December 21, 2014, 02:04:11 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Mika

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: December 20, 2014, 04:18:04 PM »
Well, my question was exactly that: when it misses back and forth, how much in metres does it miss (variance)? I suppose it wont be fluctuating between MFD and INF if you are pointing it to an object at the proximity of minimum focus distance, but instead object distance +/- 0.5 metres or something like that.

By supplying this kind of information to Sigma, that could help pinpointing what's not working right if it is a mechanical error. In this case, it should help to estimate the magnitude of element movement error, whatever causes it.

You could also take a look at the focus scale when it's focusing. In my case, there was a weird jerk when the lens approached the right focus spot that seemed to throw it off. It went away after the service if I recall. I haven't used the lens for two months now as the weather has royally sucked here.

Also, try to find the Sigma contact of this guy: Apparently, making it public also helps.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: December 20, 2014, 03:19:26 PM »
The thing I'm thinking is did you follow the earlier thread about 1DX not working properly in AF Servo and 12 fps in darker areas? I thought that there could be a remote possibility that since you are from Norway that within 6 months, the average luminosity of the scenery has changed drastically. This would be specifically compounded by using 50/1.4 which would naturally be taken to more darker areas than the other lenses.

I actually didn't ask for the 24-70 results. It's a F/2.8 case, thus the usage profile is likely different from 50/1.4, while 200/2 could encounter a bit more similar stuff. Nevertheless, since 200/2 doesn't show similar problems in similar illumination, then the problem is most likely the lens.

What I meant by variance is that people are saying that autofocus is not consistent regardless of the focus distance. The meaning of this, however, is not very clear to me. Does it mean you get front and back focus both within certain limits regardless of the distance, or that the amount of the front and back focus is random regardless of the original focusing distance?

For example, focus it to 5 metres, and the realized plane of best focus has a variance of +/-1 metres from it. Do the same to 10 metres, and you get +/- 1 metres or something like that from it too randomly. OR, is it so that you focus it to 5 metres, and the resulting plane of best focus is from MIN to INF, and when you go to 10 metres, the same happens?

But it does start to sound like mechanical wear of some focusing parts, or like a decoder wheel reader skipping some pulses randomly. However, it could also be the firmware, but it's a bit hard to believe since it works in the beginning. Warm and cold cycles could off-set something inside the lens too.

I haven't opened the lens yet so I don't know much about the inner mechanical construction. Perhaps Roger Cicala from Lensrentals would know something about this?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: December 20, 2014, 02:24:58 PM »
Well, there's two other things that come to mind: first, what autofocus mode are you using? Servo or One Shot? Do you take burst shots or single shots? The second thing, have you used 200/2 with a similar profile?

The logic behind the second question is the following:
The 200/2 should show depth of field being inconsistent even more easily than 50A if this is a camera body issue (like the distance to the AF sensor changing for a reason or the other).

The third thing is that does the lens show the same behavior with a camera body other than 1DX?

When the lens misses, what is the variance of the misses?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:49:01 AM »
I had some initial difficulties with 50A, but after service and calibration with the USB dock it has worked fine. Granted, the weather has not been photographic for two months here, but still.

The 50A is far more reliable than EF 50/1.4 with the center focus point, and I trust my 5D outer focus points only on bright and sunny days anyways and when my object is not too close with about any objective I have.

What I recall is that the non-central focus points did not work well with 50A, but they don't either with EF50/1.4.

It does make me wonder whether varying lighting conditions can throw the 50A focus calibration off. I do recall seeing that the results were slightly different when adjusted under room lighting and under sun light. The other thing I can think of could be repeated thermal expansion and contraction.

I don't think that is an issue with the lens hardware at all. I think this has more to do with lens+body combination in the auto-focus routines. The good news is, firmware update will likely correct this, but you'll have to make noise towards Sigma. There's a similar story of a firmware update improving Sigma's 120-300 considerably. Because of that, I do believe Sigma is going to do something about it.

And come to think of it, Canon EF 50/1.4 isn't reliable with the edge points either when using F/1.4. Heck, it isn't reliable even with the center point!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 02:11:07 PM »
Here I'll have to disagree. 50/1.4 A is yet to leave me down on the bokeh department.

Lenses / Re: 3 week trip to Finland & Germany, what lenses to take?
« on: July 27, 2014, 02:04:56 PM »
Additionally, Finnish cities have great support for bicycle travel, and that's actually quite handy and nice transportation method in the summer time - a bunch of people prefer it over cars and public transportation. If you think of doing that, you'll need to consider reducing the bag weight as much as you can.

Which is why I thought it would be better to know what are you planning to do?

Lenses / Re: 3 week trip to Finland & Germany, what lenses to take?
« on: July 27, 2014, 05:58:34 AM »
Hi there! First of all, last three weeks have been pretty warm here in Finland. Temperatures have gone up to +32 C on day time in shadow, making this - at the moment - hotter than Germany. Next week though, major rain is expected in the beginning of the week (28th, 29th) so I can't just yet tell how it will continue. Be advised that this is the major summer vacation month generally in Fennoscandia.

So, what do you expect to do around here? In Germany, I believe that will be more about sights and relatives, so I guess 28-135 or 24-105 would work best. Here it's a bit different. Since I don't know where your relatives spent their summer time (could be a summer cottage or a city dwelling), this may affect your lens choice. Sun sets around 23.20, and will rise around 3.30 in the morning in my latitude. This means you don't practically need large aperture lenses for getting more light in July unless you go to dark places like house interiors. And also that the moment of golden light will last considerably longer. Typically, it tends to be not possible to see stars until September.

Staying in a summer cottage and general waterscape around it may push your choice of focal length towards the extremes. 28 or 24 should do fine for wide-angles, but you'll be lacking there if the longest focal is 105 mm when photographing sunsets as occasionally longer telephotos work better there. However, I think that the 24-105 itself should work pretty nicely for almost anything if you absolutely want to carry all-in-one package.

Personally, if the weather remains as it is now, I'd seriously consider taking a point and shoot. Even carrying a 5D and the small EF 50/1.4 sounds like an annoyance in +30C to me so if I had to take a 5D, I'd go with a 50 mm prime. But that's simply because of the weight and temperature, but that's me. If the temperature drops to +22C, then I'd have no qualms of taking another lens with me. When I was in Canary Islands a couple of years ago (in November), a combo of 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 worked well, though even those two felt heavy after carrying them the whole day in a camera bag dangling from the back of the neck.

Traveller Gear insurance is mainly needed for the possible damage that you'll encounter in the luggage handling. Other than that, there are practically no street pick-pockets and I have never heard of anything being stolen from a hotel room here. Of course, you shouldn't leave the camera unattended to a bar table, or leave anything of value to a traveller's hostel where rooms are shared, but hotels are a different game. In Germany, it's pretty much the same.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 11, 2014, 12:35:44 PM »
Yep, it's great idea of Sigma's...make an expensive device to get customers to do their work for them.
You pay Sigma to spend you time correcting their sloppy manufacturing errors. Maybe Ford should make cars which only drive properly after you buy their laptop software to interface with it....

Why? It isn't like the Canon objectives themselves wouldn't require work from the owner when it comes to AFMA.

So, I knew I was getting a lens from the first batch. I knew glitches are sort of inevitable with each new product introduction. Then again, it's about my private time valuation. 20 minutes of playing with the dock, and I got a much better lens for 800 €. I never had problems with 35A, or their other lenses. And it's much better than Canon's 50/1.4, and more general purpose than 50/1.0, exactly what I wanted.

Now I wish I could do the same adjustment with Canon's 70-200/4 IS and my 5D. That objective performs well on my 40D, but is not that stellar with 5D...

I might as well start with a general question that goes: "What is Microsoft's role in the future?" Formerly, their cash machine was enterprises and corporate customers, while gathering some from the consumers. However, given their strategy change to Services & Devices type company, it looks like they are going the Apple route to the consumers. The ground work for the taken route is more and more visible with more seamless integration of MS Store and social media integration to the UI.

As a corporate user, though, I don't like this one bit. I don't want Skype, Twitter or FaceBook feeds on my desktop (or OS keeping the services running, taking my precious free CPU cycles). This is why I'm saying Microsoft should tread carefully on what they are about to do.

Now, on what it comes to genius of Microsoft being a competitor in their own ecosystem, the whole thing is not about what is today. It's about what it likely becomes. And there you get the risk of getting undercut by MS if you start to play that game. Given that yesteryear's GoPro could do 4K video in much smaller package than a laptop, I don't see the connection that MS boosted current laptops to be better. It's more reasonable to think that 4K processing power was coming along nevertheless.

The thing here is that MS decided to go to the upper tier stuff where their OEMs never HAD problems to compete with Apple. It's also happens to be their OEMs most profitable segment per manufactured device. You are comparing the consumer level stuff to Apple high-end laptops, but the reality is, Dell, Lenovo and HP all have had high quality laptops offered before Microsoft even tried to enter the area, and they did not have that much difficulties to compete with Apple.

Additional question is, why is the cheap consumer level stuff then staying at "low quality", and the market never gave it a kick to improve? The answer is, there's a market for cheap devices despite their limitations. This doesn't concern the upper tier so much, but when somebody wanted an upper tier laptop [~2000-3000 €], the customer was not typically a consumer, but an enterprise. Enterprises then could get bulk discounts. Well, at least here.

The little chevron your talking about only appears when the screen size or window size is too small to display the entire ribbon. It's an adaptive thing. There is a LOT of functionality in Microsoft products. Microsoft's options are either to drop functionality, which is 100% guaranteed to cause an uproar...or...find some way of making all the necessary tools available even on screens that are too small to display it all at once.

Try using office maximized on a larger screen. That little chevron your bitching about? It'll disappear...and the entire contents of the entire ribbon will show up on the screen.

Sorry, but I find your complaints about the ribbon just an angry dude finding a reason to be angry about something...

Great. Tell optical designer to get a bigger screen! Ever seen how many graphs are useful to keep a look on when doing optical design? They take quite a bit of screen estate... And the only functional way to use Office is to use it full screen, as I did when my attention was paid to those chevrons. The point was, this is nothing but a revamped menu-structure with same amount of hoops as before, but less amount of customization. And the reason I'm angry about this, that's called loss of productivity.

Office STILL hasn't a functional equation editor (Open Office did this years ago), still no useful greek alphabet shortcuts like ALT GR+M for micro, and STILL worse image positioning options than in 2006 version of OpenOffice. For the good sides of Office 2010, it did add better graphics presentation options and streamlined doing graphs. Those were good changes and I liked them a lot - and got frustrated by not being able to use them to maximum extend due to UI.

I'm very glad I don't live in Europe. The EU has demonstrated for decades that it has a fairly anti-business stance, and the penalties they have levied on large corporations are rather extreme at times. It's a punitive system, constantly punishing, punishing, punishing. I'm not really surprised you hold the opinions you do...I guess the actions of the EU make a lot more sense now...

Making a value judgment of somebody's culture is definitely a way to make friends in international business. Sarcasm aside, if you don't know why something is in place, it usually pays to check the circumstances why that is so before doing anything else. Case in point: the privacy requirements do NOT stem from the EU governance, but from the citizens and enterprises themselves. For the question why WE THE PEOPLE in EU are sensitive with respect to that sort of stuff, I think it's better you figure it out yourself.

You HAVE heard of the Amazon Cloud Services, right? Amazon is the world's largest online retailer. They couldn't be that if they hadn't developed the technology to support that kind of infrastucture. It was many years ago that Amazon started offering web services to access some of the technological infrastructure they had built, and today, they are the largest provider of core cloud services (i.e. big data, compute cycles, virtualized hosting, etc.) of anyone. Those services are used by enterprise businesses to host...pretty much anything. Even NetFlix is hosted on Amazon's cloud servers.

Microsoft Azure directly competes with Amazon Cloud Services. Microsoft's Cloud Services (i.e. Office in the Cloud) directly competes with Google's web apps. Overall, Microsoft's cloud initiatives are gaining a lot of ground against their competitors.

Nobody in the corporate world that I know of uses the listed Amazon's or Microsoft's corporate cloud services in EU, or in Japan as far as my experience goes. I believe it works for the US as the companies are subject to the same federal law, forming a general framework around them. Since there is no general groundwork law, you're simply stupid to upload data somewhere that you cannot fully control - again, here. The only reason I had to start using Hangout is because I happen to work also with US companies, and that is the best option for them. Is it my preferred venue of remote conferencing? Not by a long shot.

Valve was pissed that Microsoft wanted to take a small cut of all in-app sales. Again, that isn't a strategy that Microsoft pioneered...Apple already does that. Valve would have the same problem if they tried to create an app in the Apple store.

As for cost, Microsoft takes the same amount as Apple. They always have. As a matter of fact, Microsoft often gives discounts for app developers, as an incentive, to get them onto the platform. Fundamentally, though, app developers on both platforms pay $99/yr to develop apps, and get 70% of the revenue from the sales. Both companies take 30%, which is then used to cover credit card transaction fees, infrastructural support fees, and the companies cut (which is less than 20% for both companies).

Understandably Valve wants to avoid giving cuts from Steam ecosystem. But that's the point: there's other developers that feel the same. Are you seriously trying to downplay the 30 % increase in costs? It's not a small margin and I would expect to get something for the money. Of course, if this is for low cost apps (and I mean the small ones) you may have a point.

However, the future is more disturbing, as it is likely MS is going and try to extend their cut to EVERY SOFTWARE running in their ecosystem, leading to 30 % increase of costs for all softwares - even those that do not benefit from Cloud integration. And unlike with Apple, this surely wasn't part of the deal before, which is why I see developers being rather wary about moves to that direction.

I'm not sure what is "consistent" about UI changes. The only two things that changed between 7 and 8 was the start menu...which became a start screen, and the use of ribbons in the core desktop apps (i.e. Explorer). People on Windows have been using ribbon for years now, so it isn't something new. I haven't heard much about that being a sticking point with potential upgraders, either...the biggest complaints are the start screen. But as you can see from other participants in this thread, the vast majority of the complaints about the start screen are entirely unfounded.

Not to mention, if you really want a start can have it. There are free and cheap utilities to bring it back if that's something you REALLY REALLY want. It isn't enough to avoid upgrading, because everything else about Windows 8 has been improved over Windows 7.

Re-read what I said.
It's only now that 8 is released and Microsoft's strategy is clear, and it seems consistent UI changes are the norm, I'm considering switching to Linux in next computer update. Microsoft actually never made the jump easier.

= Because Microsoft's strategy is going towards Devices and Services, several things can be predicted straight from that. And I don't like what I'm seeing (and that's just me). Coincidentally, because Microsoft keeps on shuffling the UI, requiring me to constantly learn it again, I might make a bigger jump and learn a completely different OS. They never made it easier as UI re-learning is nevertheless ahead. This applies to both home and work.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 11, 2014, 08:04:49 AM »
A short update:

I got my 50A back from the shop, and lo and behold, the inconsistency was gone. Sigma representative said they adjusted the lens to a standard body, and then returned it. Now the lens was back focusing either when approached from INF or MFD, which is OK from my books as I've tools to correct that. So Sigma dock it is, and 20 mins of adjustments later, I was ready for real life testing.

In the 300 photos I took last evening, I didn't see focus errors, and got a very good keeper ratio. The lens is now working, and actually seems to be sharp enough that I actually need to decrease camera sharpening preset for JPEGs.

EDIT: I'll have to say that this lens rocks! The background blur stopped down is a definite improvement over Canon's 50/1.4!

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 55mm f/1.4 & Other Primes
« on: July 11, 2014, 07:53:31 AM »
Interesting, these are actually not Double Gauss type designs, but I'd say they are retrofocus types. Though with 50 mm examples it's harder to see, I may take a look at these when I get back from vacation as I'm still not sure how much negative power does that 2nd lens provide. Groups G3a and G3b have concave sides facing each other, and this is a departure from classical Double Gauss. My gut feeling is that G3a and G3b will be relatively sensitive with respect to element decenters.

Canon has patented retrofocal designs before, but this seems like a more realizable one. I'd say their designers wanted to keep the objective small and light weight, while providing improved image quality and better focusing over the older 50/1.4. Whether these will be released as a product is another thing.

Gotta back claims like that up, Mika. There have been no mentions of a mass of talent leaving the company since Microsoft acquired it. There shouldn't be, either, as it should be business as usual...Microsoft owns the Lumia unit now, that doesn't mean they are going to change everything right off the bat (or change anything...Lumia is the most successful Windows phone, and it's driving the growth of Windows phone in the not mess with something that works.)

PureView is the best camera technology in a phone right now. Why your complaining about that now that it's in Microsoft hands, I cannot fathom.

Re-read what I said. I said the people left when Microsoft strategy was ANNOUNCED, which dates some months before the infamous burning platform memo. Nokia had to offer large cash incentives to keep people working in the house. You may also be interested to know I work in the R&D side of things, and actually in the city where Nokia mobile started. Some of my university time buddies ended up there, and additionally, some of the Nokia people came to us after the announcement. The writing was already on the wall at that time as they knew Microsoft is going to be selected, and elected to get out. I'll try to limit the discussion about mobile stuff from here on as it is so far out of topic.

Again, re-read what I said. I certainly didn't complain Pureview is on Microsoft's hands. I'm saying they didn't get everybody involved in the technology, and the patent deal with Canon; that I interpret as realizing that they don't know enough of image processing in-house as no other Canon patent area is really applicable to their side of business. Alternative interpretations are, of course, possible.

This is again a scrap out of the 1990's. Microsoft has been directly listening to customer feedback for many years now. They have been an extremely open and cooporative company, vs. a monopolistic company, since the whole anti-trust suit. This very deal is a PERFECT example of the NON-competitive nature of the Microsoft of today. Your once again living in the past.

Oh? How many years ago did you say this happened last? Since I think the last time was about two years ago when Microsoft royally ****ed up deals with mobile operators, trying to utilize similar strategy of trying to force their terms to mobile operators (relatively dumb if you ask me, those companies are among the richest on Earth). Unfortunately for them, operators answered "Go home Mr. Nobody". And it really shows in pathetic sales. As for the actual reference, take a look on the shareholders' meeting memos from Nokia. I don't for a second believe that the typical predatory tactics would have changed at all, and they will be used when necessary. Large companies just are like that.

As for Surface...Microsoft's future is dependent upon the entire Microsoft ecosystem being directly competitive with Apple products, specifically. To be quite blunt, Microsoft's hardware partners SUCK ASS. They NEEDED a big, fat, PAINFUL kick in the rear end to knock some sense into them. The mobile windows hardware market has been failing for years...products have gotten cheaper and cheaper, and the quality of those products has tanked right along with price and profit margin.

Well, if that's the way you see it. I see it a bit differently - Microsoft reduced the profitability of these companies up to the point their R&D became mainly small incremental upgrades and now enters the same market, able to out price their hardware due to software licensing costs. Actually, because of this threat, Linux got considerably better video card support from AMD just last year due to Microsoft's actions, and that's just from the top of my head. And what it comes to products getting cheaper, that's probably true. What I don't agree with is quality.

Comparing something to Apple stuff doesn't really impress, it's a company that can't even get their OFFICIAL chargers working (=cutting corners with electrical safety to reduce size of the charger). If we had the same legislation before entering EU, it would not have been even possible to sell the OFFICIAL Apple chargers here due to safety regulation violations.

Generally in Europe, it's considered a bad move to jump to enter the same area as your customers - it is guaranteed to create ill-will, so you really shouldn't be surprised because of this. Funny thing is, this is exactly the recent stuff why Microsoft is not liked, but you're downplaying this example by saying it's a genius move. Well, I don't know, it could be strategical genius at play, but the chances are, you're also taking a risk of alienating your OEMs. It doesn't happen in a second, though, and Microsoft has cash to play. See where I'm getting at?

The ribbon was a DIRECT response to years of customer feedback on the Office UI. People hated having to dig multiple levels deep within menu systems to find features in Word and Excel primarily. Microsoft designed the ribbon in an effort to solve that exact problem, based on explicit CUSTOMER feedback about the problems with their old Office design. Ribbon was a success in that it brought everything right to the surface, one level deep in a series of tabs.

I know the background of the Ribbon. I've to F______ use it every F______ day. Including Paint (seriously, what the hell Microsoft?) and ZEMAX, whose latest update incorporated it, despite the CUSTOMER FEEDBACK not to go there. Luckily, with professional software, they have to implement menu structure - and I've seen no-one using the Ribbon in CAD software in our house. What it comes to the Office, I agree that user feedback triggered the change, but the change itself is still botched.

You are saying that Ribbon put everything on the surface, right? Take a look on the attached PNG. What is the circled button that I see there? You know, the one that EXPANDS the options in Ribbon? The thing that should NOT exist based on the design criteria? This is basically a RE-VAMPED menu structure for you, with the exception that this is actually WORSE. The expansion button is so small that it's harder to hit than the older text based menu. I actually couldn't find the button first time I needed it!

Add on top the fact that the Ribbon icon size is sort of fixed (I only need the text part, not the graphic icon to begin with - deciphering icons is harder than text). I would like to place much more buttons there, but can't! Because of that, I still can't orient the Ribbon vertically to take advantage of the nowadays wide display aspect ratios. And I've made my opinion known on the Microsoft side.

Now your just speculating about Microsoft forcing anything on it's customers. You can still, and will always be able to, buy Office stand-alone. I did. I own a couple stand alone copies. I opted for that, instead of the much cheaper $99/yr Office Cloud standard edition. I prefer to store my data locally...but not everyone does. Some people, some corporations and smaller businesses, much prefer to offload the once-necessary costs and complexities of managing their own computer networks and systems onto a larger business entity that has more talented and effective resources for managing such things.

It could be. And I thought I made it clear this is speculation (though based on several snippets of facts). Getting back there, there's no similar legislation in place for data storage as there is for example book-keeping that small enterprises typically favor too, and data storage is actually much more sensitive area. In Europe, I don't think this would fly - you're simply considered stupid if you do this, until the legal standing is clear. Also add on top that Cloud servers that stay on US soil are suspect for US government actions at any second. This is not to say that your average worker cannot upload anything to Cloud, but he's responsible for the brunt if data loss happens.

Cloud is Microsoft's strength. Their biggest competitor there is actually Amazon, and they are making headway, helping spur a competitive market in the cloud services business.

This doesn't make any sense. You're saying Microsoft's cloud is for the enterprise, but as far as I know, Amazon is for consumers. Which is it?

The way app stores are run isn't really a Microsoft thing. Apple started that trend, and in many ways, it is essential to the protection of consumers. Just look into how many problems and security issues can and have occurred on the Android platform, with it's open app store, vs. how many of those kinds of issues occur on Apple or Microsoft devices. There needs to be some level of buffer, some small barrier to entry, to help weed out the apps that are designed by data and identity thieves for the purposes of data and identity theft, fraud, etc.

I agree with store safety with Android. But, you're saying app store isn't a Microsoft thing. I think here you'll need to look into the future and not in the past as you so readily advised me. Apple is the most profitable high-tech (HAH!) company on Earth, and it stands for a good reason Microsoft has an incentive to go the same way - and this includes orientation towards the consumer. So, the software companies building on Windows ecosystem can also predict that in the future their profit margin drops due to the Microsoft taking a larger share in the Microsoft Store. Which is fine, Microsoft can do whatever they want with their ecosystem and I suppose you get something back for the price, but I'm saying there will be consequences and market share erosion as not everybody will find the properties worth their money. As you are already seeing with the case of Valve. And I never said this had anything to do with Windows 8, but general Microsoft strategy.

FYI, I was actually supporting Windows against Linux when 7 was released. It's only now that 8 is released and Microsoft's strategy is clear, and it seems consistent UI changes are the norm, I'm considering switching to Linux in next computer update. Microsoft actually never made the jump easier.

You have clearly never been part of a software development project, certainly not on any large-scale project that had a large installed base of users. You have to START somewhere.

I could argue this is actually even more important in R&D world. To START somewhere is well-known. However, it's important to listen to the feedback during the start too in my area, as the project gets axed if customer doesn't like it. In other words, exactly what Microsoft did NOT do with 8, and consequently patched in 8.1, but too late to save the name.

Well apparently, Microsoft wants to have some Canon tech in their imaging stuff now. Unfortunately, I guess nobody told them that it's not exactly the same thing to transfer from system camera level imaging to mobile imaging. It does make me wonder whether when Nokia imploded the people who really knew the details of Pureview technology jumped ship... As far as I know, Nokia lost a ton of talent at the moment when Windows strategy was announced.

Anyways, Microsoft hate is not because Windows 8 didn't work, or had underlying issues. The hate is because Microsoft doesn't listen to customers or just does business moves that people see are going to cost them more in the long run. And that they are trying to push their monopolistic software attitude to other business areas where they have no foothold. Or backstabbing their hardware buddies with releasing Surface to begin with.

Vista with Office updates that forced non-customizable Ribbon was bad enough, and on top of that, the companies had to pay to get people on courses how to use 20 year old tools again.

Now, add another Office change (2010), the UI didn't remain constant, although I think it was a general improvement to 2007. Add on Windows 8 screwing the operating system UI again with Microsoft marketing trying to push it as a "vast improvement" where real world experience was completely different. Especially when beta testers WARNED the company about this.

It doesn't help that Windows 8.1 removes a part of the forced stupidity (though I wouldn't cross my fingers), the version name is already tainted. It has to be Windows 9 and an attitude change to recover from this. The point is, if the most downloaded third-party application is Classic Shell, the UI was ****ed to begin with. Note that this holds for the business side experience when using desktops with large screens.

Unfortunately, Microsoft also started to push for cloud integration in Office, and at this part of the world, there's not a lot of businesses who would like to upload critical information to servers based in the US given the current legislation that can confiscate the data at any point. I'm pretty sure Microsoft's plan is to start forcing cloud services down on our throats gradually to charge the usage basis for monthly services, and that I don't want.

I also definitely don't like the Microsoft store integration of the computer UI, and from what it seems, neither did the entertainment industry. Ask how bad it had to be if Valve switched on to developing their own operating system!

This is, of course, from my point of view. If you ask me, Windows 8 could've worked had the preferred UI been a simple question in the beginning. Ribbon would work better if it was customizable. Microsoft's name would look better if it wasn't seen nowadays as a potential competitor with their customers and so on.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 03, 2014, 08:08:46 AM »
I have lens no.2 now. The first was very unpredictable. This second one is more consistent, but not reliable. I have done both FoCal, with a mix of poor and acceptable results (The first lens did not pass FoCal at all) and a manual LensAlign test. With LensAlign I have found a fairly consistent back focus, coming from infinity to app. 1,2m and front focus coming from MFD. Not much, but enough to make f1.4 shots sufficiently out of focus to be annoying.

With the Eg-S focusing screen on the 5DIII and Ec-S on the 1DX, I get equal or better results shooting the Otus wide open. That sort of kills my interest in the Sigma ...

I agree on the optical performance though. When focus is right, you can get absolutely stunning images with this lens.

I have it reversed on 5D. From INF to 2 metres, front focusing.
From MFD to 2 metres, back focus. The lens is now sent to service, from what it seems to me, this looks like a software thing. I suspect there's nothing wrong in the lens mechanics itself.

Given the images I got with it, I'm willing to wait a couple of months to get the software ironed out. But photography is indeed not my day job and I can see why this would not be acceptable for pros. Sigma 50 Art is still the best 50/1.4 I've seen image quality-wise, background or punch.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5