September 02, 2014, 10:22:54 AM

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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 36
Congratulations Mr. Surapon, for the good deeds you are doing, and also for the smart idea of using this work as good photography practice and as a nice way to meet business contacts.  Add to all that the fact you are getting good exercise, and it you have four good things coming from just one good idea!

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Adobe Lightroom 5 $80 via Amazon
« on: May 02, 2014, 12:16:48 PM »
Does anyone know what the big new shiny thing will be for LR6? 

I have LR 4, which I find to be a lot better than LR3 due to more logical slider names and layouts. I know LR5 improved the clone function by letting you use long shapes instead of just circles, which I do wish I had.

I would like to get LR5 for $80 bucks, but if LR 6 has some new whiz bang feature, and not just an extended lease on RAW support for new bodies, I would probably rather just wait and pay full price for LR6.

EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: April 30, 2014, 06:43:22 PM »
I think they lost me at "Foveon-like". 

So it will have all the negatives of a high MP camera, like massive files to store, and a slowed FPS, and a faster-clogging buffer, but none of what you actually want from all those MP's, namely higher resolution and more detail to spare when doing things like shooting at high ISO, or cropping heavily.

Am I missing something wonderful about Foveon?  If so, then so is everyone else based on the failure of Sigma's Foveon bodies to fly off the shelves.  Why not copy FUJI sensors instead?  That more complex, non-bayer pixel, no filter thing sounds much more interesting to me, anyway. 


Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 24, 2014, 11:01:33 PM »
I have to say...I think that half of the people here complaining about the focusing of the 35mm f1.4 Art.  Mine focuses spot on ...all the time and I just LOVE the lens. it's one of those lenses that just stuns you every time you open the files. In actual shooting situation my lens is very consistent.

+1.  I didn't even think I'd like a 35mm lens on a FF body.  I bought the 35mm Art as an impulse at Christmas because I got tired of waiting for the 50mm.  I have to say, I love this lens.  The AF is very accurate, and the colors are vivid, and it is razor sharp.  Also, the field of view is very versatile, and it is nice to have so much DOF at f/1.4 compared to a longer lens like a 50mm or like my 85mm (at f/1.8).  The thing lives on my camera. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: April 19, 2014, 10:29:24 AM »
i'm sick and tired of reading how IS would make a lens so much heavier and biggerand compromise image quality  ... bla bla bla ... just a bunch of completely unfounded urban myths.

e.g. look at EF 70-200/4 L without IS 76x172mm, 705g and EF 70-200/4 L IS with IS 76x172mm, 760 g ... so a paltry 55 grams more .. for a lens with pretty big glass elements to be stabilized. And image quality is better on 70-200/4 with IS too. Price difference is excessive though, and purely marketing driven.

EF 24-70/2.8 L II should have been IS from the start ... especially at the price differential over the previous version.

They shot to just about the limit on pricing with the non-IS ver.2 at a whopping $2,300.00. That is the same price as the 70-200 2.8 IS ver.2.  (Which of course DOES have IS.). They left no realistic pricing room above it at the top for an IS version. If they do release an IS version, so as to match the multiple flavors in which the 70-200's are offered, they can't price the thing any higher than that.  They will have to dramatically lower the hefty price of the non-IS to make room for it.  I assume that would pi$$ off some of the folks who paid full price. 

With more and more info on the new Sigma 50 Art available, I´d say that Canon, Nikon and Zeiss really need to check up on their lens strategies. If Sigma delivers the same optical quality on more lenses and fix their bad (and deserved) AF reputation ...  ::)

I'd say Zeiss is likely hurting the most from the new Sigma 50mm, they've just released a very similar lens targeting wide open sharpness where as Canon and Nikon's lenses are either a lot smaller/cheaper or target other kinds of performance.

I'm not sure I see a massive market for a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 otus either personally given than Canon and Nikon's existing cast 85mm's both perform very well optically, far better than their 50mm lenses.

If theres a gap in the market right now I'd say its more for something like a 24mm 1.4 with excellent boarder performance for example.

I have to think the market for any $4,000.00+ prime lens in the basic 24mm to 135mm range is tiny to begin with. They have to be cutting that market significantly by being too afraid of failure to even try to make a pro quality autofocus mechanism that they are confident enough to put on one of these lenses.  If Sigma can make a lens that is, say, 98% as good for just  under 25% of their price, WITH AUTOFOCUS, they have to be just a little nervous over at Zeiss.

Also, what has happened to Canon's "Year of the lens"?  We are into 2Q of 2014 and not even announcements of future releases, much less actual lenses?  Canon seems to have longer lags between announcements and releases than, say, Sigma, so they'd better get cracking.  Perhaps it will be the Year of Uncharacteristically Abrupt Releases?    It would almost have to be.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 16, 2014, 07:00:55 AM »
... And raise your hand if you would be noticing the same supposed intangible advantages of creaminess, bokeh, etc. in the Canon shots and test chart if the results had been accidentally switched?  If the Canon results had been swapped do the Sigma results.  If the two results had been switched, who right now honestly would still be pointing at the blurry purple-fringed chart and claiming that it's meaningless if that had been identified as the result for Sigma instead of the one for Canon?  I think what we would be seeing is a lot of people pointing at that purple blurry chart and saying look how worthless the sigma lens is compared to the incredibly sharp and clear canon one, if the charts and shots were swapped.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 16, 2014, 06:16:03 AM »
I don't get it. Bryan's test at TDP is a complete blowout; not even close. The Sigma is sharper in center and much much much sharper than the 1.2L away from center and in corners, and the CA on the 50L is bad, while nearly non-existent on the Sigma.
In comparing any two other lenses, where there is no brand loyalty or investment-justification involved, that kind of test result would simply be a clear blowout, and there would be no further discussion. Not here though. Here we see the defensive comments and a retreat to the trenches of the intangibles like bokeh (which is not clearly different in any sample shot I have seen anyone point to specifically) and creaminess, and the supposed uselessness of test charts (but only for this lens).

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Available for Preorder
« on: April 11, 2014, 09:01:04 AM »
They were smart. They knew they needed to keep it under the psychological $1000 threshold, so it seems like a bargain and it is clearly less than the OEM.  But OTOH, they had a ton of built-up demand so they wanted to get close to $1000.   Brilliantly done. 

PowerShot / Re: Canon EOS Smart 1 Phone - April Fools Joke? :)
« on: March 31, 2014, 11:31:57 AM »
The two different sensors thing is probably the most absurd thing in the specs.  But the other specs are a close second.

EOS Bodies / EF lenses could work on a mirrorless body, right?
« on: March 16, 2014, 03:29:13 PM »
I don't have this wrong, do I?  If they made a mirrorless body that wasn't super thin, but rather the same basic thickness as a DSLR, then there would be no problem?  The adaptor that lets the M camera use EF lenses is really just a spacer to get the lens farther from the sensor, right?

If so, given the huge line of EF lenses that the DSLR makers all have, couldn't they go mirrorless without needing to create all new M lenses, and making EF lenses obsolete?  I don't think most serious amateurs would really want cameras to get small.  A lot of folks say they like the bigger cameras because they are the right size for handling. .

It no doubt rendered the colors of your root canal procedure in a certain "warmth" without being artificial, and made the surgical area really "pop" in a way that cannot be measured or even expressed in words.  I'll bet that intangible "something extra" made all the pain and expense of the root canal well worth it.  ;)

I have the Sigma Art 35, and I honestly love it.  Sharp, bright, and lovely bokeh and colors.  I do believe this lens will be, if not totally equal to the $4k+ Zeiss lens in sharpness, etc., then at least 95% there, based on the fact Sigma seems to be vouching the lens will be even better than the 35. 

I also think the only reason Zeiss does not put AF on their nice lenses, which even the cheap-o kit lenses everyone else makes do include, is that they only have the ability to make so-so AF.  They only put it on a few cheap-o Sony lenses, and it is only cheap-o AF.  They make MF lenses with glass that works like a decent precision microscope, but they simply have nothing special to offer in the area of AF (OR I.S.), so they shy away from trying, so they don't catch the flak for slow/inaccurate/mediocre AF that would tarnish the reputation of their optics.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 22, 2014, 09:33:24 AM »
Sure the Zeiss is nice. If it is even sturdier than the Sigma, that is fine, but what is the point of added toughness (beyond a certain point) in a lens that is so expensive most people baby it, and will never, ever subject it to abuse?  It isn't even weather sealed anyway.

I imagine that if most Otus owners got a cosmetic scratch on the barrel they would be sick to their stomachs even if the functionality was unimpaired due to the aforementioned toughness.  If you could make a lens out of the same stuff Wolverine's claws are made, and charged $50,000 for it would one sell the Otus and pick one up because it is indestructible?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The Sigma SLR Strategy?
« on: February 15, 2014, 05:54:26 PM »
Maybe they think their improved lenses, and their mount-switching service could drive buyers to their camera offerings. So far I have not heard it is working. I think they have a lot of negatives to overcome with the Foveon.  You get a file that is 3x larger to store and work with, without achieving the resolution you'd get from tripling the megapixels in a normal way, and they bog the processor down so badly they get a slow FPS.  Hard to see the advantage so far.

It's hard not to think they might do better going with the more traditional sensor, perhaps even one purchased from Sony, ala Nikons strategy.

If they want to continue to be innovative in a little different, they should copy Fuji's non-Bayer sensor strategy instead.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 36