keeponkeepingon

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 28, 2005

Comments

Total: 560, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (294 comments in total)

Not a bad article but you fail to answer "what lens should I buy next?"

A more appropriate title would be "Lens primer for first time owners"

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 12:27 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (294 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: what this article does not say is the obvious , every pro and serious enthusiast and newbie on the right path will own or seek to own a simple fast inexpensive prime .. if ones photo gear were a toolkit , a prime would be like a hammer or screwdriver or pliers......essential to have .... i dont care what kind of photographer you are or aspire to be , at least one good prime is absolutely necessary to own, period.

i believe is usefulness and value are without question , it expands available light shooting in a way even fast very expensive zooms cannot by sometimes 4 ,8 or more times the light of a kit zoom... it also offers good subject isolation when its needed

i do not understand why it isnt the first reccomendation for a next lens for newbies with a kit zoom only

Good point but everyone is different and shoots different stuff.

For myself I wish I purchased canons fabulous 10-18 before my 50mm F1.4. While the 50mm has great IQ the focal length is a PITA to deal with indoors, it is a focal length I have covered with the kit lens and F1.4 is a dangerous way to chase lowlight photography for a beginner (micro thin DOF and moving subjects plus a beginner = tons of trash).

The 10-18 otoh "just works", gives me a totally new perspective and is an instant ticket out of that no-mans kit lens smartphone land of 18-50mm focal lengths.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 12:12 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1596 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: For the pixel peepers note that the test scenes are shot with an adapter using a lens designed for film almost a quarter of a century ago.

I believe this is the only mirrorless system tested by dpreview tested using an adapter and such a cheap ($350ish) / ancient lens. By contrast the sony APS-C systems get tested with a modern $1000 chunk of zeiss glass.

I'm not insinuating any bias, just pointing out that when you compare you are not only comparing sensors/cameras but different generations and classes of glass.

RubberDials

Thanks for the chuckle to lighten my day. I don't find it depressing but find it hilarious that you took the time to post and argue about a few mm.

Your measurements are way off or you are including parts that disappear when attached to the camera.

Here is what canons full frame 50mm looks like on my EOS-M compared to my desingned for APS-C 50mm SELF18 on my A6000. As you can see the canon WITH the adapter attached is roughly the same size as sony's not so compact designed for a compact system APS-C 50mm Prime. (I own and use all of them, a bit different than just googling/posting specs)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#351.471.2,535.87,ha,t

The A6000 is probably the last Sony I'll own and part of the reason is the lack of love for quality compact lenses for the sony APS-C bodies.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 09:32 UTC
In reply to:

breivogel: No 24mm and no EVF - deal breaker for me. At least they fixed the slow Raw speed.

I don't expect an EVF in a pocketable cam and the ones I've had with an EVF or OVF have been so horrible I never used them.

I'm even one of the few that hates the EVF on my A6000. Oh I use it on sunny days but the eyecup is horrible, and for every sunny day that it's useful there's a ton of times that it accidentally turns off my LCD messing up a shot (no way to turn the auto switch to EVF feature off on the A6000).

The 24mm though I have mixed feelings on. It's really too wide for a lot of things, but because thats where the camera powers on a lot of my quick snaps end up at 24mm (Talking as a sony 16-50 owner). Ideally I'd like a camera that lets me set a 28mm focal lenght then go wider if needed.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 03:32 UTC
On article CES 2017: hands-on with the Canon PowerShot G9 X II (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

willemd nl: I have the G9X Mk1. I love it, but this is a good upgrade, because it fixes the original's major flaw: it takes like 2 or 3 seconds to shoot single RAW photos.

For me, all comparisons with the Sony RX100 series are irrelevant. The Canon fits in my regular jeans pockets, which the Sonys do not.

Then nice thing about a truely pocketable camera such as this is you can put it in a little pouch and it will still fit nicely in your pocket. Try to put a pouch around your RX100mkV and see how it feels/looks in your pocket.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 19:20 UTC
On article CES 2017: hands-on with the Canon PowerShot G9 X II (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Better than Panasonic LX10?

Better at fitting in your pocket (over 1 centimeter thinner) and better at leaving an extra $200 in your wallet.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#688,697

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 19:02 UTC
On article CES 2017: hands-on with the Canon PowerShot G9 X II (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

CaPi: A mixed response to this updated version.
TheVerge is rather frustrated by the recent incremental improvements by the classic vendors and states "Canon’s G9X Mark II is another unnecessary sequel".
Might want read that..
I can identify with the general statement not with the particular one.
Check here on DPr I see the mixed response is ongoing.
I do think this is an improvemnt.. would I invest? No.

Gosh the verge for photography reviews though. Not sure what that site is good for but it sure isn't camera reviews....

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Terribly slow lens presumably as soft as the first generation, no 4K, no 24mm, no tilt LCD, 1/2,000 max shutter, no viewfinder option, and contrast-only AF. Why bother with a MK II?

I get that it's a couple mm's smaller than some other cameras, but if you don't care about performance or features, why not go smaller yet with a smartphone or different P&S? It seems like a very awkward middle-ground with few redeeming qualities other than being a hair smaller than some other much more capable cameras.

Even the Sony RX100 (original version from 5 years ago) looks to be a better camera.

I'm curious why you think the RX100 is better? This camera seems to out spec it in every way.

Regarding the lens for me these point and shoots normally live on the widest settings. The zoom is a nice to have but rarely used so for me the lens is plenty fast enough at F2.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

teos: Technically it looks not as strong as competitors, BUT IQ wise I definitely prefer Canon compacts, especially it produces way better amazing results in Auto mode, I love the dynamic range, clarity and color palette very much.

I'm curious what 500ish competitors you are referring to?

Sure the latest RX100s outspec it but they are bigger, clunkier and twice as expensive.

What else is better at this size with these features for a similar price?

Thanks!

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 14:22 UTC

If only it had 4k video it would be perfect!

How is this better than the free plugin that's been doing this for 2+ years?

Thanks!

http://www.lightroomfocuspointsplugin.com

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 08:49 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1596 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: For the pixel peepers note that the test scenes are shot with an adapter using a lens designed for film almost a quarter of a century ago.

I believe this is the only mirrorless system tested by dpreview tested using an adapter and such a cheap ($350ish) / ancient lens. By contrast the sony APS-C systems get tested with a modern $1000 chunk of zeiss glass.

I'm not insinuating any bias, just pointing out that when you compare you are not only comparing sensors/cameras but different generations and classes of glass.

The 22mm F2 is quite servicable and sharp and native. Until the M5 it's what they used on the EOS-M studio scenes

"tells you all you need to know about this system,"

Here's the funny thing: The EF Full frame 50mm F1.8 with the EF-M to EF adapter attached is the same size as Sony's SEL50F18 or the full frame zeiss. That's right Canons Full frame DSLR 50 is smaller than sony's best efforts. So that should tell you all you need to know about sony lenses; they don't give a dang about the size.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 15:04 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1596 comments in total)

For the pixel peepers note that the test scenes are shot with an adapter using a lens designed for film almost a quarter of a century ago.

I believe this is the only mirrorless system tested by dpreview tested using an adapter and such a cheap ($350ish) / ancient lens. By contrast the sony APS-C systems get tested with a modern $1000 chunk of zeiss glass.

I'm not insinuating any bias, just pointing out that when you compare you are not only comparing sensors/cameras but different generations and classes of glass.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 07:39 UTC as 58th comment | 10 replies
On article Sony FE 50mm F2.8 Macro Sample Gallery (84 comments in total)

Bravo to sony for releasing a lens with decent IQ for a reasonable price.

Input for dpreviewers:

As a sony user I'm most interested how this lens compares to the A mount equivalent.

That lens has much better ergonomics, similar price, better build, fabulous IQ and should work well with the latest sony's with an cheap adapter (and with older sony's with an expensive adapter).

I'm also curious how it compares to the Minolta AF Macro 50mm F/2.8. Same optics but can be had used for $150 most days but I'd leave that for the user comments....

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2016 at 10:20 UTC as 5th comment
On article Gear of the Year: Carey's choice - Canon PowerShot G9 X (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: If it's your gear of the year why don't you give it a @#!$@!@ proper review??????

Because it's not sony?

You act all hurt and confused when folks claim you have a sony bias yet you reviewed the:

Sony RX100
Sony RX100 V2
Sony RX100 V3
Sony RX100 V4
Sony RX100 V5

But Canon comes out with a proper RX100 competitor (that's actually pretty decent) and for 14 months you practically ignore it other than a roundup and an editor saying she lubs it. (by comparison the RX100 v5 review came out less than 1 month after the camera was announced).

Sigh.......

"She?"

LoL! For some reason I confused you with your momographer editor. Sorry but your name would be so perfect for a lady.

"why are you keeping score?"
This is the first pocketable camera in awhile that I've been interested and in this case the score is so lopsided. Every single pocketable sony 1" sensor camera reviewed 5 reviews, but canons first entry ignored?

For various reason I really really hate my A6000 and doubt I'd buy another sony.

"conclude that the video quality is lacking,"
Myself and many other photographers just don't care. We take pictures not videos. Gosh if they made a cheaper version with no video I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2016 at 19:24 UTC
On article Action-packed: Sony a6500 review (1144 comments in total)
In reply to:

akjos: I was really close to pull the trigger... but then I came to my senses. Unless Sony produces even remotely reasonable lens line up for DX body whats the point. Glad i stuck with m43 . Home of awesome bodies and reasonably priced great selection of lenses... got 2 bodies and 2 great lenses for the price of one sony lol

". No sane company is going to invest heavily in crop lenses ".

Canon just came out with a new crop 10-18mm and a new crop 24mm prime. Both are just or good (or in the case of the 24mm much better) than the sony equivalents and 1/2 the price. Thanks canon!

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2016 at 17:57 UTC
On article Action-packed: Sony a6500 review (1144 comments in total)
In reply to:

gn28: The specs are great, but the battery life is not that great and the lens are crazy expensive compared to nikon and cannon.
Almost none of their lens are on DxO to give enthusiast an idea on actal sharpness.
Maybe they'll catch up to the phone market and have a built in high speed 32/64 gb memory in addition to the SD card for redundancy.

"Just use Canon lenses then. They work wonderfully on E-mount." My canon lenes would disagree. Barely use-able for stationary objects, impossible for anything that moves. I've heard the sigma adapter is better but it's like $300. Yeah right....

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2016 at 17:51 UTC
On article Action-packed: Sony a6500 review (1144 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: Nice body, but I think Sony is kind of neglecting their crop sensor lens lineup. Over the holidays I was considering buying an A6000 on special, but since I'm not a fan of the 16-50 kit lens, I had to start thinking about a replacement. Sigma 30 f/1.4? Samyang 16 f2? Anyway, it's kind of slim pickings on the crop side of Sony. Either you are paying big bucks for FE Zeiss lenses, or looking at third party manual focus lenses like the Samyangs. Anyway, I gave up. But I did like the feel of the A6500 body when I checked it out briefly at B&H.

" Too many pixel peepers have given it a bad name. It's no worse than other cheap kit lenses ""

Baloney. I've had two copies and canon and pentax kit lenses and Just about every kit lens destroys sony's for IQ. 8% barrel distortion is absolutely Insane.

Great way to take a great camera and basically produce iphone quality stills (off center resolution at 16mm has been measured as similar to the iphone)

The powerzoom feature is an egonomic mess. Total PITA to use.

photozone.de says it best "The Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS broke a couple of records but unfortunately not in the positive sense. Its uncorrected distortion and vignetting figures are nothing short of insane.... The inclusion of a 16mm looks highly attractive on paper but the truth is that the quality is insufficient here ....

However, the verdict remains that it isn't a really good lens"

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2016 at 17:47 UTC

"Edited images are transferred back to the user via a mobile app the next day."

Even if I did not care about the price I would find that delay totally unacceptable. Film in it's heyday was faster.

Perhaps give a free unedited picture immediately and let folks pick which pictures they want processed for $1?

My little kids take my camera or iphone all the time and just hold down the shutter taking a zillion pictures of the ceiling. It would be "interesting" what kind of bill they could run up if they got ahold of this camera.....

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 11:28 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EOS M5 added to studio scene comparison tool (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: Interesting that every Sony camera article is rammed with hundreds of comments about how awful and lacking it is, and in a Canon one there is absolutely zero trolling and comparatively few comments, despite Canon being late to market and the performance being behind the Sony.

It seems the rivalry is only one way, or (more probably) that many of the negative comments in the Sony threads are from paid trolls and astroturfers.

Looking at the engraving in the middle left hand ninth of the chart - the wall behind the old lady with clasped hands; the A6300 and A6000 are the only aps-c cameras resolving the lines on the wall here. The image quality is remarkable.

And yet if you visit the forums you'll find that many Canon and Nikon users will not even accept that Sony is a camera company, (They make TVs apparently).

So how do they settle this with themselves? that more detail is recorded in images produced by a camera that was built by a company that isn't even a camera company?

". The image quality is remarkable."

The lens is remarkable (a $1000 full-frame zeiss lens) versus the $300 1993 lens used on the canon....

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 19:04 UTC
On article Canon EOS M5 added to studio scene comparison tool (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

Abbas Rafey: It is good to mention what lens is used in these tests as it will clarify the review much better. I remember one o YouTube channels where comparing Sony a7 vs canon 5d mkiii but with Sony he was using zeisse, whereas with canon he was using 50 mm f1.8 a 100$ lens. If camera performance is to be tested they have to used the same lens or equivelant ones at least.

For this test they are using a circa 1993 pre-DSLR designed Canon 50mm F1.4 that retails for $300ish. For the sony such as the A6300 they are using a modern $1000 zeiss. So yeah it's all the same......

While the Sony gets' a native mount lens for the M5 they are using an adapter EF lens.

Is there any other mirrorless system tested on dpreview that features a non-native lens? Probably not....

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 19:01 UTC
Total: 560, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »