marike6

Joined on Jul 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 2719, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jefftan: this is Fuji version of A5100 both $600

but Sony with the garbage kit lens, X-A3 with a good kit lens
and Fuji X mount lens lineup now available

Which one will u choose?

The Fuji 16-50 is a million times better than the Sony 16-50, there is no comparison. The Sony is one of the worst kit lenses ever made. And the Fuji lens line up is dramatically better than Sony's E-mount lineup. Unless video is your thing, get the Fuji.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 11:20 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: My opinion is that no award for the Fujifilm X-E2S after the X-E1 received a Gold award makes almost no sense. The fact that the X-E2S is using a proven 16 mp sensor is hardly a reason for no award at all. This is especially true considering that Fujifilm reduced the price of the X-E2S by $300 vs the release price of the X-E1. And it is also a consideration that many of the existing APS-C lenses from almost all manufacturers seem to struggle on the newest crop of 24 mp sensors (Sony E-mount anyone?). 16mp is a great sweet spot for resolution and file management. On DPR, there are only two scenarios where a camera doesn't get ANY award at all: either the camera performed great but oddly the reviewer didn't like the camera (i.e. Nikon V1, Nikon Df, and arguably the Pentax K-01), or the camera just didn't perform well. I cannot think of a time when the update of a Gold Award camera received no award at all. It's time to dump the awards or add a Bronze award, the XE series is great.

@Richard Butler But Fujifilm has never been interested in making video cameras, why hold a Fuji camera to the standard set by Sony or Panasonic? Fujifilm doesn't make all-arounder, photo/video hybrids, they never have. To review one as such is unfair. With the Ricoh GR, we know going in that its primary focus is still photography. Like the X-E2, the GR is not trying to be an RX100 or G7 style all rounder. Pure still photography, that's what it's designed for. To penalize the X-E2S for not being an A6300 style all-arounder seems ludicrous. To expect the X-E2S to perform at top-of-the-line Samsung, Sony, or Nikon levels AF wise is also unfair. The X-E2S is not dramatically worse than the X-E1, a gold camera, it's no less capable in 2016 than it was in 2013, then it should have at the very least gotten Silver. Measuring all cameras against an arbitrary Sony hybrid photo/video camera standard is a mistake because it sets the bar at an impossible height.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 10:24 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)

My opinion is that no award for the Fujifilm X-E2S after the X-E1 received a Gold award makes almost no sense. The fact that the X-E2S is using a proven 16 mp sensor is hardly a reason for no award at all. This is especially true considering that Fujifilm reduced the price of the X-E2S by $300 vs the release price of the X-E1. And it is also a consideration that many of the existing APS-C lenses from almost all manufacturers seem to struggle on the newest crop of 24 mp sensors (Sony E-mount anyone?). 16mp is a great sweet spot for resolution and file management. On DPR, there are only two scenarios where a camera doesn't get ANY award at all: either the camera performed great but oddly the reviewer didn't like the camera (i.e. Nikon V1, Nikon Df, and arguably the Pentax K-01), or the camera just didn't perform well. I cannot think of a time when the update of a Gold Award camera received no award at all. It's time to dump the awards or add a Bronze award, the XE series is great.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 15:03 UTC as 23rd comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: when studio lenses retire (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey_Green: Had this lens a while back, was pretty good for what it was, I thought. It does not produce that tightly sharp images wide open as Sigma Art does, but Nikon does add that certain character to the image (as many lenses from that period do), that can be quite attractive just as well. And it is way smaller (several times in fact) than the 50mm Art lens. Certainly worth having, and they do not cost much.

@boinkphoto The Fujifilm 35 1.4 is not exactly sharp wide open, it needs f2 to get above the standard decency level of most lens test websites. The Sigma 35 1.4 is a different story, it's sharp straight from max aperture. But to imply that Fuji lenses are sharp, while Nikkors have only "character" is absurd. The majority of Nikon's pro glass i.e., 70-200, 300 f/2.8, 200 f2, are designed for sharp images straight from max aperture. The Nikon 50 1.4 is a design from 40 years ago, it's a good lens, just not at max aperture. Nikon's newer primes like the 24 f/1.8 are pin sharp straight from max aperture. And unlike the Fujifilm lens lineup, they cover FF.

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

ecka84: Fuji XF100-400 - European COMPACT system zoom lens? WTH? :D That thing is bigger than EF 100-400L and just as heavy.
Sony FE 85/1.4 GM - European professional COMPACT system lens? ... That tells a lot about COMPACT systems, doesn't it? :D
And no award for Sigma 20/1.4 Art :(. Must be too big and heavy, so nobody likes it. Should have been a COMPACT system lens, THEN it would get an award :D no doubt.
Holy facepalm. I don't get it.

The EISA awards are thinly veiled marketing. Few people take them seriously, they are just a way to get EISA stickers on those Tamron lens boxes.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

Stollen1234: Hey Nikon..what happened..what a disaster for Nikon

Prosumer DSLR of the Year Nikon D500 for the reading challenged.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 14:50 UTC
On article Still solid: Fujifilm X-E2S Review (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: More proof that DPR needs to lose the review awards. If the X-E1 wins a Gold Award, how does the X-E2S get nothing? Not even the spirit of the Olympics could compel the reviewer to give this excellent workhorse a Silver award? ;-) M43 stuck with the 16 mp sensor for years, the rest of the market moved to higher res sensors, and not once did we ever read "dated sensor" or see a lack of Gold and Silver Awards in most of the m43 reviews. For most general photography, the X-E1 with a 35 1.4 or kit zoom is an absolute joy to shoot with, it has great build quality, looks beautiful. And crucially, it's virtually impossible to take bad images with this camera. What Fuji has done with the X-E2S is lowered the price by $300 compared to the release price of the X-E. With that in mind, why is the reviewer expecting an XT-1 specs or performance? When you buy a D3300 or Rebel, you don't expect a D500 or 7D II.

@Androole
And what was the award for the Panasonic GM5? Silver. Case closed. And anyone who tells you that the GM5 is a better camera than the Fuji XE series is delusional. What I think DPR missed is the pricing of the XE-2S has been adjusted to reflect things like the last generation sensor and slower than XT-1 performance. And having owned the X-E1, as brilliant a camera in 2013 as it is in 2016, I'd say that it's illogical to have an improved, significantly less expensive X-E1 given no award when the X-E1 received a gold award. The equivalent would be like giving the OMD EM5 II no award because the rest of the market moved onto 24 mp chips.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 11:53 UTC
On article Still solid: Fujifilm X-E2S Review (229 comments in total)

More proof that DPR needs to lose the review awards. If the X-E1 wins a Gold Award, how does the X-E2S get nothing? Not even the spirit of the Olympics could compel the reviewer to give this excellent workhorse a Silver award? ;-) M43 stuck with the 16 mp sensor for years, the rest of the market moved to higher res sensors, and not once did we ever read "dated sensor" or see a lack of Gold and Silver Awards in most of the m43 reviews. For most general photography, the X-E1 with a 35 1.4 or kit zoom is an absolute joy to shoot with, it has great build quality, looks beautiful. And crucially, it's virtually impossible to take bad images with this camera. What Fuji has done with the X-E2S is lowered the price by $300 compared to the release price of the X-E. With that in mind, why is the reviewer expecting an XT-1 specs or performance? When you buy a D3300 or Rebel, you don't expect a D500 or 7D II.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 12:00 UTC as 43rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

eazizisaid: I honestly don't know why people are still starving for wide aperture lenses especially in longer focal lenght just because "bokeh" ! This is the route Sony is following ! I wish they offered a 2.8 lens lineup from 18mm to 135mm, it will be cheap and light !

@eazizisaid I'm guessing you don't shoot weddings or events. Fast glass is essential, shallow DOF is only part of the equation.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 12:20 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

@Simon Johnson Because there is a huge difference between concluding that "AF tracking not up to level of peers" and the first bullet point in the Cons like be "Poor AF". The statement "poor AF" suggests that the overall AF performance is poor, when it was only a very specific predictive AF test in AF-C mode that didn't perform well. And to write in the conclusion that the "K-1 AF is an improvement over all previous Pentax DSLRs" while writing "Poor AF" as a Con, doesn't make sense, and is not consistent with the fact that neither the K5, K5 II or K-3 had any negative cons whatsoever regarding AF. It is also true that no other entry level FF DSLR (600D, 6D) or high megapixel DSLRs like the Nikon D800 or D810 had any similar predictive AF tracking tests done at all. And shooting an AF tracking test with an object coming at the camera on a 36 mp DSLR at the shallow DOF that max aperture provides and summarizing with "Poor AF" in the general sense is not accurate or fair.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 17:21 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: nice camera, good on pentax for FINALLY coming out with it.

a little redundant on the market, but i'm sure it's a boon for pentaxians or those interested in a limited kit (yet bulky) AF kit.

Personally I could never see the need (or desire) or even wish to get behind a non stabilized viewfinder and AF / AE system but the sensor itself is stabilized.

I'm sure it's possible .. don't get me wrong - before the dozen remaining pentaxians jump all over me. it's simply not optimal and just about every camera manufacturer offers a better solution and photographer experience (EVF with sensor stabilization, IS in lens for optical, hybrid such as sony's newer systems,etc). It's half baked - especially with longer telephotos where framing can be drastically different then what the sensor sees, not to mention part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system.

I'm actually surprised it's not on the con's list actually.

@rrccad
The Cons bullet list already has a few totally unnecessary, borderline passive aggressive Cons like "Poor AF" and "Limited selection of modern AF lenses". A reviewer cannot make the case that the K-1 has the best AF system of any Pentax ever made and then list "Poor AF" as the very first bullet point. No way. Just as lens selection absolutely does not belong in a review of a camera body. What next speedlight selection? The fact that you want to add "5 Axis IBIS" to the list of Cons makes me think maybe you have a future as a camera reviewer.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:48 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: Oh look...another camera that needs Sillypix to get the most out of the files. Seriously, Sillypix is the worst UI EVER. Come on Adobe get it together.

The K1 doesn't need Silkypix, it shoots DNG which Adobe (and most others) process out of the box. No waiting necessary.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)

So DPR did a predictive AF test of a 36 mp DSLR with the lens at max aperture and concluded that the K-1 has "poor AF"? That's odd, the D800, D600 and Canon 6D didn't get any such "AF test". Oh brother. No wonder people are angry about this review.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:34 UTC as 226th comment | 2 replies
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 comments in total)
In reply to:

caravan: The a6300 is much,much better and less expensive,nice try though.

Sony E-mount lenses are either wildly over-priced mediocre or expensive garbage, their bodies are horrendous to shoot with. Fujifilm lenses are in another category, their bodies are a joy to shoot with. Next.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 14:22 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

pentaust: More argumentation isn't necessary. I encourage everyone having access to a Pentax K1 to do the test himself and publish the results online. And there are already plenty of examples online showing Pentax K1 tracking capability, but, one review ignore them all. Interesting.

@Barney Britton But you didn't have any predictive AF tracking test in your Canon 6D or Nikon D600. And the K-1 review clearly states in the conclusion that the K-1 AF system "is an improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs". If that is true, then why is the very first bullet point in the Cons section of the Conclusion "Poor AF"??? Neither the K5, K5II or K3 have a single negative AF bullet point in the Cons section of their respective reviews and according to your reviewer the K-1 is an improvement on the K5, K5II and K3??? Where is the consistency across Pentax reviews and reviews in general? And why should an entry level FF DSLR at the ground breaking price of $1800 be judged so harshly, and tested more rigorously than other similar cameras (6D, D600)?

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 13:59 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: It appears that many the negative comments directed to the reviewers are from individuals seeking validation instead of information regarding purchasing options. It is the latter that my comment addresses.

My problem stems from how the reviewers hand out Silver and Gold Awards. Consider the statement made in the review that "even in the most basic, single point AF shooting modes, the results are far from what we would expect from a modern DSLR focusing system." This is a very strong statement regarding something that is a core attribute of the camera and not a cool feature. If anything the reviewers should be admonished for slapping a Silver Award on a $1,800 camera built in 2016 that lacks "a proficient AF system". It is tough to reconcile these. Perhaps it is time to toss the Gold and Silver awards and rely on the scores and written reviews. The consumer might benefit. You guys are too nice about it.

Readers have every right to make negative comments if they feel there is a lack of consistency across reviews. Asking questions or raising concerns doesn't automatically mean fanboys have their pitchforks out. If the K-3 wins a Gold Award, and doesn't have a single Con listed regarding AF, and the K-1 review makes the case that the K-1 AF is an improvement upon ALL previous Pentax DLSRs, then one would not expect to see the very first Con in the K-1 review be "Poor AF". That makes zero sense.

As far as the awards, I hate the almost totally subjective DPR awards. The fact that Amazon is now listing "DPR Gold Award", "DPR Silver Award" in their camera listings is a turn off, the practice seems at the very least suspect, even dishonest. It's one reason I never buy cameras from Amazon.

I don't shoot Pentax, I have no horse in this race, but I understand Pentax shooter's frustrations with the politics of the camera industry. The good news is this K-1 review seems to be an outlier.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 13:44 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: DPR writes: "While the AF system of the K-1 can't keep up with some of its peers, it is an improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs."

Then how come the K3's review didn't have a single conclusion "Con" related to AF performance and the K-1 had "Poor AF" listed as the very first con? This is a clear contradiction, and the fact that the K-1 is essentially an entry level FF with specs that trash the competition (5-axis IBIS, 36 mp, weather sealing, build quality) makes it worse. If there is a Con for the K-1 AF based on DPR's testing, it would be more accurate, fair and consistent to say "AF tracking not up to level of peers".

As it stands, the Conclusion bullet points are unfair and inconsistent with their own assessment of the K-1's AF as an "improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs", considering that the K3 and K-5 II had zero AF "Cons" listed in the Conclusion section. Unusually harsh, inconsistent review that I believe Ricoh did not deserve.

You say the K1 results are in line with previous Pentax models, DPR says the K1 AF is an improvement on previous Pentax models, yet it's only the K1 whose review summary Con said "Poor AF", neither the K5, K5II or K3 had any Cons related to AF. It's not a complicated point that I'm making.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 00:31 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)

DPR writes: "While the AF system of the K-1 can't keep up with some of its peers, it is an improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs."

Then how come the K3's review didn't have a single conclusion "Con" related to AF performance and the K-1 had "Poor AF" listed as the very first con? This is a clear contradiction, and the fact that the K-1 is essentially an entry level FF with specs that trash the competition (5-axis IBIS, 36 mp, weather sealing, build quality) makes it worse. If there is a Con for the K-1 AF based on DPR's testing, it would be more accurate, fair and consistent to say "AF tracking not up to level of peers".

As it stands, the Conclusion bullet points are unfair and inconsistent with their own assessment of the K-1's AF as an "improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs", considering that the K3 and K-5 II had zero AF "Cons" listed in the Conclusion section. Unusually harsh, inconsistent review that I believe Ricoh did not deserve.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:45 UTC as 283rd comment | 3 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Sorry, D610, 6D nor D750 cannot be used as peers to judge AF in the K-1. All those use more forgiving lower-res sensors and don't have anything even remotely as sophisticated as the pixel-shift mode.

K-1 uses the 36MP sensor, and has a new AF with 25 cross points for a very serious reason: the image must be in perfect focus because the 36MP will pay you big penalties — especially in pixel shift mode.

In fact, some more experienced reviewer would presume (and even expect) that K-1 must be slower because of the extreme demands which the sensor, and special shooting modes, put on the camera and its AF system.

This is serious science here in K-1, serious photography stuff, and very serious tech that has certain requirements and needs apt minded folks to appreciate and value correctly.

@ET2 A7RII and D810 are more expensive camera, the lenses for the A7RII use sophisticated stepping motors, Nikon's predictive AF technology is class leading. But he makes a valid point about the demands of a 36 mp sensor. And DPR claims the K-1 AF is an improvement over all previous Pentax camera, yet the K-3 doesn't have a single Con that say "Poor AF". It's poor review consistency at best and "woke up on the wrong side of the bed" reviewing at worst.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:27 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Are peers judged by the price, or by the specs, and which? Or you want both? That is the case here — nobody can make logically consistent review of Pentax cameras.
Because Pentax designs cameras in an unorthodox, quirky way, to avoid direct comparisons with presumed peers. People would love to have dynamic range and detail of D810, speed and AF of D5, price of D610, at least a screen of D750, and presence on the shelves of 5D3. When you want *all that*, realistically you can get only some of it — and a very skewed review in the tow.
What sane person can expect a D610-priced camera to be a primary moving subject beast which delivers impeccable gargantuan 36 MP images? Ask Nikon for that, and they give you D5 and 20 MP, not even the D610. Neither D810 fits the bill.
That is why all Pentax reviews based on scoring points are futile. Like Leica, Pentax designs cameras that defy direct comparisons.

I agree completely with Zvonimir. When I had my K-30, I had no major problems tracking birds in flight or my daughter running around. And with motor-less DA primes in AF Single Shot, focussing is quick and dead on accurate (albeit with more noise than motorized Canikon lenses). If as DPR says, the K-1's AF is an improvement over previous models then to arrive at "Poor AF performance" as number one "Con" is to judge the K-1 too harshly. It is an entry level FF DSLR, why is DPR even talking about the D750 and such. So it would seem that DPR arrived at their "poor AF" assessment is through comparisons of much more expensive Canikon cameras. The fact that another "Con" is limited FF lens selection is just absurd this is a review of the K-1 camera, not the Pentax system. ePhotozine gave the K-1 Five Stars and Editor's Choice. Imaging Resource praised the AF system. TheCameraStoreTV said AF was "highly accurate". IMO, DPR did Pentax and its loyal readers wrong in this review.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 13:49 UTC
Total: 2719, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »