# National Geographic photographer Bob Krist explains why he moved to Sony



## Jon_D (Oct 15, 2014)

> I didn’t start out looking to jump ship from my favorite line of DSLRs to Sony mirrorless, cameras. It just kind of happened out of necessity.
> I’m a 30+year veteran shooter for National Geographic publications. A few years ago, they asked me to go along on one of the high end, educational private jet tours that their new division, National Geographic Expeditions, was starting to offer. I would teach lecture and teach photography, and oh, could I also shoot some video and stills of the trip?.....



read more:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/

and read this too:

http://www.oldmaninmotion.com/four-great-still-shooting-feats-my-sub-1k-mirrorless-can-do-that-my-3k-dslr-cant/


----------



## Jura (Oct 15, 2014)

what he doesn't do is illustrate his decision with one half descent picture! Certainly nothing that I would deem National Geographic worthy!
Reading the alpha rumours link it seems his decision was based on wanting to be able to take "Run and Gun" video of money-rich but time-poor people on "whirlwind tours"....
For me the article is hardly a compelling thesis on why a stills shooter interested in creating nice images should give up their DSLR. 
Or, for that matter, why anyone in their right mind should go on national geographic tour!


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 15, 2014)

Hmmm....

At a recent wedding held in a wonderful, ancient Saxon church ( part of it from about 980 AD) the vicar, who was extremely strict about photography in the church, allowed me, after suitable arm twisting, to shoot from one of the chapels in the sacrestry, "as long as there was no flash and no sound whatsoever". Using a 5D I just shot that part in live view, totally silent.

1/1600 flash. Wow ! I just use HSS.

Ten frames per second ? OK I'll have to get a 7DII ( which doesn't cost $3300)

Dust on the sensor ? Now that really is stretching the boundaries of reasons to change systems.

So to conclude this is one of the weaker lists of reasons that I have seen for changing.


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> At a recent wedding held in a wonderful, ancient Saxon church ( part of it from about 980 AD) the vicar, who was extremely strict about photography in the church, allowed me, after suitable arm twisting, to shoot from one of the chapels in the sacrestry, "as long as there was no flash and no sound whatsoever". Using a 5D I just shot that part in live view, totally silent.
> 
> ...



What you said. Also, it sounds like what he wants for video is a camcorder. Moreover, downsampling isn't the only thing which causes moire...

This reads like a cheap advertisement for sony, written to lure in entry level people looking to upgrade. 

And the guy's pictures were not at all stand out for anything...


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 15, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> And the guy's pictures were not at all stand out for anything...



says mr. anonymous on the internet.
at least he made it to nat geo... you? 

care to share some of your work?

he does:

http://bobkrist.com/


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 15, 2014)

Jura said:


> what he doesn't do is illustrate his decision with one half descent picture! Certainly nothing that I would deem National Geographic worthy!



unlike you. a self proclaimed critic who has not shown a single picture. 



> Bob Krist is a freelance photographer who works regularly on assignment for magazines such as National Geographic Traveler, Smithsonian, and Islands. These assignments have taken him to all seven continents and have won awards in the Pictures of the Year, Communication Arts, and World Press Photo competitions. During his work, he has been stranded ona glacier in Iceland, nearly run down by charging bulls in southern India, and knighted with a cutlass during a Trinidad voodoo ceremony. He won the title of “Travel Photographer of the Year” from the Society of American Travel Writers in 1994, 2007, and 2008. In 2000 his work was honored at the Eisenstaedt Awards for Magazine Photography in New York City.




now i would really like to see some of your images guys.
you know something that shows your DSLR´s are superior. 

you seem to have the idea, that because he changed the camera he suddenly became a worse photographer.
i mean sure all the snapshots you take on vacations are masterpieces.... so don´t be shy!

but hey why i ask... mr. and mrs. anonymous on the internet sure know better than this guy.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2014)

A dude who literally shoots for National Geographic <- wrong about cameras.

Lol, this forum is full of bitter, crazy people.


----------



## quod (Oct 15, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> And the guy's pictures were not at all stand out for anything...


His work is excellent. His client list is a testiment to that.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2014)

This is what I don't understand about the photography "community".

Some guy decides to switch camera companies. He is not saying that his previous camera sucked, nor is he saying that he thinks that every other photographer needs to follow his lead. He simply made a choice.

But, when the story is posted, look at the defensive (and sometimes offensive) posts. 

Who cares if this person switches camera systems? Clearly it was the right decision for him

Equally clear is that his reasons should have no influence on anyone else's decision to stay or move.

No one here can say that his reasons for switching are wrong for him. 

So he switched to another manufacturer. Good for him. I wish him the best of luck and I hope that his new system makes him happy. 

So why did some people feel it was appropriate, or even helpful, to attack his photography? 

It just does not make sense.


----------



## iron-t (Oct 15, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > And the guy's pictures were not at all stand out for anything...
> ...



I agree Krist's body of work is impressive, including many stunning images, but I also agree that the photos included with his ringing endorsement of Sony mirrorless are not great. They're not among his best photos. He also doesn't seem to tout the image quality--just praises the portability and versatility--of Sony mirrorless.

In short, it's interesting to get the perspective of a bona fide pro on the advantages of the NEX/A7 systems, but not exactly a killer argument for ditching Canon or Nikon depending on your usage.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> This is what I don't understand about the photography "community".
> 
> Some guy decides to switch camera companies. He is not saying that his previous camera sucked, nor is he saying that he thinks that every other photographer needs to follow his lead. He simply made a choice.
> 
> ...


+1000

If company X made camera model Y that was better than every other camera for every possible reason, then that would be the only camera that people would select. until someone invents a camera that meets a multitude of conflicting requirements, people will choose what works best for their criteria.... and to those people I say "Go for it!"


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 15, 2014)

iron-t said:


> Jon_D said:
> 
> 
> > AprilForever said:
> ...



but what if portability and versatility are his major requirements.......


----------



## azizjhn (Oct 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> iron-t said:
> 
> 
> > Jon_D said:
> ...



Maybe thats right but that alone is acceptable & convincing but other than that for what he said is just bad execuses


----------



## Larry (Oct 15, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Jura said:
> 
> 
> > what he doesn't do is illustrate his decision with one half descent picture! Certainly nothing that I would deem National Geographic worthy!
> ...



Bob Krist's accomplishments and talent aside, this thread has examples of a kind of pseudo-logic I always find interesting - the idea that only those who are themselves highly capable are entitled to have "an opinion" about anyone else's performance.

Do you have an opinion about the president of the U.S.? (Have you ever been a successful president of the U.S.?)

Do you have an opinion about Rap music? (Are you a recognized rap musician?)

Do you like/dislike some paintings in a museum? (Are you an accomplished painter?)

Do you have an opinion about pants hanging off a**es with undershorts filling the waist-leg gap? (Are you acclaimed as a fashion critic?)

What do you think of breast-feeding in public? ( Oh, wait, have you ever been a mother with a child to nurse?)

Do you think some pro quarterbacks are very good, and some less-so? ( Answer only if you are one of the good ones. )

...ad infinitum ( or nauseam )


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2014)

I think the photography community would benefit if we all paid a little less attention to what other photographers do.


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> So why did some people feel it was appropriate, or even helpful, to attack his photography?
> 
> It just does not make sense.



You don't like the message, either directly or because it reminds you of something related? Yet know you can''t refute it? Shoot the messenger who puts a finger in the wound.
It's an all to common behavioral pattern...


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2014)

Larry said:


> Bob Krist's accomplishments and talent aside, this thread has examples of a kind of pseudo-logic I always find interesting - the idea that only those who are themselves highly capable are entitled to have "an opinion" about anyone else's performance.
> 
> Do you have an opinion about the president of the U.S.? (Have you ever been a successful president of the U.S.?)
> 
> ...



I wonder if there is some sort of connective thread running through these examples. I just can't seem to put my finger on it.....hmmmm

Also, making the argument that ignorance of a subject is no barrier to forming an opinion. Wow.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2014)

There are people here who are far too emotional about photography gear.

Just because someone chooses to use a different system, does NOT mean that my system is bad, nor does it mean that somehow I am a lessor photographer.

But that's the impression I get from some of the posters on this site. A difference of opinion is considered an attack that must be defended against!


----------



## Larry (Oct 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> I wonder if there is some sort of connective thread running through these examples. I just can't seem to put my finger on it.....hmmmm
> 
> Also, making the argument that ignorance of a subject is no barrier to forming an opinion. Wow.



Read into things much? The examples were chosen *because* most people have opinions on the subjects. Very perceptive of you to (almost) put your finger on the "connection"

"Also," Ignorance is only a barrier to forming an "educated" opinion. Lacking the adjective doesn't stop many people.

Wow!


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> But that's the impression I get from some of the posters on this site. A difference of opinion is considered an attack that must be defended against!



Its honestly one of the reasons I keep coming here. Its just so entertaining. It never fails to blow my mind how much of some people's identity is wrapped up in what brand of camera they use.



Larry said:


> Read into things much? The examples were chosen *because* most people have opinions on the subjects.



So....you voted for Obama, love hip hop and celebrate popular youth fashion? You'll forgive me for assuming that someone posting these things on a forum that skews heavily toward wealthy, middle-aged/elderly American and European white men had a specific opinion in mind.

You are right that ignorance doesn't stop people from forming opinions but it really really should.


----------



## Larry (Oct 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> Larry said:
> 
> 
> > Read into things much? The examples were chosen *because* most people have opinions on the subjects.
> ...



This will be my last on the subject, ...continue if you please.

I am "the decider" re. whom/what I will forgive 

In this case I will base the forgiveness on your obvious lack of situational awareness. You really, really should note that your ignorance re. my voting/music/fashion preferences has not "stopped" you from forming an assumptive opinion about same. ( FYI, your score was 33 1/3%, ...in my experience, this is a failing grade. )


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> Its honestly one of the reasons I keep coming here. Its just so entertaining. It never fails to blow my mind how much of some people's identity is wrapped up in what brand of camera they use.



I agree. I haunt several photography forums; but for maximum entertainment, you can't beat Canonrumors. As I posted before, it is the Jerry Springer of photography!

But there are times when it gets a bit much.


----------



## Diko (Oct 15, 2014)

Larry said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Larry said:
> ...


 At least we now know who you voted for ROFL


----------



## Dantana (Oct 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I don't understand about the photography "community".
> ...



+1000 to you both.

These are just tools that we use to make image. Some tools are better at certain things than others. The systems that these tools exist in also have a great impact on their use.

This guy decided to switch tools for reasons that are important to him. Maybe these reasons are not important to anyone else. Maybe they are important to a lot of people. Good for him. He didn't sit around complaining about one brand or another, he just switched.

There is no perfect camera/system out there. There are cameras and systems that work better for individual users. There's no reason to take it as an insult that someone has found a new tool that they like.

I'm very happy with the tools that I use. Maybe at some point I will become less satisfied and look elsewhere, or be lured by some other system for some specific reason. That doesn't seem like something that should make others angry or hurt.


----------



## marcel (Oct 15, 2014)

He use the cameras in APS-C. If he use the A7S in crop mode for stills the result is a 8 mpx camera. Like a Canon Eos 350.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 15, 2014)

Dantana said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



While I understand your points, let's remember that most of these people don't simply "switch" and then go about their business. They seem compelled to rush out and make videos justifying/rationalizing their conversion. 

Every day, there are probably a thousand people who are like those you describe. They switch brands because it works for them. That's fine. But most don't make videos about it.

If you are going to turn your private decision into a public one, they I think it's perfectly legitimate for people to critique your reasoning. I don't think people get offended, they just disagree and want to say why they disagree. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Larry (Oct 15, 2014)

unfocused said:


> While I understand your points, let's remember that most of these people don't simply "switch" and then go about their business. They seem compelled to rush out and make videos justifying/rationalizing their conversion.
> 
> Every day, there are probably a thousand people who are like those you describe. They switch brands because it works for them. That's fine. But most don't make videos about it.
> 
> If you are going to turn your private decision into a public one, they I think it's perfectly legitimate for people to critique your reasoning. I don't think people get offended, they just disagree and want to say why they disagree. Nothing wrong with that.



"Compelled"? is it reasonable that someone who, after considerable thought (and expense) invests in a new camera or system, would want to use(test) it immediately afterward?

...and that if the results are pleasing, (assuming honesty and some objectivity on the part of the new "parent",) that person would choose to share his findings with the photo "community?

Most may not make videos about the experience, ...some do.

Anything wrong with that?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I don't think people get offended, they just disagree and want to say why they disagree. Nothing wrong with that.



I think some of the posts on this website go a little beyond simply disagreement. 

Name calling, personal insults, and ad Hominem attacks are not disagreements. 

Also, just because someone publishes somethign that I disagree with, does not mean that I have to respond. I disagree with a lot of stuff in life and I don't respond. ;D


----------



## Larry (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> ...just because someone publishes somethign that I disagree with, does not mean that I have to respond. I disagree with a lot of stuff in life and I don't respond. ;D



Google (images) - "Someone is wrong on the internet."


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think people get offended, they just disagree and want to say why they disagree. Nothing wrong with that.
> ...



But... but... but...





(xkcd #386)


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> But... but... but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guess I was mistaken. ;D


----------



## Larry (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > But... but... but...
> ...



The only world-wide completely volunteer force ...The Internet Police! (Help stamp out inferior know-nothings!  )


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 15, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Jura said:
> 
> 
> > what he doesn't do is illustrate his decision with one half descent picture! Certainly nothing that I would deem National Geographic worthy!
> ...



Very low post count, blatantly re-posting the link to a personal webpage, taking on regular members of the community, and calling them anonymous... Are you sure your name is Jon D and not Bob Krist?


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 15, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > And the guy's pictures were not at all stand out for anything...
> ...



Oh, and I have posted several pictures here on this forum, and other places on the internet as well, which you likely would have checked first, if you were not a sock puppet for Bob Krist. Self promotion is all well and fine, but be honest about it, no need to hide behind fake names and insult people who disagree with you.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > But... but... but...
> ...


----------



## Monchoon (Oct 15, 2014)

So he is switching out from a Nikon to a A6000, to a A7s? Is this for video or did I miss something.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 15, 2014)

Accutance and Steve, 
I agree with your comment that sometimes the defense of Canon equipment on this forum is quite rabid, but consider the fact that this thread was started with the aim of provoking Canon fans by someone whose sole contribution to this forum (Jon D, all 15 posts) has been to rant against Canon.
So when people do get provoked, you cannot solely blame them.

Regarding Bob Krist's criticism, as unfocused said- whoever puts his personal opinion in the public domain can expect to get criticized. He might be a very accomplished photographer, and he is certainly entitled to his opinions. That does not mean he is the ultimate authority in deciding which one is better, Sony mirrorless vs Canon dSLRs. His posts about technique might be more useful to the learning photog.

Also, gear isn't why he is a NatGeo photographer. While I'd love to publish in NatGeo, even my using a $50K Hassy won't help me do that. And he would have published in NatGeo even with a P&S (well, probably).


----------



## ifp (Oct 15, 2014)

Diko said:


> Larry said:
> 
> 
> > Steve said:
> ...



I might be reading a bit too much between the lines, but I think it's much more likely that we have an idea of who Steve didn't vote for.

Anyway, I think the OP was either shilling or trolling. Meh. As far as needing to be a great photographer to critique, that's simply fallacy. To be a credible photography critic, one needs to know something about photography, but a person doesn't need to be a great photographer to have that knowledge. Being a great photographer doesn't necessarily mean you're a credible photography critic either. And anyone can critique photography, much like anyone can critique fashion/politics/music. To be credible though, you need knowledge of the topics at hand.

Of course, I suspect everyone knows this. We just all like to beat each other over the heads since we're all internet tough guys.


----------



## Besisika (Oct 15, 2014)

Larry said:


> Bob Krist's accomplishments and talent aside, this thread has examples of a kind of pseudo-logic I always find interesting - the idea that only those who are themselves highly capable are entitled to have "an opinion" about anyone else's performance.
> 
> Do you have an opinion about the president of the U.S.? (Have you ever been a successful president of the U.S.?)
> 
> ...


I don't know if you are right or wrong but I like the way you present your idea - examples are clear and powerful
thanks for sharing.

Agree, protectionism is used by many. Here in Quebec we have a lot of "order of ..." and only members of these orders can practice some specific professions. My friend was an expert in AIDS from France, finished 2 year-specialization at one of the best universities in Montreal and still cannot practice, had to become a member.

My opinion; photo is a photo, whether the light lighting ratio is perfect 4:1 or anything else. People like it, it is a good photo.
Quality depends on the viewer and not his degree of success-fulness in photography. 
Real photographers will do everything to protect their territory - they are the pro.


----------



## Monchoon (Oct 15, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Sounds to me like he sees the switch as enabling him to take more easily photographs that before would have been difficult or impossible.



What?


----------



## NancyP (Oct 15, 2014)

Sony A7s is a specialty camera, low pixel count but remarkable performance at high iso. It would seem to be the perfect night street-shooters' camera, pretty fine for photographing poorly lit interiors for editorial. No, you can't do everything with it, but for someone who is tasked with bringing back good images for use in print adverts and screen images, this seems like a fine choice. It is also said to be a good video camera.


----------



## Perio (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> This is what I don't understand about the photography "community".
> 
> Some guy decides to switch camera companies. He is not saying that his previous camera sucked, nor is he saying that he thinks that every other photographer needs to follow his lead. He simply made a choice.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with you, however some people may feel that famous photographers can get paid by Canon/Nikon/Sony etc. to attract a lot of potential buyers. It may have nothing to do with what Bob actually likes. This reminds me when Scott Kelby switched to Canon and said he liked the IQ from Canon better than Nikon. A lot of Nikon users felt that Scott just got paid by Canon and that's the only reason he switched.


----------



## Ralph (Oct 15, 2014)

This "photographer" obviously forgt to multiply his aperture with his cropfactor of 2.73 for a 1" sensor. His 200mm lense then turns out to have an apperture of 7.6 in full frame terms, which fits much more to the actual size of the Zeiss lense compared to a Canon 200mm 2.8 L lense... Goodluck hunting wildlife with that


----------



## Monchoon (Oct 15, 2014)

Impossible? hmm


----------



## candc (Oct 16, 2014)

i read the article, he shoots a lot of video and the a7s is really good for that. evf is really important, especially in sunlight. the a7s resolution is made for video without pixel binning or line skipping. he also likes the light weight and small size, he uses sony/zeiss and some nikkor lenses he likes on the camera. all sounds reasonable to me? 

i have been thinking about getting a regular a7, the a7r seems excessive and there is some shutter vibration problem with it. the sony's are great because you can use just about every lens ever made. i like the idea of using my fd lenses again. i also really have this itch to get a nikkor 135dc but just don't want to have to buy a nikon body just for the lens.


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 16, 2014)

well and here i am still waiting for pictures from the wannabe critics. 

but as usual nothing will surface.... too afraid they might get something to eat they dish out themself.

im pretty sure bob krist has more talent in his little finger than the critics here combined.

and i am not bashing CANON.
bob krist was a NIKON user before switching to SONY.
so how could i bash CANON with this post?


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 16, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> Very low post count, blatantly re-posting the link to a personal webpage, taking on regular members of the community, and calling them anonymous... Are you sure your name is Jon D and not Bob Krist?



you say you are not anonymous. 
so what is your name?

you don´t even post your forename.... mine is jon by the way, not bob.

all you can do is attack people out of anonymity.. you know how people call that?

at least bob krist wrote his real name under the article!


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 16, 2014)

Ralph said:


> This "photographer" obviously forgt to multiply his aperture with his cropfactor of 2.73 for a 1" sensor. His 200mm lense then turns out to have an apperture of 7.6 in full frame terms, which fits much more to the actual size of the Zeiss lense compared to a Canon 200mm 2.8 L lense... Goodluck hunting wildlife with that



just so you don´t die clueless.... aps-c is not a 1" sensor and does not have a 2.73 cropfactor.

but hey keep on reading just the headlines and have an instant opinion.

im sure someone who was travel photographer of the year a few times will choose the right gear for the job.
he has an A6000 aps-c camera with a faster AF in his bag too.

how comes that people nobody ever heard of in the photography world know everything better than people who are recognized and make a living with photography?


----------



## Ralph (Oct 16, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> > This "photographer" obviously forgt to multiply his aperture with his cropfactor of 2.73 for a 1" sensor. His 200mm lense then turns out to have an apperture of 7.6 in full frame terms, which fits much more to the actual size of the Zeiss lense compared to a Canon 200mm 2.8 L lense... Goodluck hunting wildlife with that
> ...



Wow how arrogant are you without making at least basic research? The rx10 has a 1" sensor. Google it yourself if you dont believe it. I wont waste my time dicussing basics with arrogant beginners like yourself.


----------



## iron-t (Oct 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> iron-t said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Just look at his website--it features some really great images that he has publicly posted for all to see and "rip off." I don't think he or many other photographers deliberately sandbag when they are promoting themselves and their photography--other than the near-ubiquitous watermarked (often obnoxious) or low-res images. Still less often will a good photog post a few images with the caveat, "and these aren't even the best ones!" No, I think Krist did not get a lot of great still pictures on this trip. That said, he seems to have been focused much more on videography.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 16, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Accutance and Steve,
> I agree with your comment that sometimes the defense of Canon equipment on this forum is quite rabid, but consider the fact that this thread was started with the aim of provoking Canon fans by someone whose sole contribution to this forum (Jon D, all 15 posts) has been to rant against Canon.
> So when people do get provoked, you cannot solely blame them.



I think you have identified the problem. 

There are some members of this forum who treat the publishing/linking of an opinion as a provocation. That's what I don't understand. There are many many opinions I don't agree with, but I never consider them a provocation. 

If the members really did not agree with the opinions in the video, would not the best action be not to respond to the thread? After a few hours/days of no action, the thread would die away.


----------



## Ralph (Oct 16, 2014)

Bob Krist states on the website: "Yes, with a permanently fixed Zeiss zoom lens with the 35mm equivalent of a 24-200mm f/2.8 [...]" 

This is mathematically wrong. There is a linear relationship between aperture, focal length and sensor size. A lens of with this size on a 1" sensor is not equivalent to 200mm 2.8 in 35mm full-frame terms. This is not an opinion, this is a mathematical fact. And it doesnt matter if Bob is photographer of the year or century, it is still WRONG.

Jon_D have you ever seen in your live a 200mm 2.8 full-frame lense? Maybe there is a reason why they are so big and or do you think they just make it so big and expensive for fun. 

Do your homework in basic photography unerstanding before harassing other people on this forum. Thanks


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2014)

Some observations:

1 . I have seen his website and I truly liked his photos. However, were they taken with a Sony RX10? I do not think so!

2. The 4 arguments are ridiculous:

Silent shooting: It can be accomplished through LV as another forum member said or approximated using 5DMk3's or 6D's silent mode shooting. In addition many Nikon models sport silent shooting modes.

Flash Sync Speed: HSS is supported on many cameras/flashes combinations

10fps: I will not even bother to mention which models are capable of that. I will simply say that this is most usefull in sports. But RX10 is an up to 200mm (35mm equivalent camera). I do not thing it is enough for sports.
It is obvious he didn't use it in practice. Otherwise he would comment in AF tracking capabilities in combination with 10fps shooting.

No sensor dust ever: It is obvious that he didn't use the very latest models with anti-dust mechanisms.

3. No mention of High ISO or low light IQ in comparison to a modern FF camera.


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 16, 2014)

tron said:


> Flash Sync Speed: HSS is supported on many cameras/flashes combinations



HSS eats power like crazy. You loose three quarters just for turning it on, and then the output stays constant in relation to the ambient light.
The leaf shutter otoh sets the target aperture, giving you a 4-5 stop advantage. Contrasting to HSS you also benefit from ISOs above base sensitivity. You couldn't replicate that with 600RTs because the control system can't handle as many units as that would require. Not to mention the logistic challenges, or the implications when not relying only on speedlights.
You'd need at least 100kg worth of speedlights and batteries to match a single, easily backpack transportable, Move1200 - just for perspective. And that doesn't include stands or clamps. For B1s it works out similarily.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Flash Sync Speed: HSS is supported on many cameras/flashes combinations
> ...


Even so how much is flash used by ... travel photographers? If you browse his site's photos 

http://bobkrist.com/photography/

how many have used flash (even more shot with a speed higher than 1/250?)


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 16, 2014)

tron said:


> how many have used flash (even more shot with a speed higher than 1/250?)



How many doesn't matter - want to fill the shadows in even one picture with some distance to the subject?

But if you want to think about numbers it's the same idea as the "they took sports pictures w/o autofocus"-fallacy. Rather ask: How many opportunities were missed because of technical limitations?


----------



## Larry (Oct 16, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > Very low post count, blatantly re-posting the link to a personal webpage, taking on regular members of the community, and calling them anonymous... Are you sure your name is Jon D and not Bob Krist?
> ...



What is this obsession with names, rather than ideas? 

I visit a number of forums where net-names are used with no complaints (boat design forums for example).

In this age of world-wide exposure, with a given percentage of nuts among the readership, there are known and unknown(but potential) hazards to be encountered with exposure of personal info and I.D.

If the Emperor shows up nude, his titles, past performance, or reputation should not change our opinions about the current event, ...i.e., we should not imagine him dressed in finery only to meet our usual expectations.

If we focus on the merits or lack thereof of the ideas exchanged on any forum, letting the poster(by whatever name) be respected or otherwise as his/her comments dictate, why do we care who he/she is, especially since any name posted may be bogus?

Me, of course, you can trust - my name is Napoleon Bonaparte. :


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > how many have used flash (even more shot with a speed higher than 1/250?)
> ...


Exactly! RX10 has many limitations in that part! (sports)


----------



## msm (Oct 16, 2014)

Perio said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I don't understand about the photography "community".
> ...



And why would they feel the need to announce to the world that they change brand if the don't get paid? Hello, I switched to Sony I feel it is so important that you know it so I am having this press conference!

This just reeks of marketing to me, just like all these hallelujahs when they have tried some preproduction units of a new camera and praise them as the return of Jesus or something (ie like the 7D II now ). It was like that when the 5D mark III was announced too for instance, too bad it soon was replaced by 3 years of people crying over it's sensor on most forums.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 16, 2014)

msm said:


> And why would they feel the need to announce to the world that they change brand if the don't get paid? Hello, I switched to Sony I feel it is so important that you know it so I am having this press conference!



I don't know about Bob Krist's specific example, but if I switched from iPhone that I have been using for over three years to Android, and felt it was a significant upgrade, and I had a blog- I won't write about it. Because I would be excited about it. People express their feelings. It's natural. 
Once again, can't comment on what Bob Krist's incentive might have been. But he did seem excited...



AcutancePhotography said:


> I think you have identified the problem.
> 
> There are some members of this forum who treat the publishing/linking of an opinion as a provocation. That's what I don't understand. There are many many opinions I don't agree with, but I never consider them a provocation.
> 
> If the members really did not agree with the opinions in the video, would not the best action be not to respond to the thread? After a few hours/days of no action, the thread would die away.



I think it might be a combination of two things- firstly, buying a certain item causes the buyer to identify his/her intelligence, judgment, knowledge etc. with that product. So if that item is vilified, the buyer considers those attributes of his to be questioned. If you think this is too much, you should see the Apple forums. Secondly, there is something about anonymous internet forums, where people feel it is okay to vent their frustration and anger to a nameless, faceless audience or towards another person, being nameless and faceless himself.


----------



## EdB (Oct 16, 2014)

Ralph said:


> Bob Krist states on the website: "Yes, with a permanently fixed Zeiss zoom lens with the 35mm equivalent of a 24-200mm f/2.8 [...]"
> 
> This is mathematically wrong. There is a linear relationship between aperture, focal length and sensor size. A lens of with this size on a 1" sensor is not equivalent to 200mm 2.8 in 35mm full-frame terms. This is not an opinion, this is a mathematical fact. And it doesnt matter if Bob is photographer of the year or century, it is still WRONG.
> 
> ...



An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field. 

35mm lenses are big because the sensor is big, reduce the size of the sensor and you can reduce the size of the lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2014)

Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.


----------



## EdB (Oct 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.



The word equivalent is pretty much universally used to compare focal length, I don't see an issue with that. DPR, LL and a host of other review sites use it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2014)

EdB said:


> An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.



Oh, just the DoF is different? Well, that's ok then...I mean, it's not like DoF _matters_ for pictures, or like photographers _care_ about DoF or anything like that, right?? It's a smaller sensor, so is noise or anything like that different? Or is that something else that doesn't matter?

If you say 8.8-73.3mm f/2.8, that's fine. Saying it gives a field of view equivalent to 24-200mm on FF/35mm is fine. Calling it 24-200mm f/2.8 is a lie, since f/number is focal length / iris diaphragm diameter. Calling it _equivalent_ to 24-200mm f/2.8 on FF/35mm is also a lie, the DoF for equivalent framing is different, which means they can't be equivalent. It might be done commonly, but it's still a lie. People exceed the posted speed limit all the time, it doesn't mean they're not breaking the law.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.
> ...


That's why I love my SX-50.... it really does have a 1200mm F6.5lens


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.


+1

It's a ratio.... A/B = C  You can't change A without changing B if you are keeping C a constant ...

If the equivalent length is 200mm then the equivalent F is 7.6.....

but to really be accurate, the focal length is 8.8 to 73.3mm and the F stop is 2.8.... period... the optical properties are what the are and short of Harry Potter magic, will remain so..... and the sensor has much tinier pixels than FF so it samples much more densely over a smaller area... and people will forever be confused with "equivalence"  Did I mention that people will forever be confused with equivalence?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2014)

EdB said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.
> ...



Er, no it isn't. It is used regularly by bad photography journalists who are too damn lazy to be accurate and are looking for any excuse to get a job in auto journalism, and by marketing departments who know very well how misleading it is and don't care to be honest with their consumers.

Take a look here for the true meaning of equivalent with regards photography http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 17, 2014)

Equivalence is a lot like a car in the US can be driven 30 miles on a gallon of gas. The same car in Canada can only go for 12.7 kilometers on a litre of fuel.... and then someone says that as their car crosses the border it magically changes from 30 miles per gallon to 30 miles per litre....


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 17, 2014)

msm said:


> And why would they feel the need to announce to the world that they change brand if the don't get paid? Hello, I switched to Sony I feel it is so important that you know it so I am having this press conference!



In today's cultural where people photograph what they eat and post it on the Internets Tubes, you are surprised that someone would make a video about their decision to switch camera manufacturers. ;D


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> ]
> In today's cultural where people photograph what they eat and post it on the Internets Tubes, you are surprised that someone would make a video about their decision to switch camera manufacturers. ;D



Scott Kelby makes an hour long infomercial on the 7DII - he's just giving us some information, guys, totally no ulterior motives. Promise

National Geographic photographer makes a blog post about switching to Sony - Shill! Hack! Liar! _Bad photographer!_


----------



## ifp (Oct 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> Scott Kelby makes an hour long infomercial on the 7DII - he's just giving us some information, guys, totally no ulterior motives. Promise
> 
> National Geographic photographer makes a blog post about switching to Sony - Shill! Hack! Liar! _Bad photographer!_



To be fair, I've seen Kelby referred to as a hack/shill/liar/bad photographer on this forum numerous times. Maybe all that was before he switched to Canon though. :


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 17, 2014)

ifp said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Kelby makes an hour long infomercial on the 7DII - he's just giving us some information, guys, totally no ulterior motives. Promise
> ...


Yeah, but he earns more money through photography than almost all of us do..... and how many times have people argued that it is getting paid that makes you a pro....


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Yeah, but he earns more money through photography than almost all of us do..... and how many times have people argued that it is getting paid that makes you a pro....



I'd be willing to wager that Kelby makes more $$$'s selling how-to books, workshops and all the other assorted products and services that pop up when you google his name than he does selling photos. Not saying he's not a pro shooter, just that I would imagine he trades on that for self-promotion to make real money.


----------



## Woody (Oct 18, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> http://www.oldmaninmotion.com/four-great-still-shooting-feats-my-sub-1k-mirrorless-can-do-that-my-3k-dslr-cant/



He left Nikon APS-C for Sony:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/another-nail-in-the-dx.html

It's about reduced size/weight and video capabilities, both offered by Sony A6000.

Clearly, Bob has no need for:
- lightweight f/4 telephoto lens
- >= 100 mm macro lens
- accessories such as dedicated wireless remote (prefer not to use phone)
- reliable AF tracking


----------



## Jon_D (Oct 29, 2014)

Woody said:


> - reliable AF tracking



the A6000 tracking abilities are better than canons rebel line of DSLR´s.
and that´s the competition too the A6000 from a price point.
you have to pay a lot more for a canon camera to get a better AF than the A6000s.

and BOB is no sports photographer. so yes he has no need for a 1DX or D4s AF.



imaging resource said:


> That the Sony A6000 can deliver 4-6 sharp images per second on a reasonably regular basis is very impressive for a mirrorless ILC camera costing 1/10th the price of the D4S.



can´t wait until sony releases the A7000.
the mirrorless AF makes bigger steps than the phase detection AF in DSLR´s.
i can see it matching traditional PD in 2 years if development continues with the same speed.

i am pretty happy with the A6000 AF.
it´s not a camera for BIF anyway. 

features like the eye focusing are just great and they work.
i guess it´s nothing a pro photographer would use regulary... but i know that many customers who just want a good camera to make family pictures love it.
i have put the function on the C2 custom button and i use it more and more because it works so well.


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 29, 2014)

Jon_D said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > - reliable AF tracking
> ...



So now you are admitting you are BOB, and this name is a sock puppet?


----------



## albron00 (Oct 29, 2014)

Probably... one day I'll switch to Sony 8)


----------



## gadgeteer (Nov 3, 2014)

Sony are their own worst enemy. The A7 series are amazing cameras. Professional's all over should be lining up to buy them. Which pro wouldn't like a lightweight body that doesn't make you feel like you've had a workout after using it for a day.

Unfortunately Sony seem to always completely miss the point. Which amateur is going to blow so much money on the A7s? Very few. But pros need more than just a fancy body. We need professional lenses. Where's the E mount 24-70 f2.8? 70-200 2.8? Where are the standard primes? I mean come on. Samsung are bringing out the NX-1 and have already announced the 17-50 & 50-150 2.8 glass!

So meanwhile Sony don't bother to introduce lenses we'd actually want and instead bring out new camera bodies every week! : :


----------



## moreorless (Nov 6, 2014)

gadgeteer said:


> Sony are their own worst enemy. The A7 series are amazing cameras. Professional's all over should be lining up to buy them. Which pro wouldn't like a lightweight body that doesn't make you feel like you've had a workout after using it for a day.
> 
> Unfortunately Sony seem to always completely miss the point. Which amateur is going to blow so much money on the A7s? Very few. But pros need more than just a fancy body. We need professional lenses. Where's the E mount 24-70 f2.8? 70-200 2.8? Where are the standard primes? I mean come on. Samsung are bringing out the NX-1 and have already announced the 17-50 & 50-150 2.8 glass!
> 
> So meanwhile Sony don't bother to introduce lenses we'd actually want and instead bring out new camera bodies every week! : :



Sony know that F/2.8 glass would be too large to balance with the A7 cameras, it might also have issues with the mount size.


----------



## Diko (Nov 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.
> ...



You couldn't hold it now, could you? 

Alas I saw it too late :-(


----------



## Woody (Nov 9, 2014)

moreorless said:


> Sony know that F/2.8 glass would be too large to balance with the A7 cameras, it might also have issues with the mount size.



Indeed.

As pointed out by Sigma CEO:

"It's a bit more difficult to make ART lenses for the Sony FE system because of the not so large diameter of the mount. We don't know why Sony did this. Likely because the E-mount was meant for APS-C first and only after that they did use it for FF too."

- http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sigma-interview-mirrorless-is-growing-and-we-will-make-more-lenses-for-it


----------

