December 21, 2014, 11:36:41 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 220
1741
From what I understood looking at everything made for cinema, they're pretending to sell everything at 10-50 times more their price just because they think every person working for cinema is freaking rich.


In critical work and where multiple people are involved, it costs less to use the Cinema lens series than it does to use non-Cinema and make the require corrections afterwards or during the shoot.

Quote
Just think: how much would ever cost to produce such lenses? Think also at the other Canon Cinema Zoom Lenses with astronomical pricing, think at the bolts and knobs (which are just plain stupid pieces of metal) made by RED as accessories for their rigs, they're as expensive as if they were made out of solid gold...well they aren't!

I think it costs a lot more to design and manufacture these lenses than it does "L" series lenses.

1742
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 10, 2013, 08:53:45 AM »
Actually, considering that OSX and Linux are very similar under the hood (both are flavors of unix)

But MacOSX is BSD and Linux is, well, Linux - the unix versions have split decades ago and are often very different, just because they both use a forward slash for directories and run gcc doesn't mean much for porting software, esp. if it relies on hardware features like usb.

There are too many versions of Linux for the size of its market share and if you support one, the others all get shirty and bitch and moan.

As an example of how good Linux is, today I downloaded a Linux application from a vendor and tried to run it. It crashes before printing out any output. No idea why but probably it was compiled against a different version of Linux and is in some minor but critical way incompatible.

1743
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO optics pro (8)
« on: January 10, 2013, 08:48:55 AM »
The DxO lens corrections are an obvious strength... what else?

Better NR with maintained sharpness, compared to Aperture at least.

So, lens correction and noise reduction in DxO and then Aperture (or Photoshop) for everything else?

At the moment I'm using Lightroom to get all of the colour right and then exporting to DxO to sharpen and correct distortion. Really, I need to spend more time with DxO to learn how to get the same colours from it as LR.

1744
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO optics pro (8)
« on: January 09, 2013, 07:04:58 PM »
I have 2 OS, windows and linux and use darktable, raw therapee and gimp mainly.

Darktable does not do colour management correctly so it will not be providing you with the results you expect.

Quote
Lens correction data I could locate for these programs mainly refer to distortion correction and is not as extensive as the DxO offering.

That's why I use DxO - far better correction of images when it has a lens profile.

1745
Quote
What is this lens?  I thought they already had a lens that was 120-300 2.8 with OS?   I have the 120-300 2.8 non OS and I know there was already a newer version out?   I'm very confused....

Same new version with a very few changes...
Excepting the price, of course.  The old version has dropped to $3,000, the new version will be at least $3500.

I've seen several people on here query the price.

Am I on the only one that read the entire story and saw this line (it appears twice in the story):

Preorder the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM for $3599

1746
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 08, 2013, 08:51:45 PM »
^ Do you really expect corporations to code their software to work with Linux, representing a whopping under 2% of computer users? ???

Anyways, if sigma would have had this accessory years ago it would have saved their brand an awful lot of hurt over bad AF!

Well, yes. They could easily have used a cross platform library for writing the application and then it would have worked everywhere. I am tired of companies offering software for Windows and Mac OS alone. It smacks of laziness.

it smacks of good business sense, you don't waste money and stay in business.

I think what JohnnyWashngo is trying to say is, it likely could have been done in a fully cross-platform for little to no additional cost (money/personal/etc). Not sure if he's completely correct or not, but it very well may be correct since the only cross-platform stuff I've developed has been Java, and that has it's own quirks and issues.

If the cost had actually be very minimal, it might very well have been nice to release it. However, I'm sure some enterprising person will sniff the USB packets and reverse engineer the protocol. Then all of us linux geeks (well, ok, I use Windows for Lightroom. I'm sorry :( ) can put together our own application as we will.

Which Linux distribution, and what about Android for tablets?

Which Linux distribution is the problem. They're all different and together they represent an insignificant percentage of the marketplace for consumers that makes it unattractive to service as a vendor.

1747
Lenses / Re: 2003 vs 2013 17-40/4L
« on: January 07, 2013, 11:42:03 PM »
Hi everybody!

I have just - I guess - simple question. Do you think that for example Canon 17-40/4L, which is (if I have right information) for 10 years on the market - will be still same? I mean if you like to compare lens made in 2003 and lens made in 2013 - would they still perform same (IQ)? I am just thinking, that even the lens is for a long time on the market, that company still have to inovate and using new components. So the lenses, even the old ones, should be changing in their performance.

What do you think? Thx.

Comments from those that I know who have the older one are that the newer ones they've used aren't quite as good.

1748
PowerShot / Canon SX50 Review - Best Superzoom yet.
« on: January 07, 2013, 10:30:21 AM »
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon_sx_50_review.shtml
...
"But what about image quality, Isn't something with a small sensor and a crazy zoom range too much of an IQ compromise?"
"No, it's no longer as big a compromise as it used to be".
...

1749
Reviews / Re: Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures
« on: January 06, 2013, 03:25:12 PM »
Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing?  I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm  -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.

I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.

Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?

I MFA'd the lens (although on MK2 I can only do focal length, which I did at at 70mm).  I ended up setting mine at a +5.  I will be picking up a MK3 in this calendar year and look forward to being able to dial it at a couple of settings.  I've been happy with the sharpness after the adjustment.
Can the MK3 do MFA by focal length/lens or do you just mean that it should be more accurate out of the box?

Thanks again.

The 5d3 can have separate MFA values for the wide end and tele end, and it can extrapolate somewhat for the middle range. Since wide vs tele can cause some focus shift sometimes, you can get more accurate focusing.

The 6D also supports two AFMA values for zooms (wide & tele.)

1750
You cannot edit that field, but it changes (automatically) with your post count - more posts means a 'better' camera. It's just a coincidence that my post count equates to a 1D X and I actually have a 1D X.   :P

Yeah, the 1DX badge is far too cheap in post count.

1751
Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4
« on: January 04, 2013, 07:32:01 PM »
If you buy the 24-105 then you need to buy the 17-40 if you want to shoot wider than 30mm. The barrel distortion on the 24-105 at the wide end is crazy.

1752
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests
« on: January 04, 2013, 07:30:07 PM »
So how can Canon continue to bundle the 24-105 as the kit lens?

Oh wait, for years it sold DSLR bundles with the 28-135 so they just care about moving kit, not quality.

Time for the 24-105 to go the way of dinosaurs - agreed.

1753
Lenses / Re: Glacier National Park - New lens?
« on: January 03, 2013, 08:13:43 PM »
Montana may be my favorite place to visit.  Been several times now as a old college buddy is border patrol out of whitefish.  Be sure to drive out to polebridge for pizza, seriously its worth it. Plus the drive is spectacular and once you get there you realize having beer and pizza in the middle of nowhere is pretty special. As others have suggested the 10-22 is a no brainer on crop. Rent that plus one of the extenders and you should be set.

Which drive to Polebridge are you thinking of as being spectacular?

On the whole, there's not much more to Polebridge than the one shack for food/drink and if you blink, you'll miss it and won't miss much. Not somewhere I'd go just for pizza unless you enjoy spending $40 on gas to buy a $10 pizza.

1754
It would have been nice if the AF maps were in English.

1755
Lenses / Re: 4 weeks Trip around California
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:02:39 AM »
Bad news: the lenses you have are a complete mismatch for Yosemite, except for the 24-105.

Yosemite is just a part of the trip.

Where else are you going?

Let me guess, you're going to drive along US-1 in the fog during August?

But as it stands, all of the other posts thus far have corroborated with my statement above.

Pages: 1 ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 220