cmvsm

Lives in United States FL, United States
Joined on Jun 11, 2005
About me:

Nikon D90
Nikon 16-85VR
Nikon 70-300VR
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 150 2.8 Macro
Slik 330EZ Lightweight Tripod
Nikon SB800
Canon S95

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (453 comments in total)
In reply to:

Emmanuel Aldecoa: I can't believe people still throw away there money in bridge cameras . Lenses are soft in anything but the widest focal length , noise is terrible due to the small sensor , response times are slow , the "viewfinder" is hopeful .

Other than the reach of the zoom I much prefer to use an iPhone 6S. BTW I was Panasonic FZ8 and Fuji XS-1 so I've got some useful first hand experience.

Panny FZ8? That camera is 9 years old. Why not just make a comparison to the Kodak Brownie while you are at it. You quote this and the Fuji XS-1 as basis for your 'experience', and have the gonads to speak to noise and response time? You are a nob. Get back to your iPhone 6S...

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 19:22 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 Review (644 comments in total)
In reply to:

cmvsm: Yawn.....Wake me up when Nikon decides to get innovative...

Don't know. A couple of years ago, Apple produced products that people didn't know that they wanted, but when they hit the market, it made sense to buy. I'm not an engineer, but I do know when I continue to see the same 'innovation' over and over again. There is nothing earth shattering about Nikon's offering, but Sony and others seem to be redefining camera size, performance, and internal workings. If Nikon isn't careful, they will be in the same discount bin as Blackberry found themselves.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2015 at 03:46 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 Review (644 comments in total)

Yawn.....Wake me up when Nikon decides to get innovative...

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2015 at 12:48 UTC as 24th comment | 3 replies

Sony and Panasonic seems to be the only ones innovating these days. My next purchase will most likely be with them. Maybe Nikon will have another boring release of the D3400 or D7300 where the highlight is a slight movement of the controls. Canon and Nikon are becoming the Blackberry of the camera world.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2015 at 12:37 UTC as 41st comment | 19 replies
On article New GF: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 flips for selfies (398 comments in total)

One would think that the fully articulated screens would be standard issue on all entry to enthusiast level cameras. If not, might as well keep giving share away to the smartphone genre.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 14:55 UTC as 80th comment
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1320 comments in total)

Still can't turn it on with one hand...Fail!

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 23:07 UTC as 280th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsmith404: I don't get all the hype about 1-inch sensors being 'almost as good as traditional SLRs in good light'. Yes, the image quality is great for a 'compact' camera but people getting this kind of quality out of their SLRs should improve their technique before looking for a new camera.

Even in the official samples (which are probably as good as they get), the IQ at low ISO isn't great. For instance, the bird in the first image (ISO 125) looks totally flat and actually there is ZERO detail in the feathers. Most lowly SLR kit-teles do a better job with this kind of task.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=panasonic%20fz1000

On the other hand, there's probably not a single SLR out there that comes close in video quality.

You should be at 100% if your points were so completely obvious. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :) Thanks for the link.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 12:26 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsmith404: I don't get all the hype about 1-inch sensors being 'almost as good as traditional SLRs in good light'. Yes, the image quality is great for a 'compact' camera but people getting this kind of quality out of their SLRs should improve their technique before looking for a new camera.

Even in the official samples (which are probably as good as they get), the IQ at low ISO isn't great. For instance, the bird in the first image (ISO 125) looks totally flat and actually there is ZERO detail in the feathers. Most lowly SLR kit-teles do a better job with this kind of task.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=panasonic%20fz1000

On the other hand, there's probably not a single SLR out there that comes close in video quality.

I never said that large sensors, overall, do not trump a 1" sensor from an IQ standpoint, low light and versatility with standing. That is just common sense. What I did say is that a 1" sensor will perform as well, or sometimes even better, in good light at low ISO, and will hold up to printing A4 size and smaller. There is no perfect photo, whether you are using a P&S, or a D4S. Any of them can be picked apart for a variety of reasons. Same goes for lenses. You have to pick your poison in terms of what is important per dollar spent. I could show you a handful of photos online, and tell you that any number of cameras took the photo. Unless you had the EXIF in front of you, you wouldn't know the difference. To say otherwise would be deceiving.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 22:40 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsmith404: I don't get all the hype about 1-inch sensors being 'almost as good as traditional SLRs in good light'. Yes, the image quality is great for a 'compact' camera but people getting this kind of quality out of their SLRs should improve their technique before looking for a new camera.

Even in the official samples (which are probably as good as they get), the IQ at low ISO isn't great. For instance, the bird in the first image (ISO 125) looks totally flat and actually there is ZERO detail in the feathers. Most lowly SLR kit-teles do a better job with this kind of task.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=panasonic%20fz1000

On the other hand, there's probably not a single SLR out there that comes close in video quality.

Let's say in addition to a new D5300 kit with 18-55 at $850, you also have to add a 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 for $400, where we are at roughly $1300. The FZ1000 is about $900 or $400 cheaper, for now. But of course, you also added 3 lenses on the Nikon side, and will need a bag & back to hold/carry them.

The point is that the pixel peeping details you are meticulously pulling out of these photographs doesn't add up to a pile when it comes to the average prosumer shooting in bright light and printing at A4 or below. Nor should it.

If one shoots low light for a living, then full frame is the answer. If one shoots macro for a living, then a dedicated lens is the answer. But for general photography (i.e. candids, street photography, landscapes, everyday life & a movie or two), the FZ1000 is more than most would need, & is fully capable of meeting or even surpassing a DSLR for the return on investment, & the minuscule differences in IQ will never be seen, especially w/the lens mentioned above.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 19:16 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsmith404: I don't get all the hype about 1-inch sensors being 'almost as good as traditional SLRs in good light'. Yes, the image quality is great for a 'compact' camera but people getting this kind of quality out of their SLRs should improve their technique before looking for a new camera.

Even in the official samples (which are probably as good as they get), the IQ at low ISO isn't great. For instance, the bird in the first image (ISO 125) looks totally flat and actually there is ZERO detail in the feathers. Most lowly SLR kit-teles do a better job with this kind of task.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=panasonic%20fz1000

On the other hand, there's probably not a single SLR out there that comes close in video quality.

How much is a Sony a6000 with equivalent lens to the FZ1000?

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 17:49 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsmith404: I don't get all the hype about 1-inch sensors being 'almost as good as traditional SLRs in good light'. Yes, the image quality is great for a 'compact' camera but people getting this kind of quality out of their SLRs should improve their technique before looking for a new camera.

Even in the official samples (which are probably as good as they get), the IQ at low ISO isn't great. For instance, the bird in the first image (ISO 125) looks totally flat and actually there is ZERO detail in the feathers. Most lowly SLR kit-teles do a better job with this kind of task.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=panasonic%20fz1000

On the other hand, there's probably not a single SLR out there that comes close in video quality.

On the contrary, I did look at ALL of the samples that you linked to, and was very impressed, especially when it came to the action pics of aircraft. Lots of detail on fast moving objects, which isn't an easy task. All of those pics, and you are going to hang your hat on a white bird with the sun shining directly at it, creating a blown highlight situation that would be a DR challenge for any camera? Surely you can do better than that.

And YES, the Sony offerings DO have virtually the same 1" sensor as indicated in the review. Have you been living under a rock? Ever hear of the Sony RX100 series? Probably the most popular compact today with its 3rd rendition just given a Gold Award by dpReview. The new Nikon 1 V3 also has a 1" sensor, and the Canon G1 X Mark II has a 1.5" sensor. If you want studio comparisons of those cameras, take a trip over to Imaging Resource and plug in the FZ1000 vs. the Nikon D5200 (which I currently have), and you will get an awakening.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 16:38 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: ordered mine from a West Coast dealer today Saturday for next day delivery on Tuesday. Planning on some one on one full sized image comparisons against the Sony A77MkII just to see what this thing is made of. If it even so much as compares I'll keep it. I may be expecting too much, but I might just be surprised what it can do in stills. I won't pull punches however so we'll see.

Did you ever get those comparisons shot between the FZ1000 and the Sony A77MkII? I'm interested in seeing your findings. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 02:12 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsmith404: I don't get all the hype about 1-inch sensors being 'almost as good as traditional SLRs in good light'. Yes, the image quality is great for a 'compact' camera but people getting this kind of quality out of their SLRs should improve their technique before looking for a new camera.

Even in the official samples (which are probably as good as they get), the IQ at low ISO isn't great. For instance, the bird in the first image (ISO 125) looks totally flat and actually there is ZERO detail in the feathers. Most lowly SLR kit-teles do a better job with this kind of task.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=panasonic%20fz1000

On the other hand, there's probably not a single SLR out there that comes close in video quality.

What don't you get? Proper technique is a given no matter what camera you are using, compact or full sized. And to say that a good compact cannot yield the same results as a DSLR in good lighting from today's offerings is naive. The Sony and Fuji offerings have shown this over and over again. That said, the primary advantages of a DSLR come in the form of low light performance, as well as versatility with lenses. However, even those areas are becoming blurred as technology marches on with mirrorless cameras. The big bulky DSLR is on its way out with the average prosumer, and the "Pros" do not pay the light bill...

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 23:09 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)

A big winner for Panasonic. The bread & butter consumer will eat it up. I think that it also asks the question of all of us 'amateur' DSLR users, "How much do we actually need, and how much is just hype"? Most of my picture taking these days is of outside, amateur sporting events, landscapes, and candid street photography. I also enjoy shooting a movie from time to time. So why do I have a DSLR? Mostly, because of the low light performance that I 'think' I need, although, the vast majority of my shooting is in broad daylight. I also wanted something that was quick and could handle semi-fast sporting events, as well as RAW shooting for more in-depth post processing. That said, I don't like bringing my lenses with me all over the place, and many times, I find myself reaching for my compact versus the DSLR. So, at the end of the day, would this camera suffice for my needs...yep! And I would surmise, that it would for most others as well. Nice job Panasonic, I just might give you a go...

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 01:30 UTC as 154th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The high iso performance at 3200 iso is so bad the machine certainly does not merit a gold award.Manual focus and zoom are also questionably defective-slow to the point of useless for exactly the kind of quick snap stills photographers buy this sort of thing. so I guess it gets Gold as it has 4K nobody can yet see or edit properly. As we cannot see its 4K movies at their resolution we do not know if it is any improvement on the HD we can see. All that glisters....

Yes, at this price its a steal-of your money!!!

Imaging Resource samples at 3200 are just fine. Almost on par with the likes of a D5200, so I would certainly put it in a Gold class for an all in one shooter, especially with the range. Furthermore, why would the bulk of the target market of this camera use Manual focus? Although I haven't used it, this camera looks like it will be a winner for Panasonic, and for the bread and butter consumer, a target segment that you seem to not understand. Those that buy high end DSLR's and high end glass do not pay the light bill. Remember that...

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 01:19 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecm: Huh. A new-generation R1..... for $1300?? Nah.

For $820 I could get a Panasonic G6 kit plus the 45-150 and get better quality photos and videos in a smaller package, faster lens notwithstanding. If I was willing to go a bit larger I could get the Canon SL1 kit plus 55-250 for about $850..... Or the Nikon 3200, or, for that matter, Sony's own A58, and STILL kick this thing's #$$ for a lot less dollars.

You speak nonsense. Who wants a lens that starts at 45 and ends at 150? You get cheated on both sides of the tube. Put equivalent glass on the end of that Nikon 3200, and you'll be into the game for more money, and have just about the same performance. Step away from the keyboard and actually try a camera for a change.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2014 at 03:09 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: I think the RX10 is overpriced. The lens is great but in a few years it can't be used with a newer 1" sony sensor that offers new things like 4k video or real action tracking on-chip PDAF. If they make an RX20 one day, you'll have to re-buy the lens. Maybe it'll be a little longer at tele or a little lighter but your old glass is throw away. Usually, fixed glass comes at a discount. No mount to deal with, the lens can have fewer compromises, saves money. That makes up for it. This one doesn't seem to have that.

You can't find 1" lenses that compete with this but there are plenty of APS-C sized lenses that do. The article lists a couple, the EF-S 18-135 and the very impressive sony E 18-105. There's also the 18-200 sigma that just came out which is under a pound and has 11x instead of 8x range and usable macro. The dimensions of the RX10 isn't revolutionary either compared to one of those lenses attached to a small camera. Several combos come out LIGHTER than the RX10, all are CHEAPER.

@Mosc - Why would you compare an 18-105 to the RX10's 24-200 lens? How is this making any kind of point in terms of light gathering?

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2014 at 03:04 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

bawbaw: Best thing to do if considering an rx10 ... buy an rx100. Unless video is your 100% primary concern ... it does 99.9% of the same thing. Has the same sensor. A slightly better lens if you go by the comparison on this review on raw.

Big thing is .. it goes in your pocket.

I shoot a Leica M9 normally.. although.. what do I grab most of the time due to space ... my rx100. It's that annoyingly good.

Oh and you can still get them new for £300 if you hunt about as they don't have wifi BOO HOOO.

You forgot the lens...minor oversight.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2014 at 02:56 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boky: That is a lot of money for a camera with a small sensor and firmly attached lens, that will be obsolete in a year or 2. The sample photos look lifeless; however, I don't see as much of that famous RX100 yellow overcast, so it appears it is better at least in that regard. It is dslr-like size, costs a lot, but unusable at anything above ISO800...

Nick

The bulk of the people that buy DSLR's rarely take off their walk around lens. Are those cameras obsolete as well? And what 'mediocre' performance are you talking about? People like you get hung up on pixel peeping, and would rarely be able to tell the likes of an old D40/D50 combo versus today's D7100. The differences are just not there unless you are looking for speed or constant low light capability. I'm glad that people like you are there to trade up for the latest and greatest every cycle. You keep the water warm and camera companies fed until i NEED to upgrade....Thanks in advance.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2014 at 02:54 UTC

No Hotshoe. So much for the premium branding...

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 22:58 UTC as 54th comment | 1 reply
Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »