Joined on Feb 7, 2012


Total: 457, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2156 comments in total)
In reply to:

sgoldswo: I don't see how you can rate a camera which has a clumsy user interface with a gold award. It makes the review irrelevant if you don't consider the user experience.

I always have this problem with high ratings for Sony and Panasonic cameras (which both have their moments of clunkyness in the user interface). If they require extensive customization, they simply aren't as much fun to use, however capable they are.

All major brands have clumsy UIs. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, all have sub par menu systems. Canon is so bad it is a joke. Yet people buy these cameras....

It would be nice if companies would fix this for once and for all, but I find the Sony UI quite decent compared to Canon.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 14:18 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2156 comments in total)
In reply to:

LandonT87: My biggest issue is with the lack of good zoom lenses. I'd be willing to pay for the 16-70mm f/4 lens but for $1000, the performance is unacceptable. I know sharpness isn't everything but it got a DXO Mark score for sharpness of 8 (8!) on a 24 MP camera. Further, I have a picture from a friend using a NEX 7 and the 16-70mm and it is noticeably soft around the edges.

Zoom kit for A6x00
Sony 10-18
Sony 28-70
Sony 70-200

Prime kit for A6x00:
Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
Sigma 19/2.8
Sony 28/2
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8
Zeiss Batis 85/1.8

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 07:26 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Smaug01: Also ugly, just like the Lumix GX-8. If I'm gonna put down that kind of coin for a camera, it has to LOOK good too. (Like Fuji X100T, Olympus OM-D, etc.) It's not too much to ask.

This is a computer box with a lump for the grip and a lens mount; really uninspired.

Nothing worse than these ugly Fuji and Olympus retro cameras.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 07:08 UTC

Sony please copy this lens for the A7 series !!!!!

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 14:37 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
On article On assignment: the Leica Q at a Portland wedding (206 comments in total)

This post shows that even the most expensive gear will not save a bad photographer. All of these images are literally composed for 85mm and shot with 28mm. It's terrible. I wonder who screens these entries.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 08:36 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On article Seriously sharp: Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM samples (258 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cytokine: Most of these samples are at 5.6, f4, or 2.8, and at these apertures almost all the good 85's are sharp.

The Bokeh is so bad I cant believe a Japanese company made this lens, it looks like Nissan Bokeh. Sony even made a machine to predict the bokeh?????

Why so few 1.4 samples? Is it that bad that the reviewers cant or dare not post any.

I am no Zeiss fan, but they would never put their name on something so bad.

There are plenty of lenses as sharp as this one, with better bokeh at a fraction of the price.

Did Zeiss refuse to put their name on this lens design? Maybe it should be called the Grand Mess.

Could the simplest explanation indeed be the correct one? That in the wake of test chart sharpness obsession, Sony went the Sigma route with lenses only optimized for sharpness, ignoring all other characteristics, and Zeiss said NO?

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 08:30 UTC
On article Seriously sharp: Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM samples (258 comments in total)
In reply to:

Flashback: I hate to differ here, but where is the pop?

I can see plenty of detail, but not absolute sharpness. Maybe it's a due to lack of contrast. I was expecting more from this combination.

False. 3D "pop" comes from a combination of:
- amount of bokeh
- field curvature
- drop in contrast in OOF areas
- color tonality (this is coating and sensor related)

The field curvature part is important, and generally lenses with field curvature score poorly on flat test charts.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 08:13 UTC
On article Seriously sharp: Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM samples (258 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo King: FuhTeng has the best post so far.

Sony is out for money but still doesn't get Photography. Sharpness is nice, but their colors are still off, and ergonomics and function lag behind most everyone else. Some of the pictures I've see from their latest cameras are not good at all.
A terrible picture can't be improved by 'sharpness', but this electronics company plans on making money by selling that idea to tech geeks.

This is senseless brand hating without factual basis.

As an Olympus/Nikon/Sony user, I prefer Sony because the colors look less processed, more organic. Nikon is alright, and almost identical in RAW. Olympus is too harsh on the color processing, even in RAW somehow.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 08:08 UTC
On article Seriously sharp: Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM samples (258 comments in total)
In reply to:

RidgeRunner22: Ha! for some reason I got a real kick out of this one. Looks like s lovely lens! Wish they would make one equally sharp a few stops slower, and way smaller. When do you use an 85 at 1.4? sounds hard to deal with, from a DOF stand point.

I'd like a 85/2.8 which is as good as the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. I would prefer it with Zeiss coatings and none of this GM nonsense.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 08:04 UTC
In reply to:

PeterTom: When I sum the weight and price of these 3 lenses:
Canon 50mm 1.8 STM
Canon 85mm 1.8 USM
Canon 100mm 2.0 USM
Then I get 1044 grams and 880.24 Euro (looking at cheapest prices in reliable on-line shops around me).
The Sigma is 1490 grams and 1249 Euro.
It is about 40% more in both numbers...
Can the lens have that much better IQ (compared to the above listed ones) that you will not mind carrying 400 more grams (another lens' weight, and I usually leave the 85mm at home, 50mm and 100mm are usually enough to carry) and pay 40% more?
For me the answer is "no", but if flexibility of a zoom is highest priority, then your opinion may differ.

Beating the Canon 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 isn't that hard...

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 13:44 UTC
On article Action packed: Shooting the Sony a6300 in Miami (241 comments in total)
In reply to:

Siobhan A: "Most of what I shot using the 16-70mm was up at ISO 6400 or beyond and frankly, looked pretty noisy and unappealing."

Sony is still a long way behind where no defunct Samsung was 2 years ago. With no affordable F/2.8 zooms, and no sub-$1000 F/1.4 native lenses, they can't compete with a cheaper Nikon, Pentax, or even a higher resolution NX500 in low light. The $1000 A6300 body with those native F/4 zooms is comparable to cheaper M43 bodies with much smaller F/2.8 primes.

From what I have seen from unbiased reviewers so far the A6300 is still behind the NX1 and GH4 for action and not close do a decent Nikon.

Which móron uses f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on APS-C!?!?

The point of APS-C is a) budget and b) reach. None of these f/2.8 zooms / f/1.4 primes have reach.

If you want bang for buck, getting f/4 zooms and f/2 primes on full frame is far more effective than getting f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on APS-C, both budget and IQ.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 19:05 UTC
On article Action packed: Shooting the Sony a6300 in Miami (241 comments in total)
In reply to:

Camera Newton: I am in agreement with everyone else. picture quality is a few steps behind competitors. Even the 1 inch sensor cameras and M43 cameras despite smaller sensors are producing more pleasing pictures most of the time, so the benefit of occasional less noise or higher DR (killed by small aperture native lenses) are virtually meaningless. Those weird colors and mushy details are good reasons to avoid this camera.
The A6000 is a better all around deal.

I am a M43 shooter and I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about. IQ of this cam is top notch.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 19:01 UTC
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: 60mm f.ov. equivalent on 4/3? Can't think of a more useless focal length.

It's not a standard lens giving a natural field of view and it's not short tele either.

On aps-c at 45mm equivalent it is almost the ideal standard lens focal length to give that natural viewpoint so makes much more sense.

Adding a 4/3 version seems like an afterthought. If I were a 4/3 user I'd get something like the Oly 45mm F1.8. The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is minimal and not worth the compromise in my opinion.

Must be sad being so narrow minded.

Nikon 58mm and Sony Zeiss 55mm are fantastic portrait lenses. Nice and versatile.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

Angrymagpie: Thanks for the review. I was wondering what the rationale is for shooting it with an A7Rii in crop mode instead of testing it on, say, a6300/6000?

A7Rii is arguably the best APS-C camera on the market.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 09:09 UTC
In reply to:

Noorar: now we need a direct comparison to the FE 28mm F2 !

The transmission of Sigma's previous 30/1.4 is T/1.8. The transmission of the 28/2 is T/2.

So in terms of low light performance I doubt there will be a big difference. Both have terrible distortion. From the examples, the 28/2 has better bokeh.

For Sony users the Sony seems like a wiser buy.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

greypixelz: haven't Panasonic gotten the message from Kai and Lok that micro4/3rds is dead? and don't they know that Pentax is the king of WR and that it had just out-sensor'ed them?

I mean, really, Panasonic! :P

Panasonic - just like Nikon - has their efforts spread between two mounts and three sensor sizes.

- There's the M43 mount, with 2x crop sensor.
- There's the L mount, with 1.5x crop sensor.
- There's the L mount, with full frame sensor.

Panasonic is developing bodies and lenses for all three. One of them will have to give, and just as with Nikon, it's most likely the tiny crop.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

Intermittentoverexposure: I shot the GX8 last weekend. Couple of takeaways:

1. Continuous AF is worthless, same as every other m4/3s (yes, including the E-M1)

2. This system is just as borked as the original 4/3s - if you have a body this big, use a bigger sensor

3. Panny 12-35mm has equivalent IQ to Fuji 18-55



The search for an MILC that can replace DSLR continues. Next up, Fuji X-Pro2. I would be excited for the A6300, but just as with Olympus, I expect the menu system to be unusable. It's really too bad about the Sigma - would it really be that difficult to offer a bayer sensor version of the new Quattro? 5 stars for tech, zero stars for real world where ISO is important.

Try the A7 II / A7R II. Now that's some amazing DSLR-class PDAF right there.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1495 comments in total)
In reply to:

tangbunna: some people own a van that can have many benefits beside the look. and some people waste 10 times of the money for nice looking 2-seated sport cars and comfortable only in smooth road.

Why always the stupid car analogies?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

Dabbler: Looking at the samples I can only think this is a bad copy of the product or poor photographic technique. I couldn't find an image that was sharp especially for a lens at this price and feel I'm getting better results with my 100-300 (not always, of course). Hope to see more samples from another source that shows good sharpness as I would really like to add it to my kit.

The image quality is limited by the M43 sensor.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

Samuel Spencer: Repeating a reply I posted below:

Conditions weren't ideal (as usual), which is why I was driving all over Oregon and Washington states trying to find decent light while working on this gallery. A balcony shootout on a tripod vs comparable lenses is in the works. For now, the gallery demonstrates sharpness that can be expected when depending heavily on IS while shooting handheld.

Don't apologize for shooting in real-world conditions. Like this we get to see what to expect from the lens in our own use.

From what I see IQ is very similar to what I get from my Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6: image quality is limited by the sensor. I'm surprised to see that the bokeh is worse on this Panasonic. Too bad. Definitely not worth the money.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 21:37 UTC
Total: 457, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »