Matsu

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Apr 20, 2003

Comments

Total: 206, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

Sigma is just making lenses impractically large now. I'm sure performance will be fine, but few will want to carry it outside the studio.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2018 at 14:50 UTC as 92nd comment | 7 replies
On article A letter from the Publisher (333 comments in total)

May I suggest less rebroadcasting of external content and more original features. Good luck for 2018!

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 15:29 UTC as 132nd comment | 2 replies
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (387 comments in total)

Your first serious portrait lens should be a modern stabilized 70-200 f/2.8. You might never need another lens in the overlapping range... at 135mm there isn't much difference between the separation afforded by f/2 vs f/2.8, and the latest 70-200s are plenty sharp. The best of them, Nikon's 70-200E, is just as sharp all but the very best primes - ie, already too sharp for most portrait work. They're heavy, and expensive, but you can carry one lens instead of three, and can vary the compression and field of view to a significant degree - from nearly normal, to long portrait focal lengths.

Some of the primes have a special look to them, but only the 70-200 is indispensable.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 14:34 UTC as 38th comment

This site is getting just a little click-bait-y. But, it's just good fun, and sites need revenue to support niceties like paid staff. Can I change my vote to Instax ?

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 13:33 UTC as 23rd comment
On article Have your say: Best high-end ILC of 2017 (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mared: The Sony Alpha bodies are a combined 43%. Not too bad a year for Sony. Where's Canon???

Canon’s market position and brand strength are well earned. They make products that work well, and support a broad range of image making tools for every kind of photographic need. Their market share is a reflection of a sustained track record of consistently making good tools. Their customers aren’t missing out - they’re well supported with multiple options.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2017 at 00:18 UTC
On article Have your say: Best high-end ILC of 2017 (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mared: The Sony Alpha bodies are a combined 43%. Not too bad a year for Sony. Where's Canon???

I don’t own any Canon gear, but they are far and away the dominant market player and nothing in the referenced article suggests otherwise. Canon sells mirrorless as well, more than Sony in fact. However, this is all moot. The digital ILC market is still far larger than the film ILC market ever was, so there’s plenty of share to go around whether your one of the largest - ie Canon Nikon Sony - or one of the smallest - like Fuji. If a company wants to be a camera maker, the customers are there.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 11:41 UTC
On article Have your say: Best high-end ILC of 2017 (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mared: The Sony Alpha bodies are a combined 43%. Not too bad a year for Sony. Where's Canon???

Canon is too busy handily outselling everyone else combined, including Sony, by about 4:1...

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 10:13 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (296 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matsu: I'm afraid Richard reaches the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. All the problems were already solved over ten years ago, it's in DPR archive too:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4888226123/leicadigitalr9

The real reason is cost. To engineer a digital back and manufacture it for sale, is basically to create a product with the same cost overhead as a camera, only one that must then be attached to an old camera that isn't really that great compared to a modern digital camera.

I have an old Nikon FE I'll never sell. It's value is purely sentimental. I've not run film through it in years. I'd even spend $500-1000 on a digital back for it, if only for my hands to remember my dad's first photography lessons to me in way that seemed purposeful and not purely nostalgic. But how many people would do that? Maybe at $200-300 ??? Manufacturers know the real market is small and low margin. That's why we've not seen it.

Fair enough, I don't remember the articles, but I probably read them. I always enjoy DPR's articles.

I would highlight the distinction between absolute costs and relative costs. What Kodak and Leica were doing well over a decade ago was expensive leading edge stuff. No one would buy that now just to resurrect an old film body. It makes no sense in absolute terms.

In relative terms, it could be done a lot cheaper, no more than the price of an entry level DSLR or advanced point and shoot.

It's not a traditional value question, nostagia, but I'm not sure there are enough nostalgic yet geeky 'togs like myself for the $500-1000 it would take. Maybe at $200-300, but then there's not enough money in it for companies that need to focus on creating their modern follow-up models.

I think the vanity project remark captures it. It could find success. People buy new record players after all, but it's not something where mainstream companies will play.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 09:29 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (296 comments in total)

I'm afraid Richard reaches the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. All the problems were already solved over ten years ago, it's in DPR archive too:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4888226123/leicadigitalr9

The real reason is cost. To engineer a digital back and manufacture it for sale, is basically to create a product with the same cost overhead as a camera, only one that must then be attached to an old camera that isn't really that great compared to a modern digital camera.

I have an old Nikon FE I'll never sell. It's value is purely sentimental. I've not run film through it in years. I'd even spend $500-1000 on a digital back for it, if only for my hands to remember my dad's first photography lessons to me in way that seemed purposeful and not purely nostalgic. But how many people would do that? Maybe at $200-300 ??? Manufacturers know the real market is small and low margin. That's why we've not seen it.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 13:51 UTC as 100th comment | 3 replies

A kickstarter launch gives us some immediate clues about the scale of the endeavour. Seems a little bit cottage industry to me. Maybe a manual focus rangefinder with focus peaking is the most I would expect, which is not to denigrate such cameras, there's a lot of price flexibility to undercut Leica while offfering the same experience.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 15:15 UTC as 94th comment
In reply to:

justmeMN: I think Nikon should release an APS-C mirrorless camera first. That sensor size is where the huge sales volume is.

Fuji is a very minor player overall, it may not even be ahead of Pentax, or barely so in overall market share. They make a great system, and will for many years, but none of Canon, Nikon, or Sony is troubled by what Fuji does, in any space, including APSC mirrorless. Fuji doesn't have the numbers to warn any competitor off that segment.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 14:58 UTC

This technology will probably happen. This product and this company probably won't.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 17:14 UTC as 18th comment
On article Sony a9 underwater review: Shooting great white sharks (50 comments in total)

As has been mentioned already, with a wide lens, stopped down, this isn't exactly a challenge - especially in what is rather excellent lighting - I've shot in lots of venues where I wish I could get f/8-f/9, 1/250s, @ ISO320-400.

While these beasts are (just slightly ;-) ) more intimidating than your average bride, as far as auto-focus is concerned, achieving critical focus in this setting is about as hard as hitting the broad side of a bus.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 14:05 UTC as 5th comment

I would not trust that sort of anchor tab connection. Looks failure prone...

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 14:55 UTC as 38th comment | 5 replies

Come on now editors, DPR is a very popular website even without the flame bait. LOL.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 21:12 UTC as 323rd comment

Nikon is no worse than a number of other manufacturers, if anything their QC is even a bit better. However, in the past they've fallen down by not communicating issues and rectifying them. They shouldn't be criticized for the new trend of actually acknowledging an issue, actively informing their users, and correcting the problem at no additional expense to the user.

This is much better than the veil of silence we used to be subjected to.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 20:59 UTC as 108th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Matsu: As long as the full frame cameras keep the F mount, thecameras will be a wild success. They instantly bring along 1 out of every 3 users, and support the most extensive lens catalogue in a the marketplace. Change it and all bets are off, this is not the time to alienate users. F mount is their strongest asset, there are no advantages to changing it since both bodies and lenses can already be made size competitive with full frame mirrorless.

For DX/APSC, just follow Canon with a mount that's downsized for the smaller sensor. This allows cheaper cameras for people who don't have system wide investments in Nikon gear.

We're not talking about sensors, rather the electronics and integrated circuits packaged behind & around them. Cellphones pack significantly more powerful hardware into much tighter spaces. It simply proves that a DSLR body can be just as thin as a film SLR. Take a film SLR, like an FE or EM, & put it next to a MILC, like the A72, you'll see that the cameras are essentially the same size, including depth.

B/c the min depth of a useable handgrip hovers between 55-60mm, a radically thinner mount depth doesn't help packaging, especially once you add full frame lenses.

In addition to ergos, power requirements also set limits on size, much larger batteries are needed to cycle AF & run the sensor constantly & refresh the EVF/LCD at rates & resolutions that are competitive with OVFs.

Interesting that full frame mirrorless cameras and high end video centric MILCs have only gotten larger, not smaller, e.g. A7 - A72 - A9, or Panny GH4/5 compared to M43 in general... or Leica SL...

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 09:24 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: As long as the full frame cameras keep the F mount, thecameras will be a wild success. They instantly bring along 1 out of every 3 users, and support the most extensive lens catalogue in a the marketplace. Change it and all bets are off, this is not the time to alienate users. F mount is their strongest asset, there are no advantages to changing it since both bodies and lenses can already be made size competitive with full frame mirrorless.

For DX/APSC, just follow Canon with a mount that's downsized for the smaller sensor. This allows cheaper cameras for people who don't have system wide investments in Nikon gear.

Of course you can compare them. The thermal and power management and structural integrity requirements of a smartphone are just as significant, if not more significant than those of an ILC. System on a chip technologies and ultrathin touch LCD and OLED packages - were talking about OEM parts that are under 1mm including backlight - all exist largely thanks to smartphone driven demands.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: As long as the full frame cameras keep the F mount, thecameras will be a wild success. They instantly bring along 1 out of every 3 users, and support the most extensive lens catalogue in a the marketplace. Change it and all bets are off, this is not the time to alienate users. F mount is their strongest asset, there are no advantages to changing it since both bodies and lenses can already be made size competitive with full frame mirrorless.

For DX/APSC, just follow Canon with a mount that's downsized for the smaller sensor. This allows cheaper cameras for people who don't have system wide investments in Nikon gear.

The flange focal distance (the depth measured from the throat flange to the sensor surface is 46.5mm. The throat diameter (size of opening) is 44mm.

They can make a thinner camera simply by cleaning up the flotsam of sub-optimal assembly that exists behind sensors today. Pentax made a 58mm deep K mount camera on a 45.5mm deep mount. This is simple stuff. The typical smartphone packs way more electronics into only 7-8mm, some are as thing as 4.5mm!

Nikon can easily return DSLR cameras to the same body thickness as SLRs like the EM and FE, sub 60mm, which is the same thickness as a Sony A7 series camera.

That's why there's no need to change the mount to achieve a smaller body design. People who think such changes are necessary have never handled a manual focus film SLR. My FE is the same size as an A7.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:39 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: As long as the full frame cameras keep the F mount, thecameras will be a wild success. They instantly bring along 1 out of every 3 users, and support the most extensive lens catalogue in a the marketplace. Change it and all bets are off, this is not the time to alienate users. F mount is their strongest asset, there are no advantages to changing it since both bodies and lenses can already be made size competitive with full frame mirrorless.

For DX/APSC, just follow Canon with a mount that's downsized for the smaller sensor. This allows cheaper cameras for people who don't have system wide investments in Nikon gear.

They could make it just as small as that EM pictured in the story. It measures 135x86x54, which is smaller than an A7R2 (127x96x60) Smaller even since the viewfinder hump could be completely removed.

With even a small hand grip requiring at least 60mm, the 46mm flange depth of the f mount doesn't impose any restriction on camera depth either. The necessary electronics fit easily within 10mm or less.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 17:54 UTC
Total: 206, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »