rbach44

Joined on Nov 4, 2011

Comments

Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

I seriously doubt that there are any full time pros that would go to an adapter based solution for all their lenses just to get 20 FPS…

Pros use what makes consistant and predictably good images. They don’t gamble reliability/familiarity for specs. They would need a VERY good reason to switch. I would honestly like to know what some full time pros think about what the A9 has to offer to them, I have a feeling it may be a bit different than what Sony is touting.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 14:12 UTC as 171st comment
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (765 comments in total)

I think this article outlines why, at least for now, Nikon and Canon will remain the top choices for sports pros. Despite what the Sony fans say, the A9 is NOT going to be the death knell of the pro SLR. Perhaps what Sony is actually doing is staking their claim, that at least they are planning on making a serious effort at the pro market. Its an ambitious move, but one that will most likely not pay off immediately.

What I would also like to know is how many pros feel that the advantages of the A9 are worth leaving the gear that they are presumably comfortable and happy with (and dealing with some of the glaring disadvantages that the A9 + system undeniably has…). How many shots have they missed due to the 10 vs 20FPS frame rate? How much of annoyance do they see viewfinder blackout being? And, something I seriously wonder myself, will the shooting experience (without blackout or a shutter sound to give some feedback) feel a little too far off from what they are used to?

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 17:17 UTC as 84th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

rbach44: The more I think this camera over the more I am confused. Who is this camera meant for? They say sports shooters and the specs confirm this, but considering the whole ecosystem, I doubt many sports shooters will be using these:

No native fast telephotos, unpredictable AF, poor battery life (even though it is improved it is still nowhere near that of pretty much any decent SLR), so-so build and reliability reputation, and then the typical Sony weirdness/slowness will drive actual working pros away. Besides, there have been excellent sports shots since the days before high frame rate cameras.

Also, the pricing just seems bizarre… an A7 with small ergonomic improvements and a high frame rate for 3x the price?

I’m sure all of those asterisks and footnotes will add up and the experience will be the typical Sony spec sheet/press release king that ends up being weird and awkward in use. I doubt too many working pros will be dropping their 1Ds/D5s for these…

In what way is it a D5/1Dx challenger? Because Sony said so? Because it has a high frame rate? Doesn’t the EM-1 from 2013 have a similar frame rate to a D5/1Dx? And there were none of these on the sidelines for the Olympics. Frame rate is not the only reason pros use these cameras. The forum “pros” will flock to it, but I doubt real pros will be as interested.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 20:48 UTC
In reply to:

steviewa: Too small and too light

I agree… I had an A7 in the past and I often wished it were bit bigger. It could accommodate a bigger battery (much needed…), have a better grip, and balance with something besides the few small Sony/Ziess primes.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 17:49 UTC

The more I think this camera over the more I am confused. Who is this camera meant for? They say sports shooters and the specs confirm this, but considering the whole ecosystem, I doubt many sports shooters will be using these:

No native fast telephotos, unpredictable AF, poor battery life (even though it is improved it is still nowhere near that of pretty much any decent SLR), so-so build and reliability reputation, and then the typical Sony weirdness/slowness will drive actual working pros away. Besides, there have been excellent sports shots since the days before high frame rate cameras.

Also, the pricing just seems bizarre… an A7 with small ergonomic improvements and a high frame rate for 3x the price?

I’m sure all of those asterisks and footnotes will add up and the experience will be the typical Sony spec sheet/press release king that ends up being weird and awkward in use. I doubt too many working pros will be dropping their 1Ds/D5s for these…

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 17:25 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1878 comments in total)

As a former Sony A7 now happily back to Nikon user, this camera looks promising. It finally has the nice little ergonomic features that make pro cameras so enjoyable. Also. if the battery life really is twice the previous generation, they are at least on track. AF. in theory at least, looks great. But mostly I hope (though probably in vain) that they fixed the Auto ISO, weird RAW files, confusing menus, and general Sony wonkiness that drove me batty with my A7.

Some questions I have from the press release:

Am I missing something or does the viewfinder seem oddly underspecced? 1280 x 960?
Why is it so expensive? Its not THAT different than an a7 but its 3x the price…

I’m deeply skeptical. It looks like it could be one of Sony cameras built to make a good looking spec sheet. But I hope for the best. We’ll see…

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 17:11 UTC as 275th comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: “Slow native lenses do not take full advantage of camera's sensor size”

Still touting that strange logic that the maximum F-stop of available lenses is indicative of the IQ potential for an entire format. Backed up yet again by 100% JPEG crops and some pseudo-scientific equivalency equations. Viewing the birth of flawed forum logic in real time is fascinating.

If we’re talking about total light, we should take into account actual transmission of lenses, vignetting (as much as a few stops in the corners with the f1.2/1.4 lenses), the fact that lenses are not even remotely at their peak resolution at full aperture, and all sorts of other aberrations that limit your resolution at extreme apertures. I would be willing to bet the the f2 Fuji lenses are closer to their advertised aperture than the f1.2/f1.4 35mm lenses, and with less resolution limiting aberrations too. And this is without even getting into the fact that maybe we’re not all shooting handheld in dim conditions or want paper thin DOF.

It’s misleading to say that maximum F stop of available lenses is indicative of total light and therefor image quality, there are many other variables. Besides, just open up the shutter a bit longer and theres your light. The IQ potential of medium format is not limited by the lack of extreme aperture lenses lenses.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 14:55 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (899 comments in total)

“Slow native lenses do not take full advantage of camera's sensor size”

Still touting that strange logic that the maximum F-stop of available lenses is indicative of the IQ potential for an entire format. Backed up yet again by 100% JPEG crops and some pseudo-scientific equivalency equations. Viewing the birth of flawed forum logic in real time is fascinating.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 15:37 UTC as 49th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

rbach44: There isn’t anything wrong in this article, but it is so far down the theoretical rabbit hole, I’m not sure how relevant it is. It only describes shooting at the longest handheld shutter speed in minimal light and thats about it. Most MF users will be using them on a tripod and with lights, anyway.

We’re not all using Otuses, lenses almost never perform optimally wide open, DOF at 1.4 is insufficient for many scenes, and we’re not all shooting handheld. There a few theoretical situations where 35mm CAN equal medium format, but there are many real world situations where it won’t.

Real pros with real needs who shell out a lot of real money for these things say there is something intangibly better about the big pixels/medium format rendering that goes beyond measurement. Given my personal experience moving up through the formats, I’m inclined to think its true. Though the armchair photo crowd may disagree, I’m sure there is a good reason that pros spend 5 figures on these cameras.

I wholeheartedly agree. While I commend DPR for diligently trying to gather as much data as possible, it still just isn’t enough to compare the full breadth of a camera’s abilities.

I am a prepress artist, and I have seen print output from many different cameras in many different situations, and I can attest that comparison of 100% crops of downsampled sRGB JPEGs reveals deceptively little of what a camera can do. (Comparison of a good print at a normalized size is far better, thought still not complete). It is certainly not enough to make a blanket statement about the capabilities of two formats and present it as fact.

I’d rather go off of the opinion of experienced people who have used these cameras under a wide variety of conditions. A little bit of data, some selectively applied science, and a lot of inference should not be presented as fact. I really wonder if these things CAN be measured objectively.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

Tom_A: I am still puzzled about the hoopla about aperture equivalence.
F2 is f2, a handheld meter will not ask you about the camera format.
Yes there is a kind of equivalence for depth of field but not exposition. I still don't understand any real use for "light gathering capability".
The way I see it, if you shoot both a "small MF" camera like this one and a full frame camera at f2 or higher, then the larger sensor size and resolution will play a role. In my own perception and just like with "real" mf film camera it is the subtlety of for example skin rendering that gets better, more importantly than resolution.

I’ve read and absorbed all of the article over the years, but I’m still not convinced.

If we are going to compare these variables, why not more? Why not quality of coatings and its effect on transmission? Wouldn’t that be relevant to how much light is hitting the sensor? Why not actual sensitivity of the sensor at each ISO compared to ISO standards? Why not quality of ADCs between cameras? What about the variables us laymen can’t even fathom? We can’t pick and choose what we factor into our equations and present it as scientifically accurate.

(Also, as a prepress artist for many years, I can say that comparing downsampled sRGB JPEGs at web sizes is not at all scientifically indicative of what any camera is capable of.)

I’m not denying that the math works out and that 2+2=4, but I question its actual relevance. Mathematical possibility is very different than real-world capability.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

Tom_A: I am still puzzled about the hoopla about aperture equivalence.
F2 is f2, a handheld meter will not ask you about the camera format.
Yes there is a kind of equivalence for depth of field but not exposition. I still don't understand any real use for "light gathering capability".
The way I see it, if you shoot both a "small MF" camera like this one and a full frame camera at f2 or higher, then the larger sensor size and resolution will play a role. In my own perception and just like with "real" mf film camera it is the subtlety of for example skin rendering that gets better, more importantly than resolution.

Tom_A, I agree, I’m confused as well.

It seems to me like DPR has a seemingly endless bag of equivalency equations on hand to back up some strange point against conventional wisdom that they are making. I understand it, but it all seems too theoretical to be relevant. None of us are optics/physics/electronics experts, I’m not sure why were playing that game. DPR likes to dabble as far as to where things make sense by their logic, but I’m not sure how factual it is.

Let just take pictures and more pictures and do what we can do to take better pictures, this equivalency stuff is just a theoretical distraction.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 18:41 UTC

There isn’t anything wrong in this article, but it is so far down the theoretical rabbit hole, I’m not sure how relevant it is. It only describes shooting at the longest handheld shutter speed in minimal light and thats about it. Most MF users will be using them on a tripod and with lights, anyway.

We’re not all using Otuses, lenses almost never perform optimally wide open, DOF at 1.4 is insufficient for many scenes, and we’re not all shooting handheld. There a few theoretical situations where 35mm CAN equal medium format, but there are many real world situations where it won’t.

Real pros with real needs who shell out a lot of real money for these things say there is something intangibly better about the big pixels/medium format rendering that goes beyond measurement. Given my personal experience moving up through the formats, I’m inclined to think its true. Though the armchair photo crowd may disagree, I’m sure there is a good reason that pros spend 5 figures on these cameras.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 18:05 UTC as 161st comment | 10 replies

Finally, my prayers have been answered… sort of. I wish more manufacturers were interested in making compact (for the focal length), lower specced, and (hopefully) optically high quality lenses.

Why the push for extreme aperture lenses when high ISOs are getting so good? The Nikon 105 f1.4, for example, just seems silly when there is no current compact 100-105mm in the lineup. I like my 1.8 G primes and want more.

Some compact wide primes would be nice too…

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 20:50 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1570 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 (1570 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 129th 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 193rd 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 (89 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
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »