HSway

HSway

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Has a website at www.sunwaysite.com
Joined on Mar 21, 2010

Comments

Total: 261, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article The Nikkor Z 24-50mm F4-6.3 is a compact $400 zoom (223 comments in total)

Handy specs for sure. Potentially for anyone using the system. It must be quite something else next to my 24-70/2.8 S... There is plenty of isolation and its effects in many shots where the subject takes up a larger part of the framing. So bad bokeh would hamper the more delicate effect of these apertures and the lens as such. Samples that I’ve seen on Nikon website don’t point to surprises though, at least not at 50mm. I guess the compact 28 and 40 (pancakes?) that should extend this type in fixed focal lengths will be more popular with enthusiasts.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2020 at 10:26 UTC as 7th comment

Nikon shows it’s excellent at 24 mm. Even if it were excellent at 28 mm this would be my pick over a 70-200/4 which is F-mount type of design.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2020 at 09:08 UTC as 8th comment
On article Nikon announces Z-mount lens roadmap (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

HSway: That choice between the 24-70 and 24-105 is a nice one.

The indicated 24-200 mm is a far better choice than 70-200 (outside the f2.8). The need or priority for 70-200/4 is further dissolved in the 100-400 S. So glad to see it and the 200-600 zoom.

The little 50-250 Dx is about f10 Fx equivalent at the long end (380 mm). That is good subject isolation for the majority of cases. At least taking the typical use into account, when the frame is filled with subjects. The bokeh looks promising from the few samples. Frankly you don’t expect Nikon to mess the bokeh up in anything today.

This should be an S lens so we know what sort of quality to expect. I think it’s going to be the size (24-70/4) vs that nice 105 mm. In theory, they can make them more different by making it a fast variable aperture ending f4. This would make it closer to the 24-70/2.8 (that I absolutely love). But I'd guess the f4 aperture is more likely. We will have to wait and see how they look side by side. The choices here are going to be great though.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2019 at 11:48 UTC
On article What the Z50 tells us about Nikon's APS-C strategy (677 comments in total)

The ML is a natural progression for Dx and yes, it's very Nikon. Two cameras maybe, three... uncertain.
As for the phone-targeting marketing, yeh, that attempts to attract the young to a dedicated camera platform (with a straight path up). It comes with the general vibe that appeals to the young actual or potential camera users so it does little harm even though it looks enthusiastic.
Otherwise I'd say the camera is quite a feat in that it is this small, when you consider the mount. The 16-50 isn’t bigger than the nicely formed grip. This will fit anywhere except a shirt pocket. As pointed out exactly (the mount), there will still be smaller cameras in this or that dimension but they will also address a narrower spectrum of users (and uses), look and feel different – and among all the possible deciding factors Nikon aims for its slice. In that light, those mm could be more of a factor with the lower model, if it is to come.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2019 at 11:11 UTC as 95th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon announces Z-mount lens roadmap (284 comments in total)

That choice between the 24-70 and 24-105 is a nice one.

The indicated 24-200 mm is a far better choice than 70-200 (outside the f2.8). The need or priority for 70-200/4 is further dissolved in the 100-400 S. So glad to see it and the 200-600 zoom.

The little 50-250 Dx is about f10 Fx equivalent at the long end (380 mm). That is good subject isolation for the majority of cases. At least taking the typical use into account, when the frame is filled with subjects. The bokeh looks promising from the few samples. Frankly you don’t expect Nikon to mess the bokeh up in anything today.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2019 at 09:57 UTC as 39th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

HSway: That L-alliance can be a potent player on now more saturated market. I imagine Sigma would bring telephoto lenses to the system, among other things. That should bring their stuff to other mounts I’d hope.

There is also the 60-600/4.5-6.3 Sport. It comes from a designer personally devoted to this project, formerly 50-500 range. It’s considered their best telephoto zoom. For the 100-400 range, I guess it may be faster variable aperture made for the system than that in the DSLR version I have. They may also have a strategy (with Panasonic) that differentiates the range for a faster and slower zoom, let’s see.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2019 at 06:59 UTC
In reply to:

HSway: It’s hard to fault the specifications released/planned so far.
I hope the 100-300/4 won’t prove correct.
It would sit awkwardly between the 70-200/4 and 80-400.
Of course any lens has got some advantage but the preference here goes – 400 mm; 70 or 80 mm; size; aperture and not the other way round.
A 300 mm zoom is short at 100 mm. It could raise some interest from 70-200/4 users that don’t mind losing 70 mm though again, that lens is more a range lens than a reach one. I said this before but even in 400 mm zooms the 80 mm is very useful – to have the ability to get under the 100 mm into a short tele range. You can overlook this with a 400 mm zoom but less so with a 300 mm one. The aperture preference is best for product differentiation but that can be used only to some extent, keeping in mind the practical side, the competition and the users’ experience overall - it’s all different to 10 years ago!

@BJN and others
The 100-300/4 or 28-280/2.8-5.6 are fine (for one lens), it should just be 55 or 70 mm at least rather than 28 and 100 mm for both lenses. It’s a better choice next to a 80(or 100)-400 mm that I suppose will also be made for ML, and as an alternative to 70-200/4 specification.
And that 400 mm one I’d love compact – f6.3 at the end. Try to use one then tell me what you think.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2019 at 10:16 UTC

That L-alliance can be a potent player on now more saturated market. I imagine Sigma would bring telephoto lenses to the system, among other things. That should bring their stuff to other mounts I’d hope.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2019 at 09:56 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies

Adapted lenses work very well in many cases judging by my and others’ experience. It is some advantage they should utilise, with the dedicated lenses coming gradually. Lenses like PF primes and other gems are certainly more than worth adapting. I would still be careful about an artificial splitting of the products for ML and DSLRs – the telephotos come to mid - or troubling the ML with lack of clarity.
And the road map is a good idea, I think.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2019 at 09:40 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

HSway: It’s hard to fault the specifications released/planned so far.
I hope the 100-300/4 won’t prove correct.
It would sit awkwardly between the 70-200/4 and 80-400.
Of course any lens has got some advantage but the preference here goes – 400 mm; 70 or 80 mm; size; aperture and not the other way round.
A 300 mm zoom is short at 100 mm. It could raise some interest from 70-200/4 users that don’t mind losing 70 mm though again, that lens is more a range lens than a reach one. I said this before but even in 400 mm zooms the 80 mm is very useful – to have the ability to get under the 100 mm into a short tele range. You can overlook this with a 400 mm zoom but less so with a 300 mm one. The aperture preference is best for product differentiation but that can be used only to some extent, keeping in mind the practical side, the competition and the users’ experience overall - it’s all different to 10 years ago!

With the TC (1.4 I’d use) it is a different game. It would become a reach lens with a limited range (for the short end). But the f6.3 variable aperture (100-400) allows much better ‘handholdability’ as the lens can be really compact for that reach. It’s a big plus in use – which is varied. And the range is more versatile for those who need the short end. But yes, with the TC the prospects look better re such a 100-300/4.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2019 at 10:02 UTC
In reply to:

HSway: It’s hard to fault the specifications released/planned so far.
I hope the 100-300/4 won’t prove correct.
It would sit awkwardly between the 70-200/4 and 80-400.
Of course any lens has got some advantage but the preference here goes – 400 mm; 70 or 80 mm; size; aperture and not the other way round.
A 300 mm zoom is short at 100 mm. It could raise some interest from 70-200/4 users that don’t mind losing 70 mm though again, that lens is more a range lens than a reach one. I said this before but even in 400 mm zooms the 80 mm is very useful – to have the ability to get under the 100 mm into a short tele range. You can overlook this with a 400 mm zoom but less so with a 300 mm one. The aperture preference is best for product differentiation but that can be used only to some extent, keeping in mind the practical side, the competition and the users’ experience overall - it’s all different to 10 years ago!

Look one post up, I am talking about S lenses - 80-400/4.5-6.3 S*...
Unfortunately in the practical world, the 300 mm is merely an extension to 200 mm whereas 400 mm is a meaningful magnification for the first time.
This makes the 100-400 fundamental type of zoom. So you would look from this side at the other zooms.
In terms of the differentiation in the lineup the 300 mm can be seen less important than a more compact 70-200/4 or similar depending on the exact specification of the 100-400. Not much space in these comments to talk about it. The 100-300/4 would then lack on both ends. The meaningful jump in reach and at the short end. Getting under the 100 mm is an extra feature, it’s that different, useful for landscape etc. I could as well say 300 mm zoom is useless (without a TC). But I will just point out the short end omission which is a bad choice in any case.
I will be selling my 70-200/4, the 100-400 I have from Sigma made the lens redundant.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2019 at 08:56 UTC

Better options:
55-300/4 S (or variable faster), 70-200(or 300)/4 S and 80-400/4.5-6.3 S* (they will undoubtedly push for a faster/less compact lens, though).
The 28-280/2.8-5.6 S would be a nice lens for the option #1 – though I believe 55 or 35 mm short end is the ideal spec for it.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2019 at 09:33 UTC as 27th comment

It’s hard to fault the specifications released/planned so far.
I hope the 100-300/4 won’t prove correct.
It would sit awkwardly between the 70-200/4 and 80-400.
Of course any lens has got some advantage but the preference here goes – 400 mm; 70 or 80 mm; size; aperture and not the other way round.
A 300 mm zoom is short at 100 mm. It could raise some interest from 70-200/4 users that don’t mind losing 70 mm though again, that lens is more a range lens than a reach one. I said this before but even in 400 mm zooms the 80 mm is very useful – to have the ability to get under the 100 mm into a short tele range. You can overlook this with a 400 mm zoom but less so with a 300 mm one. The aperture preference is best for product differentiation but that can be used only to some extent, keeping in mind the practical side, the competition and the users’ experience overall - it’s all different to 10 years ago!

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2019 at 09:28 UTC as 28th comment | 9 replies
On article DPReview TV: Sony a6600 first impressions (201 comments in total)

The format was more ahead at the start of the digital. I am thinking how serious the brands will get with the APS-C. Sony improved this with the lens releases. The point of the format is the size and cost. It needs good quality slow lenses (some faster options to extend the utility) and it can be very useful from a user's standpoint. The niche is vulnerable to the phones, the overall climate say, and the 135 format that is maturing. I mean a niche in ecology terms here but the attractivity decline is there.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2019 at 11:20 UTC as 55th comment
On article Sony a6600 sample gallery (185 comments in total)

Very impressed by the lenses used, especially by the 16-55/2.8, also by the Sigma 56/1.4. The 70-350mm G OSS looks well-made - an incredibly useful lens of all sorts, travel/outdoor. It’s less covered here - the out of focus rendering - good so far. I guess the G lens will be at least very good. The 16-55/2.8 - pretty stunning, good range.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2019 at 08:36 UTC as 12th comment

Great range.
Yeah the system is unique as someone argued.
If it’s your cup of tea, you appreciate it. I don’t find the discussions about the equivalent options all that disturbing in general and I find them actually interesting if viewed in context. Some thick skin from the MFT users may be required and especially more accuracy and less demeaning in the arguments made, which is ever so tempting.
I am not exactly familiar with the lineups, but there sure are very small cameras available in the MFT as well, and so are the very compact slower lenses. The system then deals with the faster stuff their way, obviously – it is this combination, need and the cup-of-tea thing again. Larger cameras are options as are the larger lenses (whatever the relation between these needs).
The pressure on MFT has increased somehow both from the 135 f and from the phones, and some cooling of the market is not helping anyone. Overall an excellent target for intentional trolling, or just insensitive blunders.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2019 at 09:16 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies

Thanks for this. There is no business without trust. A much better treatment than the D600 got… Should keep happy both the users and the trolls! :))

Link | Posted on May 22, 2019 at 06:29 UTC as 8th comment

/ induced by the technologically different world – for better or worse.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2019 at 06:17 UTC as 19th comment

To borrow the phrase, “we have seen a lot of movement away from” cameras in general. Digital imaging is no longer a novelty. It has branched into all parts of our lives. Our senses are surrounded and overwhelmed by all sorts of hyper-realistic, fictional or just informative imaging representations of better and better products from schools, shops, bedrooms to baby buggies. Its originality lost its magic and people look for new ones. So it’s not just that the phones are here. It’s the whole environment that changed to the times 10, 15 years ago. With the novelty factor fading and the consumer overfed and tired with all the external input and even personality issues coming more ordinarily to light (losing of inner self), no wonder the digital cameras sell less. It is a predictable trend that the market will lose that part of the consumer base and that the sudden revival of photography will revert to its inherent root. And that with modifications /

Link | Posted on May 22, 2019 at 06:17 UTC as 20th comment
On article Ricoh GR III studio scene published (134 comments in total)

These are very nice results for the GR III, lens, higher ISO, high ISO - colour.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2019 at 11:58 UTC as 5th comment
Total: 261, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »