this one was shot on Nov 1st 2011 , when we decided to temporarily go back to Bangkok from Nakhompathom as the gvt announced it was getting much better.
well, we came back here Bangkok and we were honestly optimistic till we actually got near Sphan Pinklao bridge.
while crossing the bridge , we saw all terrible situations there (realized it was getting worse not better) , this area's level of water was getting deeper and deeper everyday. By 5th of Nov the deepest point of the dirty water already reached to 1.5 m deep, increased by 40 percent in the last 5 days..
it was really bad, but the gvt said on Nov 3rd , the worst day was Oct 30th and, and after that it would go fine very soon by Nov 4th.
they kept repeating it would be really fine again soon and we believed it before they actually said the worst peak was Oct 24th and then it would be getting better and better pretty quickly.......a big lie!
but it actually got much worse than before I first flew out of Bangkok. By November 8th , this street got completely submerged and no car, no people could walk around here, we all needed a raft or a boat to get around this area.
oh well,it was sad but we had to leave out of this area again......
On November 9th 2011, I flew back to Chiang Mai- the north capital of Thailand and we stayed there for 8 more days before I flew out of Thailand to Singapore. Now in 2016, I am suffering from terrible earth quakes in Kumamoto prefecture of Japan.
I am lucky not in the extremely dangerous zone of Kyushu island but we still get some after shock impacts even in my area of North Fukuoka city ,which is about 84km away from the most dangerous area of Kumamoto.
This specific image was shot with Nikon D7000
Why commercial cameras reviews are useless 2017:
The 5DMK2 and the MK3 sensor was one of the worst sensors(read noise wise) in digital camera history, and from that crappy banding machine to the Nikon D800E was a huge leap in terms of IQ, but after that?
The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still compete well against the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.
The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on.
Now to them so-called reviewers, the Fuji X-T2 seems to be the most amazing camera that changes all current standard set by the A6300 or the D500 before it.
It is obvious to them what they want to sell at their affiliate sites are the best and they are usually the latest and most trendy cameras.
But again, the sad reality is no formats have actually got any better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality. So how can they sell well?
I think those so-called reviewers are all clickbaiters and those sites and so called reviews are all deliberately designed to make the greatest and latest but worst value cameras look much better than they actually are:
1, we have to define what is pro camera for most ? But is there really such a thing as pro camera?
I remember Marissa Mayer of Yahoo,who introduced the current style of Flick two years ago once said: "there is no such thing as professional photographer."
I don't actually agree with her, but the opinion out there that shared by many influential, powerful people like her and others can be very influential and strongly affect or even change the courses of thinking or opinion making process of many people. In the photography world, the CEO of the company that owns Flickr is a person whose opinions really have that kind of power, whose opinions can influence many many people, as I said that can or may change opinions of many many people. So we like her opinion or not, it is very very strongly influential.
There was the always interesting anecdote from one of those few former CEO's of Phase One, I did not know if it was true or not, though : once we asked Phase people who actually were buying their real high-end cameras? Phase answered was shocking to some,"CEO's of small companies and Dentists." Not so-called "professionals" are usual their customers, but more well heeled guys. I found it extremely interesting, but it may be true. When I asked a few of our main pro customers who mostly shoot architectures about their opinions on the above Phase anecdote, they replied to us,"well, it may be true,we sometimes used Phase One Backs but we never bought one but just rented their amazing products when we actually needed that kind of resolution,we do not consider ourselves professionals, though."
Very interesting, indeed.
I'd be willing to bet serious money that an overwhelming majority of A7R2, D810s and 5Ds-R camera users are just well heeled guys or girls, not shooting anything their "main" income-generating works. I'd put money somewhere around the 80% to 85% of those high end FF users are amatures or part time pros, or just geeks like us.
"Professional" (like "prosumer" or "enthusiast") is a marketing word, anyway. When someone from Nikon or Canon or any major camera company tells you that the new D5XS mark 4 is a true "professional" camera, they aren't saying anything meaningful about the camera itself. They're making an advertising pitch to your ego or pride.
Since, right now, most actually "professional" using camera in the Nikon lineup might be the cheap but excellent D5500. Or may even be the refurbished D3300? But its AF is primitive! It's plastic! It's not weather sealed! Who cares: the D3300's most "professional" feature is the tiny investment for the amazing IQ it stacks against any profit. Real professionals are stingy people and care about money spent on camera gear much more seriously than well heeled amatures or part time professionals like us.
The D3300 is better than the D300s from 2009 in almost every way,and some even consider it a better camera than the D700 and there are very few clients who wouldn't be thrilled by what comes out of a D700 shot with skill and vision. So in terms of sheer IQ, the D5500 can be considered as a pro camera.
I have many PRO customers shooting a EOS80D or a Nikon D5500 or a Sony A6300 or even an ancient Sony A6000, and many of Nikon guys use a D3300 as a back-up just because they can really abuse it. Not all pros or serious amatures need super fast AF or 4k video, and I think if they need serious 4k, they buy a dedicated 4k pro camera that can record much longer than 29 minutes a session anyway. It is actually cheaper than buying a half-baked 4k camera like the A7R2 or the GH4 in the long run.
So who needs commercial reviewers brainwashing us what they actually want to sell is the best camera or the actual best selling camera ?
2, some die-hard D-SLR loving reviewers always describe the A7X menu system as "inane" or confusing, but which camera has more organized menu system?
I've never understood anyone's criticism of camera menu systems. Because every camera's menu is the same, not exactly the same but identically disorganized. They're categorized lists with nested options. None of them are truly optimized for speed, they all bury (different) critical options, they all require a little practice to build familiarity.
That's why they love Canon or Nikon menu system better, and they do get confused just being more familiar to them with better for all. But I personally prefer the A7X menu better since it is more customizable, and actually I am just more used to Sony E mount than anything else. After all, I have been a long time Sony/Minolta user.
Controlling a camera with a menu is a stupid concept. It was a lazy, terrible idea in 1993 and it remains quite silly and terrible in 2016.
Many many many so-called reviewers are really really confused and forcing us to share the really silly "one menu system is more intuitive than the others" kinda notion they have.
But again, what they actually saying is they are more used to the one system than the other systems' menu lay-out or just they are too obtuse to understand anything a bit different than what they are used to using.
I guess most of so-called reviewers do not know cameras they think they are testing enough to test it and publish rushed-out reviews, so they never understand how to set up the Sony A7X or even how to shoot it fast. If they do understand it, then they should know it is quite customizable and it is less menu-driven than the Canon 5DS or the Nikon D810.
The A7X has 4 dials and you can actually change shutter speed, F number, EV value and ISO without diving into the menu.If they have to dive into the deep menu system all the time, then they do not understand how to set it up or customize the buttons and the dials of the Sony, and without even understanding it properly they rush to pan the menu system hard.
So what do you expect from so-called reviews?
3,SONY SONY SONY!!! Fuji Fuji Fuji!!! why are they worshiping for them, and keep writing so many of so-called reviews for them each week? Why are A7R2, A6300, A7S2 and now X-Pro2 and X-T2 so special? how many so-called reviews do they need deserve?
Well be realistic! Most of die-hard high end Nikon or Canon boys and girls are fanatics and difficult to influence or change their opinions or beliefs; as camera sales swirl down the toilet bowl, so does any review site's readership. Writing about or recommending two-year-old cameras or very old fashioned, 1950th minded big conventional cameras that many of their readers already own doesn't sell anything from their affiliate websites. It's that simple.
When did you actually read any review of any camera last time? a decade ago?
Have you ever expected any so-called review pan or even mildly criticize any camera?
Do you actually trust any so-called review? I think all your answer should be no to all the 3 questions above. They are all about money, deliberately designed clickbaiters..........so what do you expect from so-called reviews?
They never criticize as I said, even completely lazy, behind-the-curve products like the Fuji X-M1(only 16mp dated sensor), the Canon 7D(remember that terrible banding machine?), the Sony A58 (worst ergonomics in camera world)and the Nikon D3200(truly just announced to be already dated kind of junk) all got decent scores. No so-called reviewers actually pan anything they review, and definitely never say "we hated this product X or Y", or anything like that because their affiliate will stop feeding them if they actually do that.
Meanwhile, actual users of cameras, hate various cameras and lenses all the time. Well, they can't all be unreasonable, obtuse cranks. Then why the views or opinions of real camera users and so-called reviewers are so dramatically different?
Well it is easy; all review sites are affiliated with several big online camera sellers, such as Amazon, Adorama, B&H,etc in the USA, Digital Rev, Rakuten, Amazon,etc in Asia. So they cannot do real test such as using cameras in a humid Thailand jungle or testing it in an Icelandic mountain, or anything like that.
They do not even test cameras with Capture One since Adobe is a big sponsor of those junk camera review sites, but most of us who tether cameras or shoot studio portrait prefer Capture One pro to the cranky slow unreliable LR for tethering work.
Well after all, those commercial reviewers never buy any camera with their own money, so they do not get up-set or irritated even if a camera they are reviewing now is a real crap.
We real camera users, on the other hand, actually spend our own money to buy our cameras, so we always complain if they are craps or overpriced, of course.
4, all so-called reviewers usually love the latest and greatest like the Sony A76300 or the Fuji X-T2 or the Sony A7R2 or something very gadgetry like the Panasonic GH4 or the Samsung NX1, but none of them actually like Leica or Phase,why?
Well easy, they do not sell well, I mean how many more Leicas will sell if those reviews seriously recommend Leica in their silly so-called reviews? None, since we who like Leica cameras already know why we do love their cameras and we do not need any moron in disguise of a pro(oh well)reviewer to tell us about how good or amazing it is. After all, it is a Leica and it is a special to us those who understand and appreciate it fully.
As for Phase, it is not their area, they do not understand that kind of real high quality products anyway, what kind of high end commercial photographers whose main cameras are some sort of Phase One or even Mamiya will be interested in moronic reviews' opinion on Phase cameras ? No one. Can those so-called reviewers from commercial sites possibly some how change opinion of the actual Phase users? never.
Well, so-called reviewers are professionals but not photographic pros, they are marketing pros whose main interest is cheating manipulating naive new camera buyers.
All so-called reviews are just poorly designed marketing materials and nothing else, so they just recommend something they can sell with high-margin such as the Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2, the Sony A7R2, A6300 and Sony A7SMK2, and now also the Pentax K1.
Then, why are almost all so-called pro reviewers recommending Sony and Fuji, pushing Sony A7R2, A6300 or Fuji X-Pro2 so hard to any one reading them now?
Well it is very simple, because it is what their affiliate want to sell and easier to sell because of the user base of that camera is not very narrow-minded like the core user base of the D810 or the 5DS-R. The potential high-end Sony or Fuji owners the only kind of high-end camera users that may be willing to listen to so-called reviewers, thus the reviewers think they may be able to manipulate them into buying more of their affiliate pushing products. So they naturally focus on these Sony, Fuji, and Pentax high-end, high-margin products now.
And anyway: Why shouldn't a high-end camera from 2015 or 2016 outperform a high-end camera from 2012 ? It should.
But the sad reality is that the latest gear does not outperform the 2012 camera.
The actual(in practical sense )performance is the same or almost identical, no dramatic improvement has made in the sensor design since 2012(the D800E). The D810 is better than the D800E only at the very base ISO albeit the slower exposure time due to the ISO64 vs the SIO100 base sensitivity difference . The A7R2 is only marginally better than the D800E in video department and at very high ISO for a lot more money.
The Pentax K1 is a bit better than the venerable Nikon D800E from 2012 at very high ISO, but with that lame lens line is that really any better than the ancient Nikon as a whole system? No.
But commercial review sites cannot say it honestly, how can they? if they say it then they cannot sell anything new any more.
I just used the Sony A7R2, the Pentax K1 and the D810 as typical example cases for the kind of products so-called review sites want to hard push to the naive readers, but I know they are actually quite fantastic products, just not as amazing or dramatic game-changers as those silly commercial camera review sites try to make them out to be. But they are good indeed.
So do not just listen to the hype too much that just obviously follows the money.
UPDATE: Now, I just confirm that Nikon DL series actual shipment date would be next January 17th as planned in last Nikon conference at Nikon D3400 launch. But it may delay even further to next CP+ show in Yokohama Japan(in Feb 2017).
So it is already promised to be a failed product line before the actual launch. I think Nikon is really stupid, I mean I don't think phones or mirrorless killing Nikon but itself, it obtuse marketing killing it.
UPDATE2: I find Fuji's "Kaizen" policy very very attractive and their repair service seems excellent. I also like the new Joystick AF selector. So I may test my X-T2 a bit longer than I expected. However, I find the X-Pro 2 still a bit better body than the XT2 in terms of build and ergonomics.
The X-T2 Joystick is sometimes unusable when I look into the EVF since my nose sometimes touch the Joystick.
The quality of the body is obviously worse than that of the X-Pro2. The X-Pro2 is generally faster(I don't mean AF speed, but general operation speed). But when using a tele photo zoom or any big lens I think the X-T2 is better since it has the external grip option that counterbalances the weight of a big lens better.
The Sony A6300 really needed a similar grip to really take all its AF and speed advantages over the A7X series.
So I always saw the Sony A6300 as a halfhearted effort of Sony that was carefully deigned not to invade the A7X territory. It is a shame, since the A6300 has the potential to be the best camera for the most majority of ILC users.
In the end, for now, I decided to keep Canon, Fuji, Sony and Nikon and eventually pick one and sell all the others.
IMHO, Canon EF and Sony E seem to be the most future-proof systems, but I have feeling I may be happier with Fuji than either Canon or Sony in the long run.
In my mind, Nikon is ,like Leica's CEO kindly points out , already one leg in the grave kind of system, and I do not think they are any relevant now unless they some how just really immediately come up with a serious F mount mirrorless camera that takes full advantage of the F mount eco system.
I think until I get comfortable with the Fuji AF system, I keep my D750, but once I get hang of it, I do not need Nikon any more.
So in near future, I will be using just 3 system rather than 4 systems.
UPDATE3: after I got the prices for the new Nikon PCE lenses a few days ago, I realized that I was too hard on Sony and Olympus. I think Nikon's recent lens pricing is even worse.
The PCE19mm f4 is a bit too late and it is a much more expensive lens than the Canon 17mm f4 TS lens although it is much easier to design than the Canon. So this one is definitely a bad deal. The new 70-200mm f2.8 E FL VR lens is definitely the worst value 70-200mm ever that instantly makes the Sony 70-200mm f2.8GM and especially the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS MK2 lens look like super bargain lenses.
So I really think Nikon is doomed and now it is really difficult to justify the incredible amount of price hike in just a few months in Nikon system. And Nikon system seems to have the worst warranty policy especially if you get some grey market deals.
So for now maybe it is wiser to keep multi mount system, Sony FE and Olympus or Panasonic m43, or Fuji APS-C system.
I realized that I do not have to get a whole set of lenses for all camera systems I have. I guess I keep my Sony for just wide to normal range use and then add some Olympus or Fuji for long shot use since Sony and Nikon over 200mm lenses are huge and ridiculously expensive.
But for me the biggest issue with the recent trend of super gigantic oversized lenses in FF land is that they are often rejected by budget airlines. So as airline regulation is getting more and more strict these days, the much lighter and compact m43 system may survive for foreseeable future...at least 5 more years.
It really looks like Nikon is the real loser in this business since it has nothing to support its ever contracting camera business.
Olympus has very strong medical division and portable audio business. Fuji is a very diversified company, Fuji owns Fuji Xerox , Fuji medical, Fuji industrial scientific lab, Fuji semi conductor, Toyama pharmaceutical corp,etc.
Panasonic is also a very diversified company with core investment in house and automobile electronics industry.
Sony is also a very diversified company and its main business is insurance and realestate.
Canon is also a far more diversified company than Nikon.
Even Ricoh is more diversified than Nikon is.
So Nikon seems to be the most vulnerable one and I bet it will be the first to go out of the camera market.
UPDATE4: Many people including myself though Nikon is dying if not already dead by now, but in reality Nikon sells many many more units than Sony and Nikon is now working on new type of sensor design and they may collaborate with Pentax and Olympus to set up a new sensor company. If this plays out well, then Sony will be the loser since they will have no one to sell their mediocre so-called Fullframe sensors any more. And as a result their highend camera prices will go up significantly.
And now Sony has just announced they've just decided to spin off their imaging division and now it is an independent business under Sony corp's supervision, just like their sensor group.....
This means now Sony imaging is not a part of Sony but their subsidiary, and therefore, to Sony device group, the imaging group is just a customer,nothing special, in fact,considering its size of market share in relation to that of Nikon, Sony imaging group is a lower class customer to the device group.
So there is no more reason for Sony device technology to keep the best sensor for in-house use. In fact now Sony device tech must compete with the new sensor company Nikon Olympus Ricoh have just established here and some European sensor designers such as CMOSIS, who makes the Leica SL sensor and M sensor.
And do not forget there is always Canon if Sony does not sell anything to Nikon.........Canon will start selling it and there will be Panasonic and Tower Jazz also........so Nikon will not have any problem choosing sensor suppliers any more.
Sony must sell their best sensors to Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax , or Sony will lose them, Sony cannot choose customers any more.
If Sony is smart, it will not compete with Nikon or Olympus in camera market. After all, Nikon is the biggest customer of Sony.......but Sony also buys steppers from Nikon anyway. So Sony is not dominating the sensor market, or controlling Nikon as many Sony fanboys think..........and the just announced Spun-off of their imaging division makes Sony camera business less trust-worthy........... Sony thinks every business as a short term investment and runs it to make it temporarily profitable and then spins it off.
After that? of course sells it to anyone willing to buy it.........like Sony did with the Vaio PC business, TV business, etc,etc.
That is why no one really trust Sony in the long run, we long term Sony users just use its cameras but always know it is a back-up plan or step-gap solution......
After all no serious camera buyers are as obtuse as many spec-chasers and review sites think they are. None one buys into a big expensive camera system just for an amazing set of features in a body or two...................there are many many more important aspects to a system camera than just a set of great features...
UPDATE5: Now my first 2 copies of FE16-35mm f4 suddenly died and I just bought my 3rd copy of it.........and sadly found it terrible this time.
It is obvious buying any Sony Zeiss FE lens is like picking up an extremely difficult to win lottery ticket..........it might be great but most of times you get mediocre copies of it.
My first 16-35mm f4 was excellent , the second one was even better-almost outstanding, then this third one is literally lousy. I am returning it and get a new copy but I am not expecting to get a better one, I guess I was extremely lucky with my first two copies of this lens........I guess I will force the dealer to exchange my FE16-35mm f4 for the Voiklander 15mm f4.
Sony QC is just terrible, and it is not worth any premium over other cheap off-brand lens maker like Samyang, Tamron and Sigma. In fact, Sony is even worse than Tamron and much worse than Sigma Art series with respect to QC. I have had 4 Tamron VC lenses in EF and F mount and they performed fairly consistent....
I really miss Tamron 90mm macro, now I guess a brand name means nothing when it comes to QC and general after sales support. In fact, Tamron and Voiklander provided me the best service of any lens maker I have ever dealt with. It is extremely frustrating every time I spend more than 110000 yen or 1075 USD, I still have to worry about terrible sample variations.
I think we have to appreciate Roger Cicala's excellent site. He is the only one guy testing more than 5 copies of any given lens. All other reviewers just merely test one copy of each lens.........useless.