VENTURE-STAR

Joined on Jul 24, 2010

Comments

Total: 154, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I am just stunned by some of the comments here from people saying they are going to get this lens ASAP. Is nobody interested in checking things like build quality any longer? Is the optical performance of no importance? Best of luck folks, but I'd hold on if I were you.

Yes, I have seen the Photozone test, which did not seem all that encouraging to be honest.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 15:49 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply

Warhol was essentially a rip-off artist and this is little more that a bunch of Saul Goodman characters finding new ways to line their already bulging pockets. It's Lynn Goodman's original work, simple as that.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 11:52 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sh10453: A larger sensor at the expense of lower zoom range would be much more desirable from image quality point of view.
I doubt that images from this sensor at ISO 1600 would be anything to brag about.
At least a 1/1.7" sensor and (maybe) 600mm (or even 500mm) zoom range (at this camera size) would've been much more attractive, and I certainly would consider it.
Holding a camera of this size steady at 1000mm (almost) would be quite a challenge (if even possible at all) to most of its intended users.
Personally, I'd never waste money anymore on 1/2.3" sensor based cameras regardless of the price.

I have a Canon SX720 that I'm currently using as a pocket camera for general record keeping. It has the same zoom ratio as this replacement model. At full tele, it is extremely difficult to hold steady in most situations. The stabilization is actually better than my Canon S120 but that's not the issue. If anyone honestly thinks they can take good pictures with a handheld pocket camera with a focal length of nearly 1000mm, then I'm very impressed. Having experimented using the SX720 for subjects like the Moon and airliners at around 25 miles distance, I can promise you, it's a real challenge to stay on target if you are simply holding it in your hands.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: I had an LX-7 for a while. Very crisp lens at longer focal lengths. Very reliable exposure and well controlled contrast. A few stupid handling quirks, I could live with, but some negative features. I realised that the zoom wasn't long enough for my needs, but that was my fault, not the camera's. However, the autofocus was often unreliable in available light conditions and the camera would often lock up and refuse to work, or tell me there was a problem with the card. Actually, this was never the case and the problems persisted with different ones. I wanted to like the LX-7, but ended up swapping it for a vastly superior, although bigger Canon G series camera. I'm afraid my experiences with the LX-7 and dealing with the company put me off Panasonic products to some extent.

Emm yes! Perhaps I was just unlucky and the product was simply defective, although I was far from impressed by Panasonic's after sales service and all things considered, I have no plans to buy another of their cameras in the forseeable future.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 12:11 UTC

I had an LX-7 for a while. Very crisp lens at longer focal lengths. Very reliable exposure and well controlled contrast. A few stupid handling quirks, I could live with, but some negative features. I realised that the zoom wasn't long enough for my needs, but that was my fault, not the camera's. However, the autofocus was often unreliable in available light conditions and the camera would often lock up and refuse to work, or tell me there was a problem with the card. Actually, this was never the case and the problems persisted with different ones. I wanted to like the LX-7, but ended up swapping it for a vastly superior, although bigger Canon G series camera. I'm afraid my experiences with the LX-7 and dealing with the company put me off Panasonic products to some extent.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 18:17 UTC as 18th comment | 4 replies

Many years ago, I owned a Nikkor 135mm f/2 AI lens. To begin with, it seemed to be the lens I'd always wanted, but it was quite substantial in size, quite heavy to carry around and proved less useful and optically no better at prime apertures than a relatively cheap 70-210 Tamron zoom. I'm sure this new Sigma lens is optically very good, but it's too expensive, too limited for general use, clearly rather large, takes 82mm filters (my old Nikon lens took 72mm) and I can't see it selling in large numbers. And where's the image stabilisation, or have I simply overlooked this?

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 14:21 UTC as 10th comment
On article Leica SL Review (1089 comments in total)

A lovely camera. Would I like to own one if I could afford it? Yes. Would I use it? Probably not. It is more of a valuable display item that a tool. Am I happy with my Canon equipment? Yes. The pictures I take are not going to be significantly different with any good quality camera gear.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:51 UTC as 51st comment

Specially designed for wealthy people who like to remain inside their gated communities. I'll stick to my cheap looking, very functional ex-military bags thanks.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 23:10 UTC as 27th comment | 5 replies

I had a new 990. Limited zoom range, pretty bad macro edge performance, a lot of noise at the highest ISO setting, unreliable focus on occasion and it would sometimes refuse to turn off, requiring the batteries to be taken out. Finally, it developed a small cluster of bright pixels! I have no fond memories of this crude Nikon camera which was my introduction to digital photography. I replaced it with an Olympus 5050 and this really was a colossal improvement in almost every respect.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 23:59 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: What a load of idiotic crap. Clearly those writing on here have never been in a situation where someone extremely ugly, menacing and heavily armed orders you to hand over your equipment. Do you really want to accept the consequences of protecting a few images on a memory card? Speaking from personal experience, I promise you there are situations where you do exactly as you are told and you will give up whatever you are asked for.

I'll take it that you are an inexperienced amateur and not a professional photographer who has to operate in the real world?

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: If they allowed their own footage to be confiscated then they're not very good photo journalists.

There are several places to hide memory cards even during a strip search.

If you're lucky and they are really stupid!

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 15:34 UTC

What a load of idiotic crap. Clearly those writing on here have never been in a situation where someone extremely ugly, menacing and heavily armed orders you to hand over your equipment. Do you really want to accept the consequences of protecting a few images on a memory card? Speaking from personal experience, I promise you there are situations where you do exactly as you are told and you will give up whatever you are asked for.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 15:31 UTC as 23rd comment | 5 replies
On article Have your say: Best midrange ILC of 2016 (53 comments in total)

So the choice is one of six cameras selected by DP, for not entirely clear reasons. I think I'll pass on this pointless exercise as I would have picked a Nikon.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2016 at 14:46 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article Gear of the Year: Carey's choice - Canon PowerShot G9 X (213 comments in total)

There seems to be this obsession with putting small cameras like the G9X into the pockets of jeans. I begin to think that for some individuals this is the prime reason for buying certain cameras and how they perform doesn't matter much.

Carrying a compact in a tight pocket is actually a surefire way to damage your camera by encouraging dust to enter around the complex lens assembly, a very easy way to ruin the lens cover and scuff the display screen. There is also the possibility of accidentally turning the camera on while pulling it out of a tight enclosure. For me, this is almost as bad a practice as shooting video on a phone held in the upright position. Buy a small protective case for your compact camera and consider carrying it on your belt!

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 11:43 UTC as 18th comment | 4 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-3040 Zoom (121 comments in total)

An Olympus C5050 was my second digital camera and although it had some faults it was a colossal improvement on my Nikon 990 Coolpix, which was a very poor piece of equipment. The C5050 (based on the C3040 in this feature), had a very fast, sharp lens and a viewfinder that was more accurate than my later Canon G cameras. Build quality was pretty good and I hoped that Olympus would progressively upgrade this line, but it never happened. Unfortunately, there is now a sizeable gap between phones and SLRs, with few products delivering affordable quality in this area and nothing that uses handy AA batteries.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 17:10 UTC as 8th comment
On article Fast Five: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V Review (420 comments in total)
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Aside from the lens not being long enough, my real problem with this and all the larger chip, small Sony compacts is the question of reliability and just how much it costs to have them fixed, if any of several issues occur outside the warranty period. These cameras are very expensive and offer little more that their small size. So if you are not worried about jamming one in your pocket (a bad idea anyway), then a cheaper SLR is a far better bet.

The cheapest Nikon SLR will give you the kind of quality this small camera aspires to for still pictures. By speed, do you mean aperture? Fast alternatives to SLR kit lenses are not exactly hard to come by and if you're serious about using this pocket camera for making a load of 4K movies, then good luck to you. With a few exceptions, the weak point of all compacts is the mass-produced, complex retractable lens assembly which can go wrong for a variety of reasons and most are not effectively sealed against dust. SLRs without power zooms, or lenses with complex retraction/front cover mechanisms are more rugged and tend to last longer. These Sony compacts do have their uses, but essentially, you are paying an awful lot just for the size.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 23:48 UTC
On article Fast Five: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V Review (420 comments in total)

Aside from the lens not being long enough, my real problem with this and all the larger chip, small Sony compacts is the question of reliability and just how much it costs to have them fixed, if any of several issues occur outside the warranty period. These cameras are very expensive and offer little more that their small size. So if you are not worried about jamming one in your pocket (a bad idea anyway), then a cheaper SLR is a far better bet.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 12:03 UTC as 88th comment | 5 replies

Yet another ridiculously expensive and rather silly product from Leica. What are the people at this company thinking when they put products like this on the market? Only a handful of well heeled collectors are going to be customers.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 21:39 UTC as 38th comment | 13 replies

Obviously - all done in the best possible taste :-)

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2016 at 09:03 UTC as 27th comment
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (332 comments in total)

Somewhat annoyingly, this camera is significantly more expensive (in the UK) than the first version and it doesn't appear to be much better. You are probably better off buying a Sony, even if you're a diehard Canon fan.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 14:24 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
Total: 154, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »