[Mikesul]

No feedback as a seller? You go first.

Ok. I took the hit for the group. I ordered the "camera". Paypal or Ebay will take care of it if it is a fraud as it seems to be. $190 is a lot of money but on the small chance it is real I will gamble.

---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 02:15 PM ----------

I got a message from Ebay saying that the sellers account had been hacked by a 3rd party and that the item had been removed. I immediately cancelled the paypal payment and the money went back into my account. So the outcome is as we expected. It is a good example of why Paypal is a useful service. A credit card company would have eventually reversed the charges but it would have been much more of a hassle. So a fun way to spend a cold winter afternoon here in Phoenix

---

Last edited by Mikesul; 01-22-2018 at 02:20 PM.

[BigMackCam]

Ok. I took the hit for the group. I ordered the "camera". Paypal or Ebay will take care of it if it is a fraud as it seems to be. $190 is a lot of money but on the small chance it is real I will gamble.

---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 02:15 PM ----------

I got a message from Ebay saying that the sellers account had been hacked by a 3rd party and that the item had been removed. I immediately cancelled the paypal payment and the money went back into my account. So the outcome is as we expected. It is a good example of why Paypal is a useful service. A credit card company would have eventually reversed the charges but it would have been much more of a hassle. So a fun way to spend a cold winter afternoon here in Phoenix

Mike, all I can say is that you're a braver man than I

Glad it worked out though, even if you didn't get the bargain on offer

[gatorguy]

Ok. I took the hit for the group. I ordered the "camera". Paypal or Ebay will take care of it if it is a fraud as it seems to be. $190 is a lot of money but on the small chance it is real I will gamble.

---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 02:15 PM ----------

I got a message from Ebay saying that the sellers account had been hacked by a 3rd party and that the item had been removed. I immediately cancelled the paypal payment and the money went back into my account. So the outcome is as we expected. It is a good example of why Paypal is a useful service. A credit card company would have eventually reversed the charges but it would have been much more of a hassle. So a fun way to spend a cold winter afternoon here in Phoenix

I was the one that contacted eBay and got the listing pulled earlier. Hated seeing the purchase count build for an obviously fraudulent listing.

[Winder]

excellent shot!!!

Thank you.

---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 04:30 PM ----------

That's a great shot. Thanks for sharing!

Thank you.

---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 04:34 PM ----------

You Tube

You Tube

[gatorguy]

Thank you.

---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 04:30 PM ----------



Thank you.

---------- Post added 01-22-18 at 04:34 PM ----------

Sony a9 Real Wedding Photographer Review - YouTube

Great video link. Looks like an amazing camera, but even the reviewer seems to come to the same conclusion about the value proposition that I was guessing at.

But ya' gotta pay to play eh? Wish I had the spare change myself. Maybe someday.... Used..... eBay.... in about 5 years.

[Winder]

Great video link. Looks like an amazing camera, but even the reviewer seems to come to the same conclusion about the value proposition that I was guessing at.

But ya' gotta pay to play eh? Wish I had the spare change myself. Maybe someday.... Used..... eBay.... in about 5 years.

That is true for all cameras. For most people even an entry level DSLR is not worth the money because their iPhone is good enough. For a lot of people a m4/3 system is more than enough. For others ASP-C is their sweet spot. I prefer full frame. I would love to shoot medium format, but the cost exceeds its value to me, but obviously there are people on this board who have no issue with a $6,000 body and $4,000 lenses. The value proposition is relative to the user and how much they will use it.

If you were charging $2,000 per portrait sitting you would find that those $5,000 camera bodies really aren't that expensive relative to what you are charging.

Peter Hurley Studios Headshot Session Rates One day maybe I will be able to charge something close to what Peter Charges. Peter has way more money tied up in studio lighting than he does camera bodies. I could sell all my gear an probably not pay for all his Profoto modifiers.

I just booked head shots for a small real estate company (18 agents + broker) and a group shot for the end of the month. That pays for the body. I shoot weddings and events. I shoot newborn, maternity, family portraits, corporate events.

Here is one of a little girl who just turned ONE. We had her run towards mama (behind me) 3 times. The K-1 with the D-FA* 70-200mm would get 3-4 in focus images out of each run. She wasn't even running that fast. When a one year old is out running the AF, I knew it was time to look at other options. I shouldn't expect a "field camera" to be able to keep up with a one year old anyway. Its the wrong tool for the job.

[aurele]

I really love the Eye-AF and the overall AF speed.

I have to say that this Eye-AF is really THE thing that makes Sony really interesting. This Eye-AF solve pretty much the main tricky part of tacking a rightly focused picture.

From the first A7 to the A9, Sony did make really fast and steady leap. Makes me wonder where there gonna be in 2 years.

[surfar]

I have to say that this Eye-AF is really THE thing that makes Sony really interesting. This Eye-AF solve pretty much the main tricky part of tacking a rightly focused picture.

From the first A7 to the A9, Sony did make really fast and steady leap. Makes me wonder where there gonna be in 2 years.

In the Olympics!

[mecrox]

I have to say that this Eye-AF is really THE thing that makes Sony really interesting. This Eye-AF solve pretty much the main tricky part of tacking a rightly focused picture.

From the first A7 to the A9, Sony did make really fast and steady leap. Makes me wonder where there gonna be in 2 years.

Great on paper but I expect eye-AF needs careful checking in practice before flashing the plastic. The reason is that the camera needs a lot of processing power to keep up with the changing AF as the subject moves. I suspect that some earlier cameras just weren’t powerful enough when AF was set to continuous or tracking and the whole thing depended on tracking only a small target at very shallow DOF. Result = a high number of misses. Highly likely the newest Sony offerings do have enough processing grunt. My Oly cams (not the newest generation) have eye-tracking but I’ve not got it to work all that well with even gently moving subjects for, I suspect, this reason. With S-AF and a fairly static target it’s fine. Very powerful in-camera processing has really only come on stream in the last year or so.

[normhead]

That is true for all cameras. For most people even an entry level DSLR is not worth the money because their iPhone is good enough. For a lot of people a m4/3 system is more than enough. For others ASP-C is their sweet spot. I prefer full frame. I would love to shoot medium format, but the cost exceeds its value to me, but obviously there are people on this board who have no issue with a $6,000 body and $4,000 lenses. The value proposition is relative to the user and how much they will use it.

If you were charging $2,000 per portrait sitting you would find that those $5,000 camera bodies really aren't that expensive relative to what you are charging.

Peter Hurley Studios Headshot Session Rates One day maybe I will be able to charge something close to what Peter Charges. Peter has way more money tied up in studio lighting than he does camera bodies. I could sell all my gear an probably not pay for all his Profoto modifiers.

I just booked head shots for a small real estate company (18 agents + broker) and a group shot for the end of the month. That pays for the body. I shoot weddings and events. I shoot newborn, maternity, family portraits, corporate events.

Here is one of a little girl who just turned ONE. We had her run towards mama (behind me) 3 times. The K-1 with the D-FA* 70-200mm would get 3-4 in focus images out of each run. She wasn't even running that fast. When a one year old is out running the AF, I knew it was time to look at other options. I shouldn't expect a "field camera" to be able to keep up with a one year old anyway. Its the wrong tool for the job.

Nice..... the impressive thing for a Pentax shooter is the little girl has in focus pavement in front of her, so clearly predictive tracking. I suspect that even if you got this shot with a Pentax she would be right at the front of the DoF with most of the in focus area behind her. I'm not sure that matters a whole lot to the client, but it certainly helps your confidence as a shooter.

I actually check every action shot for that, and usually the front edge of my dog (my usual action subject) is just on the front edge of acceptable focus, if it's in focus at all. Despite Pentax making little noises about getting better at this, so far I have seen very little improvement. They still don't seem to have acceptable algorithms to predict where the subject will be after the shutter activation process.

[Winder]

Great on paper but I expect eye-AF needs careful checking in practice before flashing the plastic. The reason is that the camera needs a lot of processing power to keep up with the changing AF as the subject moves. I suspect that some earlier cameras just weren’t powerful enough when AF was set to continuous or tracking and the whole thing depended on tracking only a small target at very shallow DOF. Result = a high number of misses. Highly likely the newest Sony offerings do have enough processing grunt. My Oly cams (not the newest generation) have eye-tracking but I’ve not got it to work all that well with even gently moving subjects for, I suspect, this reason. With S-AF and a fairly static target it’s fine. Very powerful in-camera processing has really only come on stream in the last year or so.

It does take a good bit of processing power, but the speed of the sensor has been the main hurdle. That is why Sony put the stacked BSI sensor in the A9. The speed at which the sensor can read all the AF points has a lot to do with tracking. The A9 reads and adjusts focus 60 times per-second. Then you have to have lenses that can move that fast. Canon and Nikon have developed predictive AF that works great on a subject that is moving at a set speed in a consistent direction. Sony has developed a reactive AF system and that works better for subjects that are moving erratically.

I would love to know how many times per second my K-1 is checking and adjusting AF.

[normhead]

It does take a good bit of processing power, but the speed of the sensor has been the main hurdle. That is why Sony put the stacked BSI sensor in the A9. The speed at which the sensor can read all the AF points has a lot to do with tracking. The A9 reads and adjusts focus 60 times per-second. Then you have to have lenses that can move that fast. Canon and Nikon have developed predictive AF that works great on a subject that is moving at a set speed in a consistent direction. Sony has developed a reactive AF system and that works better for subjects that are moving erratically.

I would love to know how many times per second my K-1 is checking and adjusting AF.

Unfortunately companies only publish that kind of info, if they happen to be the best. With Pentax's aversion to be cutting edge i hardware, more of a do something special with like Pixel Shift with more available hardware, it's unlikely they'd do well in that test. I'd expect the whole Pentax system to be clocked slower, and not perform as quickly. Most of us can live with that.

That being said, I think the predictive focus slows down the whole process bit. Imaging resources on static subjects show the K-1 is slightly faster. Maybe not as good for shooting a burst of a moving subject, but better for a single frame static capture.

The shutter response lag time for a K-1 is .09s
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k1/pentax-k1A6.HTM

For the A9 it's .216.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a9/sony-a9A6.HTM

You can usually pick and choose stats to show your system is better. It's all about what you value and about using the system that gives you the best images at what you are actually doing.

I've actually noticed that out in the park, lying waiting for wildlife with 7 other photographers, none of whom shoot Pentax. Prefocused on a an Otter or a Pine Marten or whatever, when there's slight change in pose, when we are all prefocussed waiting for the moment, often, my shutter clicks first. According to IR, an A9 shooter will experience a longer delay after pressing the shutter button.

You always have to give something to get something.

[mecrox]

It does take a good bit of processing power, but the speed of the sensor has been the main hurdle. That is why Sony put the stacked BSI sensor in the A9. The speed at which the sensor can read all the AF points has a lot to do with tracking. The A9 reads and adjusts focus 60 times per-second. Then you have to have lenses that can move that fast. Canon and Nikon have developed predictive AF that works great on a subject that is moving at a set speed in a consistent direction. Sony has developed a reactive AF system and that works better for subjects that are moving erratically.

I would love to know how many times per second my K-1 is checking and adjusting AF.

Ah, that's interesting. It sounds like a combination of fast new sensor and powerful new processing too. The newish Oly E-M1 Mark II has twin quadcore processors in it, I believe, but also a much newer sensor than my old E-M1 model which is 2013 or so vintage by now. I spent a day photographing wolves recently in a conservation centre. They were never completely still. Even when not walking their head was moving slightly, always scanning around. I was going wide open (f2.8) to keep up the shutter speed and concentrating on their eyes. Continuous AF just wasn't quite enough, but single AF was fine - it is so fast with these mirrorless cameras that it's OK to press the shutter quickly and job done - the in-focus light comes on instantly on the half-press. With continuous AF there was always a slight delay of maybe a second or so - enough for wolfie to have moved a little. The majority of my shots were sharp and those that weren't were usually because I had inadvertently nudged the shutter speed down. I'm sure the newer Sony cameras would improve on this no end.

[Winder]

Ah, that's interesting. It sounds like a combination of fast new sensor and powerful new processing too. The newish Oly E-M1 Mark II has twin quadcore processors in it, I believe, but also a much newer sensor than my old E-M1 model which is 2013 or so vintage by now. I spent a day photographing wolves recently in a conservation centre. They were never completely still. Even when not walking their head was moving slightly, always scanning around. I was going wide open (f2.8) to keep up the shutter speed and concentrating on their eyes. Continuous AF just wasn't quite enough, but single AF was fine - it is so fast with these mirrorless cameras that it's OK to press the shutter quickly and job done - the in-focus light comes on instantly on the half-press. With continuous AF there was always a slight delay of maybe a second or so - enough for wolfie to have moved a little. The majority of my shots were sharp and those that weren't were usually because I had inadvertently nudged the shutter speed down. I'm sure the newer Sony cameras would improve on this no end.

The OMD EM1 MK2 is an impressive little camera with some really great lens options. If Olympus ever brings a larger sensor to market I will definitely take a look at them. I really like their cameras. I shot with an E-3 for a couple of years before realizing that 4/3 was going to be dead.

[mecrox]

The OMD EM1 MK2 is an impressive little camera with some really great lens options. If Olympus ever brings a larger sensor to market I will definitely take a look at them. I really like their cameras. I shot with an E-3 for a couple of years before realizing that 4/3 was going to be dead.

I'll likely stick with them since size/weight issues are important for me, never mind cost, and the image quality is fine for a hobby anyway. Yes, their lenses are very impressive. I recently got their 40-150mm telephoto (80-300mm in FF terms) which is built like a tank, weather-sealed and simply amazing even wide open at 2.8. The only reason to stop down might be for more DOF, Interestingly, Olympus do have some wild cards from their past which I guess could be used as the inspiration for ventures into new formats. Such as the Hasselblad-like OM-X



Which I've read - can't remember where, maybe on here - was designed by the great Yoshihisa Maitani but when the company said it was too experimental he produced the classic OM-1 instead.