November 27, 2014, 05:03:01 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 - Rick

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 12:13:10 PM »
Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

You don't seem to know how to read the graph or what a typical graph is. This lens actually has LESS falloff in resolution between the center and corners than the Zeiss Otus, and 3 times less falloff in corner resolution than a typical competitor. On top of that it's as sharp in the corners wide as most 50mm lenses are stopped down in average resolution at f/2.8. For all intents and purposes it's tack sharp on full frame in the corners wide open. All lenses have some sharpness falloff in the corners, the Otus has significant drop, but for both lenses we are talking about being ridiculously sharp in the center and nearly ridiculously sharp in the corners. The Sigma is 2-5 times sharper than any other 50mm prime with autofocus in terms of average resolution, so the whole image is very clear.


You're also missing the point of their quote. The Sigma 50 A is not competing with canon or nikon it's competing with zeiss and makes Canon and nikon obsolete. That's the point of the quote, and that's what they accomplished.

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 07:11:30 AM »
Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

18
"Not alpha, not beta, nor zeta, just a bleeding edge that happens to work for me. It might work for you or it might not. (note that my standards are fairly high, so what I call bleeding edge, others may call semi-stable or whatever)"

These Magic Lantern disclaimers are about as unstable as ML hacks.

19
Pricewatch Deals / No way I am going back to mail-in rfebates
« on: March 03, 2014, 09:21:56 AM »
No way I am going back to mail-in rebates. I'd rather buy refurbed or used.

Nikon still provides Instant rebates.

The way I heard it on DPR through a dealer who was posting there, the dealers have to submit the paperwork in an Instant Rebate and they ran into all of the same problems that consumers run into with the mail-in rebates and there was a rebellion among the dealers and Canon went back to a mail-in rebate on the most popular lenses - the Ls. No way am I going to wait up to 8 weeks for my money back or put up with the "designed" nitpicking of the rebate vendor.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 01, 2014, 10:17:16 AM »
Waiting until a model sells out that historically hasn't sold well to bring in something that might actually sell briskly? Almost makes Canon-sense except that Canon didn't actually say this.

21
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:07:46 PM »
I haven't purchased this lens since I am not interested in this FL, but, when Zeiss releases the Otus 21 or 25mm, I'll be all over it if it stacks up to the 55.

From the perspective of someone who is interested in the Otus concept but doesn't have the personal experience with one yet (and I'll defer to those who actually own one), the main draw to the product is its sharpness across the frame @f1.4. I see no reason why an Otus (assuming identical optical goals for all future FLs in this series) can't be used at f1.4 on a landscape with infinity distance across the frame and get acceptably sharp corners (judging from samples distributed by Zeiss). Even if one had to stop all the way down to f2  :), this will keep diffraction well at bay.

OTOH, @f5.6, if one wants to save $1k, an A7r with an FE 55mm ($3k), appears sharper than the Otus/D800 according to a comparison tool over at DPR (I think they got the raw numbers from DxO).

22
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Coming in March? [CR1]
« on: February 21, 2014, 10:48:47 AM »
So basically, nada continues.

23
A statistically meaningful sample, this is not. Throwing out the third world constituency, a real sampling might prove the 1D X to be even more dominant than these numbers imply.

24
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« on: January 29, 2014, 04:24:28 PM »
Sorry. I'm going to pass on "pretty good image quality".

25
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 24, 2014, 07:32:43 AM »
Having owned the 16-35, 17-40, 16-35 II in that order and I currently own the Nikkor 14-24G, I'd say the 17-40 is at the bottom of the UWA zoom pack in terms of absolute IQ. Can one make likable images with it? Of course. If I couldn't, that would be saying more about my abilities than the lens'. But let's be honest. The single best "feature" of this lens is price.

26
Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 24, 2014, 07:25:18 AM »
DXO is such a reliable site...    ;D

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-2.8-21mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D3X-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___334_485_326_483

Sad that you believe this makes some kind of statement. For those interested in the facts:

http://www.dxomark.com/en/Reviews/DxOMark-Score

Having shot with two 5D2s for a couple of years until I replaced one of them with a D3x which I still own, I'd say the overall score differential is about right.

27
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 21, 2014, 09:54:25 AM »
It looks to me like you just started the hating.

Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.

Kelby isn't my favorite trainer/expert/talking-head by any stretch, but I believe that his reasons were sound.

The skin tones, review speed, ergonomics are CRITICAL when you're doing sports photography... you don't have time to 'shop or browse your photos, they are delivered as-is out of the camera ASAP.  He got hooked in from there, it's simple. 

Of course, Canon was wooing him, and he's well compensated/sponsored, as a lot of top evangelists/trainers/mouthpieces are, so that's a factor... is anyone really surprised.

28
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 21, 2014, 09:52:59 AM »
Did I hear Kelby correctly in the video when he was complaining about the D4 having to press the dial each time to scroll through each shot? I just tried my D800E and a single press/hold will scroll through all images automatically? Of course, if I want to stop and gaze at a particular image, I have to release my press. Same with a wheel, right? In fact, a press/hold seems easier than having to turn a wheel with the thumb as far as it can go, then repositioning the thumb on the wheel for the next batch.
No it is not same with a wheel ... image playback with the Canon wheel is much much faster than scrolling through the Nikon button system on any of the Nikon cameras ... there is a noticeable lag between two photos even when you hold down the button on a Nikon camera ... with the Canon wheel you can go crazy fast using your index finger or thumb to turn the whee real fast, it is lightning quick. Try it with your D800E and then the Canon 5D MK III to see the difference.

First of all, I have both brands so I know how fast/slow everything is unless a D4/1D X are different from a D800E/5D3.
I know, you already mentioned that you shoot with both the systems ... I too shoot with both the systems and a Sony, it does not mean we know everything.

Yes, I agree that a spin on the wheel is lightning quick, but how can one look for the correct exposure/composition, as Kelby claims he is doing, by spinning a wheel "lightning quick"?
Good eye sight ;)

That would be Real good eyesight.

29
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 21, 2014, 08:58:00 AM »
Did I hear Kelby correctly in the video when he was complaining about the D4 having to press the dial each time to scroll through each shot? I just tried my D800E and a single press/hold will scroll through all images automatically? Of course, if I want to stop and gaze at a particular image, I have to release my press. Same with a wheel, right? In fact, a press/hold seems easier than having to turn a wheel with the thumb as far as it can go, then repositioning the thumb on the wheel for the next batch.
No it is not same with a wheel ... image playback with the Canon wheel is much much faster than scrolling through the Nikon button system on any of the Nikon cameras ... there is a noticeable lag between two photos even when you hold down the button on a Nikon camera ... with the Canon wheel you can go crazy fast using your index finger or thumb to turn the whee real fast, it is lightning quick. Try it with your D800E and then the Canon 5D MK III to see the difference.

First of all, I have both brands so I know how fast/slow everything is unless a D4/1D X are different from a D800E/5D3. Yes, I agree that a spin on the wheel is lightning quick, but how can one look for the correct exposure/composition, as Kelby claims he is doing, by spinning a wheel "lightning quick"?

30
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 21, 2014, 08:51:47 AM »
Why does this "switching" by whoever to Canon gear matter at all?

Fanbois. It will matter to them. And you gotta think that NAPP has more than a few Nikon Fanbois who could get mad enough to put a dent in membership, especially after the lame, intelligence-insulting reasoning Kelby invoked. I would have respected "because I wanna" more than the things he claimed in the video.

Basically, he's spinning BS for the benefit of his Nikon subscribers to NAPP which I think is dishonest if not explicitly it is self-deceiving .

I shoot both brands and I am a member of NAPP and I think beyond this video, Kelby has generally been a positive force in my photography but I gotta call a spade a spade on this one.  :)


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6