GaryW

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Computer Programmer
Joined on Mar 10, 2002

Comments

Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Week in Review: Sony FTW (302 comments in total)
In reply to:

naththo: I would give them a championship if they did use the 14 bit raw.

Aside from star trails, I haven't seen an example where I could see a problem (and even that one was probably modified in post). It's such a big problem that no one can come up with an example where normal photos are ruined. You have to have high contrast areas and perhaps changing the exposure in post alters how it's decoded, but that's something you're likely to do with star trails or other astrophotography.

I would have thought the "star killer" NR would be a bigger problem. And yet again, the problem's been there and no one noticed. And Sony is not the only one with such an algorithm.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 11:16 UTC
On article Sony a5100 First Impressions Review (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

km25: The lens is too slow, no EVF ( not even opinion ). No 4k. Yeasterdays camera, for the world of tomorrow.

There are more than enough lenses for most people.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 23:33 UTC
On article Sony a5100 First Impressions Review (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob Sims: Just a word about the cheap $100 kit lens, that keeps getting bashed by photo purists. Yes, everyone knows this lens was designed with software correction in mind... it suffers from barrel distortion at the wide end, CA and also vignetting. But for the target audience shooting JPG (All corrected automatically in camera) won't see this, and those dabbling in RAW (corrected automatically in LR) will be able to work around it. More important, is that the is sharp at the center, and sharp at the edges when down even 1 or 2 stops. Doesn't seem any worse than most other kit lenses (Fuji's expensive F2.8-4.0 excluded).

All comparisons I've seen point to it being as sharp as the original 18-55... and certainly no worse than the Pana 12-35 m43 lens that keeps getting mentioned. First 3 reviews that popped up in Google:
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=3618
http://camerahoarders.com/sony-e_pz_16-50mm-e-mount-lens-review/2/
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=2

Rob, the 18-105 sits in between those lenses in price. As for primes, I'm not sure what you want. There's not much room, for example, between the 50mm and 55mm. Sure, you can specify a price point in the middle, but the difference is not large.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 23:26 UTC
On article Sony a5100 First Impressions Review (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

M0P03: I want Sony to make this camera and A6000 without slow and bulky interchangeble lens. Fixed 24-100/2-4 same size would be much useful.

If you feel another system is better, buy it. There are many examples of fine photos that have come from the 16-50. Better lenses are available, and I recommend p rimes if you want real high quality.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 12:29 UTC
On article Sony a5100 First Impressions Review (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

M0P03: I want Sony to make this camera and A6000 without slow and bulky interchangeble lens. Fixed 24-100/2-4 same size would be much useful.

It's an inexpensive kit lens. What do you want? It actually works well, better than people seem to expect that it should. People seem to just assume that it must be a poor kit lens. It does have it's quirks that you can either work with, or you can buy a more expensive lens.

The lens suggestion made by the OP would be large, bulky, and expensive, and still missing a huge chunk of valuable wide angle range. I don't get that. You're not going to see an f2-4 lens in a pancake, collapsible lens form factor like the 16-50pz.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 10:41 UTC
On article Sony a5100 First Impressions Review (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob Sims: Just a word about the cheap $100 kit lens, that keeps getting bashed by photo purists. Yes, everyone knows this lens was designed with software correction in mind... it suffers from barrel distortion at the wide end, CA and also vignetting. But for the target audience shooting JPG (All corrected automatically in camera) won't see this, and those dabbling in RAW (corrected automatically in LR) will be able to work around it. More important, is that the is sharp at the center, and sharp at the edges when down even 1 or 2 stops. Doesn't seem any worse than most other kit lenses (Fuji's expensive F2.8-4.0 excluded).

All comparisons I've seen point to it being as sharp as the original 18-55... and certainly no worse than the Pana 12-35 m43 lens that keeps getting mentioned. First 3 reviews that popped up in Google:
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=3618
http://camerahoarders.com/sony-e_pz_16-50mm-e-mount-lens-review/2/
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=2

Wow, that's opposite my experience -- 24mm seems to be the sweet spot for the 18-55, as people reported since the early days of Nex. Anyways, yeah, stop it down a bit and keep away from the ends and it's pretty decent.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 01:26 UTC
On article Sony a5100 First Impressions Review (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

M0P03: I want Sony to make this camera and A6000 without slow and bulky interchangeble lens. Fixed 24-100/2-4 same size would be much useful.

"it's quite a bit heavier and longer (427g/110mm) than the 16-50 PZ - the one the OP has spoken of." The OP mentioned that he didn't want a "slow and bulky" zoom; the 16-50pz is not bulky, although it is "slow". Regardless, something has to give. Everything is a trade-off, but there are options.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2014 at 23:16 UTC
On article Sony a5100 First Impressions Review (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

M0P03: I want Sony to make this camera and A6000 without slow and bulky interchangeble lens. Fixed 24-100/2-4 same size would be much useful.

You can buy the body-only, and add the 18-105G, which is a lot better range than 24-100.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2014 at 11:55 UTC
On photo DSC09037_DxO in GaryW's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

This was shot as a JPEG, through a double pane window, cropped, and given some film-like post-processing from DxO (no RAW).

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2014 at 00:45 UTC as 1st comment
On article Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnHoppy: I suspect many respondents here have not actually read Andrew Reid's full article. It repays reading. It may well be true that traditional photographic devices are in terminal decline, but unless innovation is allowed to flourish, that decline is most certain. The advent of new technology such as mirrorless is only part of a process that seeks to perpetuate a specific device for the enjoyment of photography as we know it. Market leader Canon's EOS-M was a poor effort that really said, "Our SLR is the thing to buy" and Nikon's 1 series was weakly conceived too. By steadfastly opposing mirrorless and throwing its weight against what it represented rather than embracing and adapting it, Canon in effect has projected its own possible fate. Things will have to change or Reid's scenario may be a reality in a few years.

IQ in mirrorless is the same as DSLR, if the sensor size is the same. AF lags for the most part, but isn't bad. It's catching up and good enough for most use.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 02:11 UTC
On article Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: Just got back from B&H in NYC, where everybody was walking around with their cameras. The overwhelming majority of people, lots and lots of people, were carrying FF and APS-C DSLRs, quite a few with high grade pro zooms.

Lots of armchair predictions about the direction the camera market is taking. But if DSLRs are dying, the huge number of people I saw walking around one of the world's largest camera shops apparently didn't get the memo.

You're looking at a very small niche of camera users. That's great that NYC can support a camera store, but around the rest of the country, camera stores have been closing. I don't think that's a sign of a healthy DSLR market.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 02:09 UTC
On article Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

baloo_buc: There were a lot of people that have no idea of photography that bought dSLRs just to brag about. They are now sucked by the 41 MP in a smartphone. There will be a reduction of dSLRs sales in the following years because less people will need good quality photos when the only use is on facebook or other websites that are very low quality from the photographic viewpoint. I have a camera in a smartphone and I use it only in emergency cases.

I had an old phone camera that was really awful, but my newer ones are pretty decent. They do take the place of a P&S many times. They'd be fine for what most people use a camera for, the web or small prints.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 11:23 UTC
On article Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

davids8560: I find Eye-Fi cards and cameras with built-in Wi-Fi solve the "instant uploading" problem rather handily, if need be, although I eschew editing on my iPhone unless it's absolutely necessary. I actually don't even upload much to the 'Net anymore, now that so many sites make legal claim to whatever pictures I elect to post. So now, generally speaking, if I want to share a pic with friends and associates, I just attach it to a regular email. And that suits me just fine,

A highly-placed friend of mine in Apple's iPhone camera department told me that keeping the slimness and overall size of a cellphone to a minimum precludes much advancement in smartphone camera features and capabilities.

So I think there always will be at least some demand for fully-featured, stand-alone digital cameras. The market is definitely going to shrink, however, and get quite a bit shook up, too, by and large, I expect. I'd say the days of the simple 3-5X zoom point-and-shoot are really quite numbered now.

Yes, the cameraphone will always be limited compared to a real camera, and yet most people are going to find that quite alright.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 11:21 UTC
On article Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Phones are successful because people HAVE to replace them often, and they can do a hundred different things. If Nikon wants to stay alive, it needs to make smartphones.

In the early days of digital cameras, people "had" to replace them because newer ones were so much better. I think the case will be the same for cellphones -- eventually, both products will mature and you won't feel a need to buy so often.

If Nikon made a smartphone, they'd have to make sure the camera was kinda meh to ensure that it didn't compete with their DSLR line. ;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 11:16 UTC
In reply to:

danieljcox: Without the artist creating this image, there is no image. Why should he not get paid for his vision and creativity? Would anybody have bought this stamp had it just been a blank, white stamp without any sort of art? No! They bought it because it had something of interest that the artist created. The artist should be paid. Without the art the artist created, there is no stamp to sell. People who create good ideas or good art deserve to be paid.

Daniel J. Cox
www.naturalexposures.com

Yeah, the USPS probably lost money, if you want to look at it that way. Even if they were to make a slight profit, it wasn't because that this particular photo was all that compelling, it was because people wanted stamps to mail a birthday card or whatever.

Should the sculptor get paid for the use of his work? Are photographers going to have to avoid photographing any public sculpture? Maybe any monument, building.... Hey, that was someone else's work! They deserve a cut. I already see notices on some tickets for certain venues that photography is for personal use only and you'd have to get special permission for commercial use -- I think that's fair enough if you have to buy a ticket to enter property, but if you're on "public" ground, that should be different.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 12:24 UTC
Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »