wakaba

Joined on Oct 10, 2012

Comments

Total: 255, showing: 241 – 255
« First‹ Previous10111213Next ›Last »
On article Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 review (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

topstuff: There are outliers who want the ultimate AF - they can get the Canon. There are people who want max resolution, they can get the D800.

For the majority of photographers , the A99 offers more advantages than both the Nikon or Canon , provided you aren't wedded to either because of your investment in lenses.

The better DR of the A99 over the Canon is a real plus point. And for most people A99 AF is plenty good enough, There don't seem to be any gripes about the AF from users.

The sensor is probably one of the very best available right now. The Zeiss branded lenses are great. And you have the articulating screen.

If you need specialist lenses or have an existing investment then Canon or Nikon are probably best for you. But for everyone else , this is probably the best DSLR type camera in the world right now.

You just need to dig the EVF.

And some people ned to get over the fact that its a Sony. ;)

Zeiss branded lenses are just - well brands? Nothing to do with real Zeiss - which again are just average compared to what Nikon and Canon have in their primelens portfolio. FX-lenses from Nikon are a good investment and the bodies are equallly so.

Gotta look beyond the brand and buy the engineering and there Nikon and Canon win.

PS. I still hold a grudge against Sony because of the DRM virus and haven`t bought a single Sony thing for 5 years now.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2012 at 17:22 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 review (496 comments in total)

No real viewer, slow and inaccurate AF, garrish coloroutput, too much sharpening, less than good lenses. Videocam with DSLR features. Expensive. Looks like a dog to me.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2012 at 13:44 UTC as 50th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Well, it''s not really going to be as good as the nikkor, nor as good as the canon. i tested them both and they are really good. I also tested the 85 1.4 AFs nikon and it's stunning, a bit better than my sigma 85 1.4. The canons are also very good, with some CA wide open though. This sigma will be nicely sharp at 1.4, with minimal CA and spherical aberration, decent color rendition. The nikkor will render color better, will have better contrast wide open, will have less CA and you will probably never have to worry about calibration on it. At twice the price. The choice is really up to the user, and since I cannot afford or justify the nikkor, and my 35 f/2 is limiting me somewhat, this 35 sigma seems like a logical choice.

technotic:

a 1.2 lense stopped down 2 is extremely sharp out to the corner.
A 1.2 has a lot more headroom than a 2.8...Bigger is always better.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2012 at 18:00 UTC
On article Just Posted: Leica X2 real-world sample gallery (104 comments in total)

Not very impressive picture quality. Downright bad? Overpriced gadget with a reddot. No buy.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 21:09 UTC as 30th comment

So here we have a camera that is really bad at taking pictures and uploads your picture, denies ownership and only lets you see trough a browser window.

What will happen to your pictures in 5 years? Kodak went bust...Flash is getting phased out...Firefox will change...

Raw and JPEG win. For the price of a Litro a very decent SLR can be had.

No go unless your a noveltyseeker drone.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 16:41 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
On article Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review (498 comments in total)
In reply to:

wakaba: Have D600 for 4 weeks now. No dirt on sensor. Very decent ergonomics and faster processing than D800e.
Got this instead of a 800e because the 800e is not yet in middleformat territory, so I wait this out while having a lot of fun with the D600.

The body outperforms lenses. So far the 50mm-1.4G is the only one keeping up, barely.

@ Kodachrome:

50mm 1:1,4G is sharper stopped down a real world 2x. Roughly @15% of theoretical maximum. They all fall within max 5% of each other. Product variance and measurments errors would sort of call each other out (and at the same time might create a "superlensfreak")

Wide open all are 40% off the theoretical max. resolution.

There is a lot of development needed on the lens side. Bodies are already better than the lenses.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2012 at 15:43 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review (498 comments in total)
In reply to:

wakaba: Have D600 for 4 weeks now. No dirt on sensor. Very decent ergonomics and faster processing than D800e.
Got this instead of a 800e because the 800e is not yet in middleformat territory, so I wait this out while having a lot of fun with the D600.

The body outperforms lenses. So far the 50mm-1.4G is the only one keeping up, barely.

800 and 600 perform almost the same. Both are not quite there yet. 800`s Expeed3 is a tad slow with the filesize So I wait it out tilll a "D900" with a fast "Expeed4" and 50mb pics starts to scratch on middle format. Usability/price - 600 wins.

Inadequate lenses: Zooms, Teles, Kiitlenses. Lack sharpness depth and contrast. It is like you fotograph the glass. Everything above 1: 1.4 lenses. Pics look dull. Clearly shows.

Nikkor makes good lenses but I am sure they will have to come up with some new lenses that adress the issues. Look at middleformat lenses.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2012 at 04:58 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review (498 comments in total)

Have D600 for 4 weeks now. No dirt on sensor. Very decent ergonomics and faster processing than D800e.
Got this instead of a 800e because the 800e is not yet in middleformat territory, so I wait this out while having a lot of fun with the D600.

The body outperforms lenses. So far the 50mm-1.4G is the only one keeping up, barely.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2012 at 21:33 UTC as 53rd comment | 8 replies

Gopro rocks. Use it for diving and downhill biking. HD-Wideangle is perfect more pixels definitely even better on 3. Only caveat is battery life, even worse with the screenback.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 23:58 UTC as 33rd comment | 2 replies
On article 7 tips for taking your phone camera into the ocean (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deleted pending purge: It sure is a nice way to enjoy the camera.
Those watertight bags are reasonably safe, provided one takes care when closing them. There shouldn't be one hair nor one grit of sand in the sealing - it only works when absolutely clean.
Before using such a bag with your device, put something formed like a phone inside (a piece of styrofoam will do) and test-dunk it to see if it keeps the water out of the bag. It's cheaper that way.
Another tip, take care of the condensed water and air humidity. When you enter cold water with a sun-warmed casing (any casing!), there will be fogging. Put some small package of desiccant (silica-gel) inside with your device.
And bear in mind that, although the watertight bag may keep your phone dry down to -10 meters, the outside pressure there will be 1 Bar / Atm, or 1 kilogram per square centimeter. For some devices this crushing force could be too great!
Anyway, in the surf zone, and down to -1 meter it will be safe.
Main thing is, enjoy!

Hey Dad . Only got really crappy pictures from childhood - Why is that?

The answer for ocean is a GoPro.

Smartphones are slow, Picturequality good enough to scan barcode.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2012 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

wakaba: Been lurking in this forum for a while. Am I professional, doing photography for 35 years and am an artdirector.

We are talking about a consumerformat partially used by lowend professionals. It is a means to an end not the holy grail.

Starting with the D3100 - lens quality becomes the limiiting factor.

High ISO is a styling method or a sorry and lazy excuse for not having the proper lowlight/fast lens with you. Some commentators are favoring "film". Lighten up - this stuff was always bad. Glad it went the way of the dinosaurs.

.

@how...
High ISO is degrading picture quality. High ISO paintings just copyproof that you were there...

I grew up with film - sorry - total tedious crap. Could aswell paint a picture - expressionism is a style... Lenses, Bodies are cheap, material and processing are not. PS and Gimp win.

My example pic shows what is doable with experience, a sharp lens and a very decent sensor/software/body.

The Magenta in the pic is acutally there. It might be more prominent on your saturated LCD but not on my calibrated screen.

My personal Wishlist for a DSLR Nikon in 3100 Formfactor: 60mb Sensor, FX or more, M and A Dials, 5ps, simple 3100 software, No antialias, better/bigger Backscreen, optimized for 24/64/100 ASA/ISO, perfect WiFi theter. Just wont carry overloaded heavy stuff around anymore.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2012 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

wakaba: Been lurking in this forum for a while. Am I professional, doing photography for 35 years and am an artdirector.

We are talking about a consumerformat partially used by lowend professionals. It is a means to an end not the holy grail.

Starting with the D3100 - lens quality becomes the limiiting factor.

High ISO is a styling method or a sorry and lazy excuse for not having the proper lowlight/fast lens with you. Some commentators are favoring "film". Lighten up - this stuff was always bad. Glad it went the way of the dinosaurs.

.

High ISO picturequality for archival purpose only. Totally pointless but seems a huge selling point for amateurs. I am a manual shooter and never take pics above 100.

Lowend DSLR bodies like 3100 outperform most lenses available. So do the highend Nikonbodies. Lenses are severe limiting factor.
Fact. Tried a 600. More of the same. Tried 800e and 35mm: Almost there but only slightly better. So I stick with the 3100 and 35mm for the moment.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G DX or better. Other lenses degrade quality, sharpness, colorspace and limit composition. Products you mentioned are not serious tools. Digital equivalent of an Agfabox. Sorry.

3100 and 35mm. Handshot, UV filter, tiny bit of unsharp mask. whitepoint adjustment. Raw to JPG at 100%:

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/335803_227989143996762_815872065_o.jpg

Note achievable colorspace, sharpness, depth of field presentation, natural focusplane. 600 does slightly better but not much.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 17:59 UTC

Myself I am using only fast HQ fixed 35mm lenses. Everything else limits my picture quality in terms of sharpness and colorspace, near or far. I walk rather than using a telelens.The lenses are a big problem nowadays. I wont use anything with shaky telescopic mechanisms or soft fixed telelenses.

This preview of an undeniably great body tested with a mediocre macro kit lens is pretty much worthless.

Something else - go to artschool, train your eyes and brain and take 2 decades of training your composition skills. Most of the pictures of users are just bland gearhead crap, many comments of "professionals" total bull.

If we talk serious picturetaking - middleformat or better with fixed lens is the way to go

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 08:39 UTC as 4th comment

Been lurking in this forum for a while. Am I professional, doing photography for 35 years and am an artdirector.

We are talking about a consumerformat partially used by lowend professionals. It is a means to an end not the holy grail.

Starting with the D3100 - lens quality becomes the limiiting factor.

High ISO is a styling method or a sorry and lazy excuse for not having the proper lowlight/fast lens with you. Some commentators are favoring "film". Lighten up - this stuff was always bad. Glad it went the way of the dinosaurs.

.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 08:38 UTC as 5th comment | 8 replies
Total: 255, showing: 241 – 255
« First‹ Previous10111213Next ›Last »