jscalev

Has a website at http://www.calevphoto.com
Joined on Nov 15, 2012

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On article DJI announces new Phantom 4 Pro and Inspire 2 drones (63 comments in total)
In reply to:

jscalev: Interesting drones, but I find one thing confusing. The Inspire 2 is $3k and the Zenmuse X5S is $1900. Why is the kit $6k?

Do I need these? My main commercial interest in this drone is for photography. I may take a few videos, but they wouldn't go farther than YouTube.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 04:24 UTC
On article DJI announces new Phantom 4 Pro and Inspire 2 drones (63 comments in total)

Interesting drones, but I find one thing confusing. The Inspire 2 is $3k and the Zenmuse X5S is $1900. Why is the kit $6k?

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 17:04 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

jscalev: I have the Mark IV and don't see any super compelling improvements here. My main gripes with it are image quality is poor above ISO 400 and the menu system is tricky - especially with video. Shooting in 960 fps in particular is frustrating. This model doesn't seem to address any of those things. The AF on the Mark IV is sufficient for my needs, so the improvements here are really just marketing fluff.

The housing does look interesting though. However I'd have to know more about how compatible it is with underwater strobes and existing wet lenses.

I'm not knocking the Rx100. It's a remarkable camera for its size. I typically use my IV for places like Disney, amusement parks, or other times when I really don't want one of my main cameras. I also use it while traveling if I'm in a somewhat unsafe area - for instance I used it while out and about in Rio de Janeiro. I have it set to not shoot above ISO 400 and I've taken some nice shots with it.

It's certainly far from a replacement for any traditional camera though. When I'm serious about photographing then I use a 1Dx2 or 5DsR.

So when looking at it from that perspective, the V doesn't really offer any new benefits. They really haven't done anything that most people will really use since the Mark III (and even then they improved the lens quality at the cost of range + macro from the II).

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

jscalev: I have the Mark IV and don't see any super compelling improvements here. My main gripes with it are image quality is poor above ISO 400 and the menu system is tricky - especially with video. Shooting in 960 fps in particular is frustrating. This model doesn't seem to address any of those things. The AF on the Mark IV is sufficient for my needs, so the improvements here are really just marketing fluff.

The housing does look interesting though. However I'd have to know more about how compatible it is with underwater strobes and existing wet lenses.

No buyers' remorse here - in fact the exact opposite. I bought the IV when it was released. This isn't the kind of camera I use for wildlife, so for my purposes the AF on the IV completely meets my needs. I see nothing on this new model that justifies an upgrade.

Sony tends to do a fantastic job of adding bells and whistles that aren't really necessary, then convincing you that you can't live without them.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 20:59 UTC

I have the Mark IV and don't see any super compelling improvements here. My main gripes with it are image quality is poor above ISO 400 and the menu system is tricky - especially with video. Shooting in 960 fps in particular is frustrating. This model doesn't seem to address any of those things. The AF on the Mark IV is sufficient for my needs, so the improvements here are really just marketing fluff.

The housing does look interesting though. However I'd have to know more about how compatible it is with underwater strobes and existing wet lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 17:00 UTC as 57th comment | 6 replies
On article Aura is a next generation digital picture frame (74 comments in total)

I was really excited about this until I read the details. Basically it just takes photos off your phone, which makes this device completely unusable for most photographers. For this price I would expect the device to be able to sync to the standard online photo services.

Also, how exactly does photo sharing work? Ideally parents should be able to see the photos from all of their kids - basically the kids upload new photos and the parents automatically see them - but it doesn't appear to work that easily.

It also looks quite small. Again, as a photographer I want my images displayed large. I spent some time looking on their website to see how big it is, but they hide it. From the photos though it doesn't look very big.

Even if the device worked, none of the features really are that useful for me. The majority of my photos have no people in them.
I'm not against paying $400 for a high quality photo frame, but this device just wasn't well thought out.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 16:26 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

nir-vana: I will take the Sigma 120-300/2.8 S
Similar image quality, less than third of the price, T2.8 vs T4.7

I've used both the 200-400/1.4x and the Sigma 120-300/2.8. The 200-400 is by far the better lens - better optically and faster AF. The 120-300 also does very poorly with extenders - including losing more AF points than the 200-400 at the same resultant aperture.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7