November 20, 2014, 04:30:43 PM

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 ... 6
... 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.

After reading yet another hatefest aimed at DxOLabs just recently, I am a bit surprised about the criticism aimed at Roger Cicala and his latest test report. DxOLabs got slammed hard because they measured lens performance together with the camera, and go figure, Canon didn't look good. Now Roger measured lens performance alone, Canon again didn't look stellar, and people throw another tantrum.

The only type of test, however contrived, which would find common acceptance here, would be one that yields results saying "Canon is better, pictures shot with Canon gear are automatically better, and people using Canon are a smart, attractive bunch, unlike users of other equipment."

A while back I tried Canon's 20-35, and to be honest, the zoom ratio was so small it did not really impress me in the view finder. Let's not forget that every zoom has to make some compromises in terms of image quality, so a really sharp prime plus cropping may fare better than such a zoom. Allow me here to doubt the usefulness of a zoom with only 2x focal length ratio, even the 200-400 included an optional TC for this reason.

what about the bayer pattern?

a pixel in the image file is interpolated from photosites on the sensor.
so a bayer pattern sensor has to be worse than what you wrote?

AFAIK the filters on those bayer pixels are quite weak, which means in terms of luminosity you get full resolution plus lots of chroma noise. This bodes well for black/white test charts, but less so for e.g. blue/red test charts. Guess which ones are more common ...

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon's $40 Super-Macro Lens
« on: August 22, 2014, 05:01:52 AM »
Not sure what to make of this posting. It's a verbatim copy of this posting, which is 4 years old and actually offers the images promised in the text.

Are you the same guy posting this?

I have an Epson V700 for scanning my negs&slides, and with 35mm material sharpness is dreadful, so is dynamic range (which means sensor noise). And the V700 is supposedly top of the line when it comes to flat bed film scanners.

If DSLRs have soooo many megapixels, sharp lenses and tons of dynamic range, then I really wonder why everybody recommends flat bed scanners.

I recommended a film/slide scanner, but yes, my V700 does a great job on slides as compared to my 5D MK III.  It is not a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner, so I do not expect that kind of results.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 55mm f/1.4 & Other Primes
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:46:32 PM »
Would a patent mention whether there is IS or not? Seems that could be a separate issue.

Even if Canon tried to sneak an IS lens by us, its image cycle would give away all the secrets. Since the image cycle of these lenses is barely large enough to cover a full frame sensor, we can be reasonably sure that these lens designs will not support IS.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 55mm f/1.4 & Other Primes
« on: July 07, 2014, 02:45:37 AM »
So, no IS, but lighter, cheaper (to build), and faster.
This is beginning to sound like a consumer lens, not a expensive "L" type.

I'd be not so sure about this. If Canon patents a 35mm and a 55mm design with very similarly looking construction, the 55mm design is most likely a retrofocal design. This would follow the recent trend started by Zeiss 55mm Otus and Sigma 50 Art and should be considered a good thing. Expect heavy, expensive and good to excellent imaging performance. And you are right, no IS.

It sounds like Canon will finally release a ~50mm lens worth looking at ...

Your making some wild accusations about the Elop thing. I think they are unfounded, and I think THAT is the kind of crap Microsoft gets rap for that they do not deserve. Elop is an idiot. He always has been, always will be. If Microsoft had chosen Elop to be their new CEO, then I'd have probably ditched MS products in the long term...Elop would have UTTERLY DESTROYED Microsoft. He would have sold off their most lucrative brands and catered to the every whim of the stock holder. They would have been a completely dead brand outside of a niche enterprise market within less than a decade.
Elop was as much an idiot as Kim Philby, or he would not have collected a massive paycheck from Microsoft after he finally brought Nokia to its knees. Remember that Nokia was once the pride of Finland's electronics industry and a leading maker of mobile phone hand sets, in the end they were scooped up by Microsoft for a pittance. The reason Elop didn't become Microsofts next CEO was not his alleged incompetence, but that they were probably deadly afraid of a person with his skills and his character.

BTW I fully understand your sentiment about Apple, having had a PowerMac go through three major faults in 2 1/2 years, the last one would have cost more to repair than a decent new PC would cost. That was my last Apple product as far as I am concerned. But you have to understand (but not necessarily support) the general sentiment about Microsoft and Apple: Microsoft is what you were forced to use at work, like it or not, regardless of its technical merits. Apple, and in particular iPhones, were the first products to break that corporate stronghold, and welcomed by many people for this very reason, regardless of all their flaws. Their walled garden for software installations were loathed by many nerds, but welcomed by computing illiterates (i.e. the general masses) because it avoided the whole virus issue for good (still remember code red, nimda and "I love you"?)

jrista, the way you normally write about Canon's product line and strategic decisions, and now about Microsoft and their latest products, reminds me a lot about the time when I was a teenager and fell in love for the first time. It's a long time since then, but I still remember the mind set I was in.

To put some ugly zits on that Microsoft crush you seemingly have developed, I may draw to your attention to the fact that Microsoft has not abandoned their predatory style. Just remember the way their henchman Stephen "trojan horse" Elop took over Nokia, killed its long awaited new product strategy, turned a profitable company into a loss making, demoralized corporate cadaver that was ultimately coup de grace'd by Microsoft themselves - with a paycheck for Elop that easily matches all of CR's membership taken together. One should not be surprised that computer folks, who got burned by Microsoft's tactics twenty years ago, are still a bit touchy, especially when the company and their products are presented like ... well, see my first paragraph here.

Back to the original topic: If Microsoft would have wanted access to DSLR or lens related patents, they could have gotten a similar deal from Nikon for a lot less. After all Nikon is a much, much smaller company, most likely with a much smaller patent portfolio, and they are still able to manufacture and market competitive DSLRs and lenses. Let's not forget that Canon's camera division is just a small part of the whole enterprise, and I can well imagine that Microsoft saw a lot more utility in Canon's large office product line and IP, and that this was the real motivation behind the deal.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: May 30, 2014, 06:49:23 PM »
I have read lots and lots of threads here with people having AF problems with the 50A, but so far all of them had these issues with their 1D series camera, most notably the 1Dx.

Can someone confirm that these issues also affect other cameras as well?

Lighting / Re: yongnuo yn560-iii any good
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:25:56 PM »
I have heard that 1D series cameras can be incompatible with some third party flashes (Metz comes to mind). Evidently there is some difference in protocol between 1D and other cameras, and flashes aimed mostly at the entry level consumer market may not support the 1D series all that well.

Not to be scare mongering, but I do recommend you check that flash for full compatibility before you commit to buying it.

When people rag on Sigma AF issues, they should at least differentiate between past issues and the current issue seemingly affecting the new 50.

The big set of AF problems that seemed to have plagued Sigma glass forever appears to come from poor and/or incomplete decoding of Canon's lens protocol, and the art line seems to have resolved this issue for now. Thanks to the usb dock Canon can't pull any further "the new camera ain't done until Sigma glass won't run" stunts.

The problems that seem to have affected Eldar and Viggo appear to be plain manufacturing issues, that are not uncommon when brand new products are introduced. These issues shouldn't become the new normal either, and I sure hope that Sigma's manufacturing lines get their act together quickly.

PS: If people draw a straight line through 35 and 50 price points to determine the expected price of the new 85, then I wonder what price people would expect for upcoming wide angle glass in the art line ... :P

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6