« on: January 15, 2013, 10:59:51 AM »
This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.
@RLPhoto: hey, no need to repeat that in every 20-70 f/4 IS review/comparison thread
DOA or not, let's wait for the sale figure.
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.
This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.
Sorry, but not the same thing for me: one reduces the image circle, the other enlarges it.
Which are you saying enlarges the image circle? This adapter and what I described take a full-frame image circle and concentrates onto a smaller area (the size of a crop sensor). This has two effects: the light circle is brighter, and the crop sensor now has a similar angle of view through that lens as if it were a full-frame sensor.
.71x focal length means the focal length is 71% what it was before.
Tell me which one of the four links i haveIt is not much to own to that price, it is only ( and now Im using the word uninformed people) who think 50/1,2 is something special. good luck and Elvis is still alive, live in Motala Sweden
Had all the canon 50mm's, and the 50L is the best performing from F1.2-2.8. Its fantastic.
Provided shows that 50/1,2 is better at 2,0 than 50/1,4
Are all this 4 test humbug? Like some think about DXO Dr test
This makes me happy. I wondered in a post on this forum if such a thing were possible and now some one has gone and done it. I must be a smart guy! ;-)
my guess is he does research. when I was doing lab work there was an insane amount of waiting-for-tests-to-finish-running time that we spent on the computer, setting up strange ways to destroy expensive magnets, or meaningless arguments
Costa Rica, Vietnam and Laos? Running this site must be paying off in basket fulls of money!
Keep doing what you are doing, it is obviously working out well.
You're overlooking the fact that the smaller pixels of the 60D make it more sensitive to the effects of diffraction. That starts at f/6.9 on the 60D, but at f/10.1 on the 5DIII.
Personally, I prefer FF for macro.
Just curious Neuro whether for the same framing, will the APS-C at f/6.9 give a much deeper field than the FF at f/6.9? I understand that the DOF will be deeper with the APS-C but then as compared to the FF, at what point (for the same framing) will diffraction become an issue?
wonder how heavy it'll be?
Mikael, next time when you want to argue, try to learn from Neuro. Above is what I consider a good argument (throwing in some numbers would make it better)
Last advice: how about deciding once and for all on having a space or not following a comma in your signature? It's a detail, but it does reveal something ...
What would that reveal?
Not real sure on this one?
said nothing else
said nothing else.
rather uninteresting who sells the most SLRs - right?
or , as someone else member told you, Trabants sold most of all cars in the old East. Toyota is best selling cars today.
over and out regarding this subject
Nikon SLR NR 1 selling in Japan...in 2011Ok, so let's look at that. There are two ways to interpret that statement, either Nikon was #1 in Japan in 2011, or Nikon had the #1 selling model in Japan in 2011. The D3100 was the best selling dSLR in Japan in 2011. The fact that the D3100 was the best selling dSLR in Japan in 2011 is misleading - the D3100 was the current model in it's segment for the entire year; in that segment, Canon's Kiss X4 was the current model at the beginning of the year, and was replaced by the Kiss X5 during 2011. If you add the Kiss X4 and Kiss X5 sales together, that far exceeds D3100 sales.
Your three mistakes are as follows:
* Zooming the lens. This is likely inconsequential with these lenses, but it is a mistake none the less.
* Equivalent processing. This is a huge mistake which invalidates your test and your results out right. You do not use identical processing with different sensors, even different sensors of the same format.
* You do not mention if the shots were unlabeled. If your wife knew which came from which before picking, the results are less than worthless, they are misleading. There is no shortage of examples of conscious and subconscious human bias, of people picking what they think they should pick. It's just what we do. Even if they were unlabeled, a strict scientist would discount your results because you knew, and there's no shortage of ways you could have consciously or subconsciously telegraphed the "correct" choice to her.
Actually, those are your three mistaken assumptions.
* Zooming is necessary. Cropping to match FoV negates the purpose of the test, and moving the camera changes the perspective of the image, i.e. the size relationships of various elements - kind of important to a picture. What viable alternative would you suggest?
* I stated 'equivalent' - thinking that I meant 'identical' is a huge mistaken assumption. Equivalent means processed in such a way as to extract maximum detail with minimum noise, correct color as appropriate, etc. Obviously, that means different processing for different sensors. The idea was to make both images as good as they could be, not to stack the deck against the 7D.
* Did I have to mention that? Really? What do you think, that I said, "Sweetheart, the first image in each pair is from my new, top-of-the-line camera, my favorite camera in the world, the second is from the old piece of crap camera that I'm going to give to our 3 year old as a toy...now tell me which ones you like better, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?" The fact that you even considered something like that, much less labeled it a mistake that I made, is actually pretty damn offensive. In fact, I watermarked a '+' or a 'o' on each image, each label was randomly assigned to one of the pair, but balanced so there were the same number of each label in total, and I set up a looping slideshow that she looked at when I wasn't in the room. Before you go to the next level and suggest she peeked at the EXIF, if she did I bet she'd have picked the 7D because 7 is a bigger number than 1. She likes my pictures, supports my hobby, and doesn't give a darn about the gear itself. But being a Professor of Anatomy, she does have a keen eye for detail in the images.
FWIW, I am a card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD and a day job in the field (including responsibility for some bioanalytical assays conducted under GLP conditions), and once upon a time I actually conducted neuropsychological testing. I explicitly stated the above was subjective and completely anecdotal. You seem to have truncated your quote of my post right before that statement.
Given your evident bias and unsupported assumptions in calling out my 'mistakes' I don't see any point in pursuing this discussion further.
I literally grabbed some popcorn for this thread, starting from this post.
Quote* Did I have to mention that? Really? What do you think, that I said, "Sweetheart, the first image in each pair is from my new, top-of-the-line camera, my favorite camera in the world, the second is from the old piece of crap camera that I'm going to give to our 3 year old as a toy...now tell me which ones you like better, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?" The fact that you even considered something like that, much less labeled it a mistake that I made, is actually pretty damn offensive.
I have to mention it because the simple fact that you presented the images was a mistake, no matter how sincerely you tried to minimize it.
If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins
So an un-cropped 5d3 file printed to 24*36" has no real world win over a 7d? Or, have I lost something in the ambiguity?
Hmmm 15-85mm? It costs around 800$(750euro) Wouldn't there be an L lens in that price range? *Not planning to buy one soon, just curious.*