Douglas F Watt

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

Comments

Total: 147, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

PPierre: Expensive and big, though quite qualitative according to early reviewers. What I don't get is why Sony hasn't released the A99II before the A7RII, and then released these huge qualitative lenses for this body, which is an A7RII with better AF... Now, Sony's best body won't have the best lenses, while the smaller ones will have the best and the heaviest. Hard to understand.

Except that the Tamron 70-200 2.8 is probably almost as good, and half the price. I'm not too worried about lenses for the A99ii, and as someone has mentioned, the Minolta 80-200 2.8 is amazing for $700-900. I've got a ton of excellent (and affordable) glass. Not clear whether I will spring for the 24-70 2.8 from Tamron or CZ . . . but again, I'm not worried about a shortage of lenses. Would be nice however if Sigma and Sony would kiss and make up . . .

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 22:02 UTC

I'm sure that's a spectacular lens but with a price tag to match. Only the well heeled enthusiast, or a successful pro, can afford a full staple of FE lens, esp. anything with the G master label. And will it be really any better than the (relatively) cheap USD Tamron 7-200 2.8 on AMount which is optically excellent?

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 12:35 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

Should put some needed downward price pressure on Sony's RX10II/III.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 02:15 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

ZeneticX: Well it's good to see some haters actually stand by their opinion that A mount is dead even after this announcement. Still better than the naysayers and bandwagoners

Yup. The haters and trolls are doubling down though, as they seem to all be scrambling to justify their clearly wrong A-Mount-is-Dead religion. Sad really. Shows that some people simply can't be taught. Make a mistake? Sure. Just cover that up by making a bigger version of the same mistake, and keep doing that until you feel vindicated by getting just one prediction right.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: This A99 II most likely be the very last A mount/Maxxum body, which makes sense, due to the long product life cycles. Outside of current user base, I can't imagine anyone buying into an effectively dead lens mount. This is basically just a pleasant way of phasing out a product line, and truth be known, slapping A7RII internals in to the big A99 body was just about as easy as producing the big, hollow A3000 from NEX components. This is a low investment, low volume, closeout product. Goodbye SLT! Goodbye A mount!

Wake up.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:34 UTC
In reply to:

havoc315: If Canon or Nikon made this camera, it would be a major game changer.
Sony a-mount has such limited market share, and a neglected lens lineup, that I doubt this fantastic camera body will have much of an impact on the broader market.

Havoc315 - weren't you the same DP prognosticator that declared categorically that there would be no more FF A mount bodies? Doubling down on your lost bet? I guess some people simply can't learn from their mistakes, or, for that matter, even admit them.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:29 UTC
On Article:1730096095 (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

photog4u: Brilliant! Well done Sony! This is definitely a hard blow to the D810...

IUDEX: Possibly soon-to-be extinct? Really? You want to double down on your previous lost bet? Weren't you one of the many DP geniuses that recently predicted no more A mount bodies?

Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

Marjan: To me the best Sony could do is the return to classic DSLR concept with that series and to beat 5d mark iv on its own ground, at least with spec. We have good enough A7 rII we dont need a99iI know.

Speak for yourself. Clearly, everyone with A mount glass is salivating over this. It's actually on paper a better camera than the A7Rii. Your response suggests you have no knowledge of the size of the installed base of A mount lenses, both the legacy Minolta glass, and the newer Sony and Zeiss glass.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:40 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: One question remains: what's the point of this camera?

It's not like someone is going to buy A mount lenses just to use this camera, because I'm pretty sure there isn't going to be another one.

Weren't you the brilliant prognosticator that was recently front and center in declaring that there would be no upgraded A mount FF cameras?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:36 UTC
On article This vibrant hyper-lapse shows off New York in 8K (69 comments in total)

Beautiful

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 15:00 UTC as 29th comment

talk about bleeding edge technology outrunning the infrastructure . . .

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 14:45 UTC as 85th comment
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (453 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 (296 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 88th comment | 2 replies
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (453 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 (453 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 (453 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 (453 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
Total: 147, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »