Preternatural Stuff

Joined on Mar 3, 2012

Comments

Total: 143, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous5678Next ›Last »
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.

.

What tosh about small print sizes! Any pic looks nice in small sizes -screen or print.

I learnt my photography during the film days and will NEVER want to go back to rolling my own Provia slide film from 100ft roll canisters in black bags, fighting against X-ray machines at airports and paying money for film & development.

You dinosaurs are not limited by age but more outdated in your attitudes. You need to stop living in your cave and get some sun.

N.B. Most photogs serious enough about the art do use more than 25% of our cam's capabilities, perhaps not you.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 16:40 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 samples gallery (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Three lenses all defocusing on the right. I think someone licked the SLT mirror. I can't see DPReview having three lenses all with decentering issues. This is a camera issue. I'd bet that SLT mirror got touched somehow.

70-400G The entire right side of image is blurred. Center very sharp. Left sharp enough.

16-35 ZA Entire right side of image blurred crazy. Sharp center and left.

ZA 24-70 Wild field curvature on right side. Front grass on right is sharp. Center sharp. Trees at top rear peak sharp. But trees at top right blurred. They should be sharp, being centered between rear trees and forground grass. Image left side is sharp within focus plane.

Come on DPReview... you're not looking at your samples close enough. Something is wrong here. If you want us to look at them 100%... then you should too. Something is amiss with the landscapes on three different lenses.

You're looking at JPEGs taken perhaps with questionable technique and subject choices, true enough.

But to say they are shockingly bad and/or having major lens failure or defocusing on one side (what?) etc. is ludicrous. That's only because some of the subject matters were taken from the side.

No need to get your knickers into a twist ... wait for the RAW files I say ...

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 16:22 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 samples gallery (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Three lenses all defocusing on the right. I think someone licked the SLT mirror. I can't see DPReview having three lenses all with decentering issues. This is a camera issue. I'd bet that SLT mirror got touched somehow.

70-400G The entire right side of image is blurred. Center very sharp. Left sharp enough.

16-35 ZA Entire right side of image blurred crazy. Sharp center and left.

ZA 24-70 Wild field curvature on right side. Front grass on right is sharp. Center sharp. Trees at top rear peak sharp. But trees at top right blurred. They should be sharp, being centered between rear trees and forground grass. Image left side is sharp within focus plane.

Come on DPReview... you're not looking at your samples close enough. Something is wrong here. If you want us to look at them 100%... then you should too. Something is amiss with the landscapes on three different lenses.

What are you talking about? Defocusing/decentering/smudged SLT? Are you implying that any manufacturer would allow the publishing of sample shots taken with faulty equipment?

More like you totally mistook shallow DOF with lens fault! This is full frame after all.

They look fine to me. & I'm not even a Sony user!

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

GordonAtWork: Is that why it costs over a grand ?

You live in an unreal world detached from reality... wait ... Hollywood did you say? No wonder.

Hollywood types are quite airheads who spend money on stupid things while thinking they are cool...nothing new. Wait … I reckon there's an Apple parallel there...?

In all the competitive commercial tenders, whether private, public sector or MNCs, I have yet to see an Apple solution. & I'm talking about computers ordered in their hundreds or thousands. That's why Apple is non-existent in the enterprise field.

"iPhone high resale value" claims are not something to be proud of but something to be ashamed of! It only proves that iPhone users are utterly clueless. Buy a used phones with sealed batteries most likely worn out? Not in my life. Pay $320 for a one year old Apple product (equivalent to 2-3 year old relic in normal world IT time)? Shoot me 1st.

Name an app not available on Android & I will name you ten that are available on Android but can never be available on Apple.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 04:59 UTC
On article Canon EOS M hands-on preview (566 comments in total)

@hoggdoc - "All for a few bucks more"? - Typical BS about the M4/3 value proposition (or lack thereof). I used to want M4/3 to succeed but no more.

Products with smaller sensors and less glass @ equivalent focal length costs more? What kind of fool do the M4/3 makers take consumers for?

M4/3 will never beat a larger sensor for image quality. Look at the comments by your kind of M4/3 users filled with stuff like "nearly as good", "almost as good" qualifiers.

M4/3 will never beat the 35mm or APS-C system for sensor image quality (bokeh, depth of field, noise). Ditto for range of lenses - something any photographer worth his salt knows is what ultimately matters. Please - no nonsense about using the best M4/3 prime lenses to compare IQ with 35mm/APS-C bodies with kit lenses. The best 35mm prime lenses on a 35mm/APS-C body, will blow your measly minds.

M4/3 should be cheaper but instead costs more on an IQ-per-dollar basis. Understand why I refuse to get M4/3 yet?

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2012 at 05:12 UTC as 79th comment | 3 replies

Funny how the people who have neither tried their hands on this adapter nor the EOS-M cry out the death of the EOS-M.

Funny how they neglect to mention that it costs HALF the price of an EOS-M.

Funny how they also neglect to mention that third party products almost always never guarantee 100% compatibility nor functionality (as illustrated by the product recall).

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2012 at 02:43 UTC as 3rd comment

Funny how the fools who slam the EOS-M neglect to point out that this thingie costs half the EOS-M.

& they still have to buy an NEX. & still have crap functionality.

Oh yeah cos they're the M4/3 & NEX users facing chronic cognitive dissonance.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 03:19 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

gsum: No doubt the image quality and lenses will be of the usual high standard but no optical viewfinder and a plethora of 'features' such as the ridiculous touch screen.
Shame on Canon for producing another gimmick ridden toy.

@gsum - R u not capable of reading anything. There are the numerous hands-on videos for you gen-Youtube types.

A single touch on the touchscreen can focus AND shoot immediately if you choose to enable that. The touchscreen is the future & any Android user will understand that. Changes & improvements can be implemented with a download, not a new body. You can customize endlessly. Your face isn't plastered to the back of the camera, so if you are framing with the screen, the touchscreen IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO.

You're obviously still living in a cave.

All the idiots are complaining without reading the positive reviews of the UI & whining without having used them yet. Amazingly ludicrous. This is supposed to be a serious forum of repute?!

Regarding the common complaint that the price is high? Of course I'd like lower prices too. But blame it on M4/3 - the prices are ridiculous given the inferior quality !!!

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: This is the EOS-M killer!!

This is exactly what is needed by all those Canon owners who have been waiting for a Canon mirrorless camera and who are now giving up on Canon releasing anything worthwhile any time soon.

This Kipon adapter will allow all Canon EOS lenses to be mounted and therefore also stabilised on the Olympus E-M5, since a builtin IBIS should work with any lens.

Who is still going to buy the Canon EOS-M at $1000 apparently for the camera plus the Canon adapter now? How can such a basic camera sell? It was released apparently to target Canon owners who have Canon lenses, since no new buyers will buy such a camera, but this adapter is going to make it very hard to sell even to Canon owners.

"if this Kipon adapter works"

Who thinks it is going to provide full AF/AE performance with Canon's EF lenses? U gotta kidding me!

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2012 at 08:04 UTC
In reply to:

Preternatural Stuff: Look, I want all the camera manufacturers to buck up, but so much of the arguments here are just plain stupid.

"Pocketable or not" - Which mirrorless camera is pocketable with a lens attached (save for the smallest of pancake lenses)? To slam this product's largish sensor is stupid cos its a good thing.

"Cost" - Who wouldn't want things to be cheaper? Yet, there are idiots who claim the NEX or M4/3 is cheaper?
- Only the top of the line NEX has a better sensor & its more expensive by far.
- M4/3? Some bodies may be cheaper but all have inferior IQ, inferior noise & inferior resolution. The usual excuse that they come close is BS. Everything is similar if you print from at 4R or view at VGA resolution.
M4/3 lenses - Like I keep saying, only decent lenses are the primes. Zooms are crap & the pro zooms with large f2 apertures are so ridiculously large, heavy and expensive... don't get me started.

Not impressed with the value proposition of either NEX or M4/3.

To be continued...

@Plastek - So what's the point u're making?
Cheaper at what IQ level? "people telling facts"? I've done my sums & NEX or M4/3 with lens combos at the equivalent IQ levels cost no less! What facts do you have? Notice I've always been stressing apple-apple comparisons.

NEX 5 sensor is superb to you? Against what? U've downloaded the EOS-M samples yet?

NEX has more lenses? More than Canon's APS-C range? You gotta be having a laugh.
And when you throw in the entire EF range (plus the 2 STM ones)...

This pocketability thing is ridiculous. Didn't I just say anything with pancake lenses are the only to stuff mirrorless into pocket?

If you're such a cam-in-your-crotch fan, buy the STM with the EOS-M. V. few choices in pancake lenses across all brands, so its obviously a niche thing. I don't understand all that whining?

@999 - U're not getting it. NEX5 vs Nex7 is a reso-vs-noise compromise issue. Doesn't mean one sensor is better than another. But it means a larger sensor is always better.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 03:55 UTC
In reply to:

Preternatural Stuff: "Size/weight" - Compare apples to apples pls, else its just stupid.
- EOS-M with STM pancake lens is as pocketable as anything on the market.
- with an APS-C lens, its no different from any NEX
- vis a vis a M4/3, it's an apple to orange comparison - an APS-C sensor with APS-C lenses or 35mm lenses offers superior IQ.

"IQ" - Don't kid me with stupid arguments that there is no difference between M4/3 & APS-C. Think the bokeh from a prime lens M4/3 is sweet? Think bokeh from an EF 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm on APS-C. Lenses u can get for a song & which are light and compact.

Back to the value proposition then. M4/3 being open standard & universal somehow manages to rip off consumers. Smaller size, lower material costs and lower IQ somehow equals high price? Why?

I hate the fact that Canon/Nikon are not offering consumers true value (i.e. no in-body image stabilization).

I hope for better value for consumers but for that to happen the quality of the arguments here have got to improve.

I find it ridiculous that there are arguments of top of the line M4/3 lens combos matching or beating consumer grade EFs. Are the ppl trying too hard or they trying to pull a fast one.

Really? M4/3 f1.4 having better IQ & bokeh? M4/3 f1.4 does not have the same shallow depth of field of an 35mm format f1.4 (even on APS-C). Its just physics, not opinion.

@Andy Crowe - M4/3 users like yrself try too hard to make M4/3 sound as good as APS-C, evidenced by yr bringing in of something totally irrelevant - comparisons against full-frame! What?
U make generalist comments like M4/3 lenses are "best in class". Nonsense, there are crap kit lenses and zoom lenses with the M4/3, so don't kid me! Like I KEEP SAYING - only the top M4/3 primes are any good & they cost no less than the top 35mm format ones. Value in M4/3 - never felt so!

4. "This ... sensor is a dog of a sensor, easily matched by 4/3 and even the Nikon 1 sensor."
- Exactly the kind of gibberish I mentioned blighting this thread.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 03:33 UTC
In reply to:

Preternatural Stuff: "Size/weight" - Compare apples to apples pls, else its just stupid.
- EOS-M with STM pancake lens is as pocketable as anything on the market.
- with an APS-C lens, its no different from any NEX
- vis a vis a M4/3, it's an apple to orange comparison - an APS-C sensor with APS-C lenses or 35mm lenses offers superior IQ.

"IQ" - Don't kid me with stupid arguments that there is no difference between M4/3 & APS-C. Think the bokeh from a prime lens M4/3 is sweet? Think bokeh from an EF 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm on APS-C. Lenses u can get for a song & which are light and compact.

Back to the value proposition then. M4/3 being open standard & universal somehow manages to rip off consumers. Smaller size, lower material costs and lower IQ somehow equals high price? Why?

I hate the fact that Canon/Nikon are not offering consumers true value (i.e. no in-body image stabilization).

I hope for better value for consumers but for that to happen the quality of the arguments here have got to improve.

Recurring theme still: Non apple-apple comparisons again.

1. Pocketability - @999 - Seriously, does any self-respecting photog look to stuff theirs into pants pockets? U either break something or u look like u hv a permanent Viagra hard-on bulge. Let it rest unless u strictly go for pancake lenses. Like I keep saying, anything with pancake lenses might fit into pockets.

Don't use stupid comparisons like "But but it won't fit into pockets with APS-C lenses & adapters". You don't try to stuff an NEX into yr pants so don't whine that this one can't.

2. M4/3 users try too hard with silly apple-oranges comparisons. @DarkShift - U use top-of-the-line M4/3 prime lenses to talk bokeh and resolutions - vis-a-vis consumer EF lenses? How much do the Zuiko 45/1.8 or Summilux 25mm f/1.4 cost?

@999 - Know how much the equivalent quality EF 50mm f1.4/f1.8, EF 85mm f1.2/f1.8 costs? Do u even know the IQ u get with those? Not just the bokeh but the depth of field?

To be continued ...

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 03:29 UTC

"Size/weight" - Compare apples to apples pls, else its just stupid.
- EOS-M with STM pancake lens is as pocketable as anything on the market.
- with an APS-C lens, its no different from any NEX
- vis a vis a M4/3, it's an apple to orange comparison - an APS-C sensor with APS-C lenses or 35mm lenses offers superior IQ.

"IQ" - Don't kid me with stupid arguments that there is no difference between M4/3 & APS-C. Think the bokeh from a prime lens M4/3 is sweet? Think bokeh from an EF 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm on APS-C. Lenses u can get for a song & which are light and compact.

Back to the value proposition then. M4/3 being open standard & universal somehow manages to rip off consumers. Smaller size, lower material costs and lower IQ somehow equals high price? Why?

I hate the fact that Canon/Nikon are not offering consumers true value (i.e. no in-body image stabilization).

I hope for better value for consumers but for that to happen the quality of the arguments here have got to improve.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 08:21 UTC as 75th comment | 9 replies

Look, I want all the camera manufacturers to buck up, but so much of the arguments here are just plain stupid.

"Pocketable or not" - Which mirrorless camera is pocketable with a lens attached (save for the smallest of pancake lenses)? To slam this product's largish sensor is stupid cos its a good thing.

"Cost" - Who wouldn't want things to be cheaper? Yet, there are idiots who claim the NEX or M4/3 is cheaper?
- Only the top of the line NEX has a better sensor & its more expensive by far.
- M4/3? Some bodies may be cheaper but all have inferior IQ, inferior noise & inferior resolution. The usual excuse that they come close is BS. Everything is similar if you print from at 4R or view at VGA resolution.
M4/3 lenses - Like I keep saying, only decent lenses are the primes. Zooms are crap & the pro zooms with large f2 apertures are so ridiculously large, heavy and expensive... don't get me started.

Not impressed with the value proposition of either NEX or M4/3.

To be continued...

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 07:54 UTC as 80th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: A small camera with the quality of an APS-C sensor and a smartphone-like interface is very good idea.

The market for P&S cameras is shrinking because we have passable cameras in our phones, so offering a camera that's a huge step up from a P&S in terms of image quality is a good strategy. It's not supposed to appeal to DSLR owners who are tired of carrying their heavy gear; it's supposed to appeal to people who want something better than the output from their iPhones, and who like the touch interface. But the price does seem out of line with the rest of the market.

For those comments that trash this first offering: Canon could either start at the top and build something to compete with he NEX-7 or it could do something a bit easier, for a larger market. If I was Canon, I'd choose to start with a proof-of -concept camera like this. Just wait for the next version and you'll get your EVF.

@Francis Sawyer

Smartphone-like interface is the ONLY progressive step. Who the hell doesn't use one except for grandparents (& yourself?). Even with a smartphone, you can turn off a lock screen, unless you are using something from a fruit company or you are somebody who believes whatever that fruit company tells u.

$25 for a remote? There are things like DSLR controller from Chainfire that you can use to do that with any USB cable & an Android.

Try crawling outta that cave. The next real innovation frontier are digital cameras running on Android OS that allows 3rd party app development.

A lot of the critics seems to be dyslexic in some way. The reviews seem to have given it the best reviews ever about a touch screen interface. But the empty vessels here seem to have dissed it without having touched it? Can't figure it out.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 03:29 UTC
In reply to:

mvxray: Pros:
* compact design
* EF adapter gives access to large range of good lenses
* nice large high res screen

Cons
* ugly
* only 2 lenses available (that can be used without adapter)
* ergonomics
* no accessory mount for EVF etc.
* no build-in flash
* and did I mention ugly ?

Conclusion
VERY UNDERWHELMING ! I think most people agree: " Too little too late"

I was so looking forward to Canon's mirror-less camera thinking they would come up with something really nice, instead we get this.

@NetMage
"fixed focal length kit lens" - is NOT a con! Its called a prime lens. Change it if u are like those 18-200mm freaks.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 03:12 UTC
In reply to:

Preternatural Stuff: Really unimpressed ... with the rants & uninformed whines.

I, too, wished it was full-frame 36MP, with EVF, in-body IS, universal lens mount for any brand, brain-wave thought reading capability etc.

Wished it had more DSLR knobs & dials, but er... wouldn't it be juz ... bigger?

Here's my take. I've been wanting to upgrade my derelict Canon DSLRs.
I've seen friends who like me aren't as free to shoot seriously due to work (& age/maturity related laziness) give up their DSLR systems to downgrade to M4/3. But I've got my L lenses & EFS10-22mm, EX580IIs etc.

The thought of having to get all the new lenses & flashes to go with a new system would have been a royal pain. Plus, I did not want to give up on DSLR quality images.

EOS-M would allow me to use it with small prime or STM lenses if minimal size/weight was everything. Yet I can selectively bring any one of my heavy artillery glass if need be without bringing my DSLR with vertical grip.

There... the raison d'etre for the EOS-M?

@ DarkShift

I have to agree with @zxaar on this. You can't have your cake & eat it too.

All things being the same, the APS-C has 18MP of resolution, way more resolution than most M4/3s & second only to the top of the line NEX. In most comparisons, all things being the same, noise levels will always be at least as good if not better. Its the laws of physics.

I don't know why you bring up the M4/3 vs 1st gen APS-C sensor thing. This is hardly a 1st generation APS-C sensor, its the latest.

Talking about the diff between APS-C & FF is moot & irrelevant too. There isn't any on the market, stop dreaming. I was only kidding. Anyway, all the whiners who complain about a 35mm system FF lens being blasphemous on a mirrorless body would get their knickers in a twist about that.

I on the other hand always feel, use whatever lens on whatever body that gets the shot!

C'mon guys, I'm still waiting to be convinced by a sensible, logical criticism.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

richard2012: Contrary to many negative comments, I believe Canon has pulled off the best introduction of a mirrorless system (and I am a Nikon/Sony user).

Which other mirrorless system had (on launch date) such a vast choice of available full function lenses(albeit with an EF adapter) and flashes? While the Alpha NEX lens adapter requires aperture and AF electronics($$$), the EF adapter is nothing more than a tube with contacts. Canon is just milking that cash cow, and can just give it away if they choose. Expect third party EF to EF-M adapters that costs much less, yet retain full EF/EF-S compatibility.

Okay, it does not presently have an EVF, but that HDMI output can be easily wired to one. As for PDAF, let's wait patiently for production firmware.

The only thing missing I see is the remote release socket, but who knows, perhaps even that is implemented via the USB? Or, perhaps a release socket on an add-on ($$$) battery grip ?

I see lots of potential with the EOS-M system.

Actually, the remote release socket can be easily done with the USB port.

Chainfire's DSLR Controller for Canon DSLRs already shows that one can get all that functionality with an Android phone and any length USB cable.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 17:00 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: This is the camera what we need !
Simple, small, light weight and able to use the whole range of Canon lenses.
An excellent choice for business travel.
I will take this one instead of NEX or other cameras with smaller sensor.

@Dave Oddie - Yr "second lightweight system" would involve carrying a not so lightweight second set of lens systems? Er, yeah right, like that makes sense?

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

Preternatural Stuff: Really unimpressed ... with the rants & uninformed whines.

I, too, wished it was full-frame 36MP, with EVF, in-body IS, universal lens mount for any brand, brain-wave thought reading capability etc.

Wished it had more DSLR knobs & dials, but er... wouldn't it be juz ... bigger?

Here's my take. I've been wanting to upgrade my derelict Canon DSLRs.
I've seen friends who like me aren't as free to shoot seriously due to work (& age/maturity related laziness) give up their DSLR systems to downgrade to M4/3. But I've got my L lenses & EFS10-22mm, EX580IIs etc.

The thought of having to get all the new lenses & flashes to go with a new system would have been a royal pain. Plus, I did not want to give up on DSLR quality images.

EOS-M would allow me to use it with small prime or STM lenses if minimal size/weight was everything. Yet I can selectively bring any one of my heavy artillery glass if need be without bringing my DSLR with vertical grip.

There... the raison d'etre for the EOS-M?

Further comparisons as & when they come...

@Winston Loo: "Fuji X100" - I find mention of this as a competitor STUPID. Its a FIXED lens camera!!!

If I want super light weight, a top prime lens on the EOS-M would match/beat anything out there in terms of price/weight/volume/performance?

Surely I'm not the only photographer left who feels that lens variety/choice & selection is what makes a photographer?

(Things like AF/handling etc. aside until actual test results pls.)

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 09:43 UTC
Total: 143, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous5678Next ›Last »