The Squire

The Squire

Lives in United Kingdom Bath, United Kingdom
Works as a Professional Coffee Drinker and Pixel Manipulator
Joined on Mar 30, 2007

Comments

Total: 906, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

nerd2: Nikkor 180mm 2.8: $1000
Canon 200mm 2.8: $749

Heck, even 70-200 2.8 are cheaper than this .

@PredatorsPrey I might like a nice tumeric latte, but my choice of camera is a personal one. There is often an assumption, even among people who call themselves experts, that Canon and Nikon are the gold marque. "Hey, if you can afford CaNikon, youd buy that right?". Wrong. There are many reasons not to buy CaNikon. Even as their old skool lens designs start to find their way in to the bargain bin, they're still not systems I'd invest in.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 09:16 UTC
On article Affinity Photo for iPad Review (90 comments in total)

Decent Dropbox integration? Ability to work between iOS and Windows? (Mostly) Non-destructive editing?

Well, I might have found a $20 replacement for Lightroom.....

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 16:07 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

The Squire: Are moving subjects a total no-go?

If this mode is used in good light where a single shot could be captured at, say, 1/200, would 3 shots be close to a total exposure of 1/60? That'd be acceptable for mid/distant moving objects if they arent the main interest in your image (e.g. people moving around the scene).

I know from some pixel shift sample a while back that movement can look weird. Not just soft (which youd expect at 1/60) but weird artifacts. Interested to see if the Sony handles this any better.

0.5 sec between each stacked shot, or 0.5sec between each pixel shifted frame thats being stacked? If the latter, that sounds reaaaally slow....

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 15:53 UTC

Are moving subjects a total no-go?

If this mode is used in good light where a single shot could be captured at, say, 1/200, would 3 shots be close to a total exposure of 1/60? That'd be acceptable for mid/distant moving objects if they arent the main interest in your image (e.g. people moving around the scene).

I know from some pixel shift sample a while back that movement can look weird. Not just soft (which youd expect at 1/60) but weird artifacts. Interested to see if the Sony handles this any better.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 08:58 UTC as 96th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

cosinaphile: why is the Canon 200mm 2.8 750 usd and this 3000?

even allowing for the teleconverter 500 usd that would only be 1250

something is wrong with this pricing even with a devalued dollar
I cant imagine this is right

Canon 200 (or the 400, or most of their primes) are old optical designs for low resolution, photo-centric DSLR and SLR bodies.

Everyone else is investing in modern designs for high resolution sensors, better mechanisms that work with on-sensor/smart AF and vastly superior stabilization.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 09:29 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Nikkor 180mm 2.8: $1000
Canon 200mm 2.8: $749

Heck, even 70-200 2.8 are cheaper than this .

Yeah, but youd have to use a CaNikon :(

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 09:26 UTC
In reply to:

The Squire: AWESOME except that Micro USB3 port! Probably the worst port ever created. Why no USB-C?

Urgh that weird double headed micro port thing. Its not even that small... And its telling that it's the only cable type I dont have a dozen spares lying around. I have one device that uses it, an oldish external HDD...

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 17:37 UTC

WHY should I pay this much for modern engineering that works with cutting edge photo/video tech when I can strap a 15 year old design Canon L to my old skool DSLR at half the price?

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 17:33 UTC as 48th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Pritzl: One more overpriced mirror-less lens. The equivalent Canon 400mm f/5.6 is about $1150. If you ignore equivalence, Canon's 200mm f/2.8 is only around $750. And these are Canon L lenses.

So, unless IS and the teleconverter are worth more than $1500, I don't understand the pricing on this lens.

Sadly, like most crop sensor manufacturers, they are only too happy to quote the equivalent focal length, but do so without similarly equating the f-number. So, the predictable defense of this and similar lenses is: It's a 400mm f/2.8! Where can you get such a lens for only $3000?!

But it's not. It's either a 200mm f/2.8 or a 400mm f/5.6. You either convert both focal length and f-number or neither. They are inter-connected because f-number = focal length/aperture. Thus doubling the focal length will double the f-number. (gathering 1/4 of the light of a true 400mm f/2.8)

You're assuming Canon L means they are better quality than the Panasonic?

Many Canon L lenses are old designs which struggle with the resolution of modern sensors, and certainly arent designed to work with mirrorless AF systems, nor are they optimized for video in any way.

For those reasons, I'd instead assume this Panny lens is significantly better engineered than your average Canon L.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 15:38 UTC

AWESOME except that Micro USB3 port! Probably the worst port ever created. Why no USB-C?

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:06 UTC as 134th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

tangbunna: i heard people complained about raw compression. but now this review ask to have this option back due to large uncompressed file size.

Yes. On some models Sony *only* offered lossy compression. People asked, and they got uncompressed files.

The mid-ground is lossless compression, which is the latest ask.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 15:09 UTC

ENHANCE!

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 15:00 UTC as 13th comment

This is awesome! Im going to upload some of my DSLR photos to get the AI to create some medium-format Hasselblad quality images!

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 09:39 UTC as 29th comment | 3 replies

Wow it must be great for 4k oh hang on no.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 16:13 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

ASRBriggs: I updated to "Lightroom Classic" and I am blown away by how slow it is.

@matthew LR is not a resource hog its just badly written. I have a fairly decent Intel i7 desktop quad core, 16GB RAM and everything on SSD. It's still slow. I need to go make a cup of tea if I accidentally scroll through a video file in the library.

You can watch the resource utilization - It doesnt thrash any of the resources, not CPU, RAM or I/O, which means it's not using the resources available to it, which means it's badly written. Single threaded or locking resources, I dont know, but it just needs a re-work (see LRCC, hopefully).

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 07:46 UTC
In reply to:

FlyinDoc: The A7 II was crying out for an upgrade; so they announce the A7R III. Bah!

Maybe a response to the D850?

I think everyone was expecting a new A7... you know, something more people might be able to afford!

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 08:23 UTC
In reply to:

Frank Neunemann: OK, but what is "Deep Fill" actually good for? Even more phony photographs made easy...

How about building 3D/VR environments from multiple images?

You can already calculate depth from multiple photos, and map these photos together in to a rough looking 3D environment.

What this tech does is allows the computer to fill in the gaps. Result: Realistic 3D environment you can actually navigate around.

Okay, it's not traditional photography, but I'd love to be able to do this. Imagine being able to recreate the internals of the house you lived in 20 years ago in full 3D....

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 10:03 UTC
In reply to:

The Squire: CAN'T PRINT FROM LIGHTROOM CC?!?!?!?!?

Srsly?

Up until I read that I thought I might be able to go for the lightweight LR CC (new). I guess I have deal breakers like everyone else (except mine isnt storage - 1TB is enough for me), but I'd miss the Print function....

I guess Adobe will want us to print via a web service to Photobox or someone....

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 13:56 UTC

I hope hope hope that's 4K *per eye*, not just a crummy 4k stereoscopic MP4 file split down the middle....

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 09:30 UTC as 12th comment

CAN'T PRINT FROM LIGHTROOM CC?!?!?!?!?

Srsly?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 08:56 UTC as 87th comment | 2 replies
Total: 906, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »