sportyaccordy

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 1, 2010

Comments

Total: 1887, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Sometimes I wonder what could have been with Nikon. But they were too slow in their budget lens/body rollout.

I would need to see how it performs optically. I imagine that tiny front aperture does not help with vignetting. But this in combo with the 24-70/4 and a Z6 sounds like a good bare bones kit for me. It would address pretty much every issue I have with my FE kit. Oh well

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 21:47 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Sometimes I wonder what could have been with Nikon. But they were too slow in their budget lens/body rollout.

I should have specified "for me". This lens is great and they have some good stuff going on. They just didn't have a permutation that worked for me when I was ready to buy.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 20:19 UTC

Sometimes I wonder what could have been with Nikon. But they were too slow in their budget lens/body rollout.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 11:15 UTC as 41st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: ITs 2021, can we please have autofocus????

@Gesture, no I don't. Less glass interfaces was a thing because they couldn't do more complicated designs.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2021 at 12:16 UTC

ITs 2021, can we please have autofocus????

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2021 at 20:43 UTC as 18th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: On one hand I'm glad Fuji is continuing to develop X-mount, but on the other $900 for an APS-C prime is just hard for me to stomach no matter how good it is.

@Just Another Tog I know this isn't a direct answer but currently the split for FF and larger vs smaller format lenses is about 45/55%. Compare that to 2012, the top sales year for ILCs, and the split was about 20/80%. Canon has said outright their lost volume is from low end crop kits. Olympus just had to sell off its imaging division as sales were not good. So I don't have exact figures but there are plenty of indicators that signal that FF has a much, much larger market share than ever before. Again not declaring a victor or pushing everyone towards it, just speaking to what I see.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2021 at 12:43 UTC
In reply to:

Michigan Sandman: My first digital camera was a Nikon D100, which also has the CCD sensor. The camera sat in my camera bag for three hears, until I ran out of film while in the mountains in 2009. When I got back from vacation I was surprised how good the pictures looked from the little 6.1 mp camera. The CCD sensor does have a film like quality that other sensors just don't have. I picked up a DsMklll a few years ago, good camera, but lacks the CCD look. Too bad Canon and Nikon didn't develop the CCD more.

My first DSLR was a D40 and "film like quality" was apt. I loved how it rendered low ISO stuff. But like film going above ISO400 was a big no no

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: On one hand I'm glad Fuji is continuing to develop X-mount, but on the other $900 for an APS-C prime is just hard for me to stomach no matter how good it is.

@FTOG I wasn't being reductionist, just providing the full context. Generally APS-C lenses provide the advantages you list while also having lower prices. Here Fuji has a smaller, lighter lens that costs more and performs worse than FF equivalents. Is that a fair trade off? IMO no, but others may disagree.

FWIW your lenses kind of prove my point... I think the F/2 X mount primes strike a way better balance than the F/1.4 primes. Obviously they're not as fast, but outside of that there's nothing to complain about, and are good lenses to buy into the system for.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: Granted MF isn't where the market is yet, I suspect in the next 5-10 years the hot market to be in will be MF, especially since Fuji has made the format more affordable to the masses. It used to be if you wanted a MF camera (even just the body) you'd have to be ready to sehll out $15k on a body for a base-level model (or possibly more) from companies like PhaseOne or Hasselblad. Now you can get an entry level MF camera (50MP) for about the same price as a high-end ML FF camera. Of course the lenses are another story, and expensive on their own (some costing as much as a mid-range or high-end camera alone). But I have to congratulate Fuji for doing this. This is even an area that it seems Canon and Sony haven't really looked too much into, and are too focused on the here and now, and now as much on the fu ture, and where the industry might go.

I will say this- there are several FF lenses that will cover this thing's image circle, and the weak AF is not hard to replicate with adapters apparently, so if you want to see what F/1.4 on MF looks like you can grab some Sigma ART glass and go wild. (Hint, it's not much different than on FF)

I think there is some joy in just having the biggest and baddest, but practically speaking there's really no upside to this vs any of the similarly priced FF bodies

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: On one hand I'm glad Fuji is continuing to develop X-mount, but on the other $900 for an APS-C prime is just hard for me to stomach no matter how good it is.

Smaller sensors generally mean smaller bodies, but not always. And again, sure that smaller size can be an advantage, but it's offset by higher costs. I think all the FF MILC systems have cheaper equivalent lenses besides Nikon. Is smaller size worth a higher price and worse IQ?

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 20:27 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: On one hand I'm glad Fuji is continuing to develop X-mount, but on the other $900 for an APS-C prime is just hard for me to stomach no matter how good it is.

@larkhon I guess I just look at things too objectively. You can get better performance and similar build quality for less money elsewhere. Just so happens that elsewhere is FF MILC systems. Fuji has some desirable features but lens value is not one of them IMO.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 19:45 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: Granted MF isn't where the market is yet, I suspect in the next 5-10 years the hot market to be in will be MF, especially since Fuji has made the format more affordable to the masses. It used to be if you wanted a MF camera (even just the body) you'd have to be ready to sehll out $15k on a body for a base-level model (or possibly more) from companies like PhaseOne or Hasselblad. Now you can get an entry level MF camera (50MP) for about the same price as a high-end ML FF camera. Of course the lenses are another story, and expensive on their own (some costing as much as a mid-range or high-end camera alone). But I have to congratulate Fuji for doing this. This is even an area that it seems Canon and Sony haven't really looked too much into, and are too focused on the here and now, and now as much on the fu ture, and where the industry might go.

I think FF will continue to be the sweet spot for enthusiast cameras. Is the marginal IQ improvement this offers worth the manifold downsides? Small lens selection, weak autofocus, ancient video, more weight/bulk. I think this is a great development for a very specific kind of photographer, but I don't see this as a bellwether for a shift to larger formats.

Plus I can't see Sony/Canon/Nikon/Panasonic ditching their brand new and/or very successful FF MILC systems to go MF. I think Fuji's approach with the 2 stop jump in systems is brilliant, but it's def not for everybody and IMO the FF in the gap is the ideal format for most shooters.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 15:10 UTC

On one hand I'm glad Fuji is continuing to develop X-mount, but on the other $900 for an APS-C prime is just hard for me to stomach no matter how good it is.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 15:04 UTC as 26th comment | 25 replies
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Why does Tamron HATE the 24mm FOV for standard zooms?

28-75 2.8
17-70 2.8
That new 28-200
Their old 18-200s
This

Does their contract with Sony forbid them from making 24-xx equivalent standard zooms? Deal breaker for me

The "real advantage" of FF isn't just on fast glass. Base ISO IQ is better even at small apertures and you can get much higher resolution sensors on FF than smaller formats. Being able to leverage those advantages with a small and light zoom while on the go would be great. I don't need an F/2.8 zoom for landscapes and daytime travel photography. And if I want to isolate a subject in those positions I can use one of my small + light primes.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2021 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

Passereau: there is no inflation, there is no inflation, there is no inflation... They killed our hard earned money to be sure BlackRock continue maximum profitability.

@panther fan spare us your facts, we are just here to whine based on our feelings

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2021 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Why does Tamron HATE the 24mm FOV for standard zooms?

28-75 2.8
17-70 2.8
That new 28-200
Their old 18-200s
This

Does their contract with Sony forbid them from making 24-xx equivalent standard zooms? Deal breaker for me

@brendon I don't want big and fast. To me F/2.8 zooms are kind of the worst of both worlds. Not very fast in an absolute sense and very heavy + expensive. I want a small, light and sharp standard zoom that covers 24mm (or wider). The closest thing to that in Sony's lineup is the 24-70/4, which I have, and is not very good. Something like a modernized EF 24-85 (which is still very good) or Panasonic's 20-60mm would be great.

Tamron does have a patent for a 16-70 F/4 for FF. Depending on the weight that might be what I need.... if it ever comes out.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2021 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Why does Tamron HATE the 24mm FOV for standard zooms?

28-75 2.8
17-70 2.8
That new 28-200
Their old 18-200s
This

Does their contract with Sony forbid them from making 24-xx equivalent standard zooms? Deal breaker for me

@Ilia where's the E mount version? @Raziel an ultrawide is no substitute for a standard.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2021 at 01:11 UTC

Why does Tamron HATE the 24mm FOV for standard zooms?

28-75 2.8
17-70 2.8
That new 28-200
Their old 18-200s
This

Does their contract with Sony forbid them from making 24-xx equivalent standard zooms? Deal breaker for me

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2021 at 13:21 UTC as 7th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: The longer lenses should have been F2s.

I am slumming it with the Samyang 35 & 45 1.8. I got the Batis 40 but it's way too big (the CF is nice though). A 40/2 G would have been a great compromise.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2021 at 12:12 UTC

The longer lenses should have been F2s.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2021 at 01:41 UTC as 29th comment | 3 replies
Total: 1887, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »