TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1398, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Tequila MockingjayBird: Can I flip up the SLT mirror and use it like the A7 with the on sensor PDAF?

No, the mirror is larger than a moving one and extends beyond the mount/throat when flipped up for cleaning. In part because of the different angle and in part because it requires a surrounding frame for structural integrity (it's thin like foil, though not nearly as delicate as the one found in Canon's old pellicle cameras)

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 05:58 UTC
In reply to:

Spongemac: tempting, but at ~30% light diverted to autofocus, I wonder its low light performance. a99 (previous version) low light performance wasn't too impressive according to dxomark. thats important to me for poorly lit indoor shots.

30% on the log2 scale equates to 0.5 EV. Looking at Dxomark measurements between Sony cameras with and without the beamsplitter while employing the exact same sensor, we see differences ranging between 0.33 and 0.5 EV, depending on the cameras you compare. Which is in line with German lab measurements of the SLT mirror some years as ago, which came to a 20 to 30 / 80 to 70 ratio over the visible light spectrum for a 60 degree angle (as used here).

It doesn't really impact the maximum DR or color depth at low ISO (if not limited by shutterspeed) , since a slightly longer shutterspeed can compensate.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 05:50 UTC
In reply to:

DamianFI: So, what does this have that my 7RII doesn't?
Is it just the ability to shoot at 12fps? (which is pretty cool given all those pixels).

I'd like my 7RII to be faster, operationally, I don't shoot sports so don't need the burst rate to be higher.

I have just skimmed through the heap of text and can't see much different.
It's cool that they are keeping A mount alive, but apart from the 1.8/135, I see no point.

Having more direct controls (including that joystick for AF selection and quick navigation, also the silent control ring at the front and top LCD) is part of better ergonomics, as is the more substantial grip on the camera itself, that will also fit the pinky for example.

The A99II is rated at 390 shots (CIPA) using the EVF, the A7RII at 290 shots. Using the LCD that's respectively 490 vs 340 shots. This is also a result of the larger battery and the gap widens when you add the optional (A77II) vertical battery grip vs the OEM grip for the A7RII.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 08:59 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: I read as much as I could, but didn't see if there was a silent shooting mode like the mirrorless A7s line. Even if it slowed everything down it would still be a nice option for those of us who need no click at all during various events.

Anyone see anything I missed? Any silent shutter mode?

This is where the flicker reduction should help too (exposure for peak brightness during light cycle).

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 17:26 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Blown: What a lame article. Disappointed that Canon didn't release this camera two years ago. You're excited by the Samsung camera????? Go for it. I'm sure Samsung's got some hot cameras coming out - S7 :)

Why write about Canon if you're so in love with Sony. Move on ... Sheesh, or get some therapy.

A bit short sighted. The main reason why Samsung was bleeding in the camera market, is because they were entering a mature market. It's hard to get noticed, even with unique features (of which many do work as advertised and are helpful to many, contrary to the suggestion and generalization above). Not to mention the chicken/egg issue: camera development vs lens line development. There's always one area lacking when new, compared to the competition.

Meaning, the addition of leading edge technology, doesn't have to be a reason for bleeding. See Sony. Without it, they probably wouldn't exist anymore, with it, they earned credits and (more $$$ paying) customers.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 12:58 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: tldr: barney trolls canon fanboys with a click bait title.

Sony adds better video but increased the time it takes to look at your picture from 22 to 36 seconds after a 4 second jpeg burst and you praise the former while not even mentioning the latter (A6300 review).

Canon does everything you asked, no holds barred puts everything from it's latest and greatest APS-C DSLR into a mirrorless, the best ever, equal footing with sony and it's a big ...... disappointment.
Wow.

ref from IR A6300 review: Buffer clearing after max-length bursts took some time even with a fast UHS-I SDHC card, though, ranging between 15 seconds after a max-length burst of RAW files, to a rather lengthy 36 seconds after a max-length burst of Large / Extra Fine JPEGs, and the camera won't let you adjust settings or view just-shot photos while the buffer is clearing.

"but increased the time it takes to look at your picture from 22 to 36 seconds after a 4 second jpeg burst"

Not if you select the same jpeg quality. The A6300 adds "extra fine", which leads to larger files and thus longer clearing times, IF you decide to use it. Not sure why you left that critical part out of the IR quote, unless it had to fit an agenda.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 12:52 UTC
In reply to:

Spongemac: tempting, but at ~30% light diverted to autofocus, I wonder its low light performance. a99 (previous version) low light performance wasn't too impressive according to dxomark. thats important to me for poorly lit indoor shots.

But at least up to ISO 51200 pretty competitive with the best out there in low light:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_2=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_3=nikon_d5&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&normalization=compare&widget=267&x=0.1823262839879154&y=0.9963989972960794

Even if we substract 0.33 to 0.5 EV from those results because of the beamsplitter in the A99II, performance should still be impressive (read: similar to the 5DmkIV, likely a hair better than the D810 still).

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 12:37 UTC
In reply to:

DamianFI: So, what does this have that my 7RII doesn't?
Is it just the ability to shoot at 12fps? (which is pretty cool given all those pixels).

I'd like my 7RII to be faster, operationally, I don't shoot sports so don't need the burst rate to be higher.

I have just skimmed through the heap of text and can't see much different.
It's cool that they are keeping A mount alive, but apart from the 1.8/135, I see no point.

Better ergonomics with more direct controls, larger battery (34-44% longer battery life according to CIPA standards), more flexible LCD, improved AF (a dedicated 79 point AF module on top of the on sensor AF), SLog3, flicker reduction, less viewfinder blackout/delay, etc.

Targeted more at faster paced subjects and specifically to please A mount users.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 12:24 UTC
In reply to:

Ralf B: The thing holding me back from buying is the need to update my computer right along. 42 MP in 14 bit uncompressed RAW (that is an assumption until seen in specs or reviews) appears a tad too much for my 2012 MacMini 2.7GHz i7 which flies through the 24 MP 12 bit RAWs of my trusted A900s ... Worst of all, the need to leave 10.6.8 to get the latest RAW updates in Apple's OS.
But nice move, Sony! Well done!

Hi Ralf, the specs sheet on the Sony website lists uncompressed RAW as being available in the Hi+ mode (see buffer specs), so that will indeed deliver quite the amount of data... per second!

That being said, the good part is that uncompressed RAW files tend to open much faster in editing/conversion programs like Photoshop or Lightroom, than compressed RAW files. Simply because they don't have to be uncompressed first.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Looks like they hired a designer too. Normally, I wouldn't notice, but with so many models that look like Lego, this one has a pretty slick appearance.

It's modeled exactly after previous A mount cameras.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: FE mount users asked for a A9 but instead they get an A mount A99 II.

I haven't seen such cruelty since Olympus killed the 4/3 mount.

Between 6k and 3.2K, there's a whole lot of room for a larger E mount camera (with optional vertical grip), faster frame rate, larger battery, better menu, more direct controls and better AF system.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: FE mount users asked for a A9 but instead they get an A mount A99 II.

I haven't seen such cruelty since Olympus killed the 4/3 mount.

@FuhTeng

Except that Sony already released high end lenses clearly targeted at a higher end camera and the rumor that mentioned an A99II some time ago with reworked menu etc (all true), mentioned an A9 too.

I'm willing to take a bet that it will be released between now and 6 months, I won't take that bet for Oly/Pana or Fuji the next 3 years, regarding a FF high end camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: FE mount users asked for a A9 but instead they get an A mount A99 II.

I haven't seen such cruelty since Olympus killed the 4/3 mount.

Who said the A9 isn't in the works or about to be released too? It's pretty clear that this isn't aimed at E mount users...

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:44 UTC
In reply to:

dbo: I mean, appreciated for those who invested a lot into A mount Zeiss and G glass.
But to be honest, it is an A7RII in an A99 body.

The good is the expected faster AF, and for sure the FM500 battery I would love to have in a slightly bigger A7 body style.

Appears to have a much faster processor too, being able to process more than twice as much data per second (5fps vs 12fps).

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:42 UTC
In reply to:

Barbu: Now, why would they cripple such a nice camera by giving it an EVF instead of the optical viewfinder? Their other SLTs were just glorified mirorrless cameras, but with the added disadvantage of still having the mirror as a hindrance for the sensor *and* the main AF module. At least it doesn't have to flap around...
I think an A900mkII would have been much more welcomed.

The ISO score, no doubt, but 1/3 stop represents 5 points on the DXO total score. The A7RII using version 1 of this sensor scored 98 points, the 5DMKIV 91 points.

Either way, low light performance should be similar (the A7RII has up to half a stop less shadow noise at high ISO's, see DR curves) and the maximum DR at low ISO will probably be a notch higher.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

Interestingness: OMG, It doesn't have 4k video?

SONY IS DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!! What is this, 2012 technology?

It has 4K video with full pixel readout (on the surface used), which means 1.8X oversampling.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:24 UTC
In reply to:

Emadn13: it's so bad and so expensive with this options against rivals,you compare it with a6300?really? it's not even close to a6000 with 500$ price
canon always use smaller apsc sensors than others,focus points are less than a6000,a6300 425 focus points would destroy this cam
and worst batterylife,and it's too big almost bigger than sony FF mirrorless cameras

It's a nice addition but when using the EVF, it doesn't add at much as when using the rear screen directly for framing.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 13:31 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV added to studio scene comparison (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vincent AF: In RAW still behind the Sony A7rII and the Nikon D810. Well, they will still sell loads of them, even at the high price they are asking.

I don't see it being sharper either, low or high ISO.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.6084522022293949&y=-0.2923300950537336

The DR on the Canon seems good though, minus some patterns (vertical banding in deep shadows).

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 09:38 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV added to studio scene comparison (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

Interestingness: It just keeps getting better and better with this new Canon 5D IV - holy smokes! Very solid performance with this 30MP sensor.

- the 85 1.8 is really holding up well
- all 4 of the cameras are crazy good at low ISO. If you get nose prints on your monitor trying pick out any difference, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
- turning up the ISO up though & things change (i only check RAW) - the D810 really starts to get really noisy (relative to the others) at 3200 and its much more noticeable at 6400 rubbing away detail
- the A7R II is totally outgunned by the Canon! At ISO 6400 there is still plenty of detail in the Sony (its 42MP remember) but its shifting colour - the grey-black background is going green (at least on my monitor) and there is more noise. Above that when you go to crazy ISOs like 25,600 the Sony, Nikon and less so the 5D 3 are all noticably noisier and the Sony is doing wierd things like the whites are starting to glow, yet are still razor sharp on the Canon.

Impressive!

Low light is usually short in the blue spectrum, which is why say ISO 25k comparisons under daylight spectrum have little value for low light shooting conditions. With the low light spectrum simulation, both deep shadows, mid grey and all color patches are more noisy on the Canon.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.15343546139046682&y=0.8869141148001519

The white "bleeding" that you're seeing, seems more related to the AA (or lack of) filter, noise and resampling algorithm (used in the comparison tool) interacting with one another. Because at the native output resolution, the edges are pretty "hard".

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 08:36 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV added to studio scene comparison (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vincent AF: In RAW still behind the Sony A7rII and the Nikon D810. Well, they will still sell loads of them, even at the high price they are asking.

"The Mark iv looks better at higher ISOs that both the 810 and the Sony."

I wonder where people see that.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=print&widget=1&x=0.11753038801274512&y=0.9077038562713355

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 08:27 UTC
Total: 1398, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »