hiepphotog wrote:
I don't know what it is with shooters from other systems to come here and nitpick how incompetence Sony is whenever Sony has new release/firmware update/dirty laundry list/ etc.
What makes you think we're shooters from 'other systems'? Is it not possible to put things in perspective, even when you own certain gear?
I own Sony, Canon, Fuji and Olympus and I'm a fan of none. Why should I be?
johnvanr wrote:
What makes you think we're shooters from 'other systems'? Is it not possible to put things in perspective, even when you own certain gear?
I own Sony, Canon, Fuji and Olympus and I'm a fan of none. Why should I be?
Constantly nitpicking at every release/firmware update/ etc. is not putting things in perspective but more like an obsessive behavior. Somehow, other brands are just vastly superior. To those shooters think so, just don't pick Sony. I'm not a fan of Sony either. I use their camera because it fits my needs. If other maker can make one that fit better, I would just move on (say like the Vaporware Konost). If you know so well that Sony would not do much firmware update and that a certain feature you want is missing, why even spend the money on one? Will I enjoy shooting with a full 14-bit? You bet I will. Am I enjoying shooting with the current 11+7? Yes I am. Complaining at every chance is not constructive at all. And this is one of my few posts that I vent on this matter. Normally, I just read the useful stuff (like how to avoid the 12-bit mode or using ETTR+HDR on a Sony body).
TheEmrys wrote:
The only known specific is a 24-70/2.8GM. G we know is a top of the line lens designed by Sony, but M is unknown. Macro is the only thought, but doesn't make a ton of sense in a standard zoom today. Were it 1985, sure, as no less than 4 Minolta standard zooms (35-70/4, 28-85, 35-105, and 28-135) had macros switches.
Thanks. I'll be needing an f/2.8 standard zoom, but given Sonys tendency toward high prices I may go with my original plan to get a Tamron 24-70 and adapter. Used prices seem quite reasonable.
Matt Grum wrote:
It will [in all likelihood] not improve any issues that have nothing to do with RAW compression, such as ... noise in bulb and continuous mode, hot pixels in long exposures
hiepphotog wrote: Constantly nitpicking at every release/firmware update/ etc. is not putting things in perspective but more like an obsessive behavior. Somehow, other brands are just vastly superior. To those shooters think so, just don't pick Sony. I'm not a fan of Sony either. I use their camera because it fits my needs. If other maker can make one that fit better, I would just move on (say like the Vaporware Konost). If you know so well that Sony would not do much firmware update and that a certain feature you want is missing, why even spend the money on one? Will I enjoy shooting with a full 14-bit? You bet I will. Am I enjoying shooting with the current 11+7? Yes I am. Complaining at every chance is not constructive at all. And this is one of my few posts that I vent on this matter. Normally, I just read the useful stuff (like how to avoid the 12-bit mode or using ETTR+HDR on a Sony body)....Show more →
I'm not sure to what extent this is directed at me, but if you go back over my posts you will find that I didn't criticize the Sony update but merely took issue with the remark that Sony is ahead of other brands when it comes to responding to client concerns.
You will also find here and on my site that I was never one to worry about Sony's RAW compression.
TheEmrys wrote:
The only known specific is a 24-70/2.8GM. G we know is a top of the line lens designed by Sony, but M is unknown. Macro is the only thought, but doesn't make a ton of sense in a standard zoom today. Were it 1985, sure, as no less than 4 Minolta standard zooms (35-70/4, 28-85, 35-105, and 28-135) had macros switches.
Isn't SAR the one that plugged 2.8 into the equation? The Russian registration is all that's based on, says nothing about aperture according to a translator. I'm skeptical, mostly based on an awful run of false SR4/5 rumors and not having anything on what's actually released.
He had absolutely nothing on the A7sII, said the FS1 with the A7s sensor was the new camcorder (its the FS5 with a s35 sensor - likely a derivative of the FS7's sensor - much like the FS100/700, I pointed that out and he said his source knew more than I did), and said an E-mount APS-c body and 8 new lenses were going to be announced last week. He also said a new Otus and Loxia was going to be announced, and all we got was the surprise of Milvus. Despite claiming success, everything was completely wrong or non-existent.
Not trying to be a jerk, because if you get past all the links to make money, there's a lot of good Sony news on SAR, but I'll believe the 24-70/2.8 GMCDXK9QS or whatever he's now calling it when I see it. I think at this point he's making stuff up or getting intentionally false info to keep attention on Sony. Its brilliant if you think about it, throw SAR an occasional bone and lots of wild misdirection stuff to keep people talking about your products.
And unless its a slow 3.5 to 5.6-ish powerzoom, its gonna be huge, heavy and expensive. I'd like to be wrong, but...
hiepphotog wrote:
I'm just curious though, if Fuji is vastly superior in serving its customers than any other company, why is it that it's not more popular then? If Sony is so bad at listening to its customers (probably the worst by most here in this thread saying), why is it at the top of the heap by a large margin? I don't know what it is with shooters from other systems to come here and nitpick how incompetence Sony is whenever Sony has new release/firmware update/dirty laundry list/ etc. I guess I have never been to the other fora with the intention to bash their system. I guess I'm really content with my Sony system than I don't see any strong urge to compare it to others (not that I don't follow what others are doing)....Show more →
Well noted. Listening to many here, you'd think Fuji were #1 in market share instead of being near dead last. Probably Ricoh is the only company with less sales than Fuji.
Fuji's marketshare is abysmal, despite all the X Trans hoopla and copious amounts of bug fixes...sorry "firmware updates" .
Sony, on the other hand, had designs to be a major player in the camera market and executed it well enough to be a clear #3 in the market. Whether or not they can go higher than this remains to be seen.
rattymouse wrote:
copious amounts of bug fixes...sorry "firmware updates" .
Do you realize how you come off with statements like these? Honestly?
Apparently, according to you, features like adding electronic shutter to 1/32,000s, a totally new autofocus system with faster low light and continuous AF performance (when it was already quite good), tons of added customization capabilities, expansion of AutoISO capabilities and dozens of small feature adds are 'bug fixes.'
Jman13 wrote:
Do you realize how you come off with statements like these? Honestly?
Apparently, according to you, features like adding electronic shutter to 1/32,000s, a totally new autofocus system with faster low light and continuous AF performance (when it was already quite good), tons of added customization capabilities, expansion of AutoISO capabilities and dozens of small feature adds are 'bug fixes.'
Fuji's autofocusing was miserable. Absolutely pathetic and was the #1 deal breaker on why I went into a camera store with cash in hand intending to buy an X Pro 1, and all 3 launch lenses. After seeing how laughably primitive the autofocus was I promptly left.
Fujifilm releases half baked cameras and then sloooowly over time improves them to where they are almost equal to their peers. That is not a practice I feel needs praise. Others are free to disagree but I think the market is speaking clearly putting Fujifilm near rock bottom competing with the likes of Ricoh and Casio instead of Sony or Olympus.
Matt Grum wrote:
Does anyone other than Nikon offer completely uncompressed RAW files? I'm hoping Sony do implement packing even if it's slower...
All these months some have been clamoring for "uncompressed" raw, and I thought that was crazy. The issue should have always been about lossy raw vs lossless raw (both compressed). Now it seems that Sony listened to the not-so-bright voices, if indeed they serve up an uncompressed raw file. I too hope they pack it down.
Yes, autofocus on the X-Pro was abysmal at launch. But the X-T1's most definitely was not, and since that's what I'm talking about, let's not rest on laurels of a camera that's over 3 years old. Considering you have essentially zero experience with any recent Fuji body, I find it ironic that you're lecturing others here. Especially since you really don't have experience with any of these bodies, aside from perhaps some handling in a camera store.
Good news, though according to DPR it will be an entirely "uncompressed" file rather than lossless compressed - so much bigger than really necessary. Still, better than nothing.
Depending on how stupidly they do the "uncompressed" that could mean up to about 85MB RAW files or if done slightly less stupidly 75MB RAW files. A bit of an ouch to be sure. Once again though, given Sony's track record this is much better than we'd expect from them - at least there will be an option to avoid artifacts even if it comes with a space/speed penalty.
Haven't all of the mirrorless camera makers struggled with AF? It seems like it's only been in the past year or so that people have moved their feelings on that function from "poor" to "usable" across all of the manufacturers.
That nonsense has been debunked a number of times.