T3

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

Comments

Total: 2432, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »

Hey, it could be worse. They could have omitted RAW, like on the XC10.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 08:54 UTC as 57th comment

For the average consumer, an A6300 for $1K is a better buy, not just for the money but also for the portability. I take my A6000 everywhere with me. Back when I was only using Canon DSLRs, I rarely carried them with me unless I was intent on doing some shooting. I think that's the big factor: which camera are you most likely to grab when you're heading out the door. I still have a trusty old Canon 60D (I've owned the 10D, 20D, 40D, and 60D). But I also have an A6000. I have found that 90% of the time, I am choosing the A6000 over the 60D when I go out. Both are capable of taking great pictures. I just like the greater portability, smaller size, and features of the A6000. I no longer see the point of carrying around heavier, bulkier DSLR gear when something like an A6000/63000 does just as well or better, with face/eye detection AF and a WYSIWYG exposure-previewing viewfinder. Will I be buying an 80D? A few years ago, I would have been a loyal, returning Canon DSLR buyer. Not anymore.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 07:29 UTC as 52nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

CosminMunteanu: I don't know how much can man trust this company. Not so long ago (beginning of 2015) they promissed the K-Pentax to Fuji-X Lens -Turbo II version but until now, no news of it :-/

"Promised" vs delivered, vaporware vs the real thing. Apparently, this Speedmaster is the real thing, not some future promise.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

PKDanny: This isn't a FAST prime lens because oh NO AUTOFOCUS!!!!

@Thermidor - "Keep in mind however that this style of focusing isn't for pixel peepers." In other words, it's not very accurate and not very consistent, and that's even with using slower apertures for greater DOF. In my experience, fast manual focus generally means sloppy focus where you're relying on greater DOF to mask your inaccurate focusing.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 08:18 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: This seems to go against the Sony hubris of 'Our lens has to be bigger otherwise we compromise image quality' Re: their 85mm f/1.4 GM lens.

First of all, I think we need true test comparisons of these two lenses before you draw any conclusions. For example, how good is the the Speedmaster in the corners compared to the Sony lens? Secondly, let's not forget that the Sony 85mm/1.4 is A) a much longer focal length than 35mm, and B) has autofocus, not to mention electronically controlled aperture blades, and various other electronics. But hey, let's just ignore all those factors and bang on about "Sony hubris". LOL. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 08:08 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

scottcraig: Oh thank you Sony, now I can spend $3300 on a camera just because...

The world is a big place, with people of different levels of income and wealth. I have successful female friends who spend $3300+ for a handbag. I have another friend who collects expensive watches, most of which are more than $5000. There are people in the world who have a lot of money. I was in Dubai recently. Plenty of people there with LOTS of money to spend. A camera such as the RX1R II caters to the many wealthier photo hobbyists in the world. It's not for your average Walmart shopper looking for bargains. And I think that's a smart strategy for Sony. There's not much margin in lower-end compact cameras (that market is basically dead). For camera companies to survive, they need some high end, high margin, premium products to sell. This is one of those products. And there is definitely a market for them, because there are a lot of wealthier people in the world who don't think that $3300 is a lot of money. People need to look at the bigger picture, and get out more.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 16:49 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan DeLion: If you don’t like the shortcomings of this camera, wait 12 months for the next version. And wait another 12 months for the improved next version. By that time the reviewed version will sell for $500. Sony needs to spend a lot more time designing and beta testing its cameras so that they get it right the first time.

"Sony needs to spend a lot more time designing and beta testing its cameras so that they get it right the first time."

It's not a case of "getting it right the first time". Just imagine if Canon or Nikon "got it right the first time" with their first DSLR, then just stopped putting out updated models. Same with cars, or smartphones, or tablets, or any other product. Why didn't everyone just "get it right the first time" instead of constantly putting out improved versions of their previous product?!?! Well, it's obviously because companies want new things to sell. Sure, companies could "spend a lot more time designing and beta testing"...you could do that forever. But as Steve Jobs said, real CEO's ship. In other words, at some point you have to stop designing and testing, and simply ship a product so you can sell it...otherwise you have no business. You can't really wait for ultimate, un-improvable perfection.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

chkproductions: Athough some pleasant shots, I would not describe these as portraits. They are mostly some casual headshots and group shots. I think the term portrait has been stretch thin here.

I think you're being overly anal and narrow about the term portrait. A portrait is merely defined as "a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant."

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

BigOne: I clearly remember reading on this very website that one of the characteristic features of A7xII was the ability to autofocus with any third-party lenses. I even remember lots of comments saying it was, thus, a Canon and Nikon DSLR killer. Now, all of a sudden, we have a Chinese adapter to do that? Could someone please explain where it all went so horribly wrong?

You seem very confused or ill-informed. The ability for Sony cameras to autofocus with third-party lenses has always been via Chinese adapters. There's a lot of innovation coming out of China. Chinese companies have been behind all the engineering and programming that has made these smart adapters possible.
Nothing is going "horribly wrong". Seems like things are going terrifically right: extremely smart engineers in China are finding ways to make devices that the engineers in OEM companies aren't coming up with. It's thanks to these Chinese companies, with very smart-thinking people, that we have these amazing smart adapters that are breaking down the silos that once kept different lenses from different systems from being able to autofocus and electronically communicate with different camera bodies.
I went to university with a lot of Chinese nationals. They were always the smartest people in the room. It's no wonder that these new adapters are coming out of China.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 05:05 UTC
In reply to:

BigOne: Leica... Sony... Chinese company... downward spiral redefined.

@BigOne - Open up your xenophobic eyes. Most things are now manufactured in China these days. Almost all mobile phones, including iPhones, are made in China:
http://www.cnet.com/news/are-any-smartphones-not-made-in-china/
If you have an Xbox in your house...made in China. Nike shoes? made in China. There are countless products in everyone's house that are made in China. Like it or not, China is currently the world's manufacturing center, and they do some of the best manufacturing because they've learned from the best companies and they have to meet the high demands of the world's best companies.
And yes, the notion that a particular race or ethic group (in this case, the Chinese) are inferior and incapable of producing high quality products-- especially when are making most of the world's products-- is definitely racism.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 04:53 UTC
In reply to:

malabito: I welcome all new products, but if it's going to be very slow, why bother?

Have you seen the videos about the adapter? The persons are shooting buildings, statues, portraits, nothing moving, all static objects that I could easily focus manually.

Now if the manage to do this fast, at least central focus point then it will be interesting.

@badi - I know Leica users who love their Leica M lenses, but wouldn't mind having AF with them. The beauty of this system is that you can have it both ways...with or without AF. Believe it or not, eyesight degrades with age, and so do reflexes. Sometimes, even manual focus Leica M users would rather have the camera take care of the focusing duties.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2016 at 06:41 UTC
In reply to:

BigOne: Leica... Sony... Chinese company... downward spiral redefined.

That's kinda racist. There's quite a lot of very good manufacturing done in China, where *MOST* things are made these days.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2016 at 06:38 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: Camera with sensor shift AF would render this obsolete. But no such camera yet, so people improvise.

Or maybe you have it backwards. Maybe an adapter like this renders sensor shift AF obsolete? After all, the adapter does double duty by offering AF as well as offering the specific lens mount needed for a particular lens brand. So even if you had sensor shift, you'd still need the adapter.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 08:15 UTC
In reply to:

malabito: I welcome all new products, but if it's going to be very slow, why bother?

Have you seen the videos about the adapter? The persons are shooting buildings, statues, portraits, nothing moving, all static objects that I could easily focus manually.

Now if the manage to do this fast, at least central focus point then it will be interesting.

Why bother? People said the same thing about the first autofocus systems: "too slow, why bother?" Well, the reason you "bother" is that it's a first step towards the next generation of the technology. Thankfully, someone "bothered" to make those first autofocus cameras and lenses, because look where are now.

Also, manual focus is great, but autofocus is less strain on the eye and brain. AF definitely requires less concentration, which frees up your mind to focus (no pun intended) on other things such as exposure, composition, framing, looking around the frame, etc.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 07:23 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: Wow... for people who own 'Manual Leica M Lenses', this must be a very interesting and informative article :/

I know Leica M users who love their Leica lenses, but would also love the option of autofocus because their eyes and reflexes aren't what they used to be. Believe it or not, people do age.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 05:01 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Yeah I'll bet this is really fast and accurate. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

With on-sensor AF, it certainly could be fast and accurate. Maybe not with this first generation, but certainly with subsequent generations. You also have to keep in mind the alternative for these Leica M lenses: manual focus. How "really fast and accurate" is that? Your skepticism sounds exactly like manual-focus users who dismissed autofocus technology years ago. They, too, cried, "Yeah I'll bet this is really fast and accurate. And monkeys might fly out of my butt." In the end, who got the last laugh, as autofocus technology took over the world?

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 04:59 UTC
In reply to:

bernardf12: Nice adapter but why can't camera manufacturers decide on a standard lens mount for mirrorless lenses? Something like what Pan and Oly did with the m4/3 mount but for APS-C and FF lenses. That would be great for consumers.

Same reason that SLRs/DSLRs don't have a "standard lens mount." Each company is unique, so they make a unique lens mount. The m4/3 lens mount "standard" is a very rare instance in the history of photography.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 04:37 UTC
On article Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

GCHYBA: To me there are 2 kinds of camera, one that fits in a pocket, and one that doesn't.
If it doesn't, I'd still prefer an SLR for the better grip, and a real viewfinder. Just an opinion.

@GCHYBA - no, I don't miss the grip on an SLR. I thought I would, but I haven't. I find the grip on my A6000 just as comfortable. Or maybe I should say that I don't find it any less comfortable than the grip on my DSLR, so it hasn't been an issue for me. As for EVF vs OVF, I don't understand this "what's really through the lens" non-sense. Both OVF and EVF show what's "really through the lens". But an EVF shows me more, such as exposure preview. An EVF is a WYSIWYG view. On my DSLR, there are times where I thought I was shooting Av, but the camera was on M, so the exposure was WAAAAAY off. On an EVF, you immediately see that because it's a WYSIWYG viewfinder. On an OVF, the viewfinder screen isn't any brighter or darker because the viewfinder doesn't depict what your exposure is going to be. *That* is what I miss on my OVF! I also miss focus peaking, focus magnification, in-viewfinder image review, live histogram, face detection AF, customizable info display, etc, in my OVF.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2016 at 16:17 UTC
On article Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

Babka08: Nice sounding camera. However. This is the incongruity of the Sony system. Lenses........ The lenses are either limited in availability (55-210 forever remains the only e-mount tele lens). Or they are ridiculously expensive (you get way more value out of Canon lenses for example). Or you are mounting some full-frame behemoth on to it with the additional size and weight of an adapter. People call them 'bulky' dslrs. When you add an adapter to a mirrorless they aren't bulky as well? It's the lens thing that doesn't add up here.

It really depends on which lenses you need. Also, "forever" is a bit presumptions, don't you think? Canon has a long time to fill out their lens system. Sony is still in the early stages. Also, I adapt some of my Canon lenses on my Sony body, but it's not as if I do this with all my Canon lenses, or do it all the time. Lenses are just tools, and it's nice to have access to a wider variety of tools. Frankly, I'd love to see a day when we have "universal" camera bodies that allow you to adapt and use any lenses from almost any system, whether it be Canon, or Nikon, or Leica, etc. I think that is a good thing. Sony is the closest thing to offering that "universal" option.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 15:42 UTC
On article Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

GCHYBA: To me there are 2 kinds of camera, one that fits in a pocket, and one that doesn't.
If it doesn't, I'd still prefer an SLR for the better grip, and a real viewfinder. Just an opinion.

I am a long-time DSLR user who also now uses mirrorless. I recently took a trip to India with an A6000 kit. While I still had a camera bag for all my gear, the gear ended up being a lot lighter and a lot more compact than my equivalent DSLR gear. For example, a Sony A6000 with Sony 35/1.8 OSS weighs 498g total (344g for body, 154g for lens). My Canon 60D with Canon 35/2 IS weighs 1090g (755g for body, 335g for lens). Additionally, the A6000+35/1.8 OSS+hood mounted fits in the same slot in my camera bag as a 60D body alone! The A6000 is half the space and half the weight. It also looks far less obvious and noticeable when shooting with it than my DSLR. DSLRs stick out like a sore thumb.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 15:36 UTC
Total: 2432, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »