T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 2433, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Howard: Another prime lens for FE? Maybe should divert some effort to making a decent and fast midrange zoom for APS-C E-mount?

I know apples and oranges, but Sony hasn't released any APS-C E-mount lens in 3 years!

When it comes to sales, Sony APS-C far outpaces Sony FF. So Sony APS-C is definitely NOT dead, and it would be suicidal for them to cut it off. For example, on Amazon's Best Sellers in Interchangeable Lens Cameras, the A6000 sits at #8, the A6300 sits at #9. Sony's top-selling FF mirrorless is the A7S II which doesn't show up until #47:

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/12556502011#1

By the way, there are people like Contra Mundum and Thorgrem
who were constantly proclaiming Sony APS-C was dead, then Sony introduced the A6300! Hahaha. Sorry, guys, but APS-C is not going away, no matter how much you wish it would. APS-C is a good cash-cow for all manufacturers, because the overwhelming bulk of sales is still in the APS-C segment. FF is a relatively small market, and one that is far more expensive than most consumers can afford. A 1st-gen Sony A7 body still sells for$1100. A Sony A6000 sells for $550. Still a big price gap!

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 20:52 UTC
On article Canon EOS M10 real-world samples (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: What baffles me is that canon still does not implement USB charging in their EOS M line of cameras. It is obvious that the whole system is designed for maximum portability with compact bodies and compact and lightweight lenses. Having to pack a separate charger in my vacation bag, which is almost as big as the cameras themselves , does not make any sense to me.

I totally agree. I find USB charging to be hugely convenient. You can use any old micro-USB cable to charge up your camera! I love being able to juice up the battery while I'm on the go, such as when I'm driving by simply plugging the micro-USB into my car's USB charger. And if you have an external battery charger, it allows you to charge two batteries at once: one in the external charger, and one using the camera itself to charge the battery. Super convenient.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

TheClueless: Fuji at their most shameless, lol

https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/leica-x-23mm-f-1-7--typ-113--review-26875/images/highres-Leica-X-Typ113-4_1422625470.jpg

As the saying goes, "Everything's a remix."

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

notpc: No viewfinder, barely a grip, but you can get it in pink .... oh the priorities.

People don't seem to understand that this is simply an update of two successful previous versions of the X-A series (X-A1, X-A2) which also had no viewfinder and "barely a grip". If people were expecting that the latest X-A body was somehow going to morph into an X-E body, or any other type of Fuji X body, then they are sorely mistaken. But the more rational-minded of us understand that this is an X-A body, which is characterized as being an entry-level Fuji body with no viewfinder and a lower-profile grip.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 00:15 UTC
In reply to:

Nick932: Still USB 2.0? What's up with this old stuff? Canon put 3.0. More likely is fast enough for this camera...but USB 2.0 is old!!!!!

Who connects their cameras via a USB port? Maybe serious shooters who are shooting tethered. But I don't think that is going to be the case for the average X-A3 buyer. The average X-A3 buyer will remove their SD card and stick it into the SD card slot of their laptop to offload images. No need for USB 3.0 or an external card reader.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: PINK. LOL

@Limburger2001- yep, good point about the Rose Gold iPhone. Cameras are life accessories these days, just like smart phones. It's not just pro-oriented males who are buying cameras. Having colors such as pink is an acknowledgement that there are a diversity of buyers in the marketplace. It's a bit ignorant to ignore that segment of the market. Or to put it another way, it's narrow-minded to think that cameras should only come in black. Look at cars. In the early days of cars, such as the Model T, Henry Ford famously said that a customer could have his cars in "any colour that he wants, so long as it is black." Well, that was then. Look at the huge variety of colors cars come in now.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Fuji's cameras look nice and classy. A nice alternative to black boxes or black melted soap bars.

@BlueBomberTurbo- Do you have your camera permanently raised to your eye? Of course not. If you actually timed how much time your eye is in the viewfinder versus not in the viewfinder on any given shooting day, you'll find that the camera actually spends very little actual time at eye-level. In other words, cameras really spend a minority of their time in a "my eye is in the viewfinder/when I'm shooting" state. Furthermore, when a camera such as the X-A3 doesn't have an EVF, you're spending even more time "seeing" the camera, because you're looking at the camera body even when you're shooting. So it's a bit silly to say that "I can't see my camera when I'm shooting".

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

Emadn13: Still a6000 will beat it,with FDAF and good price

@John C Tharp- The Sony lenses cover a lot of ground for me. And they are generally a better value than what Fuji offers, which is why I've bought more Sony lenses for my Sony system than I have for my Fuji system. I like having imagine stabilization, including in the primes, which is also why I like the Sony offerings.

There is no one "best system." All systems have their pros and cons, which is why I don't limit myself to just one system. And there's no need to be religiously biased towards one system or another. Fuji has its pros and cons, Sony has its pros and cons. But for me, I have found that I have gravitated to using my Sony system much more.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

Emadn13: Still a6000 will beat it,with FDAF and good price

I don't know why people assume that there are no lenses for the Sony system. I have a Fuji X-E1 and I have a Sony A6000, so I use both systems. On the Sony side, I have plenty of lenses I love. My Sony 18-105/4 OSS, 35/1.8 OSS, 50/1.8 OSS, 10-18/4 OSS are all superb lenses. And I have OSS across the board with these lenses. I wish I could say the same about Fuji's lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 15:24 UTC

Fuji's cameras look nice and classy. A nice alternative to black boxes or black melted soap bars.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 18:02 UTC as 21st comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: PINK. LOL

This may come as a shock to you, but half the world's population is female. And incredibly, some of them like to own cameras too! You're probably upset that they are being let out of the kitchen, right?

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 18:00 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: X-A3, EOS M3, A5100
now we get 3 $600 entry level APS-C camera
which to choose

if u ignore A5100 for the garbage kit lens
than X-A3 or M3? (EOS M 18-55 kit lens to my knowledge is OK)

M3 no 1080 60p(only 30P)
which AF better?

People like to diss the Sony 16-50 kit lens, but I actually love it. Sure, it's not the best lens for pixel peeping, but it's tough to beat for its size, convenience, and 16mm wide angle. You can get the Sony 18-55 e-mount, which is pretty good, but I still like the 16-50. I also have the EOS M with Canon 18-55 EF-M. But the Sony A6000 with 16-50 lens is the kit that I almost always have with me. It's my every-day carry. The 16-50 OSS with the Sony 35/1.8 OSS makes for a great street combo.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 17:57 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (435 comments in total)
In reply to:

captura: Sony has withdrawn full commitment to it's APS-C models as evidenced by the fact that no new APS-C bespoke lenses have been offered in over 3 years. And they lack the higher quality lenses available for Fuji and Canon 'M' bodies.

I believe that Canon has been cautious but has chosen to invest some more in their 'M' model, the mirrorless APS-C market. But they won't be a real competitor until they incorporate the dual-pixel system for fast reliable AF. Could that be integrated into the 'M' model ?

"Sony has withdrawn full commitment to it's APS-C models as evidenced by..."

Oh, give me a break. People like you also were adamant that Sony had "withdrawn" from the APS-C mirrorless market, citing all kinds of "evidence". Then Sony introduced the A6300! Sony APS-C is not going away. And there are plenty of higher quality lenses for E-mount. I have the Sony 10-18/4 OSS, Sony 18-105/4 OSS, Sony 35/1.8 OSS, and Sony 50/1.8 OSS. All four lenses are excellent. I love them. They've produced plenty of excellent images for me. I should also mention that I am an EOS M user. I have the 22/2 EF-M and 18-55 EF-M. They are both decent lenses, but I would definitely not say that the EF-M system has a greater abundance of "higher quality lenses" than Sony. There's also the gorgeous Zeiss Batis and Loxia lenses for Sony, but not available for Canon. Same goes for Sigma's excellent 19mm, 30mm, 60mm f/2.8 Art DN lenses available for Sony, but not for Canon.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 04:39 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (435 comments in total)
In reply to:

zerlings: I have used the M3 for 6 months, and have used various mirrorless before (EM-5, sony Nex-5N). I have received many compliments on the pictures I took with the M3, but not so much on the other mirrorless.

I have an EOS M. And I have a Sony A6000. I have received many compliments on the pictures I took with the A6000, but not so much with the EOS M. LOL.

Seriously, though, I had considered getting an EOS M3, but the lack of a built-in EVF was a deal killer for me. A detachable EVF is too tall sticking off the top of the camera, particularly Canon's EVF. And there's the lack of dedicated M-system lenses. And the 4fps frame rate on the M3 is very slow. The A6000 does 11 fps. Other mirrorless systems and other mirrorless bodies have a lot more going for them than the M3. I feel like the EOS M3 should have been the camera that Canon introduced in 2012 instead of the EOS M.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 04:24 UTC
In reply to:

NicoPPC: Interesting article.

The DSLR's OVF is really clear and comfortable to use, and a lot of more as any EVF. All person I know here, decided to buy a DSLR over a mirrorless because they could not work with the EVF's pixel.

However, if you can get use to, mirrorless are really appealing .

I migrated to EVF because I like the visual feedback (exposure preview, etc) it gives me over an OVF. You can also do instant chimping in the EVF, which is also helpful. I do miss these kinds of features when I go back to using my DSLR occasionally.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

Donnie G: But wait! Where are those ultra modern, compact, lightweight, overheating, battery sucking, super cameras with their builtin TV viewfinders and awesome third party EF to whatever lens adapters? You know, the ones that some folks keep shouting will take over the photography world almost any day now. Yeah, those! Don't they get to go to the Olympics too? Guess not.....lol :))

Well, keep in mind that the average professional videographer shooting the Olympics is using a very big, bulky video camera...but you don't see many consumers using those big bulky shoulder-bruiser video cameras for their own non-professional video shooting, do you? Pro use will continue to be the bastion of large, bulky, heavy pro gear. But that doesn't mean that it's the best option for everyone else. I shoot both mirrorless and DSLR gear. But these days, I do 80% of my shooting with mirrorless gear. I get the same results, with less bulk and weight, and the camera don't stick out like a sore thumb when I'm traveling.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

Rich Rosen: What I find interesting, is that even with all the hoopla about newspapers going to photographers using smart phones, even with the so called stampeding of mirrorless, Getty has chosen to use the "antiquated" DSLR as their primary "weapon." I'm sure that mirrorless and smart phones will make an appearance, but it the DSLR that will be doing the heavy lifting.

Pro-usage is different from non-pro usage. For example, consider the equipment that broadcast videographers use. Does that mean that a broadcast video camera is the right video camera for the average non-professional? Of course not. So I find it a bit mis-guided that people say, "Hey, look, a pro Olympic photographer is using a big DSLR! That must mean that everyone should use a big DSLR" but they don't do the same when they see a pro Olympic videographer using a big broadcast videocamera.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 23:23 UTC
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: Oh my! So many DSLR's being used for a sporting event! I guess that ends the debate. DSLR's are better than mirrorless at absolutely everything. This single example from one specialized category in the photographic field has changed my mind.

Really, I came here to giggle at the "Pff! Canon?!" remarks... but it seems that those are outnumbered by anti-mirrorless rhetoric 3 to 1! Very strange. Are they scared? Or simply trying to justify carrying all that extra weight on their next vacation? You know, just in case a bicycle race breaks out spontaneously and they need tack sharp images of it for their family album.

Yes, you are using the same type of camera that Getty is using to cover the Olympics to shoot family photos and snapshots of your vacation and back yard BBQ. You're doing it right. High fives and pats on the back all around!

I think there's a big difference between the needs of a pro shooting the Olympics, versus the average hobby or enthusiast photographer who is shooting for fun/ personal/travel, or any photographer who simply doesn't want to carry larger equipment. I shoot both DSLRs and mirrorless. DSLR is great for certain purposes, but for 80% of my shooting I now use mirrorless. Especially for travel photography. It allows me to carry less weight and bulk, and the cameras are less obtrusive.

There is no one best cameras for everyone, because everyone's needs are different. If I'm traveling around Europe or Asia, I much prefer using my mirrorless gear because it takes up a lot less room, and I don't stand out while walking down the street. It doesn't matter to me that a PJ shooting the Olympics uses a DSLR. He/she doesn't mind all the size and weight of DSLR gear. It's like saying that because the military drives Humvees, that must mean that Humvees are the best cars for everyone! Hahaha.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 23:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences (362 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: I am not trying to be a troll, but ask a serious question
Why should people buy either one and not A6300 which is $600 or $700 cheaper

if u answer lens, I disagree. There are many lens option on Sony side
seriously, why?

Different strokes for different folks. Believe it or not, people have different preferences. Why buy a Rolex when you can get a Casio that tells the time just as well, or better? Sometimes it comes down to how a camera looks and feels and handles. It's not always just about specs and price.

I have a Sony A6000 and a Fuji X-E1. Functionally, the Sony is a great camera. In many ways, it's better than the Fuji. But I still love the Fuji. I love how it handles and feels and looks. Is one necessarily better than the other? In some ways yes, in some ways no. Both have their pros and cons. In other words, there are plenty of reasons why someone might choose Sony over Fuji, and vice versa. I chose to use both.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 04:02 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences (362 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nikonandmore: My honest 2 cents? The X-Pro2 was just released & already looks like a dated camera. I find this all a bit too ridiculous. There are too many cameras on the market already & too more many being released too fast that are all too similar to each other. Looks like everyone just makes the same camera again & again & again with minimum invovation. The amount of cameras that are all basically the same among different brands & even models of the same brand, is astonishing. And no one knows how to name cameras anymore other than calling everything "something X". This industry becomes a mix of boredom, endless higher cost & minimal true advancements. There are more new cameras being released faster than fresh milk bottles at the supermarket. Im surprised no one is making these disposable yet to accelerate the process even more.. or cameras able to self-destruct itself a few months later so we keep buying more "same" stuff even faster.. of course, they need to be called the "D-iXposable"..

Do you want some cheese with your whine? If a company takes a longer time to update their cameras, people complain that they are asleep at the wheel. If a company updates at shorter intervals, people complain that updates are coming too often! It just goes to show that people love to complain, no matter what. I don't think the problem is with the camera companies or their update cycles. The real issue is that we live in a society of whiner, complainers, and cry-babies who throw tantrums every time something doesn't happen exactly the way they want it to.

Maybe you should spend less time tracking every new camera introduction, and spend more time taking pictures. Unfortunately, ogling new cameras has become somewhat of a sport now. A sport of the idle. When a new camera comes out, I take a quick look at it; if it's something I'm in the market for at the moment, I'll take a closer look. Otherwise, I just get on with my life.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 03:55 UTC
Total: 2433, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »