Gabor Ruppert

Joined on Oct 20, 2016

Comments

Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12
In reply to:

thx1138: Sony tries to hammer great technology into utterly crap bodies, showing after all these years they still haven't become a true camera company. This is like putting a V8 into a POS Corolla and then claiming it's a race car despite it's woeful handling, steering and brakes. At least with the FF bodies Sony's making an effort and slowly fixing ergonomics and user experience and are generally pretty nice after 4 generations, the A6xxx series though are singularly the worst cameras on the market for user interface, size, ergonomics and after about 6 generations have barely changed, just more features added. The only hope we have for a great APS-C camera from them is the mythical A7000 in an A7 type body and that's got a snowball's chance in hell of seeing the light of day.

DSLRs having an outdated mechanical part which is not really appealing, furthermore there fluffy, oversized body gives an empty, cheap plastic feeling. If I compare a Sony with a Canon or Nikon, the Sony feels massive like a tank, the later like a toy camera.
It's a question of taste. As long as everyone is served, we can feel lucky. Everyone can choose the one matching with his/her needs and preferences.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2019 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: Sony tries to hammer great technology into utterly crap bodies, showing after all these years they still haven't become a true camera company. This is like putting a V8 into a POS Corolla and then claiming it's a race car despite it's woeful handling, steering and brakes. At least with the FF bodies Sony's making an effort and slowly fixing ergonomics and user experience and are generally pretty nice after 4 generations, the A6xxx series though are singularly the worst cameras on the market for user interface, size, ergonomics and after about 6 generations have barely changed, just more features added. The only hope we have for a great APS-C camera from them is the mythical A7000 in an A7 type body and that's got a snowball's chance in hell of seeing the light of day.

The technology put inside is a measurable, objective topic. On the other hand ergonomics is subjective. You think they have crap bodies, but maybe simply you are not the target audience. I'm not influenced by my DSLR past, so for me Sony is has the best bodies. Why? The have the best sensor/body size ratio. I need a camera which I can carry with me anywhere. The A5100 is against 1" sensor devices in it's size class, easy win. The A6xxx still has all the controls on the right side, so I can operate any function single handed and the EVF is on the other corner, so it fits my face and I don't push my nose all the time against the touchscreen. Exactly its small size and great layout is why I won't change to an A7 which is again against APS-C sensor peers. With the Z battery they solved one of my two wishes, so I stay with the A6500 and hope, the next gen will sport at last a BSI sensor, lagging behind FF.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2019 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Frerichs: How soon before having a mirror becomes a "con?"

Was it ever not a "con"? Does it bring any value or is it just a necessity because a technical/engineering limitation? If you like DSLR you like it despite the mirror and not because of it, right? I mean if you like the viewfinder, you could have an even better one without mirror and a prism, if you place it right behind the sensor which you move out of the way as long as you don't press the shutter. It is just a challenging task.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2018 at 20:02 UTC

It looks kind of funny how powerful habits are. There is a physical property or limitation or defect, depending on your point of view, and people try to mimicking it instead of being happy they've got rid of it.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 14:53 UTC as 179th comment

Fail. A Pro level drawing.. oops I've meant photo should have a milky way on the sky even if it's "shot" in broad daylight.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 13:17 UTC as 7th comment
On article 3D Video Primer, Part 2 (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

ChrisMohrSr: I have been shooting stereo slides since 1952 with the same Stereo Realist camera.
I have just about 4,000 3D images that I can look at in my Stereo Realist viewer or project on a silver screen with my TDC Stereo Projector, using polaroid glasses.
I have been waiting 60 years for technology to catch up with concept.
Now that is doing that, let us calm down ... let things play out ... and accept the simple fact that, unless we have only one eye, we do see things in 3D.
Isn't that the way we should see things ... period?

I don't know how we should see things, but technically speaking we do not see 3D. We see two approx. 2D picture(stereo) and we can use these to calculate with our brain some attributes for some objects in a 3D space. If one could see in 3D he/she would be able to see the front, the back, the top, the bottom and both side faces of a cube at the same time. As we only see in 2D, we are able to see the top, the bottom and both side lines of a square. I know it's sad, maybe that is why so many people hate math.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 09:14 UTC
In reply to:

Franglais91: Mirrorless make up 36% of shipments. So what?

When I go out in the field (Paris, Rome) I hardly ever see a mirrorless camera.

- Mirrorless cameras are still not mature. Every year there is a new model which is bought by a dedicated population of users.
- DSLR's are very mature products. It takes 4 years or more to develop something that is significantly better than the existing version. And many buyers are not even going for the new version straight away

You won't see my mirrorless, because it's in the pocket of my jacket if I'm not shooting with it.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 12:01 UTC
In reply to:

Gabor Ruppert: So this is a lens which supports a smaller sensor than the Sony 10-18, but more expensive, bigger and heavier. What's the point I'm missing?

You might enjoy it a bit if you quit browsing just the thumbnails on you laptop :)

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 11:49 UTC

So this is a lens which supports a smaller sensor than the Sony 10-18, but more expensive, bigger and heavier. What's the point I'm missing?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39 UTC as 11th comment | 10 replies
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

tvstaff: The color rendition and RAW conversion of CR2 files by Adobe and the associated lens corrections are abysmal, second rate and border on negligent. I find Lightroom to be little better than FREE applications. The catalog structures are archaic. Adobe as a RAW file converter STINKS.

It won't affect someone who needs an efficient tool to make a job done, get paid for it and forget the whole things.
If it is your personal collection with your own memories, then it's a whole different story.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 08:02 UTC
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

tvstaff: The color rendition and RAW conversion of CR2 files by Adobe and the associated lens corrections are abysmal, second rate and border on negligent. I find Lightroom to be little better than FREE applications. The catalog structures are archaic. Adobe as a RAW file converter STINKS.

@PhotoRotterdam: Funny that with smaller projects and therefore smaller user base, users have more control over the product, so it might better fit your needs. The Lightroom search system is pretty awesome, but I really miss the timeline mode from digiKam. The metadata backend is also just a joke comparing the two. In the latest YOU can tailor it to your own needs, defining for each and every file type whether it should be stored in a proprietary system or should mess up your original files and with the same move your backup as well or put in a sidecar, that it won't be compatible with any other program. So I know the metadata thing is a mess, starting with the Exif without a standard TimeZone possibility, when only the US has some 6 different ones. But Adobe is not the one in my eyes who tries to solve this, but use the situation and lock everyone to their ecosystem, although in the long run it has some frustrating sideeffects. ...

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 08:01 UTC
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

tvstaff: The color rendition and RAW conversion of CR2 files by Adobe and the associated lens corrections are abysmal, second rate and border on negligent. I find Lightroom to be little better than FREE applications. The catalog structures are archaic. Adobe as a RAW file converter STINKS.

You mean besides Photo Gallery, StudioLine Photo, XnView MP, Mylio, Photo Supreme, ACDSee, iMatch, Capture One, Daminion, Phototheca? I presume quiet a few, but actually I prefer digiKam

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 07:35 UTC
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12