Joined on Sep 12, 2011


Total: 244, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Nikita66: These are really expensive for slow primes even if they are "Gs". I like the idea for around $350 each or so. But as it is, buying two of them would be $1200!

And their focal lengths are too close together to really bother.
I'd rather have 1 great $1200 lens, than three mediocre ones.

But I'm sure there are travelers with excess cash, that'll drop the money on these.

But for carrying 3 lenses with so little coverage of the range, they still add too much weight to the bag for what they provide.

I'd go with the 14mm 1.4 GM, the 20mm 1.8G and a 135mm 1.4 GM if I want to carry 3 lenses. Not 3 tiny things where all the pictures will look similar.

There's a zoom that covers 16mm-70mm at a constant F2.8. I doubt it weights anymore than those three together. And a bag, you'll need either way. For travel, you could get that one and call it a day ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2021 at 22:23 UTC
In reply to:

Greg Ohio: I think there are really intended for the new Sony drones. They compare very favorably to DJI's lenses for the Inspire 2. The Sonys are about the same weight, are full-frame (vs Super 35), and are less than half the price.


That's a very likely and therefore good point!

But we'll have to wait till Sony actually makes a camera body for drones, rather than trying to haul about a giant camera for human hands, with controls and features that are pointless on a drone.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2021 at 22:14 UTC

Weird, that you can't add the other Sony 50mm lenses to the comparison above!

Comparing the SONY 50mm F2.5 against the SONY 50mm F1.8 would be the most natural thing to do.

Either way, I'd rather have a weird Chinese 50mm that's plenty fast over a shrunken slow one, even if they manage to make it a little bit sharper.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2021 at 22:10 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI: What you need to know (439 comments in total)
In reply to:

TJGKG: I had the Mark 1 and it was a great camera. Problem for me was that it was too small in my hands and that the low light limitations really were frustrating. I have a Fuji X100F and that is more to my liking. Bigger footprint and sensor. It takes great low light/night shots as well as great short videos. For me it is the perfect travel camera which is what I use the "good" camera (as opposed to the phone camera) for. The Sony tries to do a lot of things but it is best to buy the camera that fits one's picture taking needs.

My picture taking needs, which would take me to a Sony A7RIII, are overruled by my unwillingness to carry a camera bag at all times.

In the size of camera that I can have with me without impediment of the rest of my activities, there is only the RX100 series. And if you compared the RX100 Mark 1 to the RX100 Mark IV, you'd find that its low light capability is much stronger, even though that is two versions shy of the latest sensor.

My only issue with the Mark VI is the darker lens. Its like Sony just took my upgrade path from me...

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2018 at 10:00 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI: What you need to know (439 comments in total)

What I need to know is, how more zoom could ever be worth loosing so much light in such a tiny camera.

So anybody who wasn't in the market for an RX10 anyway, is now forced to accept a darker lens in order to have the latest sensor in the RX100?

The low light pictures don't look like the sensor made up for the loss of light in the lens, compared to the RX100 IV, which I wanted to upgrade for the better focusing system.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2018 at 09:53 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom (741 comments in total)

I politely request from SONY an RX100 VI-b version that retains the brighter 24-70 lens from previous cameras.

I'd really like the newest sensor from the RX100 VI, but I don't want to loose so much light to the lens change... The low light images from the picture gallery are not good. My night shots in Leiria, Portugal with the RX100 IV were SOOO much cleaner - I didn't need to employ noise reduction in Capture One at all.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2018 at 22:19 UTC as 8th comment
On article Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom (741 comments in total)
In reply to:

HMeYe: I was waiting for a 24-100mm f1.8-2.8 instead of a 24-200 f2.8-4.5 for the new Sony RX100 VI !!! my RX100V stays ...
for 1200$ an RX10III or IV is a better buy

I agree, loosing too much light.
dpreview's picture gallery shows the problem very clearly.

My RX100 IV takes better pictures in low light as far as I can tell.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2018 at 22:12 UTC
On article Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom (741 comments in total)
In reply to:

pacnwhobbyist: Still no grip or textured surface on the front, even in its 6th interation. Otherwise it looks like a nice travel zoom.

What do you want? They offer an optional grip for it - for those who want it and the extra bulk.

I like having the choice, and it sure is cheap enough.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2018 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: Fuji should sue the company calling itself Polaroid into the stone age.

"When the original Polaroid Corporation was declared bankrupt in 2001,[3][4] its brand and assets were sold off.[5] The "new" Polaroid formed as a result[3][5] itself declared bankruptcy in 2008, resulting in a further sale and the present-day Polaroid Corporation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation

"Polaroid" is just a name. They didn't invent anything, and they got their name for a song. They're trying to extort money out of a legitimate photography company. Sleaze bags.

Everything you believe to be lawful is only lawful by way of hoax, as you are being cheated out of common law, that should normally apply to you (and which is beneficial to actual human beings), if you live on the land, rather than at sea. Look at the high court building in Florida, its built in the form of a ship for good reason.
And the United States hasn't been the "United States of America" since the civil war. If you check, you'll find that the United States is a corporation, incorporated in Delaware.

And commercial law, i.e. maritime law has been inflicted by British banksters and other elite criminals upon all the world. Native Americans had to die in a massive genocide after it was recognized, that they would never stoop to our retarded way of living.

Emotion has as little to do with squares and rectangles as Trademarks and IP do. If things aren't checked for prior art, the so-called IP should be thrown out whenever it gets noticed, that there was nothing new about it.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 09:53 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Sawyer: Another example of the USPTO's dereliction.

Nobody should be able to extort a penny from anyone else based on where a picture is placed on a page.

damn right.

Prior art should be checked most thoroughly and then there should be a minimum requirement for complexity and uniqueness of geometry for corporations to start wasting everybody's time with this kind of bs.

That should get rid of squares, rectangles, rectangles with rounded corners etc...

And that "someone might reasonably confuse the two" should only matter if the first requirement is met.

Waiting for some Egyptian corporation to sue the FED for that pyramid lookalike atrocity on the dollar bill...

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 08:32 UTC

The reasons against VR or stuff not working yet won't matter, as long as the globalist elite wants VR as a node in their global control scheme.

And they want it, that's what the Facecrook investment means.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2017 at 06:31 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Maybe I am wrong, but is there not yet some other cons?

#7 - technical mismatch. What works today may not work tomorrow. What works with one equipment do not work with another. Lack of agreed upon technical solutions.

#8 - how about 3D? Nice, standing looking around. But, is it 3D - i.e. different content in both eyes, giving depth?

#9 - focusing. IRL you focus your eyes. But, in VR everything is pre focused.

#10 - how about accuracy when turning your head? Are the gyros in your mobile phone up to it?

VR is one further step into a totalitarian digital hell. VR, Implants, artificial "enhancement" with electronics that are ridiculously crude compared to the workings of our bodies. Involuntary software updates, because "hackers"...

Just like Aldous Huxley's book was not 'speculative fiction' but an announcement, so was the Matrix.

It makes sense to announce these things for a time before they are planned to happen: 1984 has passed and nothing obvious has come to pass, right? So, nothing to worry about.

The matrix is completely beyond any real possibility according to what you are taught in school and the imagery shown in the movie. Nothing to worry about either, right?

But the scheme has been inserted into your mind, making acceptance under the right circumstances more likely than if you'd never heard or thought of the possibility.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2017 at 06:25 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1507 comments in total)

I don't get Sony's inability to fix their color balance to get rid of greenish yellows etc...

Apple, using Sony's phone camera identical to Sony's Z5 or ZX has much more neutral color balance.

Not that it is hard to edit later, but is it acceptable from one of the world's 'premier' camera / imaging brands??

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 01:21 UTC as 238th comment | 5 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1194 comments in total)

Always been fond of Panasonic, cause they've never sold me a dud in any of their product lines, and past Panasonic purchases have outlasted most everything else I bought.

The only thing that bothers me about their cameras unfortunately are the M43 sensors.

Here's wishing Panasonic will make an APS-C or full frame GH5-B.

Yeah, I know, unlikely...

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 11:54 UTC as 153rd comment | 1 reply
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1624 comments in total)

This Canon looks good, but not good enough to buy.

I'll wait till either Sony fixes its Touchscreen and UI, or Canon fixes its specs, including 4K and availability of native lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 03:38 UTC as 64th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

robbinsbox: how do photographers deal with such huge numbers of photos. I use lightroom, deleting is slow

try Capture One, I can delete rather quickly.
Also its not rent-ware. No continual drain on your bank account.
And Sony set up a special deal for their customers.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 10:14 UTC
On article Hands-on and in-depth with the Sony a6500 (550 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): There are good lenses available-if you get a good copy. The 50mm f1.8 OSS is excellent. As are the Sigma 35mm f2.8 and the 60mm f2.8, and my own luck was in when I bought a 16-50mm because it too is very good between 18-50, and perfectly useable at the 16mm end stopped down to f5.6.

Other than battery life they are all good cameras, but the cruncher is that they cost as much as a full-frame Nikon DSLR to run and are not as fast or as practical in use, and are not weatherproof. The lenses such as the 16-70mm f4 and the 55-210mm are not very good, and the better lenses cost too much when you can buy a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR Nikkor for peanuts that is much better-let alone the older versions at £50-£100 a go. These Sonys are VERY VERY expensive cameras to use with their own lenses. And no way does the battery life compare to a 7D II a D800 or a D7100 etc. They have the same battery in the bigger grip-it is a disaster.

bigger grip with unchanged battery probably means Sony didn't feel like making a new, different size battery, but didn't have enough space to fit two of the tiny ones.

I think with the A6500, maybe we're seeing the camera outgrow its original Nex concept. Probably the reason why Sony said "we couldn't put IBIS in the A6300, cause we would have had to make the camera bigger."

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 09:12 UTC
On article Hands-on and in-depth with the Sony a6500 (550 comments in total)
In reply to:

N13L5: Can someone tell me if there is ANY reason to buy this over the A7RII, other than what's fast becoming a minor price difference..?

Well, the lenses have a fairly large price difference also, but I don't actually need a whole bag full, so I'm not concerned about that.

@HenryDJP I called the price difference minor, because while the A6500 is brand new, still on pre-orders and won't be discounted for a while, you can find the A7RII for roughly a third less depending on the country you're in.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 08:51 UTC
On article Fast Five: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V Review (436 comments in total)

Hi DPReview, I have a question - regarding Single AF for video: Does that work better (or at all) when shooting video on the A6500...?

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 16:13 UTC as 53rd comment
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sportsgal501: Didn't they just drop the A6300 a few months ago, I can't even keep up anymore.

Its not a replacement, but an additional model, for more variety.

And it seems because Sony opened their ears and listened to what users said they were missing on the 6300.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 00:52 UTC
Total: 244, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »