molnarcs

Lives in Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at z7photo.com
Joined on Nov 11, 2012

Comments

Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18

So many people complaining about the price for "slow" lens. But speed is not everything people! Yes, $900 is not cheap, the Nikkor 18-140 is $500, but you get 1) 4 aspherical elements (Nikon & Canon has 1) 2) extra ED element (those are not cheap!), 3) weather sealing 4) better VR/OIS/IS (CIPA verified) and from the images I've seen, 5) better bokeh than any convenience zooms out there.

These are well worth the price imho. And if you look at the "premium" consumer zooms (Nikkor 16-85, Canon 15-85) - both long in the tooth (on modern bodies) and worse specs (not to mention the shorter focal range and lack of weather sealing) and difference in $100 for the Canon, $250 for the Nikkor.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 15:41 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X-E2 Review (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

DonSantos: Well I'm about so sell my "gold" award x-e2 with the awesome fuji 35mm 1.4 and upgrade the the "silver" sony a7 + zeiss 55mm 1.8.

Am I crazy?

You're definitely crazy. Sorry ;) Okey, don't take this seriously, just wanna give you some tips, because I was weighing both systems for my d7000 replacement (my current backup camera) and Fuji came out as a winner. Here is why.

1) Lenses
The selection of lenses of A7/A7r are rather poor. Let's talk equivalence here. You have a slow F/2.8 35mm lens for A7. The Fuji equivalent (23mm F/1.4) gives you two stops more light (you can shoot at ISO 3200 at F/1.4 while on the Sony you'll need ISO 12800 at F/2.8 for the same exposure. Plus you still get shallower DoF on the Fuji, so basically all full frame advantages for the A7 are negated.

Your A7+zeiss combo will cost you significantly more than a Fuji with the 35mm F/1.4, and you lose flexibility in terms of lenses.

2) Size - the A7 system will always have size disadvantage. There is no way around this - covering FF needs bigger lenses.

3) Support - when you invest in s system, this is important, and Fuji's support is second to none.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2014 at 07:58 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2 Review (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

M DeNero: More absolute nonsense about how these types of controls create a stronger sense of control and require a commitment to learn photography. I got a chuckle over the silly infatuation with the dedicated exposure comp dial. Why does it make a difference?

BTW, I really like the new Fuji cameras. For their portable size and image quality.

Easy exposure compensation is the first thing I look for in a camera. The EC button is the most used button (apart from the shutter release of course) on my d800. In fact, EC compensation dials or buttons are prominently placed or accessible on all enthusiast/pro grade bodies. It makes a big difference for certain types of shooting.

Shooting events (shows, concerts, etc.) in low light means you usually stay between 0 and -3 depending on what you shoot. Stage shots need quick reaction, and there is nothing faster than flicking your thumb left or right while composing. Or you want to get a quick silhouette shot? Flick and shoot.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2014 at 07:47 UTC

Wow! That's one of the best answers from any camera company I've seen. This kind of focus on the high-end enthusiast and pro market that makes Fuji so tempting as a secondary system. I'm supremely happy with my d800 performance (and my Nikkor lenses, flashes, etc.) but I don't think I'm going to replace my d7000 backup with another Nikon. When the time comes, X-T1 here I come.

One thing that would make Fuji a no-brainer for me would be a competent, radio based wireless flash system. A new flash with the size and capabilities of the sb-700 with a radio receiver built-in, and a small wireless commander compatible with all X cameras. TTL, groups/zones, HSS is a must of course.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2014 at 14:48 UTC as 64th comment
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D3300 and 35mm F1.8G lens (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

DimensionSeven: I have 1 questions that neither the press release nor this hands on preview answer regarding the new kit lens:

Does the front element rotate while focusing and zooming?

Thank you, DpReview!

99.99% is that it doesn't. I don't know any modern Nikkor lenses where the front element rotates while focusing or zooming.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 10:59 UTC
On article Nikon Df real-world samples gallery (222 comments in total)

The level of cluelessness reached another low on dpreview - reading the comment section is quite disheartening (thank you SONY trolls for polluting all Nikon news with your senseless drivel).

Then we have the couch photographers who think that low-light performance is all about noise (and numbers representing that noise) It isn't. In terms of noise levels, all new Nikon FX bodies are within 1/3 stop of each other.

What matters more is dynamic range and colour depth at high ISO levels. Why? Because reduced dynamic range and colour depth will result in blown highlights, and more often, blown colour channels. That is where the DF sensor shines. Above ISO 1600, it maintains 2/3 stop advantage compared to the d800 (or the SONY A7r, A7). You can fix noise in post-production, you can't fix blown channels easily. And that advantage also translates into more white balance leeway (another problem in low, mixed light conditions).

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2013 at 06:02 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Denver Wedding Photographers: Why release such an expensive piece of glass, only to have such poor wide performance? Clearly its intended market is those who want wide open apertures.

Which lens is sharper wide open? According to the P-Mix scores, this lens, along with the 60mm is the sharpest of the bunch. Or to put it in numbers:
58mm F/1.4 18
50mm F/1.4 G 16
50mm F/1.4 D 16
50mm F/1.8 G 16
Zeiss 50mm F/2 17
Zeiss 50mm F/1.4 13

What do you mean by "poor wide performance" - compared to what? Besides, there are other characteristics equally important - colour rendition, micro-contrast, flare resistance, bokeh characteristics, etc.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2013 at 07:23 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: So it basically is equal to the 50mm f1.4 G until f5.6 where it get a bit sharper in the middle. That's TOTALLY worth $1250 premium.

Yeah, cause sharpness is the only characteristic that matters when it comes to comparing lenses, right? Forget about colour rendition and micro-contrast, forget about CA, coma, astigmatism, forget about bokeh characteristics...

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2013 at 07:14 UTC
In reply to:

ysengrain: According to DxO, this lesn is 28. The Zeiss Planar Macro f2/50 is 30.
Amazing

Indeed:
Sharpness - Nikkor 18Mpix Zeiss 17Mpix
Transmission - Nikkor 1.7 Zeiss 2.3
Vignetting - Nikkor 1.3 Ziess 1.7
CA - Nikkor 2 Zeiss 14 (wow!)

And the winner is... Zeiss. Lol :)

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2013 at 07:11 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1378 comments in total)

The cynicism and negativity on this forum is disheartening. Where do all these Sony trolls come from?

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 18:31 UTC as 112th comment | 2 replies
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1378 comments in total)
In reply to:

TFD: I guess when you lack any new ideas you dig up the old ones, I guess to be complete it should have lenses with aperture rings and manual focus only. of course given Nikon's poor user interface perhaps a shutter speed dial IS a step forward...

This is just another blatant marketing attempt, like Fuji's retro looking, non-rangefinder rangefinder cameras to eke out sales in a stagnant market, Especially as the mirorless cameras are not flying off the shelves.

Now that's what I call cynical! Even though I don't use Fuji, I can see it's appeal beyond the retro style. Sensible controls, good ergonomics, well balanced camera-lens combinations, sharp, well performing lens line up, very good sensor tech... just to name a few.

I don't see a problem with the DF concept either. If Nikon prices this right, it could sell well, because it has a lot to offer. Smaller body, plenty control points on the body (I hate digging through menus above all!), best low light sensor to date (d4), as fast as the d700, there is plenty to like about the it :)

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 18:25 UTC
On article Canon EOS 70D Review (680 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: "Score" "Dxo"' blah blah...I really wonder how many of you really compared the actual IQ instead of just relying on Dxo figures. I also wonder how we managed to go out and shoot before Dxo!

Sensors yes, because it's very very specific what actually they measure. But lenses? I couldn't care less about what DXO says about lenses. Well, their sharpness test might hold some value, but nothing else is taken into account - micro contrast, colour rendition, bokeh, flare resistance, etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Tis the day when many people are going to cancel their pre-orders.

You probably did ;) Not sure what FF you bought, but can't be worse. First, the lenses for these cameras aren't going to be any smaller than DSLR lenses. Probably that's why SONY chose a slow lens as kit with limited focal range. The 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6 lens is 425 grams. The cheap Nikkor 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5 is just 40 grams heavier, and is wider, longer and a stop brighter on the long end!

Buying a DSLR gets you a huge selection of lenses RIGHT NOT at a reasonable price. 24-70 f/4 for $1200? My f/4 Nikkor goes to 120mm for the same price, and has nano coating with superb micro-contrast and colour rendition.

So what you'd gain with the A7/A7r you'd quickly lose in lens availability/price. You'd also lose any weight advantage if you think in terms of a whole system (multiple lenses, flash, etc.). With the A7r you'd lose continuous autofocus with subject tracking as well, and you'll be limited to 1.5 fps with autofocus. I get 900 shots out of my battery, I'd get 340 with the Sony, etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 15:57 UTC
In reply to:

AndyHWC: Surprised no reference or mention of the 18-105mm VR. I wonder how is the new 18-140 stack up against the good old 18-105mm.

Not good - 18-105 in that chart sits in front of the 12mp d300, while the 18-140 is tested with the d7000. Still, one could extrapolate that the 18-105 is still a very good performer, on par with the new lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2013 at 05:33 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon D7100 in-depth review (403 comments in total)
In reply to:

bossa: Does anyone know if the D7100 has Amp Glow problems like the D800?

I've got two D800E's and at ISO6400 things start to get nasty with a pink glow at the bottom of the picture. I'd rather use my K-5 or even my $299 K-01 (no amp glow that I can find) than the D800E in low light.

Now I must remember to take 'darks' for subtraction in PS when I'm in tricky lighting situations and operating at ISO6400+.

This may well be an area where a D400 could pick up the ball.

I have some examples here shot at or over ISO 6400:
http://z7photo.com/2013/04/vol-de-nuit-night-flight-in-saigon/

The girl kissing the dog is ISO 10159, and this is ISO 6400:
http://z7photo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Night-Flight-Bay-Dem-March-15-11.jpg

I just checked them in lightroom (increased exposure +3) and don't see amp noise. Might happen more often if using Live View perhaps?

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2013 at 06:25 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon D7100 in-depth review (403 comments in total)

I don't get this "problem:"
"Even more confusing - and as we've seen on previous Nikons - is that with Auto ISO disabled, adjusting exposure compensation changes scene brightness in the onscreen preview, even though the final exposure will (obviously) remain unchanged. Nikon's implementation of exposure compensation in manual mode is that it is used to change the metered target exposure, and it is precisely this target exposure that is simulated on the display."

Is there any other way to do it in LV? I don't find this confusing at all - it is as it should be. Personally, I never considered dialling in exposure compensation in manual mode. In Nikon's LV implementation you can still see a preview of the targeted exposure, then it's up to you how you reach that goal (bumping ISO or lowering shutter speed). How else could it work?

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2013 at 16:44 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply
On article Just Posted: Nikon D7100 in-depth review (403 comments in total)
In reply to:

bossa: Does anyone know if the D7100 has Amp Glow problems like the D800?

I've got two D800E's and at ISO6400 things start to get nasty with a pink glow at the bottom of the picture. I'd rather use my K-5 or even my $299 K-01 (no amp glow that I can find) than the D800E in low light.

Now I must remember to take 'darks' for subtraction in PS when I'm in tricky lighting situations and operating at ISO6400+.

This may well be an area where a D400 could pick up the ball.

I haven't noticed any amp glow above ISO 6400 on my d800 (not the E version). I have probably well over a hundred ISO 10159 (Hi .7) photos. Pretty amazing that you can get away with such high ISOs nowadays. Anyway, you might want to check if others have this problem to see if it's a flaw specific to the E version (very unlikely). I for one never seen any pink glow (or any glow) on the bottom of my high ISO photos.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2013 at 16:12 UTC
On article Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? (1503 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorden mosley: For those who've owned or used both the D800 and the EM-5: would you say that at iso 3200-6400, that the EM-5 has an equal amount of noise as the D800?

It depends on what you mean "equal." I don't have the EM-5 but it's worse than my d7000 (albeit slightly, according to reviews I've read, which is pretty damn good for the smaller sensor!). Pixel to pixel the noise is pretty similar on the d7k and and d800, with a slight edge to the d800 (but not much). So in absolute terms it's not equal, though the difference is not dramatic.

In practice, the 36 megapixels (at this very good per pixel quality) give you around one and a half stop more leeway. Because our output didn't suddenly change just because the high-res sensor. Well, I upped my "high-resolution" jpegs that I ship from 8 to 9.5 megapixels ;) Not that any of my clients ever complained that 8 megapixels is not enough for them :) So to answer you question in practical terms: for the same print size you still get away with ISO 3200 on your EM-5, you could use ISO 6400 on the d800 (at least, probably Hi.03 too which is ISO 8048).

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2012 at 20:03 UTC
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18