Comments for Admiring Light Photography Reviews, Photos, News and Musings Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:38:40 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Micro 4/3 vs a Full Frame Legend by Seneca Trail Tour Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:38:40 +0000 I used to be suggested this blog via my
cousin. I’m no longer certain whether this put up is written by means of him as
no one else recognize sujch drtailed approximately my difficulty.
You’re wonderful! Thank you!

Comment on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS by Jordan Steele Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:57:17 +0000 I have a lot more experience with the 7-14, as I owned it for about 2-3 years, while the 10-24 I only had for a week when I had my review sample. Both are excellent lenses. The 10-24 is a significantly large lens and has optical stabilization, so that may make a difference, unless you’re shooting the 7-14 on an Olympus body. The 7-14 on the E-M5 (not sure if it’s this way on the E-M10 or E-M1) can produce some odd purple flares, which is something to be aware of. Both are very sharp throughout. The 7-14 might better at the long end than the 10-24, but the 10-24 is probably a little better at the wide end. It’s really hard to pick between, considering the different formats and the total image quality is tied to the camera a bit as well. If I’m remembering correctly, the 10-24 controls CA a bit better overall. Both are very sharp. If I had to pick, I’d guess the 10-24 is probably the slightly better lens overall, but it would be very close, and again, that’s with the caveat of only having used the 10-24 for a week.

Comment on Review: Sony a6000 by Peter Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:53:47 +0000 Thanks so much for this review. I have enjoyed all of your reviews. I have the NEX6 but mostly shoot the E-M1 because of the superb set of lenses I have for it. I have enjoyed the image quality of the Sigma 60 (90mm equiv) on the NEX and actually feel it is sharper than the Olympus 45mm (also 90mm equiv)… but wouldn’t stake my live on it just yet :-)

Thanks for the review on the EVF on the 6000. My problem on the NEX6 is 1) the darks are blocked up and 2) with glasses I can’t see into the corners which is especially problematic because I always use the live histogram and the right side of the histogram is in the bottom right corner. Grrr.

And finally, since I am always searching for good lenses for the NEX6, I have read your review of the 18-105. How does this lens stack up on the newer a6000? I can’t remember whether your review used the NEX7 or the lower pixel NEX6.


Comment on Review: Sony a6000 by Jordan Steele Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:42:43 +0000 The Sigma 60 focuses quite quickly. No major difference between it and my 18-105mm f/4, though there may be a slight edge to the Sony lens there. However, the Sigma 60 doesn’t appear to use PDAF for tracking, so in continuous AF it’s no question that the Sony lenses will do better there. My Sigma 60mm review will be coming in the next week. (Hint, it’s an incredible lens).

Comment on Review: Sony a6000 by Jordan Steele Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:40:00 +0000 It’s hard to say. The a6000 for the most part has feature parity with the X-T1, excepting the intervalometer..but you can pay for that…plus a higher burst rate and a wider PDAF area. In some cases it’s superior, in others it’s not. The X-T1′s viewfinder is notably better (though the a6000′s is a bit better than the one in the X-E2), and both Fuji cameras are built better…the X-T1 notably so. While I enjoy shooting the a6000, I do prefer the control scheme on the Fujis more. The X-T1 feels like a pro grade camera, and the a6000 feels like a mid range (but performs like a pro-grade).

The a6000 is definitely the better bargain, but I still prefer my X-T1 overall, primarily because of the amazing EVF and especially the quality and direct controls, which I prefer to any camera I’ve ever owned. I’ve shot a lot with my a6000 over the past several weeks, though, and it’s a wonderful small camera with an amazing feature set.

Image quality wise, the a6000 has more detail and when shooting landscapes with foliage at a distance, can resolve green detail better. At high ISO, the Fuji cameras are cleaner (even when accounting for ISO fudging), though the a6000 retains more detail at similar sensitivity (along with more noise). The Fuji files do hold up to punishment better, as the RAWs are completely uncompressed…shadow noise when pushing the shadows at low ISO is notably better as well. DR seems very similar between the two, and color and contrast rolloff is different, but it’s hard to say which is ‘better’. The Fuji produces images with more punch right out of the camera, but the Sony images produce more pleasing natural tones in many cases.

If choosing between the two when starting a new system, I think the lenses hold more sway, and there, Fuji has the upper hand when it comes to enthusiast/pro level lenses….the Fuji glass is exceptional, and they have a very wide array of fast high end gear, while the Sony APS-C lineup is more consumer oriented. While there are some excellent Sony lenses (and the Sigma trinity is outstanding), overall, the Fuji lens lineup is better. Right now I use my Fuji kit as my main kit, and the a6000 + a few lenses as my ‘small’ kit. (The a6000+ the 3 Sigma Art primes is very tiny and VERY high quality.)

Comment on Review: Sony a6000 by aza Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:04:02 +0000 thank you for your good review.
How about focus speed when you use sigma 60 compare with sony lens?

Comment on Review: Sony a6000 by HF Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:53:24 +0000 Very nice review.
How do you rate this camera when compared to the X-E2 or X-T1?

Comment on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS by Kevin Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:25:38 +0000 Hi Jordan, since you have reviewed both the Panasonic 7-14 and this Fuji 10-24, is it possible that you give some comment about these two UW lenses.

Comment on Why the Right Gear, Not the Best Gear, Is Essential by Serge Schmitt Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:19:15 +0000 Hi !

I’m a retired Frenchie in love with photography for about half of a century… ;-) or :-( as you want!

I’m always pleased to read such posts. Each gear is about technically OK to day, so right is actually better than best, really. One can read about pros who work with OM-1 to day, for example. I have seen fantastic images took with a entry APS. Or less.

In film times I used to wear two bodies, a handfull of lenses, accessories and so on. Would be too heavy anyway to day with a surgered back…

My first digital gear was a Canon G3 (2003), beautiful colors, precise images. Digital photography rebirthed my joy to make images.

Then I went to Panny G1 (2008), because I felt mirrorless is the future.
I still think so. If one does’nt print a meter large or so, 16 Mpx and 4/3 are more than enough. For making slide shows, too, obviously. The colors were a little pissy, but so what.

A year or so ago, I bought a Oly E-M5. Kit lens, 45mm 1.8, 9-18 and the Panny 50-200mm. That’s it. As said elsewhere, beautiful color rendering. I’ll probably buy a 20 or 25 mm in the future. Then, one day, I’ll replace the body with the OM-1 or it’s successor.

Digital bodies are a sort of disposable gear, isn’t it ? ;-)

Anyway thanks again for your post.

Comment on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS by Anthony Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:45:03 +0000 Thanks for the review.
I like to travel and I am looking at a nice camera to do some landscape photography as a novice photographer.
I am thinking about xm1 + 16-60/18-55 ( I can get a kit deal for both lens)
Would you say the extra 2mm is worth going for or is the sharpness and aperture on 18-55mm much more important?
Thank you.