mosc

Joined on Aug 9, 2012

Comments

Total: 1480, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (116 comments in total)

Definitely the least nauseating 12mm images I've ever seen. I feel vindicated from complaining about distortion on super wides. It's not perspective distortion alone that is so distracting.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 12:50 UTC as 32nd comment
On article Sony a7 II firmware version 3.30 now available (27 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: Adds Phase-detection AF support for A-mount Lens Adaptor LA-EA3 (LA-EA1)

That's it. I'm sold. Just make it cheaper...

I look at it priced against the A6300 which is $1,000 body only. I think at near that price then full frame dominates too much to consider the A6300. The A7II doesn't have 4K video but I'm not really in that market. At $1,500 it's a good bit more than the A6300. Neither price really pulling me. I think if the A6300 hits around $750 or the A7 hits around $1,250 that they become so much cheaper than their competition that any weaknesses are justified.

I'm not sure which camera would hit those price targets first but I'll probably go for the one that does.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 23:41 UTC
On article Sony a7 II firmware version 3.30 now available (27 comments in total)

Adds Phase-detection AF support for A-mount Lens Adaptor LA-EA3 (LA-EA1)

That's it. I'm sold. Just make it cheaper...

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 18:43 UTC as 2nd comment | 4 replies
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: Thanks for the review Dan.
My main issues with the A6000, after almost a year of use, are :
(1) The User Interface (menus in particular), and
(2) The limited buffer. In burst mode, the limited buffer is most frustrating.
Battery life is another, but that can be solved with a couple of spare batteries.
My main purpose for buying the A6000 was to use my large collection of Canon FD lenses, especially the L lenses.
I'm satisfied with the results from the L lenses, as well as the FD 28mm f/2, and the FD 35-105, macro, f/3.5. These 2 lenses are known for their sharpness.

The absense of a level gauge stopped me from buying an A6000.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 18:41 UTC
On article Woof! Sony a6500 sample images are here (364 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fujica: Nah, better wait for the A6700, its only 4 month away.

That's ridiculous. They sell at competitive price points and Sony has in recent years not released very many "new" models at those pricing levels. Their business model is very much to sell older models at lower pricepoints. This leads to more new "enthusiast" models and less filler and low end models nobody should be buying anyway. At least the A6000 is fairly described as a nearly 3 year old camera at this point when it's sold rather than re-launching it as the Sony A5500 or somesuch nonsense. I applaud the RX100 line for both it's breakneck pace of advancement but also it's honesty in description of the lower priced models in the line. Yes, the RX100 is a 4 year old camera but it is unmatched at it's now much lower pricepoint. If next year an RX100m6 comes out and everything shifts down that provides a lower price entry point, more selection, more advancement, and a less confusing product line where the newest model is often inferior to older higher spec'd models (hi canon).

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 21:43 UTC
On article Woof! Sony a6500 sample images are here (364 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fujica: Nah, better wait for the A6700, its only 4 month away.

And they're still selling the A6000 from early 2014 (no signs of stopping that) and RX100 m1 which came out in 2012. If there is an A6700 it'll either be up-market or significantly reduce the price of the A6500 either way you win.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 20:57 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: While that "Equivalent Aperture" graph isn't wrong per se, it is quite misleading. If the y axis started at f1 (the functional zero point of aperture calculations), the lines would appear much closer together, reflecting how the real world aperture differences have been exaggerated. Further, using a logarithmic scale on the x axis is very misleading and plays down the significant differences in focal lengths.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything but the graph, as presented, looks as if someone had an agenda...

Maybe I'm naive and you'll never get through to them but I feel like the missing piece for some luddites on equivalent aperture is relating it to diffraction. It's physical and real and a concern on any size format lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 20:05 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: While that "Equivalent Aperture" graph isn't wrong per se, it is quite misleading. If the y axis started at f1 (the functional zero point of aperture calculations), the lines would appear much closer together, reflecting how the real world aperture differences have been exaggerated. Further, using a logarithmic scale on the x axis is very misleading and plays down the significant differences in focal lengths.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything but the graph, as presented, looks as if someone had an agenda...

Yeah, I'm with you Richard. Equivalent aperture is a straightforward tool to talk about diffraction too because physical lens aperture diameter is such a foreign number to many photographers and equivalent aperture at a given focal length tells you the same thing. That's why I think it's worth mentioning when you give equivalent aperture graphs like this. You preach total light and depth of field but you don't preach diffraction too often is all I'm saying.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 19:58 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: While that "Equivalent Aperture" graph isn't wrong per se, it is quite misleading. If the y axis started at f1 (the functional zero point of aperture calculations), the lines would appear much closer together, reflecting how the real world aperture differences have been exaggerated. Further, using a logarithmic scale on the x axis is very misleading and plays down the significant differences in focal lengths.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything but the graph, as presented, looks as if someone had an agenda...

Especially on these smaller sensor formats, diffraction is also relevant. f5.6 1" 20mp is pushing things. Certainly no ability to significantly stop down that lens any more for a longer shutter without damaging resolution. There are situations where a stop of aperture is worth a "stop" of focal range because you're up against diffraction in either case. This comes up with longer lenses relative to the sensor size like these.

If you were taking pictures of a crater on the moon for example, the lens's physical aperture size would be more meaningful in telling you the resolution detail between these cameras than the focal length. The RX10 i/ii still fall behind the longer lenses of the FZ1000 etc but not really by that much.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 19:22 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dabbler: Although the RX10II has great video features as a still camera I would choose the FZ1000 over it. The FZ1000 and G3X are the only truly long zooms of the bunch and operate faster than the Sony. The only drawback of the G3X is shooting RAW in burst mode which is so slow it's useless.

Seriously anything past ~135mm without a viewfinder or a tripod you have to be nuts IMHO.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 19:15 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

MySchizoBuddy: Which of these can shoot more than 29min continuous video?

If it's a home video you can hit stop and start at some point. If it's not, you really aren't using any of these cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 19:13 UTC

So mount this on an A7Rm2 next to a Zeis 50mm MF lens and lets see sharpness. Anybody?

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 19:10 UTC as 110th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

falconeyes: A 7% larger moon may be interesting for the general public. But for photographers, using 7% more focal length (e.g., 214mm rather than 200mm) and 7% larger distance to the foreground does the exact same effect. People can't compute.

Good moon shots depend entirely on atmospheric condition and carefully chosen foreground. Not this super moon hype.

You really think they care about picture quality? Have you not seen your average selfy lately?

ZOMG I WAS THERE AT THE SUPERMOON EVERYONE WORSHIP AT THE SHRINE TO ME THAT IS FACEBOOK AND TELL ME HOW AWESOME I AM BECAUSE WITHOUT YOUR CONSTANT FEEDBACK MY LIFE IS SHALLOW AND WITHOUT MEANING

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 22:04 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2315 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Photons, schmotons. If a single one of you had been paying attention in physics class instead of hanging out in the school darkroom, you would know that light is both a wave and a particle phenomenon.
Yet you never bring wave effects into this grand theory of yours, and why is that? I have my suspicions, but I'd like to hear your explanation first.

Light is both a wave and a particle but that's not being contradicted by anything here. You're complaining about counting photons? The photon's wavelength is relevant when the aperture's physical dimensions restrict resolution or the photo-sites are smaller than the waveform aka diffraction. Wave effects arrive in diffraction, which is another equivalence that equivalent aperture can highlight using the crop ratio squared. Within the diffraction limit, referring to light in it's particle sense is the most straightforward.

I think maybe this would be a way to explain it to more physics inclined folks: The diffraction resolution limit of the light is proportional only to the physical aperture (equivalent f-stop calcualted by crop^2*fstop), not the ratio of aperture to it's focal length (fstop). The information projected from the lens on the sensor is related to the aperture not the size of the projection (sensor size). Larger sensors can extract more information proportionally by size.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 19:50 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (304 comments in total)

DPR seemed to have liked the 3 and 4. I liked the odd number models and disliked the even ones. The M2's hot shoe is totally useless and it's image quality brings very little over the considerably cheaper M1. Similarly the M4's speed is overkill and those with video aspirations should spend just a bit more on the M5 with it's PDAF.

I think the 3 is the best choice at the moment but for those who are on a budget and want reach, the 1 is also a great choice when you look at it's price.

I'd like sony to split this line. The m5 is getting overkill for what I want in my pocket and the battery life is plumeting. I'd like to see a viewfinderless articulated touchscreen model with the current lens (short but bright), wifi, 4k, pdaf, and not much else for around $600 new.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 21:07 UTC as 88th comment

Isn't it easier to stretch anamorphic 21:9 onto the more square 4:3 than onto 3:2 or 16:9 in terms of preserving detail? Maybe that's where this thing is headed.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 13:05 UTC as 12th comment
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)
In reply to:

citizenlouie: A 35mm film "tunnel" viewfinder P&S camera, probably a Konica... (can't remember the brand exactly, since I was only in Kindergarten). Second camera was a Kodak disposable camera. Both were fun. Parents bought them for me.

First camera I personally bought was a Canon PowerShot A40... (jump all the way to my college year). Uses 4 AA batteries, which was a big selling point to me personally (didn't like to bring a charger when travel). Then I moved onto a Canon S1 super zoom. Next one was a Panasonic LX3.

First serious camera was an Olympus E-620 DSLR. Still have it and love it even to this day. Probably the most fun to shoot camera I have to date. Its rendering is marvelous and its limitation actually trained me to be a better photographer.

I also think the S1's lack of a wide end altogether contributed with my wide angle photography focus.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 13:35 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)
In reply to:

citizenlouie: A 35mm film "tunnel" viewfinder P&S camera, probably a Konica... (can't remember the brand exactly, since I was only in Kindergarten). Second camera was a Kodak disposable camera. Both were fun. Parents bought them for me.

First camera I personally bought was a Canon PowerShot A40... (jump all the way to my college year). Uses 4 AA batteries, which was a big selling point to me personally (didn't like to bring a charger when travel). Then I moved onto a Canon S1 super zoom. Next one was a Panasonic LX3.

First serious camera was an Olympus E-620 DSLR. Still have it and love it even to this day. Probably the most fun to shoot camera I have to date. Its rendering is marvelous and its limitation actually trained me to be a better photographer.

I had an S1 too. Wasn't my first camera but I do remember it. I remember it being super slow and laggy even at the time.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 21:34 UTC

The exposure triangle of ISO/aperture/shutter can be manipulated by increasing shutter time with multiple captures. This keeps the photosites from overloading while increasing the photons you have to work with. I don't think most people photograph things with big movement so there's still a lot of multi-exposure possibilities.

I'd also like to see some more experimentation with arrays of telephoto sensors to create a winder perspective or a synthetic bigger aperture telephoto shot depending on focus. A 4 element 50mm equiv array for example could give you a 25mm picture or a very reasonable aperture 50mm shot. 4x oversampling a 100mm crop would also give you a passable 100mm shot.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 15:01 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Ben O Connor: HEY PENTAX! WHY DON'T YOU APPLY YOUR Q MOUTH TO SUCH PRODUCT LINE !!!!

Does pentax make anything f1.2 like this picture shows? At that speed there isn't much exposure time and with small sensors the aperture really needs to be as big as possible to keep the ISO down.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2016 at 14:42 UTC
Total: 1480, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »