February 27, 2015, 10:52:57 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 - Rudeofus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
EOS Bodies / Re: Smartphones Already Won -- Laforet
« on: Today at 09:56:28 AM »
And that's why he's wrong. We should also "amateurs" - what it really means.

Non professional photographers take images for very different reasons. And not all of them - and probably just a small part of them, although very visible due to the hype sorrounding "social media" today - require "instant connectivity".
You think that social media were a short fad that won't go anywhere? Welcome to the year 2015! Look at the member count of facebook versus ALL photography related forums together, then please stop preaching about "probably just a small part of them". In case you missed it: Facebook Users Are Uploading 350 Million New Photos Each Day, and that was 2013 ...

You cannot simply assume growth in one market means the death of another.


The assumption here is that the smartphone camera market, and the stills camera market, are somehow competing. They're not. They're vastly different markets and to say one has "won" over the other is absurd.

It may sound absurd to you, but it's right there happening. People around me who were never seen without their DSLR suddenly snap around with smart phones, while their DSLR collects dust at home. You did read the postings that DSLR sales are hurting badly, and have so for a few years, yes?

EOS Bodies / Re: Smartphones Already Won -- Laforet
« on: Today at 07:05:19 AM »
Does he think that he is about to replace his gear with an iPhone? I think not, but somehow he thinks we are all about to. What an idiot.
No he doesn't, and with some reading comprehension you would agree that he never made that point. In fact he specifically pointed out several times and with highlighting, that smart phones won't reach a point where they can fully replace a professional camera.

His claims can be summed up as "amateurs value connectivity more than image quality", "DSLR makers were asleep when that trend became apparent" and "it's not sure whether DSLR makers can continue a business model that was so far financed by amateurs".

His article suggests another interpretation, aimed directly at photography related forums: there is a lot of talk about megapixels, dynamic range, high iso noise, corner to corner sharpness and lens bokeh. The camera market, however, cared about neither of these issues, but is/was decided by a separate issue (connectivity) that was rarely covered in discussions here and elsewhere. Yes, that hurts.  :'(

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS & Others
« on: February 22, 2015, 10:08:14 AM »
Sorry, I wasn't quite clear, its a 'new' technology, as in the way that DO is a 'new' feature to include in your optical designs. This one seems to involve resin layers (??)
You are right, this has nothing to do with DO, in fact the blog even writes about the drawback of DO and specifically mentions Nikon's recently released 300 PF. The key claim of this patent seems to be lenses with prescribed distribution of diffractive index over the radius, made from special resins.

The blog also mentions that instead of going the Zeiss Otus / Sigma Art route, Canon may elect to stick with conventional design for fast 50mm lens, with performance improvements coming from this technology.
Having lenses that vary in refractive index in different places is not new, you are looking through them to read this...
And even Canon seems to have patented aspects of this technology over three years ago ...

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS & Others
« on: February 21, 2015, 02:27:02 AM »
Nothing wrong with a well-executed double Gauss design on crop or for a budget fast prime or a lightweight compact fast prime. For all we know, the 50 mm may be for a Nifty Fifty replacement.

That patent is for a 50mm F/1.3 lens, which doesn't sound like a nifty fifty, but somewhere between the current thrifty fifty and the 50L. Yes, Canon could stick with double gauss design and make a new version of their 50 F/1.4 with more robust AF, or a 50L II without the focus shift at min focus distance. But why would they? Would it generate any additional sales over the existing lineup like their 100-400 L II? I doubt it.

I think keithcooper has the key to the answer: this patent is not about individual lens designs, but about a new design concept using DO, and the 50/1.3 in that patent is only one example how to put that concept to use.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS & Others
« on: February 20, 2015, 01:45:45 PM »
After Zeiss and Sigma showed the world how high performance 50mm F/1.4 lenses are to be made (reverse tele instead of double gauss), canon patents yet another 50mm double gauss design. How is this going to perform on their upcoming 50 megapixel monsters? What is the expected improvement over their existing lineup?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: January 14, 2015, 09:09:48 AM »
So the focusing motor was dirty...Sigma® focusing motors do not fail?

If you know and understand how USM/HSM/USD works, you will quickly agree that mechanical failure is quite unlikely, whereas a grain of dust, or sticky lubricant can cause a lot of grief.

It's been said a hundred times just what additional value Canon gives through reliability and the robustness of their products.

Some people are apparently too young to remember the EOS 1Ds III auto focus debacle right after introduction ... and Sigma's initial problems with OS in 120-400 and 150-500 ... or Metz's issues with exploding flash bulbs ...

Let's get real: getting a newly introduced product exposes you to inherent risks, and a proper recall is 1000x better and more honest than a company singing "lala, I can't hear you" to a torrent of problem reports.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: B&H Photo Nows Carries Yongnuo Products
« on: January 12, 2015, 03:16:28 AM »
Also they were the first to introduce metal
shoes on their trigger (compare to the flimsy Profoto Air Remotes!)
and the adopted 2.4 GHz as a worldwide compatible standard,
while LPA drove another nail into their coffin when they stuck
at their frequencies different in EMEA and NA.

Also, RF-602 were among the first to reliably bridge up to
100m/300ft distance. So - they got me on their capabilities.

The big advantage of the lower frequency bands used by LPA's pocked wizards is better reach. I have a set of yongnuo RF-602 and can only dream of bridging 100m with them, a distance that pocket wizards can bridge easily.

This is entirely a matter of personal taste. High contrast, low contrast, high saturation, low saturation, better local contrast, or not, black and white, or not. That is all a matter of taste, style, art. It blows my mind how much the members of this community feel they can just decide for everyone what is valid art or not, or what is valid artistic technique or not, or what is valid processing or not, or how much no one knows how to use a camera if they find a use for more in-camera DR. WOW.

Personally, I think the photo is great. It wouldn't matter to me if it was done with a Canon or not. It's a great photo. It's probably better than I would do if I was standing in that guys shoes.

As you probably know, the human eye uses different cells for seeing dark or bright scenes, and in dark areas our vision is mostly black and white. This little fact is precisely what makes most HDR images (and it doesn't matter whether they are real HDR or just tone mapped) so eyepokingly atrocious to many. The dark hallways in this image look as saturated as the bright outside, and to my eyes (and apparently many others) this doesn't look right.

Yes, Tamron's lens doesn't cost $2400 and it's a pretty good performer optically with the handy inclusion of VC.

The minor issues I have with mine are:
1) I find the zoom action isn't as smooth as I'd like
2) The focus ring is narrow and the focus throw is also a bit short so not great for manual focusing
3) Autofocus is inconsistent on the 5D-III, so I use it for deep dof shots (f/5.6-f/11) or on my 60D or 6D.

Are these issues worth more than a 1000$ dollars? Not to me.

As you probably noted, none of these issues require a filter thread larger than 82mm to solve. Apart from that, whether you get the Tamron or not seems to depend on whether you truly benefit from its features. If you really need F/2.8 and IS in that focal length range, the issues you listed sound pretty minor (except for poor focusing with 5DIII, that's a show stopper).

Everyone would LOVE a 24-104L or 24-70L 2.8 IS. but I'd assume the engineering, size, and price would put it at a price above $2400 and they might as well paint it white. if the 24-70 is an 82mm thread, imagine it with IS?

You do realize that Tamron does make a 24-70 2.8 USD VC (which is their name for USM IS) with 82mm filter thread ...

Do you believe their forecast?

They are one of the major makers of these cameras! If they predict a downturn in this market, then god help anyone betting on an upturn ...

... and Zeiss's Otus (expensive&MF but optically excellent).

there isn't a 35mm Otus.

You are technically correct, I mixed it up with their new 35mm ZM lens. Still, the 35mm market is crowded if you ask me. A high performance 24mm for full frame on the other side ...

Bokeh, color, contrast and transparency of the lens are very important to some folks. Each lens manufacturer has their own recipe for their glass, thus each one looks different even if they're all equally sharp.

But is 35mm really such a bread&butter lens for many photographers that everyone needs two? Why would so many companies focus on this market, while more or less ignoring 20mm, 24mm, 100mm, 135mm or 200mm?

Everyone and his/her grandmother seems to hit the market now with some version of 35mm F/1.4 - F/2.0, and I really wonder who buys all these 35mm lenses, especially when the market is pretty much covered by Canon's 35/2IS (cheap and effective), Canon's 35L (expensive but says "Canon L"), Sigma's 35A (moderately priced, but says "Sigma") and Zeiss's Otus (expensive&MF but optically excellent).

I hope you are not including me as a criticizer of Roger, several times I have written of my respect for him, his work, his results and conclusions.

I most definitely don't try to act as Roger Cicala Defense Force here, first off all I had my own stern exchanges with Roger in the past, second I can confirm from personal experience that Roger doesn't need anyone as RCDF because he is quite capable of standing up for himself.

I don't care what gear anybody uses, I use my selection because I felt it was the right thing for me to get, and I might point out that Roger is a 6D Canon system owner. I don't care how my gear "tests" I care how it works.

In this case the DxOLab tests are for you, and luckily CR will continue to link to them as they appear. Roger's tests can be used as complementary tests for all those, who fit Nikon lenses to their Canon cameras, or who fit Canon lenses to their Sony A7R, or as some have pointed out, for those who upgrade their cameras more often than their lenses.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7