PhotoPhoolish

Joined on Oct 19, 2011

Comments

Total: 39, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MaxiMax: Sony is certainly on the right track, as long as they also pay attention to what the camera users have to say about needed product improvement.

Even if Maxi states the obvious, at least he’s not a complete douche like others.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 01:14 UTC
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: There is too much hype on here for Sony's so called innovation.

Eye AF is useless if there is any more than two people standing in front of you. These are gimmicks professionals mostly don't use. Same for zebras and focus peaking in the EVF: Inconsistent and at times not accurate; IBIS is a good feature for video but even then the movie makers turn it off when the camera is mounted to a gimbal.

The EVF's in most cameras today are still quite a way off of being crisp enough to provide relief for the human eye. The only one I tried that was any good was on the Panasonic G9. The silent shooting features are at least usable for shooting in theaters or golf courses etc... for mine that is the best feature on The Sony's. The other aspects - build quality, ergonomics, menus and colors are all a step or two behind the big two.
The biggest hurdle for Sony in achieving market penetration is their grossly overpriced lenses.

@Joed700 - The problem with DxO is that their numbers are difficult to back up with other data sources. So if I counter with say, Lensrentals, which source is right? That source has shown that Sony lenses are at best equal. And I can provide several other test sites that can back that up. But can any back up DxO data? Part of gathering reliable data is having multiple sources saying the same thing. I find to hard to find any that back up most of what DxO claims.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2018 at 17:44 UTC
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: There is too much hype on here for Sony's so called innovation.

Eye AF is useless if there is any more than two people standing in front of you. These are gimmicks professionals mostly don't use. Same for zebras and focus peaking in the EVF: Inconsistent and at times not accurate; IBIS is a good feature for video but even then the movie makers turn it off when the camera is mounted to a gimbal.

The EVF's in most cameras today are still quite a way off of being crisp enough to provide relief for the human eye. The only one I tried that was any good was on the Panasonic G9. The silent shooting features are at least usable for shooting in theaters or golf courses etc... for mine that is the best feature on The Sony's. The other aspects - build quality, ergonomics, menus and colors are all a step or two behind the big two.
The biggest hurdle for Sony in achieving market penetration is their grossly overpriced lenses.

@Joed700 - I completely understand that most are older, but not all. I was merely filling in the missing info based on panther fan's comment that "The prices are in line with the other big two:" The 24-105 from Canon is new and priced $200 below the Sony. We'll have a good idea of price comparison when the two new versions of the 70-200's come out. They may in fact be priced similarly to everyone else. For now though, these older Canon's that compare well with the newer models from the others are priced well below.

And most of them will resolve the higher resolution cameras just fine. If not, what have people been using on their 5DS and 5DSR's since they were released?

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 12:05 UTC
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: There is too much hype on here for Sony's so called innovation.

Eye AF is useless if there is any more than two people standing in front of you. These are gimmicks professionals mostly don't use. Same for zebras and focus peaking in the EVF: Inconsistent and at times not accurate; IBIS is a good feature for video but even then the movie makers turn it off when the camera is mounted to a gimbal.

The EVF's in most cameras today are still quite a way off of being crisp enough to provide relief for the human eye. The only one I tried that was any good was on the Panasonic G9. The silent shooting features are at least usable for shooting in theaters or golf courses etc... for mine that is the best feature on The Sony's. The other aspects - build quality, ergonomics, menus and colors are all a step or two behind the big two.
The biggest hurdle for Sony in achieving market penetration is their grossly overpriced lenses.

@panther fan - why did you only post Sony and Nikon prices, while claiming Sony to be in line with the other big two? I assume Canon to be the other, so below is their pricing:

70-200/2.8 - $1,899
24-70/2.8 - $1,699
70-200/4 - $1,099
28/1.8 - $510
50/1.8 - $126
85/1.8 - $350
24-105/4 - $1,099

As you can see, Sony pricing is well above Canon in all but the 28, but generally below Nikon for most examples you gave. Half truth is also a half lie.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 03:19 UTC
In reply to:

caterpillar: IF this is true, this sends mixed signals.

1 - Are they serious about their MILC efforts next year? Wouldn't it be better to design this zooms for MILC and release that next year? That would be a big thing to have a MILC version + a 24-70L MILC? Or do they have plans to use these with their MILC later on via adapters?

2 - Do they believe in MILC as the future? Or they will just shaft users to buy a MILC version of this later on?

3 - Is there really a need for a ver3 or ii of these lens at this time, especially the f2.8 version?

I think you’re keeping your view too narrow and focusing on Canon’s current crop of mirrorless cameras, which have their own mount and crop sensors.

What happens to, lets say a 5D, when you go into live view? The mirror locks up and you have a mirrorless camera of sorts. So lets say you keep that same size body, remove the mirror altogether and keep the flange distance the same. You now have a mirrorless body that can accept EF lenses. Now its not as small as other manufacturers - a good thing to me - but can accept al their great lenses natively.

So if these new lenses are made with composites instead of metal, like most of Canon’s new offerings, they could conceivably be lighter, and better suited for a lighter camera body.

And newer versions of lenses will always be necessary as long as camera tech keeps improving. V3 of the 2.8 might benefit from Canon’s BR optics, more aperture blades, the aforementioned lighter composite construction, better IS, etc.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 02:25 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: Sony really should concentrate on making third-party bodies and give up future lens development.

Guys, guys, stop getting so defensive. I am not part of the brand war nor hearkening back to the days of yesteryear when Nikonians battled Canonites for world supremacy.

And I do know what I'm talking about because I read tests and studies on these things, from many different sources. I also know people who have used them and given me their personal opinion.

Facts are facts, and I did not say what I did because of some grand scheme to attack Sony. The lenses coming from the factory are in fact inconsistent, which speaks to poor quality control and/or engineering at the moment, just like the so-called weather-sealed bodies that aren't. They are also inferior to other brands lenses at the same focal lengths, and very pricey. I DID NOT say they were bad, just not excellent as some would say. I'm sure they will improve as time goes by, just as their cameras have gotten better and better with each iteration. But for NOW, which is where I live, what I stated is absolute fact.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2018 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: Sony really should concentrate on making third-party bodies and give up future lens development.

@Charrick1 - I like when you immediately resort to insults. It tells me you’re incapable of having a rational discussion, and I’ve already won. You quote what? DxO? “The main authority”? There are many who would debate that. As I stated, several resources will back up what I said, while you name one. Quite the argument. Try not to get brand defensive so easily and come to grips with facts. And don’t forget, I also mentioned quality, consistency and price as points against. You may now return to Reading your copy of Sony Weekly and DxO’s oh so accurate lab tests. Trolls make me laugh.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2018 at 02:34 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: Sony really should concentrate on making third-party bodies and give up future lens development.

T3 - Sony lenses are neither excellent nor serious contenders. There are many resources out there that will back that up. Try lensrentals.com for one (and they know a thing or two about lenses). They fall short of their Canon and Nikon counterparts. Additionally, they are wildly inconsistent coming straight from the factory, which is indicative of Sony’s haste to release products at the expense of quality and reliability; you never know if you’ll get a good or bad copy. Add to that the price, which is generally well above other brands, and you lose your excellence and contender argument. Ambitions are not proof.

There’s a reason so many companies make adapters for Sony cameras, and it’s not just lack of selection. Every Sony shooter I know uses an adapter with an “L” lens attached. That is a good sign of things when someone would rather use an adapted lens over one that is native to the system.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2018 at 01:30 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Photo Printer? Seriously? Who prints photos when they can email or text it ... Canon is slow to change ... Photo printer ! I have not printed pictures for years! Can't remember even if I did. HAVE YOU?

My photoalbum is in my phone !

What do you hang on your walls? Do you have iPads, digital frames and 4K displays hung on every wall?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 17:21 UTC

3...2...1...release the troll comments!

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2018 at 16:28 UTC as 38th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Fotoni: Nikon video is mediocre at best. Sony A7R II/III, A7S II, Blackmagic 4K or Panasonic GH5 are better choices for video. Sony A7S III might be the new king for video in same price range as D850.

Nikon is all about the stills. Canon lacks in technical photo quality, but Canon video gets insane boost with community hack called Magic Lantern.

I wouldn't say kills Canon in video. Having the best auto-focus in video is no small accomplishment.

If Nikon had the foresight, they could have been way out in front in video long ago if they would have followed-up on the D90. Unfortunately, they just added it and forgot about it.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2018 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: Nikon video is mediocre at best. Sony A7R II/III, A7S II, Blackmagic 4K or Panasonic GH5 are better choices for video. Sony A7S III might be the new king for video in same price range as D850.

Nikon is all about the stills. Canon lacks in technical photo quality, but Canon video gets insane boost with community hack called Magic Lantern.

A7S III? You're commenting about an unannounced and unfinished camera, that is still in the rumor stages, possibly being the new king of video? Okay.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2018 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: Feeling worried by the A7III?

Look son, a Sony troll. They usually live under a bridge. Too bad they just won't stay there.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2018 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

Pedro M C: Long go the time when photography was an art.

@T3 - You could have just said “see above” instead of regurgitating the same comments you made to DiffractionLtd, but you must like reading your own type.

Short-sighted? Ummmm, no. I just don’t claim to know the future like you and so many of the other Sony prognosticators claim to.

I think we’re all well aware how new the Sony system is, but maybe many of us are more grounded in reality to credit them with world domination just yet. Remember, the camera, like many other pieces of technology, is a cyclical business. What is best today may not be so tomorrow. And I’m not scoffing at the idea. It could happen. Then again, things could stay the same and existing pros may not waiver one bit.

If you continue to claim to know the future, you may be commited or placed in a carnival. Perhaps the happy family that comes to you to predict their future will take a picture of you with a Sony, but we just don’t know. Just hide if it’s a Canon or Nikon. They’re sure to do your face injustice.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2018 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

Pedro M C: Long go the time when photography was an art.

@ttran88 - I believe I’ve made it quite clear I don’t agree with your comparison. And the poster actually referenced Canon and Nikon being preferred, but go ahead and focus on Canon if that’s where your greatest aingst lies.

@T3 - There’s a difference between want and need. While many want the latest trends, there’s not always a need. Whereas you may need a new computer to keep up with advancements in software or speed requirements, the same needs are not necessary when it comes to other things. Cameras usually fall into the want category, as you stated. The fact that so few pros are making the switch, would seem to support this. Time will tell if that trend changes, but so far im not seeing the new tech drawing a huge number over. Wedding pros may be a different story, as this segment can likelt benefit from at least some of the tech.

I appreciate that Sony introduces new tech, as it helps the entire industry, but does anyone need these advancements every 6 months? Doubtful.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 19:41 UTC
In reply to:

Pedro M C: Long go the time when photography was an art.

Ummmm, you know a pro burger eater is the same as a pro eater, right? Critical thinking is important when trying to prove a point. Your McDonald’s comparison is still faulty, anyway you try and spin it.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 03:49 UTC
In reply to:

Pedro M C: Long go the time when photography was an art.

Everyone knows professional eaters prefer hot dogs. 😏

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 03:27 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: Congrats, Sony! The a7III is going to be the all-around camera that everyone's been waiting for. As a new a7rIII user, I'm definitely getting the a7III as a backup/everyday camera. I made the right decision to leave both Canon and Nikon when the a7rIII was announced.

You do realize what everyone means, right?

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

Pedro M C: Long go the time when photography was an art.

“McDonald’s burgers must be the best too..”

Please explain what on Earth you’re attempting to compare? Pro shooters versus mass eaters? Yeah, that makes sense. Often compare apples to oranges?

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

surlezi: To those criticizing A7 as "prototypes" or imperfect cameras:

I bought à Nikon D600 and a Sony A7 , both in 2013.
I sold the D600 to keep the A7 that was way more easy and fun to use.

A7 was released in 2013, it has to be compared with cameras of its time. D600 autofocus was about as perfectible as A7's.
Also remember A7 was the cheapest full frame camera at that time.

@surlezi - We are not the same person, that i know of. But one doesnt know if one has many personalities, so there’s an outside chance.

Please read the whole thing. The FIRST person to go on the offensive was you: “Lol @ you. You only joined one month ago to troll your best.”

Followed by osv: “"Mastering Light - Joined on Jan 18, 2018" just another fake troll account.”

Sorry if the truth hurts, but at least I make sure I’m right before typing crap that is clearly false. Just look above, zxaar claimed he never said the things he did, and now where is he after I proved he did?

You guys want to have a fact based debate, I’m all in. But start throwing around BS specs, personal opinions (everyone has one), utter nonsense and blatent lies, expect to be called out.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2018 at 02:06 UTC
Total: 39, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »