sportyaccordy

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

Comments

Total: 782, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1898 comments in total)

2 words..... holy crap.

The big question will be if they can deliver that 20fps and 60Hz AF scanning with adapted glass. If so, very well may be game over for the Canikon flagships. $4500 for all this tech is a Crazy Eddie level bargain. This bodes VERY well for the A7III as well.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:33 UTC as 408th comment | 5 replies
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1898 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZeneticX: I'm more interested with the new double capacity battery. Is it compatible with previous models?

Most batteries are the same shape. That doesn't make them compatible.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

rrccad: weird.. how can you increase the overall market by targetting enthusiasts and professionals that ALREADY HAVE cameras..

rrccad unless you have Sony's imaging financials broken out separately comparing the two is meaninglesss... Sony sells a lot more than cameras

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 08:14 UTC
In reply to:

rrccad: weird.. how can you increase the overall market by targetting enthusiasts and professionals that ALREADY HAVE cameras..

EF telephotos work great in AF-S. If Sony can update its LA-EA3 protocol to enable native and maximum FPS with adapted glass I'm sure pros will be happy to move over. Especially with the rumored higher frame rates SAR keeps hinting at. 24+ FPS with all your old Canon glass with a body that's probably gonna be a good clip cheaper than a 1DX makes a lot of the support stuff forgivable.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

rrccad: weird.. how can you increase the overall market by targetting enthusiasts and professionals that ALREADY HAVE cameras..

The market is for cameras sold in that year, not ever.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Robemo: Lately the issue of fake news has become a serious topic. It has become part of our life with so many fast comunication systems crammed with all kinds of information, but unfortunately also with lots of BS. Actually the fine line between 'marketing' and true information was crossed ages ago. There simply are very little or no rules for 'marketing', so the difference between marketing information, dis-information or just plain lying is non existent.
I'd like to keep seeing DPR as an important source of valid and important information about photography. So I don't understand why DPR places this kind of marketing BS in the News section without any comment or explanation, degrading DPR to yet another worthless marketing channel. Is it just about getting as many clicks as possible? Please ...

So @Robemo what exactly is the purpose of this research? Who paid for it and what was the end goal? Provide your sources and source material.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

cosmicnode: Alternative facts. how can you prove that there would have been a 2% reduction withought Sony sales, photographers could have bought from other manufacturers, I take it the total market is up 5% and Sony's is up by 23% but actual sales figures are not shown to prove or disprove the claim. LOL

Losses in year over year revenue. Which the article is about. Actually, your post is the first mention of profits on this page.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 22:15 UTC
In reply to:

cosmicnode: Alternative facts. how can you prove that there would have been a 2% reduction withought Sony sales, photographers could have bought from other manufacturers, I take it the total market is up 5% and Sony's is up by 23% but actual sales figures are not shown to prove or disprove the claim. LOL

That much is obvious. You make a post about sales figures on an article about year over year sales changes, and then reply with something about profits- all without any substantiation by the way. It doesn't seem you understand much of anything.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

cosmicnode: Alternative facts. how can you prove that there would have been a 2% reduction withought Sony sales, photographers could have bought from other manufacturers, I take it the total market is up 5% and Sony's is up by 23% but actual sales figures are not shown to prove or disprove the claim. LOL

I don't see where this article claims otherwise.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

cosmicnode: Alternative facts. how can you prove that there would have been a 2% reduction withought Sony sales, photographers could have bought from other manufacturers, I take it the total market is up 5% and Sony's is up by 23% but actual sales figures are not shown to prove or disprove the claim. LOL

It's really simple. All other full frame manufacturers made losses from last year. Pretty simple concept

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 18:02 UTC
In reply to:

Robemo: Lately the issue of fake news has become a serious topic. It has become part of our life with so many fast comunication systems crammed with all kinds of information, but unfortunately also with lots of BS. Actually the fine line between 'marketing' and true information was crossed ages ago. There simply are very little or no rules for 'marketing', so the difference between marketing information, dis-information or just plain lying is non existent.
I'd like to keep seeing DPR as an important source of valid and important information about photography. So I don't understand why DPR places this kind of marketing BS in the News section without any comment or explanation, degrading DPR to yet another worthless marketing channel. Is it just about getting as many clicks as possible? Please ...

How is this fake news?

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 12:49 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: "2% without Sony"

So market share is 97% canon and Sony and Nikon at 2% and 1% respectively. :)

No, these figures represent GROWTH, not market share.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 18:02 UTC
On article Nikon announces midrange D7500 DSLR (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: pretty spiffy new midrange camera body.

Some people it seems never heard of product segmentation before by the sounds of it.

naturally a lower positioned camera, a cheaper camera won't have all the goodies of the D500. duh? if you want that. get the D500. pretty natural transition for the D7x00 change to go through a bit of a shift once Nikon released that.

Canon if you recall did a even more dramatic shift after they came out with the 7D. the 50D to 60D was light years different, as they shifted the product segmentation.

For ~40mm and up there's no point in developing crop only lenses, except maybe for macro. But they need some wide angle DX primes, and an updated STABILIZED version of the 17-55. $1000-2000 FX primes are not relevant to folks buying $500-600 bodies.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 14:40 UTC
On article Nikon announces midrange D7500 DSLR (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: pretty spiffy new midrange camera body.

Some people it seems never heard of product segmentation before by the sounds of it.

naturally a lower positioned camera, a cheaper camera won't have all the goodies of the D500. duh? if you want that. get the D500. pretty natural transition for the D7x00 change to go through a bit of a shift once Nikon released that.

Canon if you recall did a even more dramatic shift after they came out with the 7D. the 50D to 60D was light years different, as they shifted the product segmentation.

Still doesn't have OSPDAF or a DX lens lineup worth investing in. Nikon still hasn't seemed to learn that cameras are integrated systems with lenses for everyone, not just FX and high end users. Pointless exercise.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 13:00 UTC
On article Nikon announces midrange D7500 DSLR (396 comments in total)

Missed opportunity. Should have been the D620, with a full frame sensor. Nikon is not going to develop the DX lens line, so high end DX bodies that aren't made for tele type shooting are pointless. An FX body with a $1300 launch price would have been a game changer. This will just be a footnote.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 12:58 UTC as 47th comment

The early days of digital sounded so exciting. This retrospective shows how jaded some of us have become.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 19:24 UTC as 43rd comment
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (901 comments in total)
In reply to:

dbateman: This review seems fair and direct for an out of the box camera. Whats not mentioned is that the Fuji is actually capable of 1/800 sync speed with the adapter Fuji has made for the joint fuji Hasselblad lenses.
Also whats not mentioned is the whole adapter culture. Pop over to th GFX facebook page and you can see what the 10000 users have tested on this camera. The sigma Art f1.4 lenses cover the frame, as do the Zeiss Otis lenses. So if you need speed these are your options. Other older lenses faster than f1.8 don't seem to fully cover the sensor, but seems almost all old f2 lenses do. This does not mean that an old f1.4 lens will cover stoped down to f2, as this has not played out.
Also whats being talked about is that it looks that the larger 55x41mm sensor will fit inside, just as sony got a 135 sensor in the NEX, Fuji has a lined out mask square for one. With fuji talking from day one that the lenses are designed for 100+ mega pixels to me says either they have tested the 100Mp 55x41mm sensor and they will cover or Fuji is due to release a camera with the recently anoused new BSI 100Mpixel Sony 44x33mm sensor. New sensor tech will be much better than a sensor that is almost 5 years old.

Wow, F/1.4 on these... game changer. Got a link?

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 03:03 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (901 comments in total)

I feel like Sony can improve upon this pretty quickly with their own effort. In any case, kudos to Fuji for having the balls to swing for the fences like this, even if the hit only landed them at 3rd.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 02:59 UTC as 74th comment

I want one. If it's good enough for people to risk their lives, it's gotta be a great phone. Plus I'm a large screen fan.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2017 at 21:43 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

HarryLally: Maybe there's always an exception that proves the rule. My 17-40 f4L gets progressively sharper from 17mm to 40mm and is much sharper at 40mm than wider.

Same story with me.... no matter how far I stop down the corners never sharpen up.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 20:32 UTC
Total: 782, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »