Impulses

Lives in Puerto Rico Puerto Rico
Works as a student
Joined on Apr 7, 2013

Comments

Total: 3291, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

If every lens I wanted actually existed, I'd much rather have a FF ML body and go darker/compact or as fast as possible depending on lens choice (maybe I'm in the minority there?), yet right now I think some of the smaller systems scale up/down a bit better (as long as you're fine with not having the utmost DoF control possible, and the best sensors).

This article is essentially asking for the first option, but it seems all future FF systems are destined to try and be all things to everybody (poorly) or a play at the pro market. I'm curious how many pros that haven't switched to Sony ML would bother with a CaNikon ML body in the near term, most of the reasons for not switching remain... Lens compatibility isn't gonna be perfect regardless.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

Yeah, I think so, on paper anyway... Where it gets more complicated is in practice regarding what's actually available for any given system. Sony made a pretty solid breakthrough with the A7 III in having a body as capable as any TotL or even midrange crop body, a couple more really tiny lenses would really broaden it's appeal IMO (or the appeal of older models even).

It's far easier to make an f2.8 prime for FF than an f1.2-1.4 for APS-C & M4/3, yet we have far more of the latter because of the market certain brands are focusing on (Sony on FF and Pana/Oly/Fuji on smaller formats), at least for mirrorless (and maybe even in general? I don't recall a lot of them besides Pentax's and the Canon pancakes).

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 00:15 UTC
In reply to:

Decooler: Bokeh? I just use the 100% variable bokeh settings with the detail settings in Optics Pro 11. It gives me the bokeh I need with every lens and every shot, and it works as well with slow lenses too.

I feel there is a gap between what the enthusiasts get pushed at them, and what the performance of these expensive standard lenses is. The fast aperture is for use in very bad light conditions, not for bokeh, which is an accidental. In normal light ANY 85mm will be as sharp at f5.6-f8, most are as good at f4, and this goes for almost all very high speed primes.

If you do studio work or portraits the answer is not to throw more money at your problem, but to move closer or further away from your subject increasing the narrowness of the band of available depth of field, which costs nothing at all....

Subjective opinions about bokeh and perspective distortion aside, "what gets pushed at enthusiasts" wouldn't exist if enthusiasts and/or pros weren't biting... So clearly there's a market (I'm not in it, but that doesn't mean imma slag it because it's not my thing).

Link | Posted on May 25, 2018 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

My original point is that we *could* have more smaller FF glass like the 35/2.8, the powers that be have just decided that's not what sells, maybe it isn't... /shrug It's kinda what Richard is asking for, but it just doesn't seem destined to happen within a FF system.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2018 at 05:16 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

The Pana Nocticron & Oly f1.2 primes are a smidge smaller (or no larger at worst) than the very nice (and much cheaper) Sony FE 85/1.8, and I don't even need *that* degree of DoF control on a short tele tbh, I'm happy with a 42.5/1.7 at half size, or the eventual Sigma 50/1.4. That's closer to what I was getting at... *That* is what I'd call compact (< 2x2").

The aforementioned CZ 35/2.8 is a great FF example of that balance too, but there's not a lot else like it (28/2?)... And if I were gonna pair it with an A7 II for a compact package while I wait for Sony to make an A5 or whatever (as suggested), well, that seems kinda limiting in a pointless way when there's more compact options in other systems.

Fuji probably has a better balance of f1.4-vs-size glass than M4/3 does since Pana/Oly have gone way premium with the f1.2 stuff and there's not a lot of choices in between that and the tiny f1.7/1.8s, tho the relatively small PL25/1.4 is probably the exception.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2018 at 05:13 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

APS-C, M4/3, w/e... There's some decent Fuji/Sigma/Pana glass in other systems that's not too large, and yes I'm more than happy with a FF equivalent f2.4-2.8 prime. I just wish there were actually more lenses like that for FF, like the CZ 35/2.8. That would make something like the A7 more appealing to me, because invariably that's where all the better sensor tech will show up first. I put lenses before most things tho, and portability not far behind it, so yeah...

Link | Posted on May 25, 2018 at 04:58 UTC
In reply to:

sceneIt: I don't know if Sony users can understand this but face detect and eye detect are the same thing... I know it's shocking but use logic you dimwits.

And with what lens or at what aperture? Given sufficient DoF it's not really a big deal, but maybe that 6D has a more special PDAF sensor than average... /s

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

Premium f2.8 FF portrait prime, forgot to add the FF in there, comment might be confusing otherwise

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

It's not a black and white thing, maybe one is just satisfied with the DoF control of say an f1.2-1.4 APS-C lens, said lens still has the potential to be smaller than an f1.8 or faster FF lens. Same for f2.8 crop tele, you might still have the option for a sealed or premium f2.8 zoom but for FF the slower zooms the to be the budget stuff (softer wide open, etc).

I'd love to see a premium f2.8 portrait prime for instance, that still yields more than plenty DoF control for me, anything decent starts at f1.8 and thus a much larger size though. You can get an equivalent f1.4 lens in (some) smaller formats, it doesn't mean you're giving up all notion of DoF control, though it probably does mean you aren't obsessed with the most shallow DoF possible.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: The big question here is how fast the camera operates, because this line (X-Ax) has usually been slow though the X-A5 improved the speed. I wonder what it would take for Fuji to simply give the same speeds of say an X-E3 but then limit the feature set for line distinction.

Ehh, that depends on how you're using the camera... I prefer programmable dials to dedicated ones myself, the latter is just a throwback with little functional merit, and it forces you to go back to A on one or multiple dials to change mode rather than just use the mode dial... So I see how that's slower in some instances, others might not switch modes much and/or may prefer being able to glance at their settings on a dial without even lifting the camera up. I'm not sure that's what he was alluding to anyway...

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

sceneIt: I don't know if Sony users can understand this but face detect and eye detect are the same thing... I know it's shocking but use logic you dimwits.

Are you being purposely dense to troll or just ignoring the whole actual AF side of the equation? Just because a face has been detected (and/or the eyes were used in the basic algorithm that looks for eye, nose, and mouth shapes on a head) doesn't mean the camera will AF right on the eyes, that's what eye detect AF is about, actually nailing focus on the eyes.

Many cameras even give you eye-AF specific options like a preference to AF for the farthest or closest eye (when the subject isn't head on), etc. It's not unique to Sony, they just have one of the more effective implementations of it when coupled with their C-AF. Oly had this literally half a decade ago, I think Sony and possibly even Pana's implemention has surpassed theirs tho.

It's a lot easier to tell when the camera is tracking an eye on my Pana body than my Oly one anyway, which doesn't have an indicator until it's locked and AF'd on the eye.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

sceneIt: I don't know if Sony users can understand this but face detect and eye detect are the same thing... I know it's shocking but use logic you dimwits.

What's that got to do with anything? And no they aren't the same thing, a lot of ML cameras have independent settings for either, you can say eye detect is a subset of face detect but face detect alone doesn't mean the focal plane is actually on the eyes.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 06:36 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: The big question here is how fast the camera operates, because this line (X-Ax) has usually been slow though the X-A5 improved the speed. I wonder what it would take for Fuji to simply give the same speeds of say an X-E3 but then limit the feature set for line distinction.

Operates slow as in... Menu navigation? Playback? Shot cycle time?

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 06:32 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: LG dual lens aproach is much better, i prefer an ultra wide angular like in the lg G6 or V30, i found it more usefull...

I'd take an UWA myself but a normal-ish FL seems like an easier sell for sure, it makes sense for the whole zoom gimmick... I still think that if Jobs were alive he would've found a more clever way to market this to the masses, though the more recent ads pimping portrait modes are doing a better job of it. I also think there's gotta be more that they can do with two sensors & FLs beyond fake DoF effects...

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 04:39 UTC
In reply to:

RomanP: More distractions - how about just releasing the Digital Asset Management feature for LUMINAR?

This right here.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 03:33 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

Maybe, though if you're trying to keep things compact with slower lenses... The lines get blurry. I wouldn't knock the idea at all if earlier basic A7 bodies were as full featured as the mk III. Sensor aside, the really stepped it up.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: No, it would not be nice as it will be the death of Nikon if they only make a niche FX mirrorless camera.

And Richard, really?:
"For me, telephoto lenses ruin mirrorless cameras. There, I've said it.

Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror. Worse still, these long, heavy lenses demand that mirrorless cameras develop the bulky, bulbous grips that SLRs have evolved since the 1990s."

Have you not evolved past the tiresome "mirrorless is only about smaller camera & lens sizes" argument?

Next time I see you in Glazers we're going to have to have a little talk . . .

With APS-C-like performance...

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 17:21 UTC
In reply to:

kolobok32: Other than the fact that Canon and Nikon will put a lot of effort in supporting legacy lenses, I do not think there is anything in there I agree with.

Fundamentally, a mirrorless camera is easier and cheaper to build. In volume, it is a good idea to replace mechanical sophistication (flipping mirrors and the rest of the rubbish) with electronic sophistication (more complex primary image sensors) and that is the way the market is going.
With all that having been said, unless there is some fundamental change in user interfaces, and workflow, standalone large sensor cameras as a consumer product will likely die out in the next twenty years.
Multi-sensor cell phone cameras are getting sufficiently good to take care of general walk around photography for vast majority of people and in two more generations they will give you the same image quality than a Micro-4/3 or APS-C camera of today.
The last vestige of a standalone camera is going to be telephoto.

I see smartphones hitting a plateau as well tho, there's a reason they've taken the computational approach... Still haven't seen a multi lens/sensor approach that makes for better low light shots, the multi frame stacking still has it's disadvantages... It's all great to see don't get me wrong, but it's not really suitable for *all* kinds of photography.

I do agree camera companies are behind the eight ball on those trends but I see some encouraging signs from companies like Sony, Pana and Oly with stuff like high res modes, Pro Capture, 4K Photo, Oly's composite stuff, focus bracketing, etc. I do agree they're hardly making any effort in making it all more usable tho.

The average HDR in-camera mode is also a travesty, I dunno why none of them are doing better on current bodies. Sensor readout used to be an issue here but that's been overcome on the last couple years... Time to step it up for sure.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 17:18 UTC

The mute thing and FB's equivalent were done much better so long ago by G+, shame it never caught on outside some niches, cause they had some pretty good ideas at the core about how to reshape social networks (years ago).

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 19:50 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

multisystem: I get what you are saying Richard. I think your proposal is good for an introductory strategy but not for a long-term strategy.
You are basically proposing a new Leica lite line-up for Canikon. But not the prices.

There are three ways this could go wrong for Canikon. Canon has room to make mistakes, Nikon does not.
1. They need to focus on their mirrorless introductions as best efforts. Meaning truly the best they can offer - no holdbacks of features and capabilities.
2. Resist the temptation to price too high as Nikon did for the 1 series. Even when they are the best quality Canikon is capable of doing, no one will pay even Leica-lite prices for Canikon. And Sony has room to drop their prices when competition intensifies.
3. Canikon is just too far behind the learning curve to Sony.

Hmm, by learning curve I interpreted it as "they don't have the tech or know how to build something comparable", I think they clearly do, they just haven't tried to. They're clearly behind the eight ball as far as actual mirrorless products released, and possibly behind the learning curve of figuring out what the maket actually wants... That might be closer to what you're saying no?

English isn't my first language FWIW so some things might get lost in translation... I think the question of what the market *actually* wants and what will actually sell (not necessarily the same thing) is very much an open one. As an enthusiast and an amateur I'd buy Richard's concept, I'm not sure it'd sell in the numbers CaNikon would need to sustain it though.

Making more of a do-all system hedges bets, may not what anyone *really* wants but it's what'll sell since it'll work for many.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 18:34 UTC
Total: 3291, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »