October 21, 2014, 06:46:17 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 ... 38
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: to 600rt + st-e3 or not....
« on: July 03, 2014, 10:23:11 PM »
I went with the Phottix Mitros+ , which has the Odin built into it.  It is probably as respected as it gets for non-OEM equipment. It really works well.   It actually does 2 things which (as i read) the 600 cannot.  It does 2nd curtain sync off-camera, and it adjusts the telephoto zoom remotely.

I just bought 3 flashes.  Here is a neat starter set with one flash and one original Odin transmitter.


I don't suppose your leaf blower has a HEPA filter built in?

Lenses / Re: Any word on the 50mm with Image Stabilzation?
« on: July 01, 2014, 06:17:09 AM »
I have asked in the Review thread of the 35A whether people are still happy with the lens but with no reply. If other people are having problems with the 35A I'll give it a miss.

It's a fantastic lens in terms of IQ, but the focus is inconsistent (and can't be fixed with AFMA). At least in my case—I know others are happy.

I replied to his question in the reviews section that my copy is 7 months old, gets used 90% of the time when I am not shooting telephoto, it is insanely sharp and grabs focus wide open extremely reliably on the targeted eyes and eyelashes. 

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: June 30, 2014, 03:11:08 PM »
My 35 lives on the camera.  It is insanely sharp, and the focus nails it every time.  I had been waiting for the 50 to come out, but I bought the 35 on sale at Christmas.  I am glad I waited.  It is a perfect length for general shooting, and I can always crop when I need to zoom. 

My 2cent: it comes down to individual needs - sport shooter Vs Landscape shooter.

I do lot of indoor shooting, clean IQ at high ISO is what I'm after.

I shoot very little landscape.  Virtually everything I shoot is alive, and occasionally I jumping around doing gymnastics or trampoline indoors in horrible light.  It is a struggle to get a fast enough shutter speed without going 1-2 stops above 3200.  Then I am limited to how much I can blow it up, because the image really has little detail.

Personally, if I had to pick one aspect about bad image quality at high ISO to address through sensor tech, I think it would be the low detail problem rather than the grain/noise problem.  It is not a slam-dunk choice, but I think the available software does a halfway decent job in smoothing out the noise artifacts, but not much good at all at supplying detail which was not captured by the camera if you intend to crop much.

In other words, it seems like a high MP sensor would solve more problems with its increased detail than it would cause with its tiny noisy pixels.

  Is this completely wrong? 

Sigma is pretty smart.  Bringing in people who can provide time and real world experience, and listening to the customers.   

Reviews / Re: Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art vs Tamron 24-70mm VC USD?
« on: June 22, 2014, 11:11:43 AM »
You say you don't need the lens for either wide-angle or telephoto.  I guess then on the 24-70 you don't need the 24-35 part, and maybe not the 70 end either if you get the 70-200 (or if you just crop a little bit in post).

I think the wider aperture would be more valuable than VC.  I find I shoot in bad light a lot, and if I didn't have a 1.4 or 1.8 prime to use, I would have to jack up the ISO so high the noise and lack of detail would make me miserable. 

Also, as for the lower shutter speed you can get with VC, two things: 
1.).  The f/1.4 prime lens is 2 stops faster than the f/2.8 lens, so that offsets the probably 2-3 stops you could realistically expect to gain from VC, even if it claims 3-4 stops.
2.).   Vibration control is much less helpful or important at 50mm than it would be at a long focal length like 400mm. I very rarely am able to shoot at anything slower than 1/50th because I usually have moving subjects.  VC only helps you with camera shake blur.  It does nothing to help you with subject motion blur. 

On top of this, you get the use of a much shallower depth of field with the prime, for when you want that for creative reasons.

On top of that, with the Sigma 1.4 prime,you get a lens that is considerably sharper.  It is probably just a little smaller too, though not tremendously so.

I have the Sigma Art 35, and that thing lives on my camera.  I thought i would always want a zoom, but i dont miss it.  I actually enjoy how the fixed 35mm lens makes me move myself into position to shoot, and it makes me get a lot more pleasing framing in the process, compared to just zooming in and out with a zoom. 
It really makes beautiful colors and super sharp images.  Supposedly the 50 is even a little more impressive.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2014, 06:33:10 PM »
I'll toss it out there.......


The answers to this poll are surprising to me. Considering physics instead of the business of photography, the 50mm lens happens to perform even better.

However, considering a lens without consideration of its use in photography is like an NBA team considering a draft pick without regard to his basketball skills and how they would serve the team.

For photography, I would always choose the Sigma 35mm if I was forced to choose between it or the 50mm ART. The benefits that a great 35mm can add to my photography would be more frequent and more valuable. In fact, I normally don't even have a 50mm prime in my kit.

If you are considering which of these two spectacular lenses would be more important as a member of your photography "team" (and if you can't choose both), then I would disagree with all the current votes for the 50mm, and would instead strongly recommend the 35mm.

But you are speaking from a FF perspective, right?  If the OP shoots a crop body, that changes your answer because it changes the FOV of the lens.  The 35 on your ff would be close to a 50mm on a crop.

I hear Sigma are making an 85mm lens.  With a full frame body I would want a 35 and the 85.  With a crop, I think I'd like the 50mm and (if they make one) a 24mm.

I have the 35 Art. I actually wanted to wait for the 50, but the 35 came up on a real,discount last Christmas.  I had a 501.8 so I am familiar with that length.  I must admit, I think I'd rather keep the 35 than switch to the 50.  You get more DOF with the 35 wide open, and you can always crop if you need to, so it is more powerful in low light if you look at the DOF aspect.  Plus, it is more useful if you need to shoot 2 or more people, or a scene. 

I would answer this the opposite Way if I was shooting with a crop sensoror camera.  A 50mm lens on a crop equals a great portrait length on FF, so if I had a crop as my main body I would take the 50 for portraits.

All that aside I will say that my Sigma 35mm lens is great. It is incredibly sharp, it works great and very little light, and it renders colors beautifully.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark-II as an action oriented DSLR
« on: June 13, 2014, 10:48:18 PM »
A 1/250th or 1/300th sync speed would be pretty sweet. 

EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 09, 2014, 07:49:09 PM »

An STM lens.  Really.  That's pretty weak for what is presumably a best-in-class APS-C rig in the $2k neighborhood.  STM is fine for video, and it's also nice upgrade over the squeaky slow AF motors of the older entry level Rebel kit glass, but 7D2 still shooters would want the speed of USM, right?

Are they legitimately going after pro wildlife/sports guys with this rig or just enthusiasts who want a high burst rate?  Surely the days of kitting this with a relatively average lens are over, aren't they?  (I recognize that the people drooling over a 7D2 likely already have a lot of glass, but the same could be said at the launch of the 5D3 and that had a decent lens kit option...)

Just riffing here:  any chance Canon kits this with a really solid L lens?  I recognize that a 24-something zoom lens will be too long on the wide end for a standard zoom.  So...

Kit it with a 16-35 F/4L IS?

Kit it with a first-ever L lens in an EF-S mount?  An EF-S 15-50 F/4L IS?  An L-quality update to the 17-55 F/2.8 IS?

Kit it with the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8?

- A

Kit it with the 17-55.  Also kit out a pair of primes like the 35 f/2 and the 135 f/2 L as a cool surprise option.  That would also make some nice white box discounts available on those primes from set-breakers. :)

Ok.  So turn AF off completely.  Claim it is such an incredibly sharp lens that you actually like manual focus better anyway.  This line of reasoning works so well for Zeiss they get 4x as much money for their MF 55.   8)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 38