Douglas F Watt

Lives in United States Boston, MA, United States
Works as a Neuropsychologist
Joined on May 15, 2008

Comments

Total: 137, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

talk about bleeding edge technology outrunning the infrastructure . . .

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 14:45 UTC as 84th comment
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

Khairil: Sorry, IQ wise, still not impressed. With that kind of money I would buy a cheap secondhand D3200 with zoom lens (well, maybe couldn't reach 600mm) but with much much much better IQ (and still better when crop-zoom from apsc size, to reach 600mm)..

Whatever? That's your best reply to the technical issues against your supposition? Sorry, but that's no argument. As for the photos, those of use who actually USE the camera instead of trolling against it are consistently impressed with how close it really gets to APS-C. Your prejudice is not an argument from a position of strength. As for it being expensive, yup, but most of us using the camera, myself included, see it as a good value.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 14:13 UTC
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

snapa: It seems Sony is really churning out all kinds of high quality FF FE and GM lenses :0
It's a shame Sony can't squeeze out 1-2 new (or improved) native APS-C E-mount zoom lenses. Maybe even 1-2 high IQ pancake wide angle primes would be nice too. Does every lens they make have to cost $1,000-2,500 and be a FF lens? What ever happened to the days of the original small, inexpensive, light, NEX cameras and lenses? It looks like those days are over with :(

Yes, and even just an improved E f4 16-70 CZ as that lens, while OK isn't a great value for that much $.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 20:17 UTC
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (269 comments in total)

Hard to believe that outside of someone being a bokeh junkie, that this lens has anything on the CZ FE 55 1.8. An an awful lot of $ for that slim benefit . . .

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 20:15 UTC as 50th comment | 3 replies
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)

Pure trash. And instead of giving the camera to charity where it might eventually be used, it's crushed as a joke in our throw-away society. Yup. DPR has lost it.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 03:09 UTC as 87th comment | 2 replies
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kalhor: Image Quality = garbage, my old X-E1 makes better images in all ISO range.

Kalhor - comment quality = garbage.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 00:24 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

Emmanuel Aldecoa: I can't believe people still throw away there money in bridge cameras . Lenses are soft in anything but the widest focal length , noise is terrible due to the small sensor , response times are slow , the "viewfinder" is hopeful .

Other than the reach of the zoom I much prefer to use an iPhone 6S. BTW I was Panasonic FZ8 and Fuji XS-1 so I've got some useful first hand experience.

Clueless. Try using a camera before you dismiss it as a waste of money. The lens is anything but soft, the sensor isn't "very noisy" and produces pretty clean output up to 80-1600 (where the best APS-C bodies were just a few years ago), and the viewfinder is excellent. I guess you just (s)trolled over here from Canikon land to enlighten us with your vast experience?

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 00:22 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

Khairil: Sorry, IQ wise, still not impressed. With that kind of money I would buy a cheap secondhand D3200 with zoom lens (well, maybe couldn't reach 600mm) but with much much much better IQ (and still better when crop-zoom from apsc size, to reach 600mm)..

Obviously, you haven't shot much with these two cameras. Any IQ advantage of the Nikon 3300 sensor disappears as you have your aperture at least 1 stop slower, and your ISO at least two if not three stops higher, as virtually no Nikkor glass has OIS worth five stops. This means that you will have - if anything - poorer IQ from the Nikon, as three stops is a lot more than the 1-1.5 stop difference between the output of these sensors. This is a good example of doctrinaire ideology from someone who hasn't actually used the equipment, representing authoritative opinions, but in real ignorance of the equipment they are dissing. The putative IQ advantage of the APSC sensor exists mostly on paper - and disappears in the real world, because of the OIS/fast lens of the RX10iii more than making up the distance. The only places where the APS-C can really realize its theoretical advantage is 1) if you have a fast tele prime ($) w/ excellent OIS; 2) when your SS is constrained by fast motion.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 20:25 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

NYCman530: I checked out the studio comparison under smaller prints to compare the RX10 lll with my Panasonic FX1000 for daylight shooting at 100 ISO and 200 ISO since I enjoy shooting wildlife at the zoo. There is surprisingly more than a slight difference between the two in sharpness and detail in favor of the Sony despite the sensors being the same size. So it's all about the lens. I'm now tempted to upgrade, but I still think the Sony should have been priced around $1,000 or $1,100 at the most.

Perhaps you should tell this to Sony. And while you're at it, get them to drop the price of the A7Rii to under $2500 so that I can afford one of those too. Problem is that Sony can't make enough of these priced at $1500, so why in the world (at least right now) would they drop the price $400-500?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 20:13 UTC

Wish someone would test AF of several of those L lenses in comparison to native E mount options.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 20:23 UTC as 37th comment

excellent work!!

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 18:42 UTC as 18th comment
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

beenthere: This is the camera Nikon could have made, but didn't. Everyone and their pet tarantula (Thom, ahem..) was saying "larger sensor, big (fast) lens and UI suited for feature expansion". Well done Sony, well done.

Well, it appears Nikon has tried to make one of these, the DL 24-500. It looks to be potentially faster/better focusing, but the lens quality remains largely untested, as is the 4k functionality. But competition is good for the marketplace. And it's good to have options.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:10 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: In 20+ years of photography, I can count the number of times on one hand where I had to shoot at anything beyond 400m to get the shot I needed.
and 400mm hasn't been that often either.

Despite high ISO capabilities and IS - the number of times where anything above 300-400mm is practical without a tripod is small.

Personally from looking at the samples, I see no shot, other than maybe the bird and the plane - to be really anything "worthwhile" for the 600mm end.

Also that thing, for a 1" Sensor with it's limitations - is huge.

Well I guess I simply fail to see the practical use for such a long reach...

I'd rather have a fast 24-200mm in a much more compact body.... if I'd be going for a compact / fixed lens.
make it a stop faster throughout the range.... that would be an incredibly useful camera.

but honestly, I'm not even remotely tempted by the RX10.

I would agree Electrophoto - you do fail to see the utility of 600mm, and your lack of actual experience with the camera disqualifies you from from offering a judgment as to whether you can shoot handheld at 600mm with good results. As for your other ideas - that a fast 24-200 is 'much more useful' - that's clearly a novel idea but see the RX10II.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 12:56 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: I was gonna rent this but the DOF sucks!

Actually PrinceCody, the extra DOF is desirable if you are shooting macro or wildlife. Even with this sensor, the DOF is marginal for 600mm macro (at 2.5 ft f4 it's measured in mm). Not everyone wants ultra shallow DOF all the time. But I would guess that you shoot neither macro or wildlife.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 10:23 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sam Santana: What's with the emphasis on how nice the lens is when it's only an extra 200mm on the FZ1000's and according to this website the FZ1000 optics are superior to this. In fact, for stills the FZ1000 is the better camera... faster focus, better optics, better handling and better low light performance... and under half price.

It would appear that you didn't really read the review, in addition to the joke in poor taste. That's the opposite of what DPR reports in terms of lens performance.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 10:19 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

Douglas F Watt: It's not that DPR criticisms are not valid, it's that the overall picture that emerges from this review seems just ever so slightly tilted . . . . in the direction of pet peeves and gripes about the interface, lack of touchscreen and AF tracking, instead of an emphasis on just how stunning the overall achievement is of having a sharp 24-600 2.4-4 that comes in at just over 2 lbs, and that provides superb video functionality with very good stills ability. Additionally, and indicative of their lack of time to really explore the full envelope of the camera's OS, there is a touchscreen interface available, through the smartphone remote control app, which at least IMO is class-leading, allowing for full control of many shooting parameters, including touch-location of AF point. That it won't replace FF or even APS-C equipment for great DR, S/N ratio in low light seems a sacrifice one must make willingly to get what the package does provide. As for the Sony menu system, it's not that bad.

JACS - you're a bit concrete aren't you? It's 24-600 equiv. Does that have to be explained?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 10:02 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

georgehere: Sony is trying to find a niche and in all the wrong places. The lens is so slow, it's practically useless. They should have tried to make a 8.8-40mm/1.7 lens (24-105/4.8 FFEQ) for that sensor and that would have been selling like hot cakes.

Clueless squared.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 03:23 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

raindance: Great review, but honestly if you are in the market for this camera consider FF. I know this camera is about the lens, but seriously image quality is night and day with FF. You could pick up a FF body and a 50 1.8 to start for the same price point. I know apples and oranges, but just saying been there, done that and wish I would have made the FF switch sooner ;)

Raindance - you are not talking a shred of common sense.

First you talk about how all these small sensor cameras are a waste, and that everyone should just go FF. Nice. Then you suggest that 600mm of reach (barely adequate for many types of wildlife shooting) is "just a gimmick"? And that big telephoto primes (the most expensive and difficult type of lens to make) are just "trading quality for numbers". And then that a "shorter faster lens would be more practical" (meaning a highly practical, lightweight and no doubt cheap 300 2.8?)

What exactly are you smoking?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 02:58 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

onlooker: It would have been nice for Sony to include faster, more direct way of selecting AF point, like a joystick. More cameras now include it, time for Sony to improve its ergonomics. And please, fanboys, do not bother extolling the virtues of up-down-left-up-right-up-left-whatever button pecking.

Check out the excellent remote control smartphone app that works with the camera. It does just that - allows a touchscreen selection of AF point. It's the best remote app I've seen yet.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 02:49 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Obviously not for sports. But what would happen if they shortened the zoom to 300mm, lens speed was 3.5 - 5.6? Image quality would go up, size, price and weight would go down. 24mm-300mm would cover what most people use, or could reasonably expect from a fixed-lens camera.

So you are suggesting that they cut the reach in half, and make the lens a full stop slower? What a brilliant idea!! I would write Sony today and see what they say. . . .

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 02:46 UTC
Total: 137, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »