deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 914, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

AngularJS: Why the GFX' sync speed is too slow? Any reason for that? The shutter is too big?

You pretty much answered your own question. One disadvantage of using a focal plane shutter on a bigger camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 23:08 UTC
In reply to:

Och Elo: The only disappointing thing about Fuji doing MF was that it killed any chance of them doing 35mm Mirrorless. I know they've always denied planning a 35mm Mirrorless, but this makes it official. Everyone has different needs/wants, and for me personally the 35mm format is the absolute best compromise of size, IQ, cost, ease of use, etc for what I like to shoot.

I am still hoping for at least one manufacturer to step up and give Sony some competition in that area. Canikon still don't seem interested, Pentax just did a 35mm DSLR so I doubt they are planning a mirrorless, so I guess that only really leaves Panasonic/ Olympus. I think a 35mm/ Micro 43 combo is very good, that's currently what I use, so I'm holding out hope they might enter the 35mm market, but who knows.

35mm is such a compromise! I'm not being cynical, I just think for most things smaller formats work better (even Fuji's APSC lenses tend to be pretty big) and for the patient/heavy gear/no compromise shooter bigger formats work better than 35mm. The idea of making those larger formats more affordable is brilliant.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 23:06 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Lots of comments but none referring to the short focal length as a disadvantage. Personally, I'd be sorely tempted if it had a more normal focal length (30-34mm) as that would be genuinely useful for general purpose photography. The field of view of this 23mm lens is too wide for most things, yet too narrow if I want to go wide.

As far as I can see, only Sigma make a large-sensor compact with a standard lens but that has other limitations! I know you could get a PenF + 25/1.8 combo or an XE2 + 35mm lens but they aren't so tiny.

I understand Fuji would have done their market research and I am clearly in a minority here but I am curious if anyone else agrees?

We all know that and it's not relevant anyway. Why would Murat try to confuse the topic (and his/her maths is a bit casual anyway! Equally 23x2=46. So what?). I'm talking about the Fuji X100 series which don't have 35mm sensors. Read my second paragraph in my first post above!

With this size sensor, a focal length of around 30mm is close to the perspective of your naked eye and 34mm gives the field of view which is considered "standard" in photography. That's the sort of focal length some of us would like, on a compact body like this. The 23mm is a modest wide angle, which I don't want as it's too wide for most things and too narrow when I actually want to go wide.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 10:04 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Lots of comments but none referring to the short focal length as a disadvantage. Personally, I'd be sorely tempted if it had a more normal focal length (30-34mm) as that would be genuinely useful for general purpose photography. The field of view of this 23mm lens is too wide for most things, yet too narrow if I want to go wide.

As far as I can see, only Sigma make a large-sensor compact with a standard lens but that has other limitations! I know you could get a PenF + 25/1.8 combo or an XE2 + 35mm lens but they aren't so tiny.

I understand Fuji would have done their market research and I am clearly in a minority here but I am curious if anyone else agrees?

Murat - what's your point?

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 23:28 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarcMedios: I have an X20 as a "visual notebook" and like it a lot, especially the 4:1 zoom. I can't, for the life of me, seriously consider a $1,200 camera that does not have interchangeable lenses. Why would I want to limit myself to the focal length that some anonymous engineer decided for the camera?

Maybe something got lost in translation? The marketers really meant 35mm but the engineers thought they meant "equivalent" to 35mm. I'm rarely on the side of marketers!

(Just kidding, I know the trend these days is for wider. It does save me a lot of money because I don't buy those cameras.)

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 19:55 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Lots of comments but none referring to the short focal length as a disadvantage. Personally, I'd be sorely tempted if it had a more normal focal length (30-34mm) as that would be genuinely useful for general purpose photography. The field of view of this 23mm lens is too wide for most things, yet too narrow if I want to go wide.

As far as I can see, only Sigma make a large-sensor compact with a standard lens but that has other limitations! I know you could get a PenF + 25/1.8 combo or an XE2 + 35mm lens but they aren't so tiny.

I understand Fuji would have done their market research and I am clearly in a minority here but I am curious if anyone else agrees?

I did realise that, thanks, but the camera does lose it's svelteness with the big screw-in lens. Still an option though.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 19:52 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Lots of comments but none referring to the short focal length as a disadvantage. Personally, I'd be sorely tempted if it had a more normal focal length (30-34mm) as that would be genuinely useful for general purpose photography. The field of view of this 23mm lens is too wide for most things, yet too narrow if I want to go wide.

As far as I can see, only Sigma make a large-sensor compact with a standard lens but that has other limitations! I know you could get a PenF + 25/1.8 combo or an XE2 + 35mm lens but they aren't so tiny.

I understand Fuji would have done their market research and I am clearly in a minority here but I am curious if anyone else agrees?

Whoops, I now see a comment on the same thing just below. It didn't show up until I wrote something. Darn interweb...

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 22:27 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: I am still waiting and hoping for a 50mm version. have had the X100s and X100T But they never felt right I need my 50mm classic.

That's strange. Your comment didn't show up here until I wrote a similar thing twelve hours later! Anyway, I fully agree - assuming you mean somewhere around 34mm to equate to 50mm on a film camera?

There is an adaptor but it adds cost and a lot of bulk, which defeats the purpose completely.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 22:25 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)

Lots of comments but none referring to the short focal length as a disadvantage. Personally, I'd be sorely tempted if it had a more normal focal length (30-34mm) as that would be genuinely useful for general purpose photography. The field of view of this 23mm lens is too wide for most things, yet too narrow if I want to go wide.

As far as I can see, only Sigma make a large-sensor compact with a standard lens but that has other limitations! I know you could get a PenF + 25/1.8 combo or an XE2 + 35mm lens but they aren't so tiny.

I understand Fuji would have done their market research and I am clearly in a minority here but I am curious if anyone else agrees?

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 22:21 UTC as 27th comment | 11 replies
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

onlooker: If only X100F was X100FF.

Even in saying he/she is non-combative, this aggressive person manages to be combative! And ignorant. But we get a lot of that here. In reference to his/her last comment, Fuji have actually supplemented their current offerings with a larger sensor, one of a less arbitrary size than the old 35mm film size, which they had no need to settle for. Now they give you a choice, which is excellent. I don't own a Fuji camera, just an objective observation.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 08:45 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

onlooker: If only X100F was X100FF.

"Combative" seems a better description. Yes, tkbslc was right, I was referring to the later RX1 Sonys. You can fit an optical viewfinder to those if you want one. You can also put a comparable lens on a Leica and still choose an optical or electronic viewfinder.

Anyway, going back to your first comment, Fuji did the right thing by choosing that sensor size, instead of an arbitrary bigger one. Sales have proven that.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 20:48 UTC

The medium format market may have been small but you watch it grow now. Fuji and Hasselblad are doing sensible things and will attract a good many enthusiast and professional photographers. If Fuji had decided to make their camera with the arbitrary but common 35mm format, they would have faced a lot more competition and not been that different to what they already produced. To make this clear discernment just makes so much sense. It is only the beginning but the future is wide open here!

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 08:42 UTC as 87th comment
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

onlooker: If only X100F was X100FF.

Sony make that camera...

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 08:30 UTC
In reply to:

PC Wheeler: Interesting review. But some oddities.

In the Page 1 summary table it says the FZ1000 has a touch screen -- if so, I was cheated because mine seems not to have this feature.

And in the Conclusion they say in the table of Pros and Cons under Cons "No support for USB charging", then just above the Video heading it says "The camera supports USB charging, and kudos to Panasonic for also including an external charger in the box."

They should definitely do some proof reading! They've said it's environmentally sealed twice and that it isn't once.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: Good article but I wonder about the headline. I'm sure my Olympus EP1 came out before the GH1 and it does shoot video, albeit only 720p. That aspect of the EP1 was very exciting at the time but I found the video could have a sort of "moving grain" in lower light which was pretty ugly.

I still have my EP1. The lack of viewfinder has always and will always annoy me but I still pull it out every now and then because it just feels good. That shutter!

I'm pretty sure the GH1 was not available when I got my EP1. Mind you, I've been wrong before!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 21:57 UTC

Good article but I wonder about the headline. I'm sure my Olympus EP1 came out before the GH1 and it does shoot video, albeit only 720p. That aspect of the EP1 was very exciting at the time but I found the video could have a sort of "moving grain" in lower light which was pretty ugly.

I still have my EP1. The lack of viewfinder has always and will always annoy me but I still pull it out every now and then because it just feels good. That shutter!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 20:00 UTC as 20th comment | 4 replies
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Woodyz: Is there a real reason to buy this camera if you don't already own A-mount lenses?

Investing into A-mount seems like a unnecessarily risky move.

More silliness. I think it unlikely that many buyers will purchase the 500/4 from Sony. Perhaps even fewer than buy the Canon equivalent! At least there is that option.

What on earth does the manufacturer of a Zeiss-labelled lens have anything to do with anything I said?? Last I heard, some Zeiss lenses were made by Cosina. What has that got to do with the price of fish? The whole thing here is the same as it always has been - if you can get the glass that suits your need at the price you consider acceptable, you can actually go out and take the photos you want. That is eminently possible with a Sony A99 and you get a well-priced and allegedly very capable body to do it with. And you don't have to endure having a flappy, old-fashioned mirror either!

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 10:30 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Woodyz: Is there a real reason to buy this camera if you don't already own A-mount lenses?

Investing into A-mount seems like a unnecessarily risky move.

OlyPent, that's odd thinking. You can pay a small fortune for Zeiss lenses for Canon etc.. Some of those manufacturers latest releases are just as expensive as some of Sony's. It really just depends on what you need and what you can find, like it does with any system and like it always will be. If you choose a Canon or Nikon body to match that Sony body, the price difference will be huge - you may even need to get two bodies to fully match anyway!

I don't own Sony cameras and am not pushing them, just being objective.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 08:38 UTC
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Woodyz: Is there a real reason to buy this camera if you don't already own A-mount lenses?

Investing into A-mount seems like a unnecessarily risky move.

On the other hand, if you are considering starting out in a larger format, this is a hugely compelling alternative to expensive, heavy or compromised offerings from some other manufacturers! It really is a capable, all round unit.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: Unfortunately, the days of real finishes (nickel, satin chrome) are gone along with brass top and bottom plates (unless you are Leica). So, now it's metallic paint which (based on my two Olympus cameras) isn't highly durable, but at LEAST it's a change from the stodgy black cameras Americans seem unable to part with.

I was referring to the days when silver parts were actually chrome - which did eventually wear away to the brass below. Some of my cameras still shine after sixty years or more.

Even paint is different though. Baked enamel was very hard, could chip but resisted wear well. Now it seems they are all sprayed? It is still possible to get very durable paint finishes though. Look at well used high end Olympus bodies and most still sparkle!

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 20:16 UTC
Total: 914, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »