Mark B.

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Nov 5, 1999

Comments

Total: 136, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)

Sorry, but that is one ugly camera. It looks like they got halfway through the design and just...stopped.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 23:29 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies

What a relief, it's so embarrassing to have people see my plain black external drives.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 16:44 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

Janbro: Why no filter threads???

Agree, that's a bummer. Nice that the ND filter is built-in, but one other filter I use frequently is a CPL. Can't add that in PP.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2016 at 12:51 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

nekrosoft13: Come on Olympus make a full frame camera!!

@FLruckas: It just happens to be a coincidence that the name of the camera series coincides with the AR. It is, in fact, a 4/3" sensor. If you look at the chart in the article I posted, the physical sensor dimensions are very close.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 13:33 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

nekrosoft13: Come on Olympus make a full frame camera!!

@FLruckas: it's not an aspect ratio. If so, that would mean a 1" sensor is square, which of course it's not.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 13:29 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

nekrosoft13: Come on Olympus make a full frame camera!!

@HowaboutRAW: Yes, it's 1.33333" but that has no real relation to the physical size, other than it gives you a general relative relationship to other compact sensor sizes. For example, 1/1.8" will be slightly larger than 1/2.3" and 4/3" will be larger than a 1" sensor, but it gives no real idea as to the physical dimensions of the sensor unless you look at the specs. Did you read the link about the sensor sizes? It seems you don't understand what the size really refers to.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 13:25 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

nekrosoft13: Come on Olympus make a full frame camera!!

@HowaboutRAW
What is the point? Not sure what you mean by "4/3 of something". The ratio isn't in relation to anything, it's an obscure picture tube standard that nobody but the digital camera industry uses anymore. From the article I linked to, "There appears to be no specific mathematical relationship between the diameter of the imaging circle and the sensor size, although it is always roughly two thirds."

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 10:03 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

nekrosoft13: Come on Olympus make a full frame camera!!

According to the actual specs, the sensor is 17.4 x 13mm.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 16:31 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

nekrosoft13: Come on Olympus make a full frame camera!!

Take a look at this link for explanation on sensor sizes:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8095816568/sensorsizes

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 16:27 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2085 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mbaris: Great outdoors, eh? Who will exactly thug that 900gr beast (before the lenses and tripod) to a hiking trip? The pros carrying around tens of kilos, and other support equipment, would they care about the "new" features? Aren't they redundant to a pro? The serious-amateur, wouldn't they prefer something much lighter for their personal trips? For someone doing studio, there are much better used Canons than this one. I think this camera is targeted for wedding photographers, which can burn cameras fast, and buy new to replace. This makes most of the new features just a marketing trick

This is beyond my budget at the moment, but I wouldn't hesitate to carry this camera and all the necessary accessories.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 10:16 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (490 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: Why am I surprised that people continue to misunderstand the beauty of a fixed-lens solution?

These cameras are the beginning of the end for DSLR cameras.

They don't replace larger, heavier, bulky, multiple lenses in a backpack just yet; but as this technology matures, more and more people will come to appreciate these wonderful bridge cameras. I've waited for a decade for these cameras to arrive. It's still not quite there yet, but they are getting closer and closer to "bridging" the gap between good image quality and utter silliness of the DSLR's need for a backpack full of lenses just to take a picture.

A Nikon 80-400mm on an APS-C DSLR is 120-600mm. That one lens costs $2300. It's also large and heavy.

Some are suggesting 3rd party junk lenses like the 16-300mm. I would not ever use a super-wide to super-telephoto on a DSLR. The whole reason for a DSLR is changing lenses and image quality. Why put 3rd party anything on it???? Even a filter, even a battery. I *ONLY* use genuine!

I'd sooner have *real* bokeh and not have to spend more time in PP.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 09:52 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (490 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: Why am I surprised that people continue to misunderstand the beauty of a fixed-lens solution?

These cameras are the beginning of the end for DSLR cameras.

They don't replace larger, heavier, bulky, multiple lenses in a backpack just yet; but as this technology matures, more and more people will come to appreciate these wonderful bridge cameras. I've waited for a decade for these cameras to arrive. It's still not quite there yet, but they are getting closer and closer to "bridging" the gap between good image quality and utter silliness of the DSLR's need for a backpack full of lenses just to take a picture.

A Nikon 80-400mm on an APS-C DSLR is 120-600mm. That one lens costs $2300. It's also large and heavy.

Some are suggesting 3rd party junk lenses like the 16-300mm. I would not ever use a super-wide to super-telephoto on a DSLR. The whole reason for a DSLR is changing lenses and image quality. Why put 3rd party anything on it???? Even a filter, even a battery. I *ONLY* use genuine!

This is very true, and it's only one reason APS-C and FF sensors will continue to be around in one form or another.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 21:48 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (490 comments in total)
In reply to:

Androole: The RX10 III definitely has the best wide-angle performance across the frame, no denying that. At 400mm and f/4 the difference between the FZ1000 and the RX10 III is exceptionally small, though. It's hard to call the RX10 III the winner at that FL. However, obviously the RX10 III goes to 600mm, which is a big advantage over the FZ1000.

Still, for double the price tag and 30% more weight, you really do need to weigh your options. It's an uncompromised approach to a compromise camera, but in the end the form factor is like a DSLR with a big superzoom that you're carrying around.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#611.432,672,ha,t

The weather-sealing shouldn't be overlooked either. I love carrying the FZ1000 when I don't need the IQ of my Canon DSLRs, but with the first raindrops it goes right back in the bag.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 21:40 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (490 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: Why am I surprised that people continue to misunderstand the beauty of a fixed-lens solution?

These cameras are the beginning of the end for DSLR cameras.

They don't replace larger, heavier, bulky, multiple lenses in a backpack just yet; but as this technology matures, more and more people will come to appreciate these wonderful bridge cameras. I've waited for a decade for these cameras to arrive. It's still not quite there yet, but they are getting closer and closer to "bridging" the gap between good image quality and utter silliness of the DSLR's need for a backpack full of lenses just to take a picture.

A Nikon 80-400mm on an APS-C DSLR is 120-600mm. That one lens costs $2300. It's also large and heavy.

Some are suggesting 3rd party junk lenses like the 16-300mm. I would not ever use a super-wide to super-telephoto on a DSLR. The whole reason for a DSLR is changing lenses and image quality. Why put 3rd party anything on it???? Even a filter, even a battery. I *ONLY* use genuine!

Don't forget that just as smaller sensors improve, so too will large sensors.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 21:36 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (490 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marximus: I've had the RX10 III for a couple weeks, coming from the FZ1000. I really wanted the range, so pretty much as soon as I got the Sony, the Panasonic was on eBay. That was a mistake, IMO. The Sony is quite a bit slower in multiple areas: startup, autofocus, low light performance. I shot quite a bit with it and it seemed okay, but just to make sure, I purchased the FZ1000 again (crazy, I know) to do some final testing. I took it to the zoo today, and within a couple shots, the Sony was back in the bag and I used the FZ1000 for the rest of the day. The difference in my experience is nearly night and day. For all my critical areas, the Panasonic wins, hands down. Faster startup, blazing fast autofocus, better low light performance, lighter in weight, a fully articulating screen, and about half the price. After doing the comparison, one of the few areas in which the Sony is superior is with that extra reach. I looked at the comparison shots and it does appear that the Sony lens is a bit sharper. And the weather sealing/build quality is nice. But these are all compromises I'm very willing to make. I absolutely love the FZ1000 and I'll be returning the RX10 III. And I'll keep my eye out for the FZ2000:).

Very interesting comparison Marximus, thanks for that.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 21:33 UTC

Looks nice, wonder how the lens performs with such a large range. I like that the body is dust & water resistant, something I sorely want on the FZ1000.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 16:46 UTC as 83rd comment
In reply to:

solarider: Looks interesting. Panasonic still has f2.8 throughout the whole lens range. I'll be curious to see what the next Panny comes up with and how the two measure up. Sony is gunning for top $ too.

Panasonc FZ300 is indeed f/2.8 through the range to 600mm - but that's on the FZ300 and it's much smaller 1/2.3" sensor. The FZ1000 is f/4 at the long end at 400mm.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 16:44 UTC
In reply to:

the-bunker: Very nice - but it's too heavy. If I had to carry that weight, then I'd choose FF

No, you'd be carrying around a LOT more weight - not to mention size - to get 600mm in FF.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Ignore the fact the camera module ripped off iPhone's resolution, HTC's UltraPixel and Canon's Dual Pixel, I am sure the result would be great.

Well, Apple ripped off Motorola because their iPhone takes & receives calls.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 14:26 UTC
Total: 136, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »