripless (with joke-sized battery), body possible to put it in my pocket for some reason (which I'd never do anyway).
- don't need different memory card type mixing. SD card is fine ... till it dies, so it better be 2 slots (I prefer CF), and a fast data transfer solution would be nice (USB3 or WiFi), because all the card swapping is killing those poor little SDs.
- don't need humongous "fast" zooms. I just don't. F4's are fine.

Hmm ...
FF? - OK
Cheaper? - nope!
Bigger grip and battery? - nope!
Swivel touch screen? - nope!
CF? - nope!
More stuff I don't need (looks and $#!t) - yes

I'm using 2 DSLR batteries, which can provide the "juice" for ~2000 shots. But mirrorless would require 6 or 7 batteries to do the same thing. Equivalent optics are always similar in size and weight. Then why are they pretending to be "compact" systems? They are not. Things won't change until they drop that BS and start making tools instead of toys.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 13:30 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: "If you're an APS-C shooter the 36mm equivalent focal length with an equivalent aperture of F2.7."

Folks, you're buying a lens having a fast aperture of f/1.8.

Doesn't change the fact that on APS-C it is comparable to a FF 36mm F2.7, which makes it a very unreasonable choice for crop shooters, specially at $745. Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art costs $800. Why bother?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 13:15 UTC
Total: 495, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »