Carl Stone

<div></div>

<div></div>

Citrus and cactus with mountain in the background<div></div>

Reflections on breaking the law (posted before)<div></div>

We speak BBQ, this one took 9 hours<div></div>

<p>Any new opinions? </p>

<p>How much for the bananas?</p><div></div>

Pope Francis and Ozzy, that's choice material, Eric! ROFL......

<p>Let's try it again</p><div></div>

<p>Dining out with my wife</p>

You are in error, yet again, Edward. Not that anything that I would post has any bearing on my comments in this thread. Anyway, this has become boring, so you, David, and your hype can have it. Bye.

Hmmm, personal attacks. One might think that you're desperate. Hogan used the A7Rii to shoot sports, then he reported his findings for that use. This is known as a review, Edward, although it was limited in scope. He did this in early October if this year, so it was recent. I only mention this because it was you that posted erroneous info about what he had said and done. You could do as David, and stomp your little foot, if that makes you feel better.

Junior, you can wait 'till the cows come home, I don't answer to you. Get over yourself.

Ribs!<div></div>

<div></div>

Scanned Velvia 50<div></div>

It was Edward who said that Hogan had no experience with recent Sony models, now wasn't it. We all know that Edward knew better.

Really, Edward, you know full well that Thom Hogan used the Sony A7Rll in his recent sports shoot. And you know that it did not fare well in that endeavor. Nobody is looking no bash Sony, in spite of your claim, but, a dose of reality is definitely called for.

<p>"If you choose to kneel at the altar of one reviewer, okay. Otherwise do your homework..."<br> <br> How 'bout Thom Hogan then? </p> <p>"</p> <ul> <li>Worst Lenses. As time passed, I had to change my answer here: pretty much everyone is making good to excellent lenses, though Sony still probably has more weaker ones than the rest of the players. The real issue here is <em>quantity</em> of lenses. m4/3 wins hands down, while everyone else is still playing catch up. "</li> </ul>

<blockquote> <p>Zeiss? The Sony-Zeiss lenses certainly don't measure up to Zeiss lenses. Nikon can produce competitive lenses without Zeiss.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes they do and Nikon hasn't. I have several of each, and Sony G, Sony/Zeiss and Zeiss are all first rate. The only Nikon lens that comes close in sharpness is the 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor, but the bokeh is not all that good. Nikon does okay in the 400 - 600 primes, but their shorter lenses and zooms are relics of another age."</p> <p>Edward, Edward, that flies in the face of Ming Thein's experience with these lenses. Here's an excerpt from his remarks:</p> <p><strong>Sony Zeiss FE ZA cobranded (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/sony_zeiss/Ntt/sony%2Bzeiss/N/0/kw/search/BI/19242/KBID/11109/DFF/d10-v1-t12" target="_blank">B&H</a> <a href="http://amzn.to/1kihypu" target="_blank">Amazon</a>)</strong><br /><em>2.8/35, 1.4/35, 1.8/55, 4/16-35, 4/24-70, many others for DX and A mount via adaptors. Pick of the bunch: 1.8/55</em><br />These are native mount, offer full functionality and the best value for money. They are made by Sony and not QC’d by Zeiss as per the other lenses; this means there is some significant sample variation possible. The 1.8/55 <em>can </em> be very impressive if you get a good copy; I’ve had to test six to find one though. Other lenses have significant field curvature/focus shift (the 2.8/35 for example) or are average (4/16-35). The 4/24-70 is a real mediocre disappointment and it’s a wonder that Zeiss ever agreed to have their name on this thing at all. I am not considering the SLR A mount lenses here because they are very expensive, clunky in operation via the various adaptors, and will really only work on Sony cameras – IMHO, not worth the investment given the recent confusion (by their own local principals, no less) over whether Sony was discontinuing the Alpha mount. Needless to say, it does not really inspire much confidence. But that might mean some used market bargains to be had…"<br> <br> He had to try 6 samples to get a good one? Clearly that is NOT up to Zeiss standards. If you want to see the entire article try this link.<br> http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/11/15/zeiss-lenses-for-sony-fe/</p> <p>I think you're are being blinded by your Sony loyalty. </p>

Well, Wouter, maybe you've been out of touch, but historically Nikon and Canon have leapfrogged each other with models that have changed sales for each. That is a game changer in the sales arena, and everyone in the business hopes that they will benefit from this type of thing. It might be a yawner to you, and some others, but it is a game if survival to some of the companies. If you look around, some camera companies are now extinct. That didn't happen by choice.

Zeiss? The Sony-Zeiss lenses certainly don't measure up to Zeiss lenses. Nikon can produce competitive lenses without Zeiss.

<p>Make of it what you will. My take is that Nikon is going after Sony's market share. </p>

<p>Watch out Sony! </p> <p>http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com</p> <p>I said the other day that folks shouldn't expect that Nikon and Canon are just going to idly stand by and let Sony take over the camera market. It looks like we are in store for some very exciting news as soon as next month. </p>

<p>Excellent, I hate laptop keyboards anyway, right up there with their little trackpads, yuk! </p>