Preternatural Stuff

Joined on Mar 3, 2012

Comments

Total: 143, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

evoprox: What does this remind me of ??? I can only hope for you guys that they don't repeat the NEX desaster (more bodies than lenses) and come out with some decent glass pretty quick before they ditch it altogether yet again. After 3 years in the NEX world my money goes to Fuji these days - couldn't be happier.

Again a lot of whining by the ignorant who do not know the lenses available to Sony users. There's this thing called google?!

I own & use the Carl Zeiss and Sony G professional lenses & have EVERYTHING that any serious photographer would ever need. They fit on A-mount, APS-C (which no professional cares for) and (with Sony's adaptor) the FE series with full functionality & breathtaking results. Clients love my work.

Its always u amateur lot who want to skimp on cheap lenses for cheap small sensor systems but then whine that they do not fit on full frame bodies etc. etc. Grow up!

Look at the clowns above who claim to defect to Fuji or Olympus - those are small sensor size system solutions! Which is where u belong!

Don't come to a full-frame sensor thread like these A7 ones whining if you don't belong to the big league in the first place! Try going to the EOS 1 threads whining that your crappy lenses don't fit & see how you get flamed.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2014 at 11:59 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: "Sony told us that recording 4K footage internally would have meant moving away from the small footprint of the A7-series body."

Right, because you need a huge body to record 4k... oh, wait, GH4 and every new smartphone records one! Sounds like Sony A7BS to me.

Another jerk with no understanding of the technicalities involved - the sheer amount of data involved in proper 4K recording from FF sensors offering so much dynamic range.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2014 at 11:38 UTC
On article Using third-party lenses on the Sony a7 / a7R (527 comments in total)

@Michael Berg,

Since we are on the subject of an "open mind", perhaps readers ought to be more discerning and learn to ask relevant questions regarding any writer's claims instead of taking it all in hook, line and sinker.

Instead you pointed out some irrelevant thing about shutter speeds required to shoot non-static subjects when the reviewer shot simple static shots of non-moving subjects.

"I find 1/125 is a maximum shutter setting I like to shoot at, and go for 1/160 or 1/250 if the light is there, just to be sure."

- I find it odd that an "open mind" sets such arbitrary rules without reference to all the facts of the situation. No reference to focal length (oh right you don't know what the reciprocal rule is) or the speed of the subject matter.

My experience (& obvious knowledge of the basic rules) tells me what (lowest acceptable) shutter speed to use for every situation, for the required sharpness and lowest possible noise, not some arbitrary "maximum".

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 20:30 UTC as 42nd comment
On article Using third-party lenses on the Sony a7 / a7R (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

Preternatural Stuff: I have several criticisms of this article (obvious flaws in the review):

1. Problem with the 1/60th shutter speed

This criticism doesn't cut it when most cameras do the same in Program/Aperture priority mode.

2. Related to the 1st point - camera shake
The writer needed 1/100th shutter speed to get a sharp picture using a 50mm prime lens.

More fundamentally a question of the writer's technique (or lack there of!). Most photographers can get great shots at far lower shutter speeds. I can easily shoot handheld at 1/15th or 1/30th no problem (without image stabilisation). 1/60th is plenty sufficient according to the reciprocal rule too.

3. Inability to get sharp focus
Again a huge flaw with the review - the writer uses what he conceded were bad lenses - hazy, cheap ($10!), flawed, ancient (65 yrs old!) - more suited for the scrap heap.

How does one blame the A7's focus peaking/viewfinder etc. for being not good enough to purchase?

If you want half-decent pics, use decent lenses!

@Michael Berg,

& on the subject of an "open mind", perhaps readers ought to be more discerning and learn to question what any review claims instead of taking it all in hook, line and sinker.

"I find 1/125 is a maximum shutter setting I like to shoot at, and go for 1/160 or 1/250 if the light is there, just to be sure."

- I find it odd that an "open mind" sets such arbitrary rules without reference to all the facts of the situation. No reference to focal length (oh right you don't know what the reciprocal rule is) or the speed of the subject matter.

My experience (& obvious knowledge of the basic rules) tells me what (lowest acceptable) shutter speed to use for every situation, for the required sharpness and lowest possible noise, not some arbitrary "maximum".

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 20:25 UTC
On article Using third-party lenses on the Sony a7 / a7R (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

Preternatural Stuff: I have several criticisms of this article (obvious flaws in the review):

1. Problem with the 1/60th shutter speed

This criticism doesn't cut it when most cameras do the same in Program/Aperture priority mode.

2. Related to the 1st point - camera shake
The writer needed 1/100th shutter speed to get a sharp picture using a 50mm prime lens.

More fundamentally a question of the writer's technique (or lack there of!). Most photographers can get great shots at far lower shutter speeds. I can easily shoot handheld at 1/15th or 1/30th no problem (without image stabilisation). 1/60th is plenty sufficient according to the reciprocal rule too.

3. Inability to get sharp focus
Again a huge flaw with the review - the writer uses what he conceded were bad lenses - hazy, cheap ($10!), flawed, ancient (65 yrs old!) - more suited for the scrap heap.

How does one blame the A7's focus peaking/viewfinder etc. for being not good enough to purchase?

If you want half-decent pics, use decent lenses!

@Michael Berg,

1. You acknowledged that focus peaking relies on contrast detection but you can't spot the obvious flaw in the methodology of using foggy lenses from the scrap heap?

2. "If you are walking around taking pictures, you are very likely to see blur at 1/60 regardless of focal length."

I don't think you understand the reciprocal rule, camera shake & what causes picture blurring. Of course FL matters. If u get blurring just cos you are walking around & just cos u are shooting at 1/60th, u are quite a hopeless photog.

None of the reviewers pics involved a moving camera (ég. on a rocking boat or vibrating car), or even fast moving subject matters & yet the reviewer complains about not being able to get a sharp pic. That indicates problems with basic technique &/or lens.

& to think that all my students learn the reciprocal rule as one of the 1st things about shutter speed!

3. I don't own the A7 - why should I defend anything. Why are u defending a badly çonducted review?

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 20:09 UTC
On article Using third-party lenses on the Sony a7 / a7R (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

Preternatural Stuff: I have several criticisms of this article (obvious flaws in the review):

1. Problem with the 1/60th shutter speed

This criticism doesn't cut it when most cameras do the same in Program/Aperture priority mode.

2. Related to the 1st point - camera shake
The writer needed 1/100th shutter speed to get a sharp picture using a 50mm prime lens.

More fundamentally a question of the writer's technique (or lack there of!). Most photographers can get great shots at far lower shutter speeds. I can easily shoot handheld at 1/15th or 1/30th no problem (without image stabilisation). 1/60th is plenty sufficient according to the reciprocal rule too.

3. Inability to get sharp focus
Again a huge flaw with the review - the writer uses what he conceded were bad lenses - hazy, cheap ($10!), flawed, ancient (65 yrs old!) - more suited for the scrap heap.

How does one blame the A7's focus peaking/viewfinder etc. for being not good enough to purchase?

If you want half-decent pics, use decent lenses!

Both of you CLEARLY have NO CLUE what the reciprocal rule is about!

@Provia_fan,

What is the relevance of bringing up APS-C? The A7 is full-frame and any lens attached is full frame. 50mm is 50mm.

Do you even know what the Reciprocal Rule is? If you are using a 50mm (or even 85mm lens) & you need 1/100th or 1/125th of a second, then you, like the writer, are a crap photographer. The average photographer should only need 1/50th s shutter speed to get a sharp pic.

@Michael Berg,

You don't even know what you are talking about, you have a problem reading & also a problem with critical thinking.

The writer uses extremely bad old & hazy fogged up, unsharp lenses. There may be 60+ yr old lenses that are good but the writer used 60+ old lenses that are bad - & then complains about unclear photos & focus peaking not working well. Focus peaking obviously requires sharp lenses to work, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work that out.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 19:26 UTC
On article Using third-party lenses on the Sony a7 / a7R (527 comments in total)

I have several criticisms of this article (obvious flaws in the review):

1. Problem with the 1/60th shutter speed

This criticism doesn't cut it when most cameras do the same in Program/Aperture priority mode.

2. Related to the 1st point - camera shake
The writer needed 1/100th shutter speed to get a sharp picture using a 50mm prime lens.

More fundamentally a question of the writer's technique (or lack there of!). Most photographers can get great shots at far lower shutter speeds. I can easily shoot handheld at 1/15th or 1/30th no problem (without image stabilisation). 1/60th is plenty sufficient according to the reciprocal rule too.

3. Inability to get sharp focus
Again a huge flaw with the review - the writer uses what he conceded were bad lenses - hazy, cheap ($10!), flawed, ancient (65 yrs old!) - more suited for the scrap heap.

How does one blame the A7's focus peaking/viewfinder etc. for being not good enough to purchase?

If you want half-decent pics, use decent lenses!

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 04:24 UTC as 54th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Der Steppenwolf: Great quality. I can see Nikon and Canon sh****** their pants now. Thank you Sony for giving us an alternative.

@samhain - OVF whiner eh? Small FF with an OVF is an oxymoronic statement (contradiction in itself).

You guys juz don't get it.

*Hint -
1. Look inside Sony OLED EVFs on the A7/7R, RX, A99/A77.
2. Turn on all or some of the following:
- Pitch & Level real-time indicators
- focus peaking
- rule-of-third/square/rectangle grid lines
- real-time HISTOGRAM
- press depth of field preview
- point up at the bright sky (highlights), then down at the ground (shadows)
- shoot video like a pro thru the EVF, not like an amateur holding it at arms length
- review stills/video like deja vu in the EVF in bright noon sunlight in Omnimax sharpness.

*Hint 2 - No more
- tilted horizontals
- looking at silly [-3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3] exposure meters
- spot, partial, centre-weighted, matrix metering BS
- spending silly money on focusing screens for yr stupid OVF
- spending on silly massive eye cup over your LCD to shoot video like a pro
- shoot 1st, lower cam, chimp at LCD, bring up cam
- wanting OVF

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2013 at 14:07 UTC
In reply to:

spiderhunter: It appears that Canon and Nikon are so complacent with their toaster-sized DSLRs that they are blind to what is going around them. They can reduce the size of things but they just don't do it. The song "the times they are a-changing" comes to mind. Sure, they still have their lion's share of the pro market but I feel Sony has rocked the boat. The Sony FF mirrorless are still not there yet when it comes to AF tracking abilities ( but great for non-action work) and battery life
but given time and more RD, they will get there. I hope the size of truly capable pro models will get lighter, not heavier.

Hand phones got lighter and smaller. The early models were gigantic by comparison. Compactness and portability is what manufacturers should aim for. Yes, there is a limit as to how small FF lenses can go but striving to reduce sizes and making things lighter are surely the way to go.

Go Sony, go! Show them the way!

@Hugo808 - Yet another one mouthing off without actually having tried it.

Its the same excellent one in the A99 (1 yr ago) & A77 (~2 yrs ago). Only goes to show how outdated ppl can be. Still clutching to yr sacred cow periscope-technology OVF invented more than a century ago for submarines & film eh?

The thing that only allows framing & guessing what the picture will look like?

Those using it know they'll NEVER go back to pentaprism/OVFs. U forget it's not an OVF because it's so real. I won't bother listing the whole laundry list of advantages but suffice to sum up the conceptual breakthrough.

Its about seeing EXACTLY what the sensor is seeing BEFORE the shot. Which in turn is EXACTLY what the image looks like in Photoshop. Sony OLED EVFs can do that. Not LCD EVFs in other crap.

Understand the implications? Nope, cos u're still chimping at the LCD display like a chimp. *Hint - Its truly real time image preview, not delayed-near-real-time-trial-&-error-shoot-1st-think-later-BS.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2013 at 13:06 UTC
On article Zeiss announces 'no compromise' Otus 55mm F1.4 (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kodachrome200: All this stuff about how you dont need AF is sort of misguided. modern cameras are not designed to be manually focused. without using live view or the focus confirmation light your not going to get tac sharp focus. certainly you wont be able to manually focus on the fly the way you were able to with old school SLRs

Maybe that's cos you all are stuck on the old paradigm of optical view finders.

Heard of focus peaking? Electronic viewfinders ...

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 06:26 UTC
On article Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Review (361 comments in total)

High praise indeed and long may it continue for innovation's sake.
My next prime lens (macro) decision would certainly involve considering Sigma.

This also brings to mind what I have said long ago. Optical View Finders are dinosaur/submarine/WWI tech. That is why the focus is impossible to ascertain in the viewfinder.

EVFs are the only way to go. They are so good nowadays, they even offer focus peaking which would allow the photographer to see the point/areas of focus. Its an essential feature which any photographer needs (if only they ditch the OVF).

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 07:08 UTC as 66th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Crack! Did you hear that? That was Sony hitting a home run off of Canon's washed up pitcher.

Nikon wasn't even in the game and Olympus and Panasonic were playing against each-other on the Pee-wee field.

Hasselbad was in the stands cheering on Sony and Pentax was absolutely dominating a game of tether-ball that no one cared to watch.

Fuji was artistically creating a master piece at a beautiful pond nearby. However, their brush broke and they spilled the paint everywhere which just made a huge mess.

@ mpgxsvcd

& where is your source regarding the profit margin for this item? Right then... another post pulled out of your a** ...

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 11:46 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Crack! Did you hear that? That was Sony hitting a home run off of Canon's washed up pitcher.

Nikon wasn't even in the game and Olympus and Panasonic were playing against each-other on the Pee-wee field.

Hasselbad was in the stands cheering on Sony and Pentax was absolutely dominating a game of tether-ball that no one cared to watch.

Fuji was artistically creating a master piece at a beautiful pond nearby. However, their brush broke and they spilled the paint everywhere which just made a huge mess.

@yabokkie

For a persistent troll like you, probably only thing left for you is to use a Zeiss lens FIRST before you mouth off... duh!

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 11:43 UTC

What is it with writers nowadays. Its not the shutter sound that needs muffling!

Its the mirror slap - a dinosaur legacy of hte film era!

Even during the film era, we used rangefinder cameras for theatre productions that demanded it.

Today, if you want silent, any of the gazillion mirrorless or Sony SLT cameras are already inherently so.

Duh...

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2013 at 04:43 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies
On article What Apple announcements mean for mobile photographers (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nikonworks: Apple was and is always over priced.

Android works for me at a much better price.

Ferrari is priced according to the cost of its genuinely expensive high end components and raw materials that is sold to really knowledgeable buyers.

Ford doesn't try to cheat by pricing its cheap low end components to con silly consumers who don't know better.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2013 at 03:05 UTC
On article What Apple announcements mean for mobile photographers (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zalllon: I like the idea of the android platform better, however the reality is most of us don't have time to spend learning how to tweak. From a marketing perspective Apple has it right, the proof is in the numbers. At work we are all given blackberry phones, but there is a large enough group that have iPhones that they are considering iPhone usage. 4 out 5 people I work with have an iPhone, and my whole team we all have iPhone 5's except for one Samsung Note 2. I have friends with the new Samsung S4, and they both carry extra batteries with them. The girl who has it is looking to switch to an iPhone after yesterday's iOS review.

The proof with the numbers?

70% of the smartphone users in the world are using Android. 20% using iPhone.

Most of the people around me are using Android, as befits the stats from IDC/Gartner et al.

You pulled your stats from where? Some figment of your imagination? Some cuckoo world you dreamed up?

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2013 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

Amateur Sony Shooter: Many wining photos were taken with Nikon cameras. Only one winer with NEX5.

@Raincheck, what and how long have you been smoking to make u so really dumb when it comes to semi-conductor manufacturing matters huh... such sensors are made to the same specs off a production line because any change or customisation increases cost tremendously.

Nikon isn't a semi-conductor company so to even suggest they can tell someone like Sony what engineering to build... tsk tsk... All Nikon did was come up with the firmware and software.

Of course, I'm NOT KIDDING! Yes, no, not, maybe? Go ahead Nikon users, poke back.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2013 at 21:24 UTC
Total: 143, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »