keeponkeepingon

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

Comments

Total: 541, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: tldr: barney trolls canon fanboys with a click bait title.

Sony adds better video but increased the time it takes to look at your picture from 22 to 36 seconds after a 4 second jpeg burst and you praise the former while not even mentioning the latter (A6300 review).

Canon does everything you asked, no holds barred puts everything from it's latest and greatest APS-C DSLR into a mirrorless, the best ever, equal footing with sony and it's a big ...... disappointment.
Wow.

ref from IR A6300 review: Buffer clearing after max-length bursts took some time even with a fast UHS-I SDHC card, though, ranging between 15 seconds after a max-length burst of RAW files, to a rather lengthy 36 seconds after a max-length burst of Large / Extra Fine JPEGs, and the camera won't let you adjust settings or view just-shot photos while the buffer is clearing.

"it's not really slower for the same type of use."

To me max jpeg quality max burst is "the same type of use" the fact they made the jpeg quality a bit better is to be expected with a new generation of camera currently costing a 40% more than the A6000.

And even if you make everything the same the performance is still just about the same as the A6000 which IS disapointing given the price and the fact that Sony has had two years to address this issue.

"Bottom line, the Sony A6300's performance is generally excellent and very similar to the A6000's,"

And the fact that dpreview gives sony a pass and sweeps this issue under the rug really is super disappointing.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 10:32 UTC
On article Flickr Marketplace image licensing program shuttered (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

PeteQuad: I will put my photos anywhere that Lightroom is integrated with. Right now it is just Flickr so I guess I will stay there.

smugmug has an excellent lighroom publishing service that integrates well with Lightroom

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/1491124-how-do-i-upload-from-lightroom-

Jeffrey Friedl writes some decent plugins for other services, some of them free:

http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies

Export to Zenfolio
Export to SmugMug
Export to Flickr
Export to PicasaWeb
Export to Google Drive
Export to Facebook
Export to ipernity
Export Plugins:
Export to Tumblr
Export to Twitter
Export to Photobucket
Export to ExposureManager
Order Prints Locally (Upload to LifePics for printing and pickup at a local retailer)
Export to Expono

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: tldr: barney trolls canon fanboys with a click bait title.

Sony adds better video but increased the time it takes to look at your picture from 22 to 36 seconds after a 4 second jpeg burst and you praise the former while not even mentioning the latter (A6300 review).

Canon does everything you asked, no holds barred puts everything from it's latest and greatest APS-C DSLR into a mirrorless, the best ever, equal footing with sony and it's a big ...... disappointment.
Wow.

ref from IR A6300 review: Buffer clearing after max-length bursts took some time even with a fast UHS-I SDHC card, though, ranging between 15 seconds after a max-length burst of RAW files, to a rather lengthy 36 seconds after a max-length burst of Large / Extra Fine JPEGs, and the camera won't let you adjust settings or view just-shot photos while the buffer is clearing.

You get a camera, you set max jpeg quality (SOP if you don't shoot raw) shoot a burst and it takes 12 seconds longer to see an image and your saying it's faster?

Speed at standard quality jpegs is the same so it's just as slow and slower to respond in some modes than any of the cr@pt the A6000 trys to trip you up with.

Agenda confirmed: dpreview fails to mention poloraid type speeds for viewing an image after a 4 second burst and TrojMacReady is OK with that.

And the MP count is the same so this is apples and apples unline your A99II comparison....

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 12:52 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: tldr: barney trolls canon fanboys with a click bait title.

Sony adds better video but increased the time it takes to look at your picture from 22 to 36 seconds after a 4 second jpeg burst and you praise the former while not even mentioning the latter (A6300 review).

Canon does everything you asked, no holds barred puts everything from it's latest and greatest APS-C DSLR into a mirrorless, the best ever, equal footing with sony and it's a big ...... disappointment.
Wow.

ref from IR A6300 review: Buffer clearing after max-length bursts took some time even with a fast UHS-I SDHC card, though, ranging between 15 seconds after a max-length burst of RAW files, to a rather lengthy 36 seconds after a max-length burst of Large / Extra Fine JPEGs, and the camera won't let you adjust settings or view just-shot photos while the buffer is clearing.

@TrojMacReady
"ot sure why you left that critical part out of the IR quote"

Ran out of text in the post plus it's not relevant.

The fact point is that any modern camera that makes you wait 36 seconds before you can look at the image (with any settings) is simply crazy but what is even crazier is that dpreview fails to mention any function lockout after a burst even though they wrote 1000s of words on using the A6300 for taking action pictures.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 11:33 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Canon EOS M5 quick look video (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

CanonM5fan: 1:00-1:10 "No 4K, no high frame rates. But it does the basics extremely well. Canon knows how to make a very pleasant to use camera." I can't emphasize this quote enough. Buying a camera from a spec sheet really misses out on the usability of and UI with the camera. I bought the A7R and A6000 and hated them both. The shutter shock on the A7R and the UI on both of the cameras was absolutely terrible. Shooting Nikon for 30 years then Canon for 6 years the Sonys were not intuitive to use at all. The Canons and especially my M3 are a joy to use as I expect the M5 will be. I don't have or plan to buy a 4K TV or monitor. Nor do I shoot video for slow motion. Why do I need 4K or high frame rates? I don't.
I think this is the guy who built that boat and made a video of it? That was an outstanding video. As I was watching it on my 27" monitor, did I think, "Too bad it's not in 4K." or "I wish they would have done some slow motion in this video, it would have made it better." Nope

I like m y EOS-M UI much much better than my A6000 and PieterB I also often like using it most days much better than my A6000 (sports is the exception).

And T3, if you want focus peaking (and a whole lot more) you can put Magic Lantern on the EOS-M. Which alternative firmware do you prefer for the A6000?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 08:04 UTC
On article Fotopro FS-X1 is a Xenon flash for the iPhone (19 comments in total)

"The tiny LED lights in smartphones do not offer nearly the output power of the Xenon flashes that are found in most conventional cameras."

My smartphone has a xenon flash.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 22:08 UTC as 1st comment

tldr: barney trolls canon fanboys with a click bait title.

Sony adds better video but increased the time it takes to look at your picture from 22 to 36 seconds after a 4 second jpeg burst and you praise the former while not even mentioning the latter (A6300 review).

Canon does everything you asked, no holds barred puts everything from it's latest and greatest APS-C DSLR into a mirrorless, the best ever, equal footing with sony and it's a big ...... disappointment.
Wow.

ref from IR A6300 review: Buffer clearing after max-length bursts took some time even with a fast UHS-I SDHC card, though, ranging between 15 seconds after a max-length burst of RAW files, to a rather lengthy 36 seconds after a max-length burst of Large / Extra Fine JPEGs, and the camera won't let you adjust settings or view just-shot photos while the buffer is clearing.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:57 UTC as 37th comment | 7 replies
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: " asking people to invest in a small camera with the expectation that they'll use larger EF and EF-S lenses doesn't sound like the easiest sell."

I would think asking Canon photographers to invest in a camera with some fantatic native lenes and the ability to use every lens they currently own would be an easy sell. The adapter is so cheap to make (A third party sells one for $40) it's a wonder they just don't throw it in with the original kit.

Regarding size, There are some crackerjack EF/EF-S lenses that are pretty small. The 24mm F2.8, 40mm F2.8 pancakes and even the 50mm F1.8 are all not terribly large even when you add the adapter (betcha canon's 50 with the adapter is not much bigger than sony's 50mm F1.8)

"In real life, using adapters isn't that appealing."

It's not that appealing to T3. I use EF and EF-S lenses with adaters and it's great. I love that feature of my original EOS-M, own two adapters so I can keep them on lenses I use frequentlly.

Again contrast that with the horrible sony adapter situation I fell into with my A6000. Blech.

I also use the 580EX on my original M and guess what... that's fine too. No issues, great to carry around and works great.

"The Sony 50mm f1.8 OSS is optically much better "

Then you must have the special fanboy copy. DXOMark gives them practically the same score. Mine is no better than my canon 50mm F1.8 (do you have both?). The IS/OSS is nice but not really needed for what I use the 50mm for.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 23:23 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)

" asking people to invest in a small camera with the expectation that they'll use larger EF and EF-S lenses doesn't sound like the easiest sell."

I would think asking Canon photographers to invest in a camera with some fantatic native lenes and the ability to use every lens they currently own would be an easy sell. The adapter is so cheap to make (A third party sells one for $40) it's a wonder they just don't throw it in with the original kit.

Regarding size, There are some crackerjack EF/EF-S lenses that are pretty small. The 24mm F2.8, 40mm F2.8 pancakes and even the 50mm F1.8 are all not terribly large even when you add the adapter (betcha canon's 50 with the adapter is not much bigger than sony's 50mm F1.8)

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 18:48 UTC as 218th comment | 9 replies
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: So slower burst rate than the A6300 but does it lock you out of critical functions after a burst for 20 seconds or more? It's really disappointing that Sony was not able to fix that swept on the rug by dpreview A6000 usability issue with the A6300.

"you mean 140 raws in the row?! That's 4.2 Gb"

No that's not what I mean
IR gave a great synopsis of the issue
Note that a "max burst" is 2 seconds long with raw and 4 seconds jpeg.

"Buffer clearing after max-length bursts took some time even with a fast UHS-I SDHC card, though, ranging between 15 seconds after a max-length burst of RAW files, to a rather lengthy 36 seconds after a max-length burst of Large / Extra Fine JPEGs, and the camera won't let you adjust settings or view just-shot photos while the buffer is clearing. 36 seconds after a max-length burst of best quality JPEGs may seem worse than the A6000's 22 seconds, "

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 18:25 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1599 comments in total)

So slower burst rate than the A6300 but does it lock you out of critical functions after a burst for 20 seconds or more? It's really disappointing that Sony was not able to fix that swept on the rug by dpreview A6000 usability issue with the A6300.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 11:40 UTC as 231st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

E_Rybin: I wonder why I bought the a6300... sony is not willing to produce new lenses for APC-S and I see no sense to buy lenses which cost and weight the double necessary

> The Sigma is a $200 lens that dead sharp

Your copy must be special. On my 19mm and the copies used by various review sites the sharpness is OK but nothing special, even in the center.

For low-light PDAF drops out anyway so the center only PDAF is a non issue. The fact that PDAF is only good in OK lighting is an issue though.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 11:37 UTC
In reply to:

Howard: A giant leap forward for Canon, a small step for APS-C mirrorless users.

Seriously, I applaud Canon for coming up with an APS-C mirrorless camera with built-in EVF, etc., unlike its soapbox-like predecessors.

But the lack of native mount lens support in both the Canon EF-M line and the Sony APS-C E-mount line is their Achilles's Heels. Each needs a stellar fast standard zooms (16-50 f/2.8 or thereabout), and a couple more. Fuji has better lenses, but their sensor is not the best, and they seem to price themselves too high above the competition.

It is a shame, really: I think APS-C is the sweet spot for IQ and portability, too bad the few manufacturers that make them do not take them seriously enough.

The adapter is $40 (from third parties). It's a simple passthrough and works fine.

For me it's the best of all worlds. When just walking out and about I slip on the lovely 22mmF2 but if I have a special need I just put on the adapter and use my EF-S or EF lenses.

Compare this to my A6000 and sony's silly adapter with mirrors and an entire focusing system shoved into the huge power sucking adapter.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 17:16 UTC
In reply to:

Mel P: I hate touchscreens. Also there is no 4k video. I prefer the Sony a6300.

I thought I hated touchy screens until I used one for a bit. Curiously it grew on me. Have you given one a chance?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

Correction man: I have an EOS M it fits in my pocket (With 22mm lens)
this new version is massive by comparison my pockets are not big enough (Or Deep enough for the price)

Price kills me too. Too much for a second camera and too many compromises for a primary.....

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

HenryDJP: For the base price point being the same as the Sony A6300 there's really no benefit to buying the Canon M5 since the Sony A6300 has 4K and the Canon M5 does not. Plus the M5 has no weather sealing and the Sony does. Although this camera should've been built with 4K recording in mind, had Canon built the M5 to use all of Canon's existing full frame lenses so existing Canon users (such as owners of a 5D Mark III) could simply switch lenses then the absence of 4K might not be such a thorn to deal with. At this point Canon is just saying, "We "have" a mirrorless camera, but if you want a BETTER mirrorless camera buy the Sony, since their cameras can adapt to our lenses".

" same as the Sony A6300 there's really no benefit to buying the Canon M5"

> Fully compatible with a mature flash system instead of whatever sony has.
> Lacks Sony A6XXX miserably small screen (for stills, it gives you like 2.5")
> Lacks Sony A6XXX ugly lock you out of a bunch of functions after a burst.
> Can take a picture while you take a movie.
> Much more affordable native lens lineup (example: UWA zoom is 1/2 the price of sony's and just as good IQ)
> Much better kit lenses, a lot of people just use the kit lens so overall better IQ for that group (15-45, 18-55, 22mmF2 versus sony's silly 16-50)
> Cheap small adapter as low as $40 from third party and it's just a passthrough connection so third party is fine.
> With the $40 adapter you get Canon's entire lens eco-system. I "no brainer" if you are already invested and kicks sony's but if you are deciding between the two.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: The R&D that Canon must have spent bringing out this Sony competitor is probably beyond measurement. It really looks like a good shot (but why cripple it with no video aids such as focus peaking?) Focus aids are what the still photographer wants if he is to adapt other mount lenses.

"The R&D that Canon must have spent bringing out this Sony competitor is probably beyond measurement. "

Really? They just shoved the 80D into a mirrorless body, does not sound like rocket science.

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

E_Rybin: I wonder why I bought the a6300... sony is not willing to produce new lenses for APC-S and I see no sense to buy lenses which cost and weight the double necessary

"Thermidor
I have the exact opposite experience"

What you are saying is your style of shooting matches well with the limitations of the lens. The limitations are still there.

Most folks paying for a camera with 192 PDAF points and fantastic tracking don't want to gimp the camera and use it as you would an EOS Rebel from 10 years ago.

"which is more than good enough for my needs,"

I keep hearing this "good enough" from sony apologists. The fact is the 19mm is not much better than the kit lens at 19mm. The only advantage it has for me is that it's not a frustrating, gosh awful power zoom and when I turn the camera on I know it will be at 19mm.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 11:15 UTC

"12MP is good enough"

It is if it's matched with a lens that can resolve 12mp.

My A6000, has a 24mp sensor but is sold with a kit lens that DXO marks rates as resolving 6mp. This is verified in various publiciations imatest results which show that the it resolution is similar to an iphone on the wide ("similar" because it's a bit sharper in the center but fuzzier on the edges). Amazing they still sell the $1000 A6300 with the same lens.

So yeah, 12mp paired with a decent lens is more than "good enough"

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 10:39 UTC as 267th comment
In reply to:

E_Rybin: I wonder why I bought the a6300... sony is not willing to produce new lenses for APC-S and I see no sense to buy lenses which cost and weight the double necessary

> there is a lot of apsc good glass for a6300

Lol. Name one? The only one that comes to mind is the $800 24mm F1.8. Everything else has issues, is overpriced, uses a powerzoom that's an ergonomic disaster, subpar quality (esp for the price) or enough sample variation to be troublesome.

Sigma? I got the 19mm and it's totally "meh" plus it gimps the AF on my A6000. Why would I get a camera with super tracking AF then gimp it with centerpoint AF just because sony can't make a decent 20mmish lens?

(ref: Me, A6000 user 4evah and very frustrated with the lack of decent Sony APS-C glass)

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 06:57 UTC
Total: 541, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »