August 21, 2014, 06:21:03 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 - bchernicoff

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 37
I cannot see how this price can be correct. Truly dumbfounding. I think Sigma is going to embarrass the S___ out of Zeiss when they update their 50mm f/1.4.

Software & Accessories / Anyone tried the Replichrome "film look"presets
« on: October 04, 2013, 03:15:41 PM »
So, I guess these are supposed to be a much better alternative to VSCO film packs. Anyone tried them? The reviews sound good. I wish there were a free trial...I realize that is not really possible with Lightroom Presets.

Lenses / Re: 85mm prime recommendation
« on: October 04, 2013, 02:43:36 PM »
I've owned the both the Canon 1.2 L II and the Sigma. I sold the Canon and kept the Sigma.

Sigma pros:
vastly faster AF
actual manual AF
vastly better dust protection (with a filter on, the lens is effectively sealed)
around half the cost

Canon cons:
drive by wire manual AF
large gap between body and the barrel that moves in and out while focusing (dust entry point)
high price

Canon pros:
half stop faster


EOS Bodies / Re: German Canon Event
« on: October 01, 2013, 02:27:49 PM »
This comment on that page was intersting:

"i work for zeiss in germany and i have some colleagues from university who now work for canon germany.

i can´t tell you much because i don´t know much about it.. but my canon colleagues say something big is comming in october. kind of a suprise."

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: x-pro1
« on: September 26, 2013, 09:14:44 PM »
If you are a pixel peeper, you should check these out... shot RAW and exported from LR full-size at JPG 85 Quality. Please let me know what you think:

35mm f/1.4 @1.4, ISO 200, LR tweaks to color, contrast, exposure:

35mm f/1.4 @1.4 ISO 3200, LR exposure pushed 2 stops, Highlights -100, no NR or other tweaks (shot in difficult fluorescent lighting):

18-55 kit lens @3.2, 26.5mm, ISO 800, LR tweaks to exposure and color, no NR:

60mm f/2.4 Macro @2.4, ISO 200, no tweaks whatsoever (be sure to check out his moustache @100%):

EDIT: More
Kit lens @2.8, 18mm, ISO 200, no tweaks:

Same image as above but with LR Sharpening (Amount: 40, Detail: 75) and +28 Vibrance

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: x-pro1
« on: September 26, 2013, 03:32:54 PM »
I bought the X-E1 a month ago with the 18f/2, 35 f/1.4, 60 f/2.4 Macro, and 18-55 f/2.8-4 OIS.
I absolutely love it. I did something I've never done before...I took a vacation and left my 5DM3 at home.
This is my day-to-day camera for sure now. Obviously, the AF speed can't compare, but it's certainly fine for travel/street photography.

I am going to sell the 18mm f/2. It's only one stop wider than the zoom and is less sharp.

I don't get the appeal of the X-Pro1 over the X-E1. I would never use the optical viewfinder. The higher rez EVF of the X-E1 more than makes up for it. I want to see out the lens, either through a DSLR's mirror or through an EVF.

Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: September 24, 2013, 01:08:15 PM »
Regarding the JPEG banding/posterization... If you are saving to JPEG from Photoshop, always use Save for Web. you get a nice little preview of what the end result will look like once colorspace, resizing, compression, etc. are applied.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« on: September 23, 2013, 10:49:29 AM »
I feel like 90% of the grief that people hear about are from older/cheaper models from Sigma.

I was talking about the 35, the 18-35the 50, the 85. I have never tried the first two (hence the use of the words "seems" but I have seen quite a few complaints about the AF). I have my own experience with the 50 and the 85, and the AF was below any acceptable standard, the most problematic was the AF was heavily dependent on the distance. The same complaint that I hear about the first two, it must be a Sigma thing.

I had to return the Sigma fisheye, the latest "silent upgrade" model for various problems.

So, you've had grief with two pre-Global Vision lenses and have seen complaints about other lenses you haven't tried...(complaints that haven't shown up in any of the reviews I've read.) Based on this you feel qualified to contradict the premise of this thread?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« on: September 23, 2013, 10:18:27 AM »
I am not sure that they improved the quality. They have a few new lens designs but the AF problems and the copy variations seem to persist. Their build quality has been gradually improving long before the event you mentioned.

I've owned the total of seven Sigma lenses and used them with 7D, 5D Mk II, and 5D Mk III and the only one that had any problem with AF was a 50 1.4 on the 5D Mk II. It was inconsistent in low light. I sold that lens (which I had bought used) and later bought a brand new copy when I heard it performed better on the Mk III. It's true.
I feel like 90% of the grief that people hear about are from older/cheaper models from Sigma. The 35mm and the 85mm are stunningly sharp. The 17-50 f/2.8 OS was my favorite crop body lens. All the Global Vision lenses offer tuning and upgradeability through the USB dock. You really cannot go wrong with the new lenses.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« on: September 23, 2013, 09:08:18 AM »
Here is the link to the article.  It's a tour of the Sigma factory with some history on the company. The person receiving the tour comments on the cleanliness, attention to detail, and optical testing of each completed lens... factors which could account for an improvement in quality.

This is all part of the company's new Global Vision that they launched in 2012. You can read about it at the link below:

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 11:49:18 AM »
It is a great lens. However, I sold mine in favor of the Sigma which renders closer to the 50 1.2

Make sure you read the fine print.  I think the price goes up after 12 months.

Right now I'm on a intro price of $29.99 a month for the full CC suite, but at the end of 12 months it goes up to 49.99 / month. (no, i won't be renewing)

They've said repeatedly that the price doesn't go up with this deal.

A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop.

I tried it a few years ago and hated its file management system. Maybe I'm just used to Bridge, but it seems to fit my needs better.

Even Adobe admits Lightroom doesn't do anything that can't be done in Camera Raw. If you use smart objects, they open in Camera Raw and not Lightroom, so you end up using Camera Raw for any smart object edits anyway.

I'm told it has some advantages for batch processing that makes it easier if you are trying to manage large collections, but for a hobbyist, I just don't get it.

What am I missing?

The main thing for me is that the workflow is so much faster. I can:
1.) import a shoot
2.) scroll through them rejecting obvious bad shots and rating (1-5 stars) ones I like and want to come back to
3.) filter on the ones I've rated 3 stars or better
4.) make an adjustment that many shots will need like WB, sharpening, etc.
5.) quickly copy/paste that adjustment onto all the shots
6.) then go through and work on individual shots to tweak what they need
7.) publish them in a private gallery on any or all of Smugmug/Flickr/Facebook with only a couple of clicks
8.) share with clients, friends, whoever

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony's new little cameras
« on: September 05, 2013, 09:32:57 AM »
Agreed. Terrible idea. Why they wouldn't just try to one up the Lumia 1020 (which is a great idea) with one of their own phones is beyond me.

Because they would be stuck using a mobile platform so bad, that MS had to buy the only manufacturer who was still interested in using their flop.

Software & Accessories / Re: What fits in a CRJ-700 overhead bin?
« on: September 04, 2013, 03:18:52 PM »
What fits in a CRJ-700 overhead bin?

Disappointment...only disappointment.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 37