December 18, 2014, 10:39:57 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 - distant.star

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 106
722
Canon General / Re: Why do you do Photography?
« on: April 16, 2013, 10:55:39 AM »
.
This is stunningly perfect. Surely the most profound thing I've ever read on this forum. I can't imagine I'll read anything better this day!

Thanks!!!

Photography is like a conversation with someone who lets me ask lots of questions. But I usually only get a good answer when I ask a good question.

723
.
Send them $5 and they'll sell your mailing address to every photography-oriented marketing entity in this world and on two adjacent planets!!

724
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: "I am boycotting Nikon" campaign
« on: April 15, 2013, 10:26:46 AM »
.
Well, I don't like it when butterflies get in your hair!! Damn nuisance.

I say we need more butterfly nets -- and we should go to the United Nations about this!

725
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 14, 2013, 08:23:34 PM »
.
Thanks, ankorwatt. I don't think I fully understand all you're showing us, but it's interesting, and a good learning experience. I appreciate your professional efforts!

I tend more toward infared's inclinations -- just looking at results I get when I'm pushing the shutter button. Since most folks say it's as good or better than the Canon version, I figure I've saved a lot of money if nothing else.

As for the question of internal components holding up to everyday professional use, I guess we'll have to see. Not an issue for me as I'm not using it that way.

726
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 13, 2013, 12:20:38 PM »
.
Our experiences have led us to different conclusions. So be it.

.
It approaches the Canon 135mm f/2.0L in just about every characteristic (betters it in none as far as I can tell) and it's far more versatile for me.

It could not be farther apart from the 135L. The 135L is a bokeh machine, while the S35 is not, to put it mildly.

727
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 13, 2013, 12:15:52 PM »
.
Colors on the left are more vivid. Background on the right is more pleasant to the eye. Is the Sigma on the right?

Thanks.


OK , I took these few minutes ago, same parameters.
Now there are differences in the red colors, one camera can not separate red/orange colors as the other, mainly because of the CFA and also the profile.(we can take a color profile discussion later so all understand what a profile does or not with the bokeh, contrast curves, colors  etc  who plays a major  role in what we think us se, or not )

Now to the background
which one do you think is more pleasing than the other? here are the same parameters regarding contrast curve=linear  and the same adobe profile are chosen

canon 35mm and sigma 35mm both at F 1.4

728
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: "I am boycotting Nikon" campaign
« on: April 13, 2013, 10:41:11 AM »
.
I'm boycotting all these imaging companies. They make infernal machines that steal your soul!

My belief is that corporations have essentially completed their takeover of the world. They will make minor adjustments responding to niggling little complaints like this to keep sales at full tilt. Beyond that, we and they are on a path to destroy this planet. Since I can't stop it, I plan to enjoy the ride into the pits of hell.

729
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 13, 2013, 10:17:54 AM »
And I am sure that all of you know what I am talking about.

Sorry to sound like a therapist, but what I hear you saying is:

1. You prefer the look of images you make with the Canon lens.

2. You've had a bad experience with Sigma and don't trust them.

What I don't understand is your "wink, wink," you know what I'm talking about. Is there something you've said that I'm not hearing?

730
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 12, 2013, 08:26:35 PM »
.
More often than not "questions" posed on a discussion forum are meant to prompt discussion. I believe that means bringing both opinion and relevant facts to the table.

If I thought every question was being asked of me personally because only a few people in the world have my breadth of knowledge and experience, I'd find my participation often unsatisfying.

For me, this thread seems to be suggesting that Canon may be making improvements in certain sensor deficiencies, and I'm interested in knowing if that may be true. As the OP clearly said, only RAWs will settle the issue.

731
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS M w/22mm f/2 STM $399 New
« on: April 12, 2013, 03:58:04 PM »
.
Tempting, but really, what would I do with ANOTHER camera??

I was just thinking last night -- I can't take enough pictures to use all the cameras I now have, and I shoot every day!

732
Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS
« on: April 12, 2013, 11:52:08 AM »
.
While I can't speak to those lenses specifically, I use the f/4.0 without IS (Roger at Lens Rentals says it's sharper than the IS version, for what that's worth). Anyway, I've found that unless it's a bright sunny day, I leave it home. Either that or get it on a tripod.

For good light, it's excellent, but I really suffer the lack of IS.

733
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 12, 2013, 11:39:41 AM »
.
I've had it for eight days now. Couldn't be happier.

It approaches the Canon 135mm f/2.0L in just about every characteristic (betters it in none as far as I can tell) and it's far more versatile for me.

Only used it so far on the 5D3. Once the early elation wears down, I'll try it on the crop.

734
Site Information / Re: Minimum CR Forum IQ?
« on: April 11, 2013, 11:40:06 AM »
.
That's pretty bright, Bumpy. I'm not sure I could make the cut. Maybe 4.0 (5.6 on a reach).

Your suggestion of a Not Quite Serious section seems like a very helpful one to me!

Thanks.

735
Site Information / Minimum CR Forum IQ?
« on: April 11, 2013, 10:29:42 AM »
.
Just curious -- what is the minimum IQ requirement for posting in the forum here? And by "IQ" I mean the old school variety -- Intelligence Quotient.

We just had a thread shut down for being "beyond stupid." That would suggest that posts must meet a certain intellectual level before proceeding to full forum discussion. What's the standard? Surely we would not be capricious about such a thing.

Or, is it possible people may be stressed over an upcoming taxes due date in the U.S? That may explain some reduced tolerance for our mentally challenged members.

Since I'm not the brightest lens in the mix here, I'd like some guidance on this matter so pressing to me.

Thanks.

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 106