March 01, 2015, 02:26:31 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 ... 238
1471
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7R shutter vibration problem?
« on: December 22, 2013, 04:09:34 PM »
Just when many of us were celebrating the end of the mirror slap. :( Moving parts shutter weigh far less than the mirror, and shake is more noticeable?. :-\

No just as CR guy says - because the camera is much lighter than your typical FF DSLR and with a longer lens attached via lens collar and foot, the camera is just hanging in mid air. Normally thats cool on a rock solid 1DX or whatever but somehow on the A7R it's floppin about when the shutter moves. Even the tiniest vibration can muck up a shot with a tele lens.

Mirror slap is not an issue with DSLRs on a tripod due to mirror lock option.

And when Sony start using an electronic shutter instead of a physical one on newer cameras, the problem of mirror/shutter slap will disappear once and for all.

Meanwhile in Canon land, we'll still be using 1970s tech and still need to use mirror lock up in order to get sharp pics.

1472
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7R shutter vibration problem?
« on: December 22, 2013, 04:04:18 PM »
All cameras shake, it's just this one is super light.

+10
I found shutter shake in my SLRs in the 70's. I spent a lot of time figuring solutions to the problem because I was making very large prints from my 35mm negs.

This is nothing new, but the ability to zoom in on files has created a whole new reality among photographers looking for the slightest evidence of image imperfection irrespective of its actual visibility in a final print (which is only rarely made.
This is not limited to Sony critics and the current shutter shock alarmists in the mirrorless world but is a fixture of digital imaging.

+1

1473
Lenses / Re: Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 21, 2013, 02:06:35 PM »
Just my 2 cents, but I think that Canon really needs to stop charging such ridiculous initials MSRP's for their new lens.

$2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
$1699 for 24-70 f/4 to under a $1000 street price (as cheap as $899) in less than a year.
$849 for 35mm f/2 IS to $549 in about a year.
Etc... (and don't even get started on the EOS M)

I've heard the arguments that early adopters pay the premium.  Fine, but when a clear trend emerges that new products start well above market value and reach their true value in a year or less some light bulbs start going off, and that core, important audience starts closing their wallets and waiting.  I just think it is a bad business practice.  Yes, market forces often drive the value of new goods down over time, but, in the case of the EOS and the 24-70 f/4 you are talking about near 50%.

I'm a value conscious shopper.  I personally am not inclined to buy any new Canon product within 6 months of release because I fear that my investment is going to be wasted.  Premium lenses are often exceptional at holding their value, but try telling that to someone who is trying to sell a year old 24-70 variant when new prices have dropped by $600+.

The Tamron 24-70 entered the market at a $1299 price point.  Current price is about $1049 for the Canon version, although the Nikon is still at about $1299 for some reason.  That is what I consider more like typical market forces.  One of the advantages in the past to buying a Canon over a third party was the conventional wisdom that the Canon would have a higher resale value.  But what if that advantage is removed?  I bought my Tamron for $1149 by negotiating and shopping around.  I can sell it for at least $900, possibly more.  But at worst I have lost $250.  If I had paid $2499 for the 24-70MKII and was looking at a market of, say, $1800, to sell it, I think I would be pretty ticked.

In conclusion:  if Canon does release a new 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, I think it pricing it over $2500 is a mistake.

You came to the wrong conclusion.

Your conclusion should have been this: I care more for how much I can sell my lens for than the photographs I create with it.

1474
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2013, 11:15:11 PM »
With a small zoom range like that then the distortion may be well managed. That would kick the 16-35 and 17-40 quite hard in the pants at the wide end

1475
Landscape / Re: Sky on Fire!
« on: December 19, 2013, 08:27:21 AM »
Frankly, I find it sad when a person ruins their picture like that. It is a pretty image, but the watermark, and your response to a complaint about it, sours it. That's a shame.

It's not your choice to make and I'm happy with my choice.

1476
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 19, 2013, 08:24:28 AM »
Okay, I think I understand how the whole lens, camera metering works. The lens tells the camera its max aperture, the camera takes a reading based on that and the light it's seeing, it's actually basing the calculation on the t stop it's seeing relative to the f stop it's given?

T stop is just a theoretical (measured in a lab??) value.

T stop is not theoretical. It is the measured transmission of light through the lens.

Quote
The only time you might notice T stops is if you were using M mode and switching lenses for the same scene. For example lets say you set up a shot at f/2.8 1/60 ISO 100 and it looks perfect. You then switch lenses and set it to the exact same settings and notice the shot is under exposed slightly. No big deal you just crank up that ISO or adjust shutter speed and you're back on track!

Correct.

Quote
An example where you might encounter this situation is say you're using the 24-105L and shooting at 24mm and say f/8. You decide you're not a fan of the 24-105L at the wide end so you switch to your 24L  or whatever and try again. Surprise surprise it looks better now!

That's basically what this is all about. The Sigma lens would be slightly brighter and of course better. But the amount is fairly small.

The amount isn't fairly small. It's half a stop or about 25% difference in the amount of light.

Going form f/4.0 to f/5.6 means that the amount of light halves. In this case the Sigma is an f-stop of 4.2 and the Canon is 5.1 which is roughly half a stop. So instead of 1/60 (Sigma), you'd be using 1/45 (Canon.)

1477
Landscape / Re: Sky on Fire!
« on: December 18, 2013, 05:23:49 PM »
Seriously, none of these qualify as "sky on fire".


Since I'm saying that, I suppose I should post something that I liken more to "sky on fire".

Attached is something that I'd consider closer to "sky on fire" but even then, it is just an "auto-tone" out of Lightroom (no crop or manual saturation, etc, changes)  but even then, there may be a couple of better ones I've got.

Well, if attachments work... :/

The picture is pretty nice. However the watermark is more than annoying.  It ruined the picture.

That's fine by me.

1478
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 05:19:25 PM »
Okay, all this debate over the "true" f-stop of a lens has me scratching my head.

Since metering is through the lens and presumably the exposure selected by the camera is going to reflect the actual light hitting the meter, what's the real world impact here?

Yes, I get that a mis-marked lens means that your f4 lens won't have as great of a light gathering power if it is really an f4.5 lens, but unless you are shooting wide open, what's the practical effect. Your images will still be properly exposed.

Well Canon are selling a t/5.1 lens (24-105) as an f/4.0 lens.

The difference?

With the Sigma lens the camera might meter a given scene for 1/60 whereas with the Canon lens the camera is going to suggest 1/45. Or with an action shot, you could get 1/2000 with the Sigma but only 1/1250 with the Canon.

1479
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 04:01:56 PM »
An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.
Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission?  And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings?  The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.

Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005.  Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4.  The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.

It's not just coatings. The newer lenses have bigger front elements and that counts for a lot (more surface area on the front of the lens = more light gathering ability.)

1480
In this day and age, it's unfortunate that doing what you love can sometimes put you at a greater risk. It's never been truer for me when out for street photography. I'd have to completely agree with PBD, gaffing the hell out of your camera draws much attention. Walking with a bit of confidence and others is far more effective. There is only one true protective measure I can take. While I don't carry while traveling abroad, I do here in California... especially at night on the street. I do have a CWP for a few different counties... most notably I always carry in San Francisco and Oakland. I also carry when in the back country while hiking. I also always travel with my brother and a friend or two when in rather sketchy areas, they carry also. We steer clear of trouble by keep situationally aware and that really is the first line of defense. The last is covered by Springfield. I'd put it under the title of have it but hope to never need it.

I've walked those places at night and never felt the need to carry. No, I'm not a big guy, I just don't take fear with me when I walk out the door, only common sense.

I don't understand why you think you need to carry when in the back country while hiking because if you need it, then you've made a mistake. Black bears (about the only thing that will come close enough to you to be a threat) are easily frightened off without a gun but you need to have courage to do that.

1481
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 02:28:48 PM »
An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.
Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission?  And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings?

I don't know if it is lens coatings or lens design... but yah... not good.

The t-stop of the Canon 24-105 (t/5.1) is two-thirds of a stop worse than f/4.0.

Quote
The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.

Agreed.

1482
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 02:03:48 PM »
A Sigma lens has a reverse engineered EF mount, a long history of AF problems, quality variations pr. copy, numerous examples of poor service etc. etc. To hope for any chunk of the Canon L-lens customer base, they have to be both better and cheaper and they have to be that over time. If they are consistently as good as Canon over time, meaning years, they can move closer to the prices Canon can charge. The only non-Canon brand that can charge as high or even higher prices than Canon is Zeiss. Because they have proved over time that they are consistently delivering absolute top class products in every department. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest have a loooong way to go before they are in the vicinity of such a position.

I have the Sigma 35/1.4. I am very happy with it, but I am a long way from joining the Sigma fan club ;)

Do you have the USB dock that allows you to fine tune the focusing of the lens and upgrade the lens's firmware?
Do any Canon lenses have such a capability?

1483
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 01:59:54 PM »
Hmmm.... two more points:

1) Why everyone here thinks that Sigma's MSRP is lower than Canon's?

It's NOT: Sigma's 24-105 official MSRP is $1260.

See: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-art


2) Why would Sigma make a lens that targets only Nikon users, while it perfectly knows that more than half of DSLR market are Canon users?

I think Sigma are using standard sales tactics on their website as the announced price (according to dpreview - http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/25/sigma-announces-pricing-and-availability-of-24-105-f4-lens-art) has always been $899.

1484
Landscape / Re: Sky on Fire!
« on: December 18, 2013, 01:52:31 PM »
Good one don! :)
attachments seem to not be working.... try #3 to upload it...

Yah, I had to come back and edit/re-upload the attachment.

1485
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 10:29:09 AM »
Many of the cheap Canon 24-105L's are because vendors are taking it out of a kit and selling it and the camera separately. This is not a Canon approved activity but they seem to look the other way.

If you go to a proper web site for a store like B&H, then you can compare the price of the Canon and Sigma:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Zoom+Focal+Lengths_24-105mm&ci=274&N=4288584247+4261208183

$1149 vs $899.

Adorama:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=itemlist&cat1=Lenses&cat2=SLR%20Lenses&Feature5=24-105mm&sf=Price&st=de

$1149 vs $899.

Well, if the box the worth $500 to you, then get it for 1149.  It isn't to me.  And good luck selling a Canon 24-105 that you would buy for 1149 for anything close to that amount.

Or in other words, anyone that paid anything close to the MSRP when it was originally released has been screwed over and that this lens was never worth the investment when it was first released.

Says a lot for Canon "L" quality, doesn't it?

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 ... 238