rbach44

Joined on Nov 4, 2011

Comments

Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1486 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: Playing the devil’s advocate here, but I’m trying to get an answer too: Whats the point of the SLT concept?

Its like mirrorless without the size/adaptability advantage (The two big advantages of mirrorless to me). It seems weird to have a camera with the bulk of an SLR but without an optical viewfinder.

Are there people that prefer EVFs to OVFs? I was never comfortable with them. I went mirrorless twice and ended up going back to SLRs each time. Even good EVFs feel like I’m looking at a computer screen with my scene on it.

Also, is the supposed advantage in AF functionality that great? My D600 has more than useful AF, my old D700 was a beast, and the pro Canikons are unbelievably good in this area. Remembers the 9 point AF that pros would use for sports back in the day? Are these new complex systems THAT necessary?

It seems like a solution looking for a problem to me, but I may be missing something. People seem to really like them. Perhaps I’m officially an old SLR fogey.

lhkjacky,

That makes sense. I think that is preference, that was something that really bugged me about my old A7:

Personally, I’m not sure I want to see my final image in the viewfinder. I like seeing the scene. I know what the image is going to look like with the settings, etc. that I’ve chosen. Sort of like shooting film, I keep my LCD off while shooting and I’ll take a look on the ride home if I like. Maybe I like the experience of seeing “real life” and knowing how it will translate to capture.

Besides, the fact at you’re seeing the JPEG settings through the viewfinder and not the full raw info (that can’t really be displayed properly anyway) was a little misleading to me. Its not WYSIWYG if you shoot raw.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 17:19 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1486 comments in total)

Playing the devil’s advocate here, but I’m trying to get an answer too: Whats the point of the SLT concept?

Its like mirrorless without the size/adaptability advantage (The two big advantages of mirrorless to me). It seems weird to have a camera with the bulk of an SLR but without an optical viewfinder.

Are there people that prefer EVFs to OVFs? I was never comfortable with them. I went mirrorless twice and ended up going back to SLRs each time. Even good EVFs feel like I’m looking at a computer screen with my scene on it.

Also, is the supposed advantage in AF functionality that great? My D600 has more than useful AF, my old D700 was a beast, and the pro Canikons are unbelievably good in this area. Remembers the 9 point AF that pros would use for sports back in the day? Are these new complex systems THAT necessary?

It seems like a solution looking for a problem to me, but I may be missing something. People seem to really like them. Perhaps I’m officially an old SLR fogey.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 15:53 UTC as 109th comment | 8 replies

Dear Nikon,

While we’re on the subject of compacts, please follow up the Coolpix A. I still use mine every day.

Or at least let me buy new one. Mine is missing everything that is not attached the body (including battery door and almost all of the screws) and may be in the running for dustiest sensor of all time. Oh and whoever owned it before me certainly dropped it and set it to automatically comment every image with the phrase “<<<POOP”.

Still makes stunning images though…

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 19:14 UTC as 190th comment

Ive said it before and I’l say it again about BVW’s work:

Great concept, well thought out execution, but why the heavy Photoshop work to make it look like CGI or a Photoshop render? Its a mystery to me considering the amount of work that clearly went in to doing it all in-camera.

Weak presentation of otherwise awesome work.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 16:14 UTC as 28th comment
On article Meet two nomadic photographers who travel full-time (152 comments in total)

Two things:

1. Perhaps I’m being naive, but why would someone pay $$$ for a photography tour from someone who isn’t a local or some kind of expert on the area? A tourist paying a more experienced tourist to show them around a foreign country? Why not just read some guides and explore on your own? Its far more rewarding.

2. Does no one consider the ethical considerations of the people they shoot? So often we see pictures of wrinkly old people from other places that is clear there is no interaction or understanding these people. They are treated like animals in a zoo and probably have no idea that they are being used to market a (comparatively) super wealthy westerner’s business. I believe that people have a right to shoot other people in public, even sometimes without their consent, but his just seems exploitative.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 15:23 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)

Word from a retouching professional:

Fake bokeh either looks terrible or takes way to long to do correctly. It doesn’t fool anyone, makes our brains feel wierd, and lends a CGI/Photoshop art sheen to the image. It will only look right the background has no depth and neither does the subject. So it your shooting a cardboard cutout against a flat wall, go and ahead fake it all day. But with 3d subjects it is very very difficult or time consuming to get right. Our brains are better at recognizing these things than we realize.

Don’t do it unless you want you images to jump out as amateur. Besides, does the world need another thoughtless image of a person/flower/cat etc. in front of a wall of blur?

Oh by the way the lens looks pretty cool too…

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 20:55 UTC as 12th comment
On article Leica and Huawei to create joint R&D center (90 comments in total)

You know what would be really cool? If this partnership actually worked out well for both parties. Perhaps Leica can produce something quality at a reasonable cost and ditch some of their nice but frivolous features (sapphire LCD covers?). Maybe it will be a merging of German engineering and Chinese mass manufacturing skills and we’ll all be happier that way.

But if modern history is any example, the only thing that will come of it are Chinese phones with a red dot and ASPH logos on it…

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 17:58 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)

Full frame user (switched from M43 once upon a time) not looking to troll but asking an honest question:

Looking at the 25mm 1.2 makes me think the same thing as when I saw the f.95 Noktons: Isn’t this just the wrong system for shallow DOF? Putting a big, heavy, and expensive lens on a system built around portability makes no sense to me…

Especially considering that the cost of this lens is the same as a used D600+50mm 1.8, which will provide similar DOF characteristics at little size/weight penalty when considering the whole combo. And that is not even considering the (at least in my opinion) poor ergonomics of a big lens on a small body, the IQ advantage of full frame, and the (presumably) poorer performance at f1.2 compared to a good ol’ f1.8.

Of course M43 has its other advantages, but doesn’t a larger format just make more sense for shallow DOF than shoehorning a very fast lens into a system that really just doesn’t excel in that area? Am I missing something here?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 17:07 UTC as 77th comment | 15 replies

Full frame user (switched from M43 once upon a time) not looking to troll but asking an honest question:

Looking at the 25mm 1.2 makes me think the same thing as when I saw the f.95 Noktons: Isn’t this just the wrong system for shallow DOF? Putting a big, heavy, and expensive lens on a system built around portability makes no sense to me…

Especially considering that the cost of this lens is the same as a used D600+50mm 1.8, which will provide similar DOF characteristics at little size/weight penalty when considering the whole combo. And that is not even considering the (at least in my opinion) poor ergonomics of a big lens on a small body, the IQ advantage of full frame, and the (presumably) poorer performance at f1.2 compared to a good ol’ f1.8.

Of course M43 has its other advantages, but doesn’t a larger format just make more sense for shallow DOF than shoehorning a very fast lens into a system that really just doesn’t excel in that area? Am I missing something here?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 16:37 UTC as 3rd comment | 7 replies

There is a problem I see in these pieces that I see often in this style, and that is the editing. To me it seems overdone an gives it a fake look, which is a shame because of all of the effort put in to do it all in camera. I don’t mean the subject matter either, I mean the soft-focusish filters, the HDRish feel, and all that wide angle perspective distortion all just doesn’t work for me. They seem like they could all use lot of burning and dodging too on those burning highlights too.

There are a lot of people saying it looks like CGI and I agree. I see it in the climate change series too: cool concept with a ton of work put in to NOT fake things, then a ton of editing that then makes it look fake. I feel there would be much more of an impact if they were edited to look like the beautiful pictures they are rather than some 3D composite from deviantart. I would love to see the raw files for these.

But what do I know, I’m just some photographer, no one is writing articles about me.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2016 at 20:59 UTC as 14th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

rbach44: As time goes on I seem to be proven correct on my theory: The sony A7X series has gone through some of the most outrageous scrutiny of any camera to date. Strap lug quality, adapter planarity, light leaks, and reflections off the IR filter on long exposures at wide aperture have already been covered by many in the forum crowd; and now the potential strength of the mount when improperly handling lenses 10x the weight of the camera is under a microscope. Seems many forgot that the A8 has IQ only dreamt of years back in a body not much bigger than an old compact. Relatively inexpensive too. Compromises of course will have to happen.

Cutting corners or not, an engineer who works on such products has far more knowledge of these things than 99% of the people posting responses on these forums. If you don’t trust a product’s engineering, why would you spend thousands of dollars on it? I know I’m happy as a clam with my A7, and this new mount seems like a bad idea to me…

(PS: Who buys an A7X to use with fast telephotos for SLRs anyway? Really seems to kill the small body/high IQ concept to me…)

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 04:04 UTC

As time goes on I seem to be proven correct on my theory: The sony A7X series has gone through some of the most outrageous scrutiny of any camera to date. Strap lug quality, adapter planarity, light leaks, and reflections off the IR filter on long exposures at wide aperture have already been covered by many in the forum crowd; and now the potential strength of the mount when improperly handling lenses 10x the weight of the camera is under a microscope. Seems many forgot that the A8 has IQ only dreamt of years back in a body not much bigger than an old compact. Relatively inexpensive too. Compromises of course will have to happen.

Cutting corners or not, an engineer who works on such products has far more knowledge of these things than 99% of the people posting responses on these forums. If you don’t trust a product’s engineering, why would you spend thousands of dollars on it? I know I’m happy as a clam with my A7, and this new mount seems like a bad idea to me…

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 04:04 UTC as 43rd comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon Df Review (1617 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: I played with one of these in the store yesterday and I agree without his review: They picked and chose which features were "retro" quality and which parts were modern mid grade. The whole package just doesn't add up the way it should have.

Its a shame, because picking it up just doesn't feel anything close to an old F. It seems like the OM-D line to me in this regard, where they sacrificed ergonomics for classic styling without really digging into the core of what made these old cameras so great (and usable). I wish that this was an old style camera with a bit of the wisdom Nikon has gained from making what I consider the finest and most refined SLRs on the face of the planet. But it really ends up feeling like a compromised frankenstein. I was very excited for this camera, but I am actually pretty disappointed now that I saw it in person.

I thought he body on a whole felt like modern techno plastic with some metal dials on top.

I feel like for such a "boutique" camera that feel + ergonomics should have been everything. But feel like they fell short on both. I honestly feel like my beloved D700 feels + handles better than the Df (at east with my short time with it)

Oh and I have used the EM1, and I rather like it. But I think Olympus is guilty of the same thing sometimes: trading ergonomics for style (the centered viewfinder in particular…). But the whole package is more successful than the the Df in my opinion...

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 17:11 UTC
On article Nikon Df Review (1617 comments in total)

I played with one of these in the store yesterday and I agree without his review: They picked and chose which features were "retro" quality and which parts were modern mid grade. The whole package just doesn't add up the way it should have.

Its a shame, because picking it up just doesn't feel anything close to an old F. It seems like the OM-D line to me in this regard, where they sacrificed ergonomics for classic styling without really digging into the core of what made these old cameras so great (and usable). I wish that this was an old style camera with a bit of the wisdom Nikon has gained from making what I consider the finest and most refined SLRs on the face of the planet. But it really ends up feeling like a compromised frankenstein. I was very excited for this camera, but I am actually pretty disappointed now that I saw it in person.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 16:26 UTC as 261st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

napilopez: Strange that they would only do a cosmetic change; Panasonic normally remodels its lenses to a greater degree. I was expecting improved autofocus, but to see no mention of it in the press release likely means little if anything was changed on that front.

On the other hand, a subtle fix that the marketing team would probably want to avoid mentioning would be removing the banding issues that occured with this lens on the new Sony sensors at high ISOs; indeed the banding was the main issue prompting me to sell mine and get the 25mm. Unlike many, I actually prefer the pancake for focal length and sharpness(not to mention size).

What about a lens could have caused banding?

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2013 at 04:41 UTC
In reply to:

PK24X36NOW: Sigma again shows the "Big Boys" (i.e., Nikon & Canon) what can be achieved in lens design. You essentially have Sigma to thank for the fact that wide angle zoom lenses even exist, because it was Sigma that showed the stuffed shirts at the camera makers that such lenses could be made, and could be made to produce high image quality, in the first place.

Having said that, this lens also shows how "size and weight" advantages are non-existent when you compare lenses with equivalent DOF range. In fact, this lens is basically as big or bigger, and heavier than, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 FF lenses, which get considerably wider at the short end and considerably longer at the long end, with the same DOF. The new lens hardly has a terrific range in terms of start and end points, and too limited a range at less than 2:1. If they managed a 15-45 f1.8, that would have been a much more attractive lens.

The other thing is, wait till you hear the bleating when they announce the price - LOL.

Y'know I've always wondered about this.

Take the Fuji X10 vs. the Sony RX100 for example. On the long end, the Fuji has an aperture of 2.8, while the Sony has an aperture of 4.9. Assuming both of their lens had perfect light gathering abilities and the sensors had similar qualities, wouldn't that mean the Sony would have to have at least a ~1.5 stop advantage over the Fuji to have similar image quality at the long end? Wouldn't the Sony's ISO have to be 1.5 stops higher to compensate for the loss of light?

Same argument as we're having here, I'd love to see some sort of test on this…

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: makes no sense for me.
I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.
sounds crazy.

a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...

Oh I love primes, don't get me wrong. I use them all the time. I just think the logic is a bit faulty when saying "A good wide lens is a normal and few steps back" (or vice versa) because the compression qualities are quite different.

I mean you would't want to do portraits with a 28mm stuck close enough to someone's face that it gives a similar angle of view as a 50mm…

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 23:23 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: makes no sense for me.
I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.
sounds crazy.

a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...

Zooming with your feet only applies to angle of view, good luck getting some of that sweet, sweeping wide angle look or telephoto compression with a normal and your feet.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 20:35 UTC

Sigma is SERIOUSLY stepping up their game as of late. The new lenses seem nothing but beautiful. If they finally got heir quality control issues of the past sorted out, the big boys will have to seriously watch their backs….

BTW if there were a full frame version I'd be preordering it now...

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 20:33 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

naththo: How about will Adobe improve colour accuracy in camera profile to match with the actual same as manufacturer camera sets on camera raw file? The Adobe one shows a bit more cyan in skies and bit warmer hue I supposed in yellow colours to bring more green look compare to coming straight off camera shows more realistic blue skies and better colours.

Have you tried using the Camera standard, Camera Neutral, etc. settings for your camera in the camera profile tab? They are built to mimic the manufacturer's profiles and are quite close.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:30 UTC
Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »