the reason

Joined on Oct 3, 2012

Comments

Total: 77, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Just posted: Hands-on preview of the Canon EOS 100D/SL1 (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxola67: It's less the Panas-GH3!
What's next Canon step relating to lenses size?
I remember Oly made the same mini- DSLR(e-420) with no success.

Its a ff mount. Lenses will remain the same size. You cant fight physics

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 06:10 UTC
In reply to:

123Mike: AF video still not anywhere close to what the Sony SLTs accomplish.

i disagree, I have an a65 and on single focus the GH3 handily beats it. and with no back/front focus issues

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2013 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

Photo Grapher: Good to see Fuji caring about new lenses.

Cough cough sony cough...

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 20:55 UTC

People, youre not getting it.
my boss charges anywhere from 5k$ to 25$ for high end celebrity shoots, industrial stuff and big name ads. 40K is made in a month easily. Very often when publicists call to make a deal THEY WILL ASK what gear is going to be used, a nikon D800 is not the right answer. Its wrong i know, but this people are paying through the nose for a job, they have the right to be demanding.
Likewise, i can justify what I buy in dslr and m4/3s with what i make in weddings, but a 20mp point and shoot is not the right tool for me either

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 07:53 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

Bob Tullis: Does either have a dedicated AEB button, and can it AF on my kids under TV light?

[g]

80 mp to shoot your kids watching tv?

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 07:39 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon D7100 Hands-On Preview (311 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: So the 16MP, 7FPS, with 1.3X crop factor would be almost exactly the same crop and resolution as a Micro 4/3 camera, except slower frame rate than the M43 cameras.

sadly no. phase detection has a 60% keeper rate. The no AA filter is quite exiting for us printing people

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2013 at 06:23 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

acidic: Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).

Also, the studio comparison tool for this camera is jacked up. Move it around the image and the zooms are not the same crop as other cameras.

Sexy, but no thanks. For this price, I'd expect Superb sharpness all the way into each of the four corner pixels.

troj a medium format camera has a medium format sensor, now THAT is something not everyone does.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 18:48 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

acidic: Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).

Also, the studio comparison tool for this camera is jacked up. Move it around the image and the zooms are not the same crop as other cameras.

Sexy, but no thanks. For this price, I'd expect Superb sharpness all the way into each of the four corner pixels.

peter its a 2800$ fixed lens camera (3400 with vf), it shouldnt suck at anything!!

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 14:37 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

the reason: you have to be a special brand of stupid to pay this much for that

And hippo84, I just checked, a brand spanking new fuji x pro 1 and a 35mm f1.4 goes for 2000$. Lets check the RX1...4,080$ with the vf, lens hood (because at 2800$, its not included), thumb grip (that broke during the review), and leather carrying case. 3580$ if youre gonna cheap out on the carrying case (really?) and you dont mind rheumatoid arthritis (no reviewer in the universe is gonna convince me that thing is comfortable after half an hour). With 4080$ i can get the fuji with 3 primes, a zoom and a 80$ grip (eventhough the fuji has one).
And RB, it probably performs better than a leica, but sony doesnt have leica's name or "cachet". Im sure the hyundai Genesis sedan is better than some lexuses just like they say, how many lexus buyers you think will switch? Leica can charge whatever they want but sony?
You can dress a monkey in silk all you want, end of the day he'll still be a monkey.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 14:06 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

the reason: you have to be a special brand of stupid to pay this much for that

Im not a big fan of the xtrans rendering but, the fuji has more value than this. it has a vf (a magnificent one at that), the sharpness (arguably) challenges FF, the lens (the 35mm f1.4 mentioned) is a stop faster and should I need or want another focal length I can change the lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 13:37 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

the reason: you have to be a special brand of stupid to pay this much for that

@RB the mountain bike analogy doesnt really go here. Its not better than anything, this is a fixed lens A99, and the A99 is leagues better in terms of ergonomics, and features, and neither of them you can fit in a pocket anywho. Its like saying they made the mountain bike smaller, easier to manage, you'll go equally as fast as a full body mountain bike but as a penalty there's less gears so you have to put in a bit more of an effort and oh! there's no seat!!!! (the equivalent of what I think a FF with no view finder is). If you want a seat you have to pay 700$ extra. And we're gonna charge you what a top of the line mountain bike costs for the basic model.
You know what this is? its a sigma SD1. Amazing tech, but not worth the 7000$ they charged for it. I cant believe some people actually paid that 7000$ for it, and i cant believe some people will pay the 2600$ (if your gonna shoot at arms length, which is hilarious) for this.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 13:27 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

the reason: you have to be a special brand of stupid to pay this much for that

@00rwullie. I would say that to you. What is the value of this? its a fixed lens camera with a mildly fastish lens that doesnt have a view finder and limits your shutter speed. Soooo it limits you more than an slr body but it has more "value"? why? It still doesnt fit in the pocket now does it? its simply the first mirrorless full frame, and because of that theyre charging that. Convincing yourself its a smart buy is all on you. I cant wait to see all those RX1s out theres being shot at arms length after criticizing the practice so much by the very same people...

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 04:11 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

the reason: you have to be a special brand of stupid to pay this much for that

iphone photographer huh...let me write it so were clear here:
its 2600$ for a fixed lens camera, of whatever the size. That has a limited shutter speed depending on aperture, and once you get the evf, a grip and a case youre at 3400$. Yeah..that sounds like a smart buy.
@R Butler- how much more image quality than say, a fuji x100, 100s, or xe1? or heck even an OM D EM5 or nex 7? would you say 1600-1800$ worth? well would you?

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 04:03 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (523 comments in total)

you have to be a special brand of stupid to pay this much for that

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 03:43 UTC as 136th comment | 22 replies
In reply to:

tbaker: Make sense, since it an over priced camera with no real redeeming features.

canon does a mild upgrade from mk2 to mk3 in 3 years and charge 800$ more and you dont see anybody complaining like this...

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 09:50 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Try-before-you-buy is a great tool for consumers, but it also, whether it's GM or Panasonic, reveals weak interest in the marketplace, which isn't surprising at all.

Not in the US you cant. And if I were you Id buy them and resell them, I know plenty of people on the UK that cant get their hands on one

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 09:48 UTC
In reply to:

Maverick_: Just what I thought. The GH3 has not created sufficient buzz. There is very little mention of exciting consumer articles on Pana GH3 here or elsewhere. And overall the world has been very lukewarm to this camera, versus for example the huge publicity and buzz that was create for the OM-D.

Also MF3 is a gigantic failure as a pro camera, no Pro (ok just a couple of guys) uses it for photo, only for video.

Also I believe that the future of photography does not include MF3. In another 5 years this format will disappear.

As the price of FF sensors drop, we'll go back to the time of film when all SLR cameras cheap or expensive shot 35/mm film. Also as our phone cameras become better every year, there would be no need to have a small camera in the next 5 years. The phone camera will take care of it.

So the not so distance future will see only FF DSLRs and Phone cams. And for those who whine about size, FF can be made small and light, just look at what Sony did with the RX1.

It doesn't need to move any faster, no store has been able to keep them in stock for more than two days. Amazon usa got 300 in stock and they were sold out in 4 days. Panasonic said they sold 3 stock quantities just in the pre order, so no, I dont think they need to do anything.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

tbaker: Make sense, since it an over priced camera with no real redeeming features.

I double dare you.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 01:33 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Try-before-you-buy is a great tool for consumers, but it also, whether it's GM or Panasonic, reveals weak interest in the marketplace, which isn't surprising at all.

And stores not being able to keep one on the shelves for more than two days is proof of that, right?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 01:30 UTC
In reply to:

erikandmarcie: Summary of this article states:

"should give similar noise at ISO 3200 as a conventional Bayer sensor does at ISO 1600"

But actually, that's not true. ISO performance will be the same, all else equal. It's just higher ISO's won't be needed since more light reaches the photo site.

Yabokie youre such a sad angry troll...does it make you cry that the sensor will match a full frame snr?

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2013 at 18:02 UTC
Total: 77, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »