wsalopek

Joined on Jan 22, 2014

Comments

Total: 38, showing: 21 – 38
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Which is better: Nikon Z7 vs Sony a7R III (1515 comments in total)

Page 8, card slots...dual card slots (esp that they are SD slots) is a MAJOR win for the Sony...it simply takes the Nikon OUT of the running for MANY people, NO MATTER the other features...but DP Review doesn't give that as a win to Sony? Plus XQD cards are HUGELY expensive (or am I missing something?)...what are we talking here, $400 to $500 for two cards? Yowsa. That ALSO makes Page 8 a HUGE win for Sony. Hey, I'm rooting for Nikon...but the XQD a and single card slot for Nikon is a MAJOR mistake.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2018 at 16:35 UTC as 108th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Lavie: I need advise:
I’m looking for 3/4.
I fly aircrafts.
It should be: light sensitive, good stability, nice zoom, small body, good resolution.
Thanks for your help

Lavie...depends what you mean by "light sensitive"...if that's a very important factor, you should probably get an APS-C or even full frame camera, as the larger sensors do better in low light. But if not, then really any MFT body, esp Panasonic bodies with "Dual IS" (which has both internal body stabilization as well as lens stabilization), with any of a number of compatible lenses, will work well. These cameras can do "Dual IS" G9/GH5/G80/G85

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2018 at 16:22 UTC

MFT is the traveler's choice...esp in the smaller bodies...the small size allows enthusiast photographers to enjoy their craft (by having interchangeable lenses, etc), while carrying far less weight (though some APS-C cameras are very close, if smaller lenses are chosen). Also, if instagram and internet sharing is the goal, MFT is a GREAT choice...why carry something heavier when MFT has MORE than enough IQ for all but very serious work.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2018 at 16:18 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

PaulSnowcat: It took 10 years for almost everyone to understand that a comfortable camera cannot be a tiny camera. Now we finally have Fuji H1, Panasonic G9, Olympus OM-D E-M1-II - truly comfortable cameras for normal long shooting. 10 years to return to where they all started - normal DSLR-like ergonomics :)

I agree about having a "comfortable camera"...for sure...except it's a trap for MFT (of which I love)...because in the bigger MFT bodies, I ask myself, why not carry an APS-C sensor (or even FF), since the body is about the same size?

Of course the answer, esp with FF, is that the lenses are bigger. But...this size comparison does make it tough to spend big bucks on a G9/similar, knowing better low-light and dynamic range can be had for less money and be almost as easy to travel with, esp if a person chooses lenses carefully.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2018 at 16:13 UTC

Thanks for the video. Would have loved to have seen at least casual mention of the best/budget ways to run wires from the lavalier and boom mic to whatever recording gizmo is (wirelessly to the camera, or to whatever other recording device).

Probably THE reason folks use either the camera's on-board mic or a mic mounted to the hot shoe is because the actual RECORDING of the audio is so easy/neat (no wires going everywhere and cheap). So yes, please add a video to this one explaining the recording process. Thanks...

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2018 at 16:47 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Marcus Sundman: Great info, but then the next problem: Where do you plug in the mic? Having a non-wireless lav, or a shotgun on a boom far away from the camera, you will need a recording device. And what about using 3-4 lav mics on 3-4 people, somehow recording all of these in either different recording devices or some kind of multitrack recorder?

+1.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2018 at 05:56 UTC
On article Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom (741 comments in total)

Anyone know if the 240fps high frame rate will be at a full 1920x1080? Earlier models were somewhat less than 1920x1080...thanks.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2018 at 21:33 UTC as 80th comment | 1 reply
On article Best cameras for travel in 2020 (322 comments in total)

I own an RX10-III. It is NOT a "travel camera" (unless you are comparing it to a full frame camera with a couple big lenses). A D5500 with an 18-300 weighs the same.

A Panasonic MFT (G7?) with a 14-140 costs 1/2 as much and weighs noticeably less, and, has arguably better IQ, esp considering you could throw a nice/fast prime in your pocket and almost not know it's there.

The Rx10-III is a good/great camera for what it is, but it's HUGE and has a small/noisy sensor. Unless you know you'll need 300-600mm (equivalent) on your trip... LEAVE IT AT HOME.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 06:05 UTC as 83rd comment | 1 reply

Good gawd... $3 thousand dollars.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 00:01 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

Najinsky: Today's lesson for the armed chair critics: Joined up thinking.

So Sony RX100v has a fast F/1.8-2.8 lens, but this lens is slow? Equivalent apertures:

RX100V: f/4.9-7.6
G1X.3: f/4.5-9

Well holy poop, it's the slow Canon that actually has the faster comparable aperture, 1/3 faster at wide, but 1/3 slower at tele. Tie?

Do you really shoot at max aperture most of the time? Most of the time you'll be shooting with the appropriate aperture for the scene.

My APS-C compact has f/2.5, but on this day: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60236163 I never had cause to use it once, yet the AP-C sensor was used for every shot.

Max aperture would account for less than 2% of my shooting, for example, shooting a group of friends around a beach fire. For this I would use the wider faster end of the lens. And be thankful for the dust protection too.

New cameras = more choice.

Pretty dumb to hate a camera just because it doesn't fit your choice, no? You wanted an RX100 clone?

Saul Goodman....

@Tom_a,

The exposure is the same no matter the sensor size.

But a larger sensor has bigger pixels that collect more light, and so will, for sure, have lower noise, higher dynamic range, plus more depth-of-field isolation.

A person just has to decide whether that difference in IQ is worth paying more and/or having to carry a bigger camera (usually) is worth it for the kind of shooting they do.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

monked: $1300 seems steep. Can't you get any number of apsc icl cameras for less?

This is the real sticking point... When a camera costs this much, people expect more. If the Mark III was about $750, it would get much less criticism.

$1300 is just too much...there are too many other options out there for less money. And how can they leave out 4K?

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 17:58 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1603 comments in total)

Full frame is, generally speaking, for ONE thing...best low-light / hi-iso / sports performance, (and to a lesser extent, for max subject isolation (but there are work-arounds for smaller sensors to achieve much the same isolation)).

If a person doesn't need that, then APS-C or MFT, or even smaller-sized sensors, do FANTASTIC, and at the same time, you almost certainly spend less money, and have much smaller/lighter hardware to haul around, which is HUGE in getting the picture you want, as the best camera is the one you have WITH you.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 01:46 UTC as 198th comment | 4 replies
On article Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 (357 comments in total)

Great video. And always interested in what a real world pro says about a camera.

How about indoor high school (poor light) sports as the next NX-1 video/test? Indoor high school sports really REALLY exercises a camera.

Thanks.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2014 at 00:11 UTC as 69th comment
On article Sony unveils FE PZ 28-135mm F4 G OSS cinema lens (120 comments in total)

ASTRONOMICAL PRICE.

For those who want some kind of decent line of FE lenses (good/great performance AND at least semi-affordable) as they consider buying into the Sony FE ecosystem...announcements like this are rather disheartening....$2500?

Honestly, to say something like this "expands the FE lineup", is like saying "Gulfstream has introduced a new business jet, so YAY, Joe Traveler has more choices of aircraft to fly".

Of course I exaggerate some but...

Look...this is probably a good lens. But for Canon and Nikon customers who are considering an A7/variant (or indeed ANYONE considering an A7/variant), the limited number of FE lenses (A-mount + LA-EA4 is far from ideal), compounded by the utter astronomical prices of said Sony lenses, is, well, like I said, sickening.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2014 at 17:01 UTC as 11th comment | 4 replies
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2074 comments in total)

The EM-1 looks gorgeous...but it's only slightly smaller than the FULL FRAME Sony A7...that's a pretty serious jump in sensor capability for almost no increase in physical size.

I suppose if low light and maximum subject isolation does not matter, the Olympus is the way to go, but if those things DO matter, go with the Sony.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2014 at 06:39 UTC as 52nd comment | 7 replies

So how about for sports photography?

I see it can do 3 fps...not that great...but...being able to focus on ANY part of the frame? On various player's faces? The ball? Etc? That seems pretty seductive for sports photography. NO shot will be missed because of a focus issue.

A question I have is what about INDOOR sports...F/2 is great, but I see max ISO is only 3200...and then the 1-inch sensor is a limitation as well.

But maybe there is something about the way the Lytro sensor gathers light, that noise might not be a factor?

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 22:02 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review (866 comments in total)

Thanks...

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 14:26 UTC as 85th comment
On article Lytro announces Illum light field camera (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheSquid: Now, they have enough image resolution to offer a decent print from the technology. 8x10 should look pretty good, 16x20 is probably as large as you'd want to go (without seeing an actual print yet).

The biggest thing is...the actual PRINTS. As I said about the first one, if you can't print it, it's not worth having. In that vain, now that there's enough resolution to print, a standard print isn't going to make this thing show off it's ability. So, now the holographic printing techniques where the angle of view changes the image you see is how these images can be printed to show them off.

So now that's their next challenge and I have the idea of how to set up the interface for printing choice.

I agree...while of course printing is important, how many prints does the average person look at these days as opposed to how many they view on the PC/tablet/phone, etc? Everyone shares images electronically to some extent, and for most folks, darn near 100%.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
Total: 38, showing: 21 – 38
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »