wb2trf

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 3, 2011

Comments

Total: 110, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (460 comments in total)

This camera, and in fact the entire slow rate of renewal of the Canon camera line, is what you get if corporate management gives the camera division a very low investment budget. It is entirely rational for corporate management to do that, since cameras are a shrinking market in which Canon already has high market share and Canon is a diversified company. Canon corporate is trying to find better, higher growth, markets to invest in while milking their brand in cameras for higher cash flow toward other markets. No surprises here.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 20:49 UTC as 122nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Oliver Bedford: "mirror-less is probably the future" translates to "I don't have a clue, but saying otherwise would hurt the sales of our newly launched product"

No. It translates to, "Obviously it is the future, but I don't want to get dslr prospective buyers mad by arguing the point."

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 23:36 UTC
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: The more I see this camera the more I desire it.

My thoughts exactly. If there are no hidden defects in the implementation, it looks great: simple, compact, clean.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 02:55 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: Considering their latest camera system is mirrorless, what could they mean by stating, "mirrorless is 'probably' the future?" Isn't it definitely, without any doubt, their future?

Yes it is their future, as it is everyone's future.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 02:50 UTC
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: Only Canikoners might remotely imagine mirrorless is not the future...

Pro's are not technologists. The technology will drag them into the future. They will be like the old pro's lamenting the passing of the speed graphics: irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 01:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (813 comments in total)

Elegant. Assuming it performs well within its specifications, I'd lIke to own this camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 12:28 UTC as 99th comment
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1093 comments in total)
In reply to:

treakj: "Cameras such as the Canon EOS 7D Mark II and Sony's a6300 appear to offer comparable capabilities on paper, but these appearances prove deceptive in real-world use: the D500's autofocus and continuous shooting performance is noticeably better."

It's interesting. If capability on paper doesn't say much, maybe it would be nice if we come up with an objective way to measure those performance.

For instance, sharp picture % or sharp picture quantity. I know it must be very difficult to come up with an comparison between different AF settings/system, but if specs doesn't tell us all, at least I would like to say "D500 AF is better than A6300's, you would get 10-20% more usable shots in a sport event", for example.

Some objective tests of AF performance would be very nice. I don't even believe the subjective discriminations without objective support. Individual humans can give opinions, but they are notoriously bad at approximating the results of objective measures.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 01:58 UTC

Wow, Canon is in quite a pickle. The big problem is that, in addition to the chronic decline in cameras, the office copier and printer business is also terrible. Somehow I thought that their other lines of business weren't also strategically challenged.

They should make their own adapter for all Canon lenses to Sony bodies and make the adapter work perfectly.

After the dual sensor phone cams hit in 2017, the whole under $1000 dslr market will be plummeting for a few years, the way the compact market did. Mirrorless, who knows but at least its manufacturing cost structure will be better able to take volume declines.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 23:57 UTC as 21st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

fotogrofur: No surprises.

loitokitok, do you read, or just write? "I don't think anything could save compacts at this point" and then you say I'm grasping at straws to think something could save them. What?

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 23:51 UTC
In reply to:

fotogrofur: No surprises.

I don't think anything could really save compacts based on compact sensors at this point. They are already at 1/4 their former unit volume.
On the other hand, general third party app openness and support, not Japan-style faux-open, in any high quality large-sensor camera would be a huge win for the consumer. Japanese companies just can't understand it, though.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 04:55 UTC
In reply to:

caravan: The D500 looks good but behold the a6300! Amazing.

Agreed. If l look at the A6300 at 12500, for example in the "playing cards" area, it looks better than the D500.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: The gushing enthusiasm about the high ISO performance is ridiculous. The D500 is barely better than the a6300 or D7200 at 25600 and if those sensors were down-sampled to 21MP the results would be even closer. Nikon has not altered quantum physics and have only barely raised the bar. You certainly would not use ISO 51K or higher which are marketing cr@p. The really good news is that they have not made the mistake they did with the D5 and the sensor has impressive DR and is ISOless, the exact opposite of the D5, which has gone markedly backward. However yet again the D500 is only performing a wee bit better than the D7200 in the DR and ISO'lessness testing.

Leaving aside the sensor the real drawcard of this camera is the AF. And could they have just used the D7200 sensor in the D500 body and would anybody really see the difference in IQ.

Not true. Operating Systems are getting worse.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 03:57 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2164 comments in total)

The comments here reflect the fact that this is going to be a highly emotionally charged time over the next 5 years or so. Most of the "enthusiast" camera market is old men. Old people don't like change as much as younger people do and dslrs are going to be dying off, like a lot of their die hard fans. We can see now the shape of things to come: the electronic adapters for Canon and Nikon will become perfect and cheap, offering essentially the equivalent of native lens capability and better features than when the lenses are used with the brand for which they were built. From nowhere on that 2 years ago we're now well on the way. So these Sony bodies and maybe a few others will be the universal body. People can go on shooting with dslrs, and buying them, as long as they want, but, in the context of an overall terrible camera market, they will inevitably become passe, not the best you can buy. The SpeedGraphic of the era.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 15:04 UTC as 125th comment | 10 replies
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2164 comments in total)
In reply to:

wb2trf: I have a complaint about the use of the term "build quality" in reviews. The term erroneously suggests that cameras with higher "build quality" will last longer in normal use or survive drops better. In fact there is no basis to believe this without doing very specific and destructive physical and electronic stress testing of the kind that manufacturers actually do. Longevity and drop test results are not at all predictable from the use of plastic or metal in the exterior as assessed by reviewers inspection. Anyone who has done real stress and drop tests knows the surprises they deliver. What a "build quality" review says is "how much metal is in the construction vs plastic" and maybe some things even more subjective than that. But, real build quality is actually very important when buying any expensive product. Assessing it would imply a different world of testing from that actually undertaken. Its fine not do that hard test, not fine be so unscientific about "build quality".

Captura, I am not really addressing Sony's camera here but rather the terminology used in reviews. If a reader supposes that "better build quality" means "It will be less likely to fail in use", they would be drawing an unsupported conclusion. "Build quality" as used in the review and by users in the forums is really a "psychological appeal" category rather than anything about quality as a manufacturing quality standard would measure it, and as a buyer might erroneously suppose. (The terminology about environmental protection has its own jargon, "dust and moisture" "weather sealing" etc, but reviews generally don't pretend to opine on whether it is or is not as the manufacturer may claim.)

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 17:13 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2164 comments in total)

I have a complaint about the use of the term "build quality" in reviews. The term erroneously suggests that cameras with higher "build quality" will last longer in normal use or survive drops better. In fact there is no basis to believe this without doing very specific and destructive physical and electronic stress testing of the kind that manufacturers actually do. Longevity and drop test results are not at all predictable from the use of plastic or metal in the exterior as assessed by reviewers inspection. Anyone who has done real stress and drop tests knows the surprises they deliver. What a "build quality" review says is "how much metal is in the construction vs plastic" and maybe some things even more subjective than that. But, real build quality is actually very important when buying any expensive product. Assessing it would imply a different world of testing from that actually undertaken. Its fine not do that hard test, not fine be so unscientific about "build quality".

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 02:28 UTC as 203rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

RidgeRunner22: Very usefull for those of us with a collection on manual glass, who still prefer the optical VF in certain scenarios.

All changed. Your friend needs the A6300. On the other hand I laugh every time my friend can't use his viewfinder for video. But, this technology would solve that, if it ever arrives.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2016 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

mailman88: No Big Deal....I'll keep using my old 7D and 100-400 mm IS, shooting wildlife sometimes at 6400ISO....printing 13x19 and selling them with happy customers asking for more.

Your only competition is guys with view cameras and plates

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2016 at 03:14 UTC
In reply to:

bwana4swahili: Sounds like a whole lot of unnecessary complexity!? Just perfect an EVF and forget about the nonsense of hybrid systems! OVF are old tech and should be retired...

You're right and I'd guess that the long term market share of OVF will approximate that of mechanical watches for the same reason.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2016 at 03:12 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (549 comments in total)
In reply to:

wb2trf: This is a deeply stupid review because it confuses two fundamentally different questions: does one want to use a camera that is in this class (compact, high resolution, fixed focal-length lens) and is this a good camera of this class? Instead, as it stands, this review is like a review of a live-theater play that compares it to a movie version of the same play and is written by someone who deeply likes movies, not plays. This class of cameras is like the live theater: tough to do Star Wars in live, but maybe, to some, live has its unique charms. The fact that the reviewer deeply prefers movies keeps creeping into this confused review.

Lets instead suppose that no one buys this class of camera who doesn't think that they want to own this class of camera, with all the class peculiarities. The review should really confine itself to comparisons to the Leica, (unless there are any other relevant cameras in this class.) That's all that belongs here. This vs. the Leica. That's it.

OK, sorry. My general view is that the reviewer misses the main point that photographers choose this weird class of camera only very intentionally, seeking through it to force their imagining brain conform to the restrictions of the camera, rather than make the camera do anything they might imagine. They choose to be constrained. Thus, the Leica Q and this camera are as different from other cameras as plays are from movies. The review should focus on the question: which of the two cameras is better and in what way, assuming you want to buy a camera in this class. This is lost here. Crossover comments, comparing to the A7RII like, "it doesn't focus as fast as the A7RII because of the lens design", seem out out of place, like saying, "sometimes I couldn't quite hear the lead actor, but in the movie version I never had that problem." There are spot comparisons to the Leica, but no solid overall summary and, if you are in the market for one of these the prices aren't that different.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 20:09 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (549 comments in total)

This is a deeply stupid review because it confuses two fundamentally different questions: does one want to use a camera that is in this class (compact, high resolution, fixed focal-length lens) and is this a good camera of this class? Instead, as it stands, this review is like a review of a live-theater play that compares it to a movie version of the same play and is written by someone who deeply likes movies, not plays. This class of cameras is like the live theater: tough to do Star Wars in live, but maybe, to some, live has its unique charms. The fact that the reviewer deeply prefers movies keeps creeping into this confused review.

Lets instead suppose that no one buys this class of camera who doesn't think that they want to own this class of camera, with all the class peculiarities. The review should really confine itself to comparisons to the Leica, (unless there are any other relevant cameras in this class.) That's all that belongs here. This vs. the Leica. That's it.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 05:16 UTC as 88th comment | 6 replies
Total: 110, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »