ColdViking

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Nov 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Comparison Review: Sony FE 50mm F1.4 ZA vs 55mm F1.8 ZA (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

John G Moore: I agree with you completely on the lens diaphragm control protocol. The lens diaphragm stopping down whilst focusing is a big issue for me, particularly when shooting in low ambient light in the studio with heads (1/200 @f11). My Nikon's and Hasselblad's perform well in that scenario where my A7RII's and G Master lenses perform particularly badly, purely because the Nikon and Blad lenses have automatic lens diaphragms that remain fully open until shutter actuation.

I would much prefer it if Sony changed the lens diaphragm control to behave like a DSLR remaining wide open whilst focusing and only closing to your chosen aperture value on shutter actuation. (Or at least let you choose in firmware) That way the camera would always be able to use phase and contrast detect AF. I'd rather have a camera and lens combination that can focus quickly and efficiently at higher apertures, than have live DOF preview.

Just tried this on my A6300 with the kit lens. It does NOT stop down prior to focusing, and therefore blows my A7RII out of the water in focusing performance in low light. Perhaps I should ditch the 55mm F/1.8 for the kit 16-50.

There must be some sane people somewhere at Sony, right? For now, no more Sony glass for sure.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 08:36 UTC
On article Comparison Review: Sony FE 50mm F1.4 ZA vs 55mm F1.8 ZA (223 comments in total)

PLEASE READ THE FOOTNOTE ON THIS PAGE

The new 50mm F/1.4, and all the GM lenses AND at least the Sony 55mm F/1.5 ZA with updated firmware behave like this. They stop down the aperture before focusing in AF-C. This makes these lenses about as valuable for photography as a paper weight. This is a HUGE error on part of Sony and it requires an entire article, not just a foot note.

It's particularly galling that Sony did this to the 55mm via a firmware update, I could just have stayed away from the new GM and 50mm, but I did not expect a firmware to EFF UP my lens. And this is a serious eff up.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 15:57 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies
On article Comparison Review: Sony FE 50mm F1.4 ZA vs 55mm F1.8 ZA (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rooru S: When is the SAL50F14Z vs SEL50F14Z comparison coming up? Or has Sony told you not to compare between A-mount and E-mount?

I have, in the past few weeks, moved from a complete Canon setup to a complete E-mount setup, off-loading a ton of Canon glass that I knew and love(d). I did the adapter thing for a while. Silly really once I took a serious look at my needs and requirements. I ditched the adapter and I ditched the glass. Main reason was hassle. One more piece of gear.

Canon is not abandoning the EF-mount in the near or medium future, so hanging on to Canon glass makes a little bit of sense. It isn't going to depreciate a lot, and keeping it is not that much of a losing proposition. A-mount on the other hand...

Sony is moving away from A-mount, or seriously de-focusing on it. Assuming otherwise is delusional. They are not going to compete seriously against Canikon in the future with all of their focus on the E-mount, so A-mount stuff is going to depreciate faster.

Dump it now while you can still get some cash for it. A year from now it'll have dropped seriously in price.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 08:12 UTC
On article Hands on with the Hasselblad H6D 50c/100c (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: This is a serious question: Could someone explain a specific application which is better served by the Hasselblad 50c than by a Sony A7RII? By that, I mean technically and concretely describe a setting where a photo taken by the Hasselblad would be superior to one taken by the A7RII, and why?

I can (kind of) see the merit of 100MP for specialized applications, but the 50c just confuses me. I'm genuinely trying to figure out if this is a serious product, or if it's designed for the same market which would buy a Stellar/Lunar/etc., but a little less obvious.

Here are some areas where it will work better as a tool

1/ Product photography, cars, etc, where DR is critical
1a/ Any area where DR is critical

2/ Outdoor shoots where the sync speed is crucial, particularly fashion, but anywhere you want to "over power" the sun

3/ General fashion shoots, particularly where large prints (several meters tall) are required

Any area where high resolution and/or fantastic dynamic range and/or high flash sync speed gives you an advantage.

Any time you want to pick up girls ;-) Size matters!

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 12:12 UTC
On article Hands on with the Hasselblad H6D 50c/100c (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I understand it's a tool but, man, is this ugly or is this ugly?

It's a thing of stunning beauty.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 11:44 UTC
In reply to:

davidit: Always be nteresting to hear the "who has the best editing platform" argument. Should be the who can make my photos look better argument. Seriously how would you guys even have made a living in the film days with your heavy reliance on post editing? If you cannot use one of your photos straight out of your camera without running it through software then you should give up. The only editing i do is cropping.
You should all take a step back and learn how to take good photos rather than waste your time arguing about editing.

There has NEVER been a situation where you used your photos straight out of your camera, but the Polaroid and positive film are the closest. Here are some possible scenarios:

1/ B&W film. Result will depend selection of film, how you develop the film, on how you develop the positive image what paper you chose etc. These are done in LR today using filters, exposure change, color temperature etc.

2/ Color negatives in a cheapo shop - the development process would change the end result, and in cheapos it would vary from shop to shop and day to day. Also, film selection - same as LR with a clueless LR user.

3/ Color negatives in a good shop - same as above, same as LR with a user with clues.

4/ Color positives - changes in film, development etc would significantly impact end result.

What most photographers do today they ALWAYS did in the film days too. Claiming there is such a thing (even in digital) as straight out of camera is just clueless nonsense. Even JPGS are processed heavily.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2015 at 09:30 UTC
In reply to:

davidit: Always be nteresting to hear the "who has the best editing platform" argument. Should be the who can make my photos look better argument. Seriously how would you guys even have made a living in the film days with your heavy reliance on post editing? If you cannot use one of your photos straight out of your camera without running it through software then you should give up. The only editing i do is cropping.
You should all take a step back and learn how to take good photos rather than waste your time arguing about editing.

>> If you cannot use one of your photos straight
>> out of your camera without running it through
>> software then you should give up

MAN. YOU ARE A GENIUS! You were able to use your photos straight out of camera in the film days? I never was. If it was a B&W film, I had to go to my dark room and develop the film. A process where I had tremendous control over pushing etc. After that, I had to develop the resulting negative into an image, and in that process I would frequently use tools (and my hands) to doge and burn to make the image exactly as I wanted.

I am AMAZED at your abilities. How did you do it? When you pulled the film out of the canister, how did you prevent it from being destroyed instantly, and how on EARTH did you show the result to people?

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2015 at 09:19 UTC
On article Panasonic's Post Focus feature arrives November 25 (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

Brian Mosley: This could be used to create a simulated narrow depth of field... Finally demolishing one of the last FF features without having to carry heavy, expensive and bulky fast lenses.

Well done, keep going Panasonic!

No, it could not. The feature will only shoot with the depth of field that the lens can handle.

This feature could be "replicated" today with any camera, Panasonic or not, by shooting a series of images while changing focus (which is what this firmware update in reality does). If your subject was entirely stationary and your camera on a tri-pod you could achieve the exact same thing even using manual focus. You could just shoot 30 different images each with a slightly different focus point and then chose the picture you wanted to use afterwards.

This does NOT enable any type of new depth of field possibilities.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 09:01 UTC
In reply to:

ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

So, no.

There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:

1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.

2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.

3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.

The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.

The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.

>> The apps will be there when the hardware is there

From whom? Apple? They can't even created a decent browser when most of the work is done by others. Safari today is the Internet Explorer 6 of the bad times. Apple Software Quality is in free-fall.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

So, no.

There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:

1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.

2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.

3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.

The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.

The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.

>> The Surface Pro is nice but is still just a PC.

"Just a PC"? In the same way a Mac Book Pro is "just a PC". Do you think the iPad pro will be competitive with a Mac Book Pro? Seriously?

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

So, no.

There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:

1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.

2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.

3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.

The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.

The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.

There is a HUGE difference between generic benchmarks and real-world software. I develop software for a living, also iPhone and iPad apps. According to the benchmarks shown, the 6S is closing in on the Surface Pro 3. In the real world this is not true. Not even close.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

wansai: For light editing, sure. For on-the-spot editing, sure.

The main problem is one of workflow though. Then there's the problem of the software. This does not run the adobe suite. It runs the basic mobile apps. You can do some pretty basic things, that's about it.

Get a Surface Pro 3 or 4. That is far more suitable with enough horsepower to do most things a creative can need. I do photo editing, processing, digital art, desktop publishing and graphic design on my surface pro 3.

The surface pros also run full blown adobe suite and in desktop mode, have multitouch trackpad so you can use the suite quite comfortably.

In touch mode, I open photoshop, click 1 button to apply my custom action. Or just set it to batch process. Or just use lightroom if that's more to your workflow.

The ipad pro will be a better illustration tool than a photo editor's tool. It's fundamentally no different from an ipad.

>> new generation of apps

Doesn't change the fact that the CPU in these things can not keep up. That's not what they were designed for.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

Priaptor: You want a "tablet" to do real work, wait till Oct 6th and get the new Surface Pro 4, which is what the iPad Pro should have been.

If only Microsoft understood sooner how much more advanced their hardware was than Apples, we wouldn't have had to wait so long for the ultimate combination of Windows 10 and a Surface Pro 4 that perform real computer tasks, rather than apps

@Sinatra

>> The iPad will have the advanced photo
>> editing apps.

No, it won't. Ever. The horse power simply isn't there. It's not an accident. The ARM chip is designed to be power efficient and capable of running presentation devices and phones.

>> Microsoft....well, the selection will be limited.

Really? So, Lightroom, Capture One Pro, Photoshop, Premiere Pro are limited apps? Why do you feel that?

You do know that the Microsoft Surface is a full-blown, "bog-standard" Windows PC right? Anything you can do on a laptop or desktop you can do on the Surface Pro. You have been able to for several years already. I edit and color correct 4K video on my Surface Pro with Adobe CC (albeit with 1080p proxies). You'll never do that with an iPad.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2015 at 16:43 UTC
Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »