meanwhile

meanwhile

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Nov 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 613, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2150 comments in total)
In reply to:

turvyT: I just read a thread of posts complaining about the speed of Sony's tests versus other brands. They were harsh, and maybe not true, but not insulting. Then I refershed the page and the thread was gone. If the thread was censored doesn't help dpreview's image.

"the speed of Sony's tests versus other brands"

Do you mean that the reviews appear more quickly after release?

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 07:33 UTC
In reply to:

AZdgordon: Good work and demo of the video capabilities.

But, I value and give great credence to DP Review's reviews of cameras and have been anxiously awaiting its COMPLETE review on the a6300. WHEN are we going to see the full review instead of all these ancillary bits and pieces???

"but others are beating you to the punch on this"

Honestly though, so what?

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 04:12 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

LF Photography: Although it seems like a powerful compact, it's high price and size place it in DSLR/Mirorless territory. Call me crazy, but I'd rather get a FF DSLR such as the K-1 for the ultimate in stills IQ and ruggedness. Video specs are nice, though.

I guess one question would be - if you don't need 600mm, don't need 4K video, and don't need a compact camera - why are you bothering to a) read the article & b) comment on it?

The K1 looks like it will be a nice camera, but it has zero to do with this.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 13:21 UTC
On article Hands on: Sony FE 50mm F1.8 and 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: 186g is seriously lightweight.

A pity that the aperture blades are 7 only.

Will keep me busy while the 249 usd 35mm 1.8f has not hit the market.

They are rounded though, so shouldn't be too bad.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 01:52 UTC
On article Class 10 200GB microSD card on the way from Lexar (71 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pritzl: Remember when a hard drive's space was measured in MB? Ah, yes. The good ol' days! :P

What was the write speed on your fountain pen?

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2016 at 10:55 UTC
On article Sony a6300 gallery updated with Raw conversions (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

photogeek: Don't know why they bother. APS-C is definitely a dead end in Sony lineup. To make it otherwise, Sony needs smaller, APS-C specific lenses for these cameras, and given that they can't even be bothered to produce a full lineup for their $3K+ bodies, I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. This is coming from a former NEX-7 owner. I liked the body, but the lens lineup was inadequate, so when the first A7 came out, I saw the writing on the wall and got rid of NEX-7.

Arbux, that's a load of twaddle. Internet time just runs faster than actual time.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2016 at 01:53 UTC
On article Sony a6300 gallery updated with Raw conversions (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

photogeek: Don't know why they bother. APS-C is definitely a dead end in Sony lineup. To make it otherwise, Sony needs smaller, APS-C specific lenses for these cameras, and given that they can't even be bothered to produce a full lineup for their $3K+ bodies, I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. This is coming from a former NEX-7 owner. I liked the body, but the lens lineup was inadequate, so when the first A7 came out, I saw the writing on the wall and got rid of NEX-7.

"including now dead Samsung NX"

Perhaps that's what happens when you rush.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 23:49 UTC
On article Sony a6300 gallery updated with Raw conversions (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

photogeek: Don't know why they bother. APS-C is definitely a dead end in Sony lineup. To make it otherwise, Sony needs smaller, APS-C specific lenses for these cameras, and given that they can't even be bothered to produce a full lineup for their $3K+ bodies, I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. This is coming from a former NEX-7 owner. I liked the body, but the lens lineup was inadequate, so when the first A7 came out, I saw the writing on the wall and got rid of NEX-7.

Building a system takes time. This camera will take wonderful photos, with lots of quality lenses available for it. Which part is the dead-end? The lenses that will continue to work? The accessories that will continue to work? The batteries that are shared with the A7 series? The RAW files that will continue to work?

Theoretically, you may be correct. But to what end? What's the difference? You take your shots with what works for you now and into the near future (it's electronics).

If you can't find lenses that work for you with the mirrorless systems, that's your issue, not the cameras. Three quarters of a century of lenses work beautifully with them, from some of the best quality native AF lenses through to pre-War sonnars.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 16:18 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2150 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

The top right of the a6300 studio scene is out of focus. Decentered lens or misfocus?

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 15:00 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2150 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

It also depends what mode you are looking in. I tend to use COMP rather than FULL or PRINT.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 14:57 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2150 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

That's a long way from "the Sony always looks worst". :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 14:55 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2150 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

Faces have more detail, bottle label is better, money is better, and also, playing cards at the bottom are much better from the a6300. It's only the top cards where the E-M10 looks better.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 14:45 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2150 comments in total)
In reply to:

nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.

The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.

How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??

You are right about the playing cards. For some reason the E-M10 makes a better showing with those. Looking at every other aspect of the scene though, the a6300 bests it by a decent margin. Corners are much better, text on the paint tubes is much better, sketch is much better. ISO100.

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

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

One can be a genius, and yet be foolish.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 10:06 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

You, my dear, are a pedant. A time-wasting one at that.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 09:21 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

"It's my body and none of your business. Same goes for the nanny state. Freedom, can you live it?"

If you smoke, you are an idiot. Plain, scientific fact. Freedom has zero to do with it.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 08:49 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

Trump! Trump! Trump! Pack of whingers.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 08:47 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

Awesome, so you'll be paying the 10's of thousands for the chemo drugs too. Freedom, can you afford it?

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 08:03 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

"I am not forgetting, the costs were calculated and the result is, obese people, people that smoke or drink, they cost the state less than the healthy people. Check the stats."

At no point did I talk statistics, but that's complete bulls**t anyway.

The human cost, having experience in oncology, is enormous. You can lie to yourself all you like, smoking is a stupid, pointless, selfish act.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: As someone pointed out on thedigitalpicture site,,, the exif on provided samples pics prove the samples have been extensively, almost comically, photoshopped.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17853

It was my grammar I was having a go at. :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 06:46 UTC
Total: 613, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »