September 30, 2014, 08:27:25 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 - CarlTN

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 149
151
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: April 04, 2014, 06:45:02 PM »
stop siding with him and kissing his ass.
He has helped me many times with advice on many subjects.... what have you done for me?

I didn't realize you felt such hostility towards me.  Do I have to do things for you in order to be treated with common decency?  I don't recall disrespecting you, your opinions, or your photography.  Sorry if you feel that way.

I feel no hostility towards you and I enjoy reading many of your posts and comments too.

I just wish you and Jrista wouldn't fight.. it detracts from everyone.

Sure seems that way to me, but you and him are old buddies, I guess I can understand that.  There are some people that will never get along.  I respect some of the work he does, and some of his knowledge, but I don't respect his hatred, anger, immaturity, antagonism, and self righteousness...he is deluded where I am concerned.  He keeps claiming I don't know him.  I say the same, he doesn't know me.  All we know is what we read on here, and from day one (over a year ago) he has been extremely hostile and insulting to me...sending me insulting private messages.  Nobody is perfect though.  But I will not be called a small and weak man, and then have someone else portray me as the instigator in that exchange (as you did), because I was not.  He started the name calling, and he got away with it.  The moderators like him, they don't like me.  I hope you can understand that.  I certainly know you would not tolerate it, if it were directed at you.  I refuse to be insulted for simply sharing my own experiences, by someone who has no experience with a product, yet types in caps as if to emphasize his pronouncements as "factual", and anyone who disagrees, is somehow in error.  John Rista is not a god. 

152
Wow, we went from ME-262s to vampire-cross-dressing-Indiana-Jones!  :o

I say, time for more planes :)



Sorry didn't mean to hijack the thread.

153
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: April 04, 2014, 06:32:38 PM »
Evening settles and mist rises from the water meadows beside the River Stour in East Anglia area of England.

5DII + 24-105L @100mm, iso 320, f5.6, 1/400

Intense mood in this shot!

154
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 04, 2014, 06:30:46 PM »
.......at what point did anybody say it was 100% CGI?...
100% it is CGI.

But this isn't.

....It is just CGI, so what?...
.......IT IS A COMPOSITE, it is CGI.

This conclusive enough?
Shot almost entirely as separate elements, ...
Um, er, what part of almost escapes your reading comprehension skills? Almost means not all, doesn't it?

..... …...digital artists that was responsible for the actual work, Brenda Busstra-Smink?

She says "The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . ....
You missed majority right there, kind of implies that while the majority of images were composites, some were not.
At no point did you ever concede that any of that video might have been shot in camera, you repeatedly insisted emphatically that it was CGI, just GCI, 100% it is CGI.

Goodness you really do have a bug up your butt....

Yes, please crawl out.
I phrase my writings carefully. When I am less that 100% certain of any topic, I use terms like might, possibly, maybe, could, not 100%, is, certain, conclusive etc.
Even in light of multiple examples from others, including links from yourself to a Franz Lanting example and an entire flickr page demonstrating the concept and technique for showing reflections from distance showing clearly on the surface of an eye, the eye being the focus point of the camera/lens, you continued going on about auto focus blather which is totally irrelevant from a technical standpoint.
You apparently learned nothing even from your own examples, possibly forgot some that you might have known previously.

Your foot stamping petulance comes across as infantile, pompous, contradictory self aggrandizement.

I'd consider it a favor if you would please, block me so you won't reads my posts nor offensively reply to them.
---
“If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots” – Robert Kiyosaki
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” – Mark Twain
This idjit is done.

I am not the one with reading comprehension issues, "100% it is CGI" does not mean, 100% of it is CGI.

Love your selective quoting too. Did I not say these too?
Quote
"I knew from first look some of them had to be CGI,some are very easy to do without, the first 16 seconds for instance, the sparklers, the spotlights etc, but some are impossible to film directly, the surfer, the boxer, the meteorite etc. "
Quote
As is the meteor shot, which castes doubt on most, if not all, the others.

And gave you quotes from the artists that created it like this.
Quote
"Shot almost entirely as separate elements, the eyes and the reflection plates were composited seamlessly together."
Quote
"The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . It was our job then to composite in the various reflections".

You were the one saying Canon wouldn't use CGI with comments like this, "On further reflection, why would our beloved Canon, the long standing dominator of the pro imaging market resort to CGI in a corporate production? They make and sell the gear that makes such a production possible, surely they also have access to the talent and experience to execute." And "I continue to doubt that Canon would resort to CGI to promote imaging gear, this was not an Adobe, fake what you can't do for real, production." I wasn't saying they never don't use CGI.
---------------------

Here are some more fool quotes for you too

“The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.” - Winston Churchill.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Søren Kierkegaard
“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.” ― George Gordon Byron
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain--and most do.” ― Dale Carnegie
“The greatest fools are ofttimes more clever than the men who laugh at them.” ― George R.R. Martin
“A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool.” ― Molière
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt.” ― Leah Wilson
“What have you done when you have bested a fool?” ― Charles Portis

And with Charles, I leave you, though I couldn't do you the favour of blocking you, after all who would point out your foolishness next time?

It appears I'm not the only one who is met with hostility on CR!

155
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: April 04, 2014, 06:29:00 PM »
stop siding with him and kissing his ass.
He has helped me many times with advice on many subjects.... what have you done for me?

I didn't realize you felt such hostility towards me.  Do I have to do things for you in order to be treated with common decency?  I don't recall disrespecting you, your opinions, or your photography.  Sorry if you feel that way.

156
Lenses / Re: Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?
« on: April 04, 2014, 06:11:00 PM »
It seems you are new to digital photography...it's good you are here trying to learn.
You’re absolutely right – I’ve always had a P&S (Point and Shoot) Canon camera for all of my work just to take pictures of things to put in my graphic design work but recently I’ve become far more serious about my images and upgraded to the Rebel to work with different settings, higher resolutions, and long exposures. I came here to learn via advice from my professor – gravitate to where all the smart people hang out and interact with them with intelligent questions.

Thank you and everyone for merely participating on this forum and contributing to the education of newbies like me and others.


The question I have for you folks now (besides “What do you think their original business model looked like?”) is there ONE must-have Sigma lens for Canon owners?

So this is yet another Sigma bashing thread, big surprise.  Yawn...

I hope that comment isn’t directed towards me – I have no opinion for nor against Sigma. I’m only interested in their original business model and how the founders of the company came to the conclusion of making lenses for other camera bodies out of pure academic curiosity.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Sigma.  I don't think the company began very recently, they have quite a history.  Began in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Corporation

I'm not sure there is "one" Sigma lens that every Canon owner must have.  Why would there need to be one "must have" lens?  Does any camera company produce one "must have" product?  And if so, is that a positive attribute for that company?  Or would that serve to highlight the company's weaknesses? 

Eric, I was not meaning to offend you.  But it does seem your thread is meant to question Sigma's motives, implying you are wondering whether they should be in business or not.  Naturally the snobs on this forum enjoy bashing third party lens manufacturers as often as they can, with Sigma being their number 1 target.  Their thought process is "well, if you can afford to commit to photography, you buy the best, and in general Sigma are not the best camera company or lens manufacturer.  Therefore, I'll get my jollies deriding Sigma and anyone who purchases its products, because I'm a forum troll overloaded with testosterone, and I need to point out the inferiority of others so that I can try to fill the hole of hate and inferiority in myself."

A thread like this, is kind of like a net, and the trolls, are the fishermen.

In my opinion, I wonder why more people don't bash Tamron?  Their lenses, as a whole, are inferior to Sigma's.  They don't even attempt to make cameras.  Does that mean they are the inferior company?

Really, how dare Sigma manufacture cameras...the nerve of them.  The nerve of anyone who would ever try one.  They'd have to be a complete idiot, wouldn't they?  What motivates them to be such an idiot?

157
i had the d4 from the time it came out until i moved to canon(more for the 5d than the 1d)
the d4s is basically the same camera as the d4- it is supposed to focus a little better, have less of a viewfinder blackout in rapid shooting(which i never noticed on the d4), and have less shutter noise.
nothing significant- but a higher price

Everybody who has looked at the D4s info page could say this much.

158


Have any of you...anyone on Canon Rumors' forum...seen an unbiased test of the D4s, or better yet, a comparison of it and the 1DX?


I have 2 friends locally who just snagged the D4s.  No, this isn't a comparison of the 1dx, more just about the d4s.  Ok, one of the guys was upgrading from the D3 so he is absolutely in love with it.  the other upgraded from a D4, and he likes it but isn't blown away by it (this guy has serious GAS though, he bought a d800, didn't like it, sold it for the d4, then sold the d4 for the d4s --- while all the while and still even saying he may buy a 5d3....lol)

So take that as you want ...again, not a comparison to the 1dx at all (I only personally know 1 shooter with a 1dx, he's one of the older more established guys in town).  so there just aren't any out there to do the full comparison and I'm not renting one just to compare...!!!!)

Thanks for the anecdote, and I didn't ask you to rent one, lol.

159
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: April 04, 2014, 05:49:18 PM »
Hi Reinz. When it comes to astrophotography, the mount is pretty much the most important thing. Most astrophotographers who have even moderately diverse goals (i.e. just galaxies and nebula) are going to need to use multiple telescopes with different focal lengths, or at least one telescope with barlows and focal reduces, to get a field of view wide enough or narrow enough to frame their subjects properly. A good mount can last you for many, many years, where as telescopes (or, for that matter, camera lenses) usually come and go until you hit the real high end (i.e. 20" RCOS or PlaneWave telescopes).

For $1000, you can get yourself an entry-level mount. Something like the Orion Sirius, which is the little sibling of the Orion Atlas. The Sirius has a capacity of 30lb, which for visual is generally fine, but that pretty much equates to 15lb for astrography (the Sirius doesn't have the most sturdy tripod, so you REALLY have to stick to the 50% capacity limit for imaging work). That is practically nothing in terms of capacity, but if you just stick to your DSLR and lenses, it'll at least get you started.

The Orion Atlas is a much more capable mount, it's capacity is 40lb, however imagers have been putting on 60-70% of the capacity and getting excellent results. Visual observers have put over 50lb on this mount when using sturdier tripods or full blown piers. The Orion Atlas is $1499, however it's fairly frequently on sale for $1399, and at times has been as low as $1200. Given how important the mount is, especially if you think you might want to move up from your lenses to a real telescope at some point in the future (and entry cost for telescopes can actually be pretty low...for example, the Astro-Tech AT6RC, a 6" Ritchey-Chretien telescope, is only $399 and it's designed specifically as an astrograph.) If you can muster it, I highly recommend getting the Orion Atlas mount, even though it's more than your $1000 budget. It will give you LOTS of room to grow in the future if you find that you like astrophotography (it could even be "the" mount you use for the next ten or twenty years....many people used the predecessor to the Atlas/EQ6 class mounts for about that long.)

From your existing equipment, the 5DIII hands down. Don't use a Nikon for astrophotography...their nickname in our community is "Star Eaters", since they clip to the black point, rather than using a bias offset (one of the many ways Nikon "cheats" their way towards cleaner shadows :P.) Canon's use of a bias offset is the reason there is a lot of banding in their shadows, which isn't good for regular photography. However since in astrophotography we use bias frames to remove the bias from the signal, Canon DSLRs are actually a lot better...they preserve more stars and deep nebula detail. So definitely use the 5D III.

You have a good range of lenses as well for "wide field" work. The 40/2.8 @ f/4 and 50/1.4 @ f/3.5 are both excellent for "whole constellation" images (for example, you could image the entirety of the core Orion constellation, as well as most of his club and kill: http://bit.ly/1lF7hSp) The 100mm Macro @ f/4 is a great lens for imaging entire small constellations, or for imaging parts of larger constellations (for example, it would neatly encompass the core of Orion, but not his club or kill: http://bit.ly/1jIciah) The 70-200 at 200mm @ f/4 is great for narrower regions, small constellations (for example, 200mm would encompass Orion's Belt and Sword, and the small reflection nebula M78: http://bit.ly/1mOwpGH) The 100-400 at 400mm @ f/8, while a bit slower and probably requiring more equipment (such as a guider, which itself would probably require a number of additional accessories to properly mount next to your camera), is good for imaging nebula themselves (for example, it would encompass just Orion's sword, which includes Orion Nebula (M42/M43) and Running Man Nebula: http://bit.ly/1ltmAeo; or it would encompass just Orion's Belt, which includes Horse Head and Flame Nebulas, IC434, and a number of small reflection nebula: http://bit.ly/1dSzPFJ).

If you go with just the mount, you will be able to attach your DSLR and a lens. The 100-400mm is probably not quite going to work, as you would need pretty steady tracking to image at f/8...that's pretty slow. Were talking 1" (" means arcsecond, ' means arcminute, 60 arc minutes per degree) tracking, which is not easy to achieve. So your probably going to be stuck at 200mm and less until you decide to upgrade. Thing is, that is really the best place to start anyway, as at those focal lengths, tracking error is really forgiving, so you should be able to track for several minutes, maybe as much as five minutes, without appreciable star elongation or trailing, allowing deep exposures of wide regions of the sky (which, during the two times of year when the milky way is up, are PACKED with IMMENSE swaths of nebula).

Unguided imaging is basically the domain if the wide and ultra wide field. If you want to see the kinds of images you can get at those scales, you should check out AstroBin. Plenty of good examples there (better than anything I've done as of yet.)

If you get an Orion Sirius mount, which is $1000, then that will suffice for DSLR with 200mm and less. You'll need to get a better mount than that if you want to do more. There are a lot of small APO refractors on the market, ranging in price from around $500 to as high as $10,000 or more, however most of the smaller, lighter ones that would work on a Sirius fall into the same general focal range that you already have with your Canon lenses (200mm to ~800mm). The logical upgrade for you would be to eventually move to a Cassegrain type OTA (Optical Telescope Assembly). Cassegrains include your standard SCT (Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope), the Celestron EdgeHD (an Aplantic SCT, designed specifically to support a wide and flat field, right into the corners, for imaging), and the Ritchey-Chretien cassegrains (primarily those from Astro-Tech.) Meade also makes some Aplantic SCTs like Celestrons, however they tend to be more expensive, despite not really offering anything more, and there is one special benefit to the Celestron EdgeHD OTAs: They support Hyperstar, a special conversion mod that allows you to do ultra wide field imaging (~200-400mm) at f/2 (REALLY FAST...you could get really deeply exposed images in a couple minutes at that aperture.)

Generally speaking, the best upgrade from DSLR+Camera Lens imaging is to move to something like the Celestron EdgeHD 8" SCT, or the Astro-Tech AT8RC 8" Ritchey-Chretein. Both are reasonably priced, although Astro-Tech's prices are really hard to beat for the quality, optical design, and overall capabilities for imaging. For either of these, you would really want at leas the Orion Atlas (or the equivalent from Celestron, the CGEM or CGEM DX, however the Atlas is really the better option due to the rich community, EQMOD, and the option for installing belt mods to improve tracking and guiding accuracy down the road.)

My recommendation is pick up the Orion Atlas EQ-G, and use your 5D III and 50mm, 100mm, and 70-200mm lenses. You should be able to just bolt your camera to the included Vixen dovetail that comes with the mount, and not bother with purchasing any additional accessories initially. You will need to learn how to polar align the mount (the Atlas comes with a built-in polar finder scope, which once properly centered (the most annoying thing you will ever do, but thankfully you only have to do it once! :P), is highly accurate and easy), and you will need to either learn how to use the hand controller to "Align GOTOs", or purchase a $40 EQDIR cable, use EQMOD, and completely computerize your process (HIGHLY recommended, you can buy BackyardEOS ($50) to greatly simplify your imaging sequences, and gain a lot of powerful features, such as highly precise live view focusing on your laptop or a windows 8 tablet, to get the best results.)

And to think that someone in another thread said "You are the small weak man, who attempts to compensate for your shortcomings by posting lengthy forum posts".... This is a wealth of information! Thank you for posting this, your posts have helped me many times since I joined the forum and this one is no exception.... I can't wait for a clear night to try out some of the things you have mentioned....

He called me a weak man, stop siding with him and kissing his ass. 

160
Photography Technique / Re: 1D X - 12 FPS or 14 FPS?
« on: April 03, 2014, 11:11:07 PM »
Why wouldn't an array of strobes work?  One could hand off to another, that way you could either have more flash power and fast recycling time, or even more flash pops per second.  Of course the light source/direction from each strobe would alternate between each photo frame, but that might give more interesting lighting to choose from in post...besides the added wing positions.

You would use a bi-tube setup with one tube to each power pack - Bron Pulso Twin on two Scoros or Profoto Protwin on two B4s. Packs set to fire in ping-pong so that alternating packs/tubes are fired. Since it's a single head, with one modifier and one position, the images would be repeatable.

Very cool!

161
Photography Technique / Re: Shoot from the rearend of the subjects.
« on: April 03, 2014, 11:10:14 PM »
Some time, as the photographers, We do not have a choice, to shoot from the rearend of the subjects so many situations

These are great, especially the 356!

162
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: April 03, 2014, 10:58:45 PM »
Interesting, and I do like the color detail of the nebula, but overall it just looks softer than I'd like. 

It's a nebula...they generally tend to be "soft", what with being a bunch of whispy gas and all. ;P As for the stars, I purposely "decrispified" them and made them rounder/softer because otherwise they completely dominated the image, making it difficult to actually see the nebula. Part of the reason my stars end up too bright and crisp is the centroids are getting just a touch clipped during my exposures (necessary, to expose the nebula properly), and during processing the centroids get enlarged. So the star reduction routine is really just restoring the proper look to the stars anyway.

simply fantastic!  it feels like i'm looking at it through an ultra powerful telescope.

Thanks! Rosette is actually a fairly large nebula. It's larger than the Orion Nebula, which you can sort of see with your naked eye, too large even to fully fit in my 600mm FoV. The entire region is probably a bit bigger than your thumb  if you held it out about a foot and a half from your face over the sky...just to give you an idea of how large this region of space actually is. ;) Sadly, Rosette is so dim that unless you had a really garganguan telescope with  multi-foot sized aperture, you probably could never observe it visually.

Actually the stars in this image appear soft...as does really the entire image.  Just calling it like I see it.

163
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: April 03, 2014, 10:55:30 PM »
If a camera with a Foveon sensor was available in late 2008/early 2009, I very probably would. However, Foveon was a mythical beast back then...the sensor was designed, but Sigma did not own it at the time. There WAS no Foveon camera. So I ended up with Canon. I'm now bought into the Canon system. I own tens of thousands of dollars worth of Canon lenses. Canon cameras are better for astrophotography. I have no reason to switch now.

You obviously are trying to have it both ways, trying to appear unbiased.  You frankly have everything against this concept, when it comes to this manufacturer. Admit it, you don't like Sigma as a company, you would not buy any of their lenses or cameras. 

I have absolutely no qualms about admitting I am biased against Sigma's handling of Foveon. I think they are doing it an injustice. I haven't NOT admitted that, as a matter of fact, I've been pretty up front about it! Beyond that, please don't try and put words or opinions in my mouth. As I've told you many times in the past, you really do not know me, Carl. You are a small, weak man who has to poke and jab from the sidelines, because you are too afraid to just stand up and be strait with anyone. So you poke and to prod and you bait, just like your doing here now. I'll be strait up and honest again: I find that to be pathetic and distasteful. Especially on a public forum like this.

So here's the truth. I'm not against Sigma in general, I think their recent lenses are EXCELLENT, and I applaud them for providing some competition on that front for Canon and Nikon. I GREATLY appreciate the fact that Sigma exists and is continuing to produce quality lenses, especially for short focal lengths/wide angles. I've had my eye on the Sigms 35mm for a while, and I may buy one of their wide angle zooms. I'm not against buying Sigma, so long at it meets my own personal quality standards. I hope they stick around, too, for the long run. I truly do not care for their cameras. I have absolutely no problem admitting that. It's my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I have no reason to hide mine. I think they have potential, but Sigma just doesn't put the right kind of effort into their cameras. I've found their firmware to be very lacking, to be more specific, and I am definitely not the only one. They have made strides over the years, but their progress on the ergonomics, functionality, and firmware front is too slow. They would have to rival Canon's ergonomics and firmware for me to take much interest in them. I'll be quite frank here, it wouldn't matter if Sigma used a bayer type sensor or the Foveon in their cameras...that isn't the reason I wouldn't buy one.


But The difference between you and me is, I've owned a foveon camera, the one with the sensor you deride most (and I currently own 2 Sigma lenses at the moment).  It simply had more resolution than its native 4.6 MP dimensions...I'm sorry but it just did.  You can rely on math all you like, but the proof is in the using, and viewing.  To say that it only had 4.6 MP of resolution is utter nonsense.  Plenty of reviews have backed me up on this.

Take a look at my recent reply to VSCD. I used his own sample images to prove, visually, the difference in resolution between the SD1 and the D800. The difference is very obvious. If there was a tiny difference, it wouldn't be obvious. From a pixel size standpoint, the SD1, which has no AA filter AND requires no interpolation, has at least 2.5 pixels for the fiber widths of the finest strands of thread in the upper right corner (in some cases it seems to be close to 3px). The D800 has about 1.25 pixels for the fiber widths of the finest strands of thread in the upper right corner. That is a spatial resolution difference of at least 200%!! That sounds about right...15mp vs. 36.3mp. From a SPATIAL resolution standpoint, Foveon sensors cannot be measured by their photodiode count. They have to be measured from their literal pixel count on the sensor (each Foveon pixel has three photodiodes). So yes, your camera has 4.6mp of "resolution"...spatial resolution, or resolving power. There is nothing you can do about it.

As for the Quattro sensor, I have no idea why it has fewer photodiodes for the other color channels...but frankly, if they are making the camera produce a 39 MP jpeg, then logic would dictate that it is resolving at least somewhat more than 10 MP.

You can create a 39mp JPEG simply by upscaling. However again, I have provided a demonstration of how upscaling does not increase resolution by using VSCD's own images. Go see for yourself. Sigma can upscale to their hearts content, it doesn't change the fundamental laws of physics that govern how much real resolution you have.

With a bayer array, you don't have 18 MP of all three colors of photodiode in your 7D.  You have far less than that.  And yet you're happy with the results you get.

Your right in that I don't get 18mp of "colors". I get 18mp of "luminance", I get less than 18mp of "chrominance". Again, I haven't been trying to hide that fact. I've been very explicit in my answers as to the terms I use. Again, refer to the SD1 vs. D800 GIF I posted. LUMINANCE resolution in a bayer sensor is "full"...you get 18mp, or 20mp, or 22.3mp or 36.3mp, whatever it is. Your CHROMINANCE (color) resolution is LESS than full, because of the interpolation. That causes a loss in color fidelity (color accuracy, natural vibrancy, color contrast), but it does NOT cause a loss of spatial resolution.

I really don't know how many times I'll have to say that before it sinks in. I'm not obfuscating the facts here, I'm trying to expose them. I guess you guys will have to remove the scales from your eyes first, though, because the message really doesn't seem to be sinking in.

Again, the proof is in the using, and the images, and less so the math.  Math can be used to predict things like a rise of 10 feet in sea level over the next 20 years due to that nasty old capitalism, but how accurate, honest, and complete is that math?

Sure, the proof is in the images. I think I proved with the little GIF I posted that the D800 has about twice the spatial resolution as the upscaled SD1 image. Math and theory simply model reality, physics. Use and sample images cannot violate the laws of physics here, there is no magic bullet that will somehow make a 15mp Foveon have the same spatial resolution as a 36.3mp D800E, or even a 36.3mp D800 with AA filter. It just can't happen.

I'm not exactly sure how the bit about rising sea levels has anything to do with the debate here. That is less based on math and more based on speculation and assumption...the prediction about how much sea levels might rise is indeed mathematical, based on the volume and density of ice found at the poles, however whether the prediction comes true or not is not based on math, it's based on the (probably mistaken) assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise. Since August 2013, global temperatures have taken a deep dive...when Arctic sea ice was supposed to disappear entirely in August, instead it was at it's greatest extent in decades. Where the winter this year was supposed to be mild, it's been record-breaking cold.

Don't conflate speculation with math. I'm not speculating about Foveon...Foveon is no longer some mythical sensor that is predicted to materialize at some future date. Foveon is a concrete thing that actually exists, has explicit specifications, and HAS BEEN measured with enough accuracy to prove that math and reality, a far as it pertains to Foveon, DO correlate.

The first generation foveon sensor was available in the early or mid 2000's, it was before 2008.

Your post is insulting and I'm reporting it for abuse.  I am not a small, weak man.  You are the small weak man, who attempts to compensate for your shortcomings by posting lengthy forum posts.

164
Lenses / Re: Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?
« on: April 03, 2014, 10:44:56 PM »
Have you ever owned or tried a Sigma camera or body?  Or are you just spouting bandwagon platitudes?

I have, and I can back him up on his statement.  It's sad really, because they have the capability and potential of being a real big player in this arena, but unfortunately aren't.

I was talking to him, not you, but ok.  What Sigma camera have you owned, and for how long, and how many images did you take with it?

So this is yet another Sigma bashing thread, big surprise.  Yawn...

165
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 03, 2014, 10:36:21 PM »
I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining.  8) 8) 8)
How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"? ;D

My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.
So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.


But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body.
And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 149