Sanjeev Das
Lives in
San Jose, United States
Joined on
Aug 21, 2002
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |
| And I'm feeling all fingers and thumbs by Dutch Newchurch from Your City - Coffee Break | Stitch that - macro by Beatsy from Household objects- Macro only | Fiddling Around by garyjb from Concert musician playing | wet red by George Veltchev from Red |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
2468FeatureWhat is equivalence?
Dave Oddie: If Sony want to chase the pro sports shooter and wildlife photographer then why not go the whole hog and come up with a form factor for the body that is more ergonomic?
What would be wrong in making the A9 look almost identical to an A99ii or any other traditional looking DSLR which is far easier to hold with big lenses?
Why are Sony so clearly wedded to this form factor for this range of FF mirrorless cameras? Looks like a case of form over function here.
Why does the camera need to be bigger for big lenses? My A7R2 and Tamron 150-600 do just fine. You do support the lens with your palm don't you?
Robert Eckerlin: The reason why I am not interested in a camera with an EVF: the ugly blue-ish rendering by the EVFs of the subjects/scenes. Why that ugly blue-ish rendering? Why are camera makers not capable to build EVFs with natural color-rendering? I have many times be told: look at the modern EVFs of excellent camera makers and you will get positively surprised - that positive surprise never occured. .
When shooting, enjoying what I see through the viewfinder is an essential part of my enjoyment (am I the only one?). And the ugly bue-ish rendering by the EVFs just destroys my pleasure.
I would not mind at all EVFs with a true-life color-rendering.
None of that on my Sony A7R2.
Sanjeev Das: 25 f/2 on m43 is 50 f/4 on FF. I don't see what this setup gives me over the Sony A7R2 and 55/1.8 which is a smaller setup.
@kreislauf Ah yes, thanks for the correction! I missed that. In terms of light gathering though, there is no inherent advantage. If we model the arrival of the photons as a poisson process, the noise or the standard deviation is the square root of the expected mean. An FF sensor that gathers four times as much light as m43, therefore, has a signal to noise ratio that is twice as good. So at the same shutter speed, a m43 25 f/1.2 and an FF 50 f/2.4, matched to the same level of brightness, will be equivalent in terms of FOV, DOF and light since the SNR is now exactly is the same. So the 55 at f/1.8 is still better imo and is a smaller setup. More expensive? Yes.
Sanjeev Das: 25 f/2 on m43 is 50 f/4 on FF. I don't see what this setup gives me over the Sony A7R2 and 55/1.8 which is a smaller setup.
@gianstam I see you are "trying" to be smart. A course in reading comprehension for you, perhaps?
Sanjeev Das: 25 f/2 on m43 is 50 f/4 on FF. I don't see what this setup gives me over the Sony A7R2 and 55/1.8 which is a smaller setup.
See what? Are you talking of image quality. If you want cheap, you could get the A7 II. I'd happily pay more for better image quality, shallower DOF and and the four times larger sensor.
25 f/2 on m43 is 50 f/4 on FF. I don't see what this setup gives me over the Sony A7R2 and 55/1.8 which is a smaller setup.
kimsch: This can only mean one thing: They are getting ready for a very high MP camera
Well, he did say a "very" high MP...
bernardf12: This is the benefit of IBIS. Cheaper and lighter lenses. Unless you look at super telephoto of course, then OIS should be included.
@nicolaiecostel IBIS will stabilize the viewfinder if the camera has an EVF (e.g Sony A7x II series with IBIS).
Hi Rishi,
Thanks thanks for the writeup. Can you explain this statement a bit more?
"general subject tracking using Lock-on AF is still as erratic and untrustworthy as before"
RedFox88: Google sold off their Motorola phone business a few months ago at a huge loss hanging onto patents.
RedFox88: Try doing some research before you post. The link works for me. From the article:
On the face of it, that’s more than $9.5 billion for a collection of patents that has not proven to be very effective, especially against Apple, Microsoft or even Nokia.
However, on the bright side, when Google acquired Motorola it also inherited a cash pile of $3.2 billion, as well as $2.4 billion in deferred tax assets, for a net acquisition cost of $6.9 billion.
Google then sold Motorola’s set-top box business to Arris Group ($2.3 billion) and its factories to Flextronics ($75 million), further reducing the total acquisition cost to $3.85 billion.
Net-net, after the Lenovo deal closes, Google spent less than a billion dollars for patents that it originally estimated was worth $5.5 billion, plus some valuable insights in running a large hardware company (mass layoffs, razor thin margins, ultra competitive market…)
RedFox88: Google sold off their Motorola phone business a few months ago at a huge loss hanging onto patents.
Huge loss?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2014/01/29/google-profits-billions-with-motorola-sale-to-lenovo-keeps-patents/
xue24: "getting a pro to shot the samples!!" are all over the real world samples gallery here in dpreview. personally, i think dpreview is doing a good job in fact, by mistake or not. cause over 90% of us out there will shot exactly like this. a pro will make all sample galleries here look amazing even if it is by a $100 p&s, but is it true for the rest of us? the camera don't make a better photographer.
is dpreview real world samples gallery any good...
personally, yes!! cause it is real for many, including myself :P
any camera could be good if it is in the right hand
What kind of twisted logic is that? "Most people will shoot crappy images with this camera, so let's show them some crappy samples". Don't you want to see what's the best this camera is capable of?
dpreview really needs to hire some real photographers. Is this really the best you can do?
Looks great, thanks!