wlad

Lives in EU
Joined on Sep 16, 2010

Comments

Total: 253, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

@Astrotripper

I (like most people) don't travel only to take pictures. I travel for the experience and memories. The photos I take are just a byproduct. Should my camera die, I would use my phone for the rest of the trip. I'm a tourist, not a National Geographic photographer.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 11:58 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

@Astrotripper I don't need a backup camera. Nor do I need huge telephoto lenses. My main walk around lens is a 58mm prime. Sometimes I would switch it for the 24-70mm.

The narrative that everybody needs 400mm lenses and backup bodies is ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

@Astrotripper that's exactly the point of MFT - a system with smaller bodies/lenses and "larger" sensor (compared to P&S). That's why the Panasonic G9 in my opinion combines the worst of both MFT and DSLRs - the small sensor from the first with the bulk/weight of the second.

For my purposes, the combination of the tiny RX100 and a small full frame DSLR (D750) is ideal.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 09:34 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

@caterpillar, sure, you might want a camera with a larger body, but why limit yourself with a small sensor then ? You are missing out on the only benefit that m4/3 offers - which is size.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 09:39 UTC

Is there a market for cameras the size of a DSLR with a *tiny* m4/3 sensor at all ?
I fail to see the point of such camera. At this size, you might as well pick up an APS-C DSLR, or heck even a full-frame mirrorless for the same price...

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 09:21 UTC as 208th comment | 32 replies
On article First samples: Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 (223 comments in total)

Not a fan of Leica, but the people here seem to have missed the press release:

"The soft look of the Thambar is the result of intentionally accepted under-correction of spherical aberration. This under-correction increases towards the edges of the optical system with the consequence that not only the depth of focus, but also the degree of softening can be precisely controlled by means of the stepless aperture setting."

You are NOT supposed to shoot it wide open unless you specifically want that look. With this lens, the role of Aperture is primarily to control the amount of blur - not the amount of light transferred to the sensor. If you want to shoot it at F11 but can't because of the available light, you picked the wrong lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 07:41 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony announces lightweight FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS lens (297 comments in total)
In reply to:

shademaster: Price is 50% more than sigma. Hope performance is 50% more too. (and weight 50% less)

@The Lotus Eater - the point was that 3rd party lenses don't have to be necessarily cheaper than original lenses - they can compete in terms of quality too - for example the 50mm f1.4 Sigma Art is actually more expensive than both the 50mm f1.4 Nikon and Canon lenses

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
On article Sony announces lightweight FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS lens (297 comments in total)
In reply to:

shademaster: Price is 50% more than sigma. Hope performance is 50% more too. (and weight 50% less)

@The Lotus Eater yeah, they must be cheap like Zeiss

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 10:51 UTC
On article Canon G1 X III vs. Sony Cybershot RX100 V (632 comments in total)
In reply to:

santamonica812: I can't imagine the consumer who would need/want a $1,000 camera with these features. I mean, I guess if someone REALLY doesn't want a DSLR camera with interchangeable lenses . . .

a $1000 camera will cost $500 in 3 years and will still be just as good... Sony still sells the original RX100 you know... the mk3 is the sweetest deal right now, there's no reason to spend twice as much to get a marginally better camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 09:59 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

mcslsk: LR 6.0 serves me well. I don't need any additonal features nor cloud storage. All I would like to see is support for new cameras and lenses. To pay for that on a monthly basis is a rip off. Will see how far DNG-onverter gets me.

@Eric OS support is not the issue. You can still run 20 years old software on a Windows 10 as long as it does not need any low-level access to the hardware. In the worst case scenario you could run a VM with an ancient unsupported OS and LR inside.

It's the new camera/lens support that forces you to upgrade LR.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 06:47 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: I never used Lightroom, in any version. Should I switch to it?
I find output from my photo equipment produces such results I can use simplest tools available to make any small adjustments, if at all.

What do you do with your files then ? Open the embedded JPEG preview and print that ?

Because otherwise you won't get anything anywhere close to what you saw on your camera without a RAW processor. What exactly are those "simplest tools" you mentioned ?

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:44 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: I never used Lightroom, in any version. Should I switch to it?
I find output from my photo equipment produces such results I can use simplest tools available to make any small adjustments, if at all.

try shooting RAW

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

LessMirrored19: Why DSLRs lenses are heavy compared to mirrorless lenses ?

heavy is good, heavy is reliable.. and if it does not work, you can always hit him with it

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 16:33 UTC

umm, what's the point ?

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 09:36 UTC as 31st comment | 4 replies

...because silver is known for its stable color and long life

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 17:43 UTC as 11th comment
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1909 comments in total)
In reply to:

wlad: RJ45 ??? what the hell for ? wireless can go up to a couple of hundred of Mbps, why wired ? Is this supposed to stream the video directly ?

@notime: the very first sentence from your link:

The good news is that it doesn't have to suck, if you build it out properly.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:50 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1909 comments in total)
In reply to:

wlad: RJ45 ??? what the hell for ? wireless can go up to a couple of hundred of Mbps, why wired ? Is this supposed to stream the video directly ?

I've specifically written Mbps, can't you read ?
If your wireless performance is "theoretical", get a network engineer to upgrade your network.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:37 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1909 comments in total)

RJ45 ??? what the hell for ? wireless can go up to a couple of hundred of Mbps, why wired ? Is this supposed to stream the video directly ?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:29 UTC as 414th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

wlad: €1200 for a P&S is just ridiculous

umm, the difference between a 1" sensor and a modern APS-C sensor is roughly the same as between a cell phone camera and a 1" P&S... it has nowhere near the dynamic range or the low read noise of the larger sensor

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 16:35 UTC

€1200 for a P&S is just ridiculous

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 14:41 UTC as 79th comment | 10 replies
Total: 253, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »