noirdesir

Lives in Switzerland Switzerland
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Nov 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 653, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: So many variants but all with, essentially, little to no telephoto capability. Why the hell don't they just make a slightly larger version with a proper zoom range? Something in-between rx100 and the pointless 30x zoom of their small-sensor models? Also as mentioned by others, non-ridiculous design would be nice too.

@damian: The ZS100 is 9% wider, 8% thicker, and 11% taller than the RX100 (III, IV, V). Probably noticeable but hardly a game changer. And compared the 30x zoom 1/2.3" sensor compacts (eg, the Panasonic ZS60), it has a two stops better IQ due to its larger sensor (both at base ISO and in low light, as the lens f-stop is fairly similar). And using the same sensor as the RX100, its base ISO IQ should be very similar.

@Alphoid: Classic portrait focal lengths range from 85 to 135 mm. And I personally found 135 mm mostly too long indoors. I much prefer 85 to 105 mm. Yes, 70 mm is a tad too short, but when it comes to shallow DOF, the slow f/4.9 at 100 mm of the original RX100 does worse the f/2.8 of the newer RX100 versions. Cropped to 100 mm equiv., you'd get a DOF of f/3.7 vs the f/4.9. And if you crop the 70 mm to 85 mm, you get your 85 mm perspective and still have 13.5 MP.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 18:24 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: So many variants but all with, essentially, little to no telephoto capability. Why the hell don't they just make a slightly larger version with a proper zoom range? Something in-between rx100 and the pointless 30x zoom of their small-sensor models? Also as mentioned by others, non-ridiculous design would be nice too.

Beckler said that none of the RX100 variants had any real telephoto capabilities (paraphrasing things). Which means 100 mm isn't nearly enough for him or her and 120 or 135 mm would be very unlikely to satisfy him or her. I am pretty sure he or she is looking for something 200 mm-ish (in contrast to the 800-mm-ish 30x small sensor models).

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 02:22 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: So many variants but all with, essentially, little to no telephoto capability. Why the hell don't they just make a slightly larger version with a proper zoom range? Something in-between rx100 and the pointless 30x zoom of their small-sensor models? Also as mentioned by others, non-ridiculous design would be nice too.

There is the RX10 II which has an 8.3x zoom, but is of course significantly bigger. The Panasonic ZS/TZ 100 with its 10x zoom is filling the gap between those two. The RX10 II has 200 mm equiv. at f/2.8, whereas the ZS/TZ 100 has 250 mm equiv. at f/5.9. You get what you pay for in terms of size.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 23:09 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 1 - Crop-Sensor (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

Don Sata: Crop sensor is misleading... cropped from what?

Full frame means that the sensor (a) uses the full image circle of its lens catalogue and (b), if the camera is an SLR, uses a flange distance that is not much longer than an SLR mirrorbox would require.

One can argue that the Fuji X system fulfils these conditions as does m43, as well as the 40 x 54 mm systems. And the term Full Frame is indeed used for the latter when comparing different 'MF' systems. But since most systems that fulfil these conditions (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Leica) share the same sensor size, 24 x 36 mm, and most systems that fulfil the opposite of these conditions (2x Canon, Nikon, 2x Sony, Pentax & Leica) roughly share a second sensor size (aka APS-C), the Fuji X system, also being APS-C, is being lumped into the second group and m43, to not leave out there alone in its own category, as well.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 21:52 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 1 - Crop-Sensor (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

Don Sata: Crop sensor is misleading... cropped from what?

'Cropped' is less than a mouthful than 'smaller-than-fullframe-where-fullframe-means-24x36mm'.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 17:01 UTC
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: Lovely - my sort of photos!
But why do you call "gasholders" - "gasometers" ? - it has nothing to do with metering!

Method 2 also requires a significantly larger water intake (which itself can disrupt aquatic life if it is being sucked into the intake) but it results in less water being removed from the natural body of water (to be transferred into the atmosphere as water vapour), though the increased temperature does increase evaporation from the river or lake itself. Method 3 has none of these problems but is usually more expensive (larger cooling towers, possibly increased mechanical ventilation).

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 18:58 UTC
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: Lovely - my sort of photos!
But why do you call "gasholders" - "gasometers" ? - it has nothing to do with metering!

In terms of water consumption you can have three types of cooling: 1) Evaporative cooling, ie, water from a river or lake is evaporated to dissipate heat, 2) Convective cooling, ie, water from a river or lake or the sea is brought into contact with a hot 'surface' and discharged again, having an increased temperature, into the river or lake or the sea, 3) Dry cooling in which ambient air is used for cooling.

Method 1 consumes water. Method 2 raises the the water of the river or lake. Method 3 requires larger cooling towers (as the heat capacity of air is much lower than that of water, let alone the heat of evaporation), in particular the higher ambient temperature is.

Whether method 1 or method 2 (or a combination of both) has a worse environmental impact depends on a lot of things. Warming river water (method 2) in cold climates is less critical than in warm ones as things get more complicated for the life in natural waters above a certain temperature (eg, lower oxygen content).

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 18:53 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: Put a red dot on it, say the lens is a Summi-flan reproducing the flare characteristic of a little known lens produced in 1940 that captures the essence of street photography, and sell them at 10x the normal price, and call it the Leica Der Pixel.

If anything it should 'Das' Pixel.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

jeffcpix: "They brought graduate students on board and acquired more and more lenses—not an easy task, at $12,000 a pop—eventually gathering 48 of them"

Too bad they didn't buy them from Amazon and saved $2K each.
Maybe they got a grant -- so keep an eye out for them at the government
surplus auctions. It's only tax-payer money -- plenty more where that came from.

There usually are price limits above which you must have multiple offers. A single lens might still fly under that radar, so to speak. But apart from the first one or two lenses, splitting up the order would be seen as a circumvention of rules. And regardless, the researchers don't have unlimited budgets, it would be in own interest to negotiate a decent volume discount.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

dwill23: Electro aperture....

Canon did this 29 years ago ...1987 ... with ALL their lenses. Yawn. maybe this lens will be as good as the Canon's, as the Canon's is very well documented (even on this NIKON site) to be better than Nikon's....almost all lenses actually.

Also 29 years ago, ALL canon lenses had AF motors inside. Nikon started trickling them in around 2001, altho some still use drive axels and gears from the in-body motor.

In 1993 Canon came out with image stabilized lenses...Nikon was 10 years behind on this tech.

Ultra sonic...sometime in the 90s, Nikon, sometime in the 2000's.

I see a pattern......

In Nikon's lower-end DSLRs, the triggering of the shutter and the stop-down of the aperture lever is mechanically coupled. This means that when shooting video, it is not possible to change the aperture after the mechanical shutter has opened.
Additionally, the precision (and also accuracy) of the mechanical aperture actuations is far from perfect. This can lead to small exposure variations when shooting fast bursts. This can also lead to time-lapse brightness showing slight variations between frames (which is very annoying). One way to solve this time-lapse problem is to actually 'unscrew' the lens slightly which results in the aperture stopping down to the value set at the lens (if the lens still has an aperture ring) and the aperture lever in the camera not having any influence anymore.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

dwill23: Electro aperture....

Canon did this 29 years ago ...1987 ... with ALL their lenses. Yawn. maybe this lens will be as good as the Canon's, as the Canon's is very well documented (even on this NIKON site) to be better than Nikon's....almost all lenses actually.

Also 29 years ago, ALL canon lenses had AF motors inside. Nikon started trickling them in around 2001, altho some still use drive axels and gears from the in-body motor.

In 1993 Canon came out with image stabilized lenses...Nikon was 10 years behind on this tech.

Ultra sonic...sometime in the 90s, Nikon, sometime in the 2000's.

I see a pattern......

* Nikon's first two AF lenses with built-in motor came out in 1992, not in 2001 (ignoring the three F3 AF lenses from the 1980's).

* The first AF lenses with ultrasonic motors came out in 1996, not sometime in the 2000s.

* Nikon's first lens with IS came out in 2000, ie, seven not ten years after Canon.

* And it is not that Canon had a full set of EF lenses already in 1986. It started with 14 EF lenses that year. Nikon had 14 current AF-S lenses in their catalogue by 2003 (+another eight that had already been replaced, it had reached the milestone of 14 released lenses with built-in lens motor in 2001). The year 2003 was also the last year they released a screwdriver AF lens. That 14-lens milestone was thus achieved 15 or 17 years after Canon.

* You can pick other milestones, eg, 20 or 30 or 40 lenses with built-in motor and Canon probably has a bigger lead on those, but I leave I the math to you.

* Canon had a big lead, there's no need to exaggerate it by making up numbers.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 16:08 UTC
In reply to:

zorglub76: So, a6000 was $600 2.5 years ago. Now we have touchscreen, which is about $25 upgrade (iPhone 6s replacement screen is $85 if you buy a single item, so Sony's is probably $50, and no-touch screen is probably already $25), and IBIS, which, with all the other improvements, made a7II cost $300 more than a7.

This means that a6500 should cost about $325 more than a6000. Everything above $1000 is a rip-off.... If I want to upgrade my a6000 in two years, does it mean that my option would be a6900 with the price of $2700?

I think I can help you. Just paint over the '6' in the a6500 name with a '7' and you get what you want.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2016 at 19:27 UTC
On article Hands-on and in-depth with the Sony a6500 (558 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Yes the 6500 grip is bigger, but the battery is the same. I expect such a machine to have a battery life equal to a D7200, not less. There is after all no mirror to lift up and put down again, and a few other things, so surely battery life should be a lot better than, say, a Panasonic FZ1000? But no, the FZ1000 battery lasts a whole lot longer and shoots at as fast a rate, AND does 4K video, and has to power in and out that jumbo Leitz zoom, but it manages, and does it well. The D800 Nikon battery used in the D810, D800E, D7100, and D7200, lasts for a thousand shots in RAW on a D800, can be charged seperately without additional cost and recharges in less than three hours and not more than FIVE HOURS as does this Sony a6500's battery in-camera for a THIRD of the life, on a smaller sensor with 50% less pixels (also made by Sony).
Secondhand D800 with secondhand 24-85mm VR lens total cost =£920 with a years warranty, so surely it must take priority over a mere toy!!

Try to use a D7200 in Live View mode only. Or put a battery grip on the a6500. Constant sensor read-out, constant image processing and constant EVF or back display use require probably at least a battery three times the size of DSLR cameras to get the same batter life. Given that a mirrorless body is smaller than a DSLR, the only solution is to have some extra volume attached to hold the required 3x larger battery.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2016 at 19:00 UTC
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (353 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: Touch-Screen Yes-Yes-Yes! IBIS Super. 4K Excellent.
No GPS, No USB3, No Headphone jack, No Full-Frame. No Tilting EVF.
A year ago, maybe, but now, still not good enough to me to upgrade from A5100, especially not for 1700EUR. I've just recently spent about 1000 on my medium format kit (body, lenses, backs, ...): Mamiya RZ67.

These "No full-frame" comments indeed let me sometimes despair with humanity. You hear them for other cameras like the Leica T as well. Essentially people want FF image quality at the size and cost of APS-C. Ideally probably also FF DOF out of their APS-C lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2016 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

zorglub76: So, a6000 was $600 2.5 years ago. Now we have touchscreen, which is about $25 upgrade (iPhone 6s replacement screen is $85 if you buy a single item, so Sony's is probably $50, and no-touch screen is probably already $25), and IBIS, which, with all the other improvements, made a7II cost $300 more than a7.

This means that a6500 should cost about $325 more than a6000. Everything above $1000 is a rip-off.... If I want to upgrade my a6000 in two years, does it mean that my option would be a6900 with the price of $2700?

So, if instead of keep selling the a6300 at its current price and adding the a6500 at its higher price, Sony would have kept selling the a6300 at its current price and added a a7300 with exactly the features and price of the a6500, you would have been much happier?

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2016 at 14:07 UTC
In reply to:

zorglub76: So, a6000 was $600 2.5 years ago. Now we have touchscreen, which is about $25 upgrade (iPhone 6s replacement screen is $85 if you buy a single item, so Sony's is probably $50, and no-touch screen is probably already $25), and IBIS, which, with all the other improvements, made a7II cost $300 more than a7.

This means that a6500 should cost about $325 more than a6000. Everything above $1000 is a rip-off.... If I want to upgrade my a6000 in two years, does it mean that my option would be a6900 with the price of $2700?

I already gave you two answers. But I guess acknowledging them would prevent you to keep feeling as indignant as you do.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 14:55 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V (236 comments in total)
In reply to:

allari: I own a RX100 Mk1 and still do not see a strong reason to upgrade. The fast AF is a good thing but for the rest no big jump ahead. I even preferred the 28-85mm zoom over the 24-70mm. When I want to go really, really wide, I put the camera vertical, take 2-3 shots and assemble. Finally: I paid 500 euro for the Mk1. 1000 euro for what is basically the same "upgraded" camera looks like... :-o

Just a small correction, the original RX100 has a 28-100 mm lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

zorglub76: So, a6000 was $600 2.5 years ago. Now we have touchscreen, which is about $25 upgrade (iPhone 6s replacement screen is $85 if you buy a single item, so Sony's is probably $50, and no-touch screen is probably already $25), and IBIS, which, with all the other improvements, made a7II cost $300 more than a7.

This means that a6500 should cost about $325 more than a6000. Everything above $1000 is a rip-off.... If I want to upgrade my a6000 in two years, does it mean that my option would be a6900 with the price of $2700?

Compare the a6300 with the a6000 price and assume the difference is due to the copper-wired sensor and suddenly the a6500 price doesn't look like such a rip-off anymore. There are other changes: When the a6000 was released it was a mid-range model. The a6500 is the high-end (APS-C) model. Margins are almost always higher on the higher-end model. That is just how the market works. To get cheap entry-level models and still make a decent profit, a manufacturer has to a achieve a higher margin on the high-end model.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 11:54 UTC
In reply to:

J A C S: No 4K?

But it can do 8K timelapse. Admittedly, the Sony A7R II and the 50 MP MF sensor can do so as well. But if you wanted 10 or 11K timelapse, only this sensor can do it (without stitching).

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 13:00 UTC
In reply to:

Trin56: Far to big and heavy. I'll wait for the mirrorless version.

That's not only mirrorless, that's also lensless.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 12:48 UTC
Total: 653, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »