November 25, 2014, 07:45:29 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 - PVS

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
85L is not that "specific portrait" tool when it comes to AF. I shot this with 5Dmk2's glorious AF.


17
Mountains had shook from little mouse farts.

18
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm F/1.4 Art listed in Belarus for $790
« on: March 20, 2014, 09:57:55 PM »
I was working as a designer for clothing company and we send most of our final designs to China.. At one point my boss, the company owner, asked me if I'd like to move to China for QC reasons. So I didn't and I moved to another job.
If you really think Sigma would move their production lines to China for this Magical 50mm you should read the interview with Sigma representative at DPR. No way, Hose.
My Smegma 35/1.4 was built in Japan and so was my 24/1.8. The progression is quite noticeable. I could've bought the 35L, but I didn't after I tried the new 35Art from Sigma. The last cultural frontier in optical industry, that Sigma. :)

19
Well, now that you mention it - an UWA 3rd party prime is very welcomed, anything but 20/2.8EF  or Zeiss 21/2.8 would be much appreciated. The only 21mm I think it's worthwhile is Minolta MD 21/2.8 but that's only easily  adaptable to Sony FE mount, not so easy on EOS. I love that lens on my Minolta XD11 but would love to see an adequate replacement in digital world.

20
What this world really needs is yet another 50mil.. Don't think so, SamJunk is smarter than that.

Actually, the world does need a modern 50mm under $1,000 that's usable (for more than just portraits) at 1.4. If Sigma wasn't releasing a 50 of their own Samyang would stand to make a killing if it performs good wide open (i.e. on the same level as their 35mm and 85mm).

I haven't noticed that shots from my EF 50/1.4 were unusable, not on the old 5dc I got that lens for nor on 5dmk3. Nor I heard from nikonians their new G 50s weren't up to any task. Pixel-peeping amateurs might have something to complain but I still think even after so many years that EF50/1.4 is a bang for a buck lens.

21
What this world really needs is yet another 50mil.. Don't think so, SamJunk is smarter than that.

22
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 12, 2014, 05:05:42 PM »
I have both lenses. They are nice company to each other on 5dmk3, that 1.4 matters a lot when there's not enough light. My 24-70mk2 doesn't show any clicking problems and IQ is on par with any prime lens, from corner to corner. Sigma needed +5 AFMA and still exhibits slight front focus issues at mid distances (2m to 5m) while L zoom needed -2 AFMA at wide range and +1 at longer range. Don't know why but sigma's coating seem more pleasing to my eye. You'll love your 24-70!

23
Lenses / Re: Sigma 16-20mm f/2 Coming?
« on: March 12, 2014, 04:51:36 PM »
I've been looking for UWA options for 5dmk3 and couple of weeks ago I tried Tokina 16-28 and 16-35L mk2 side by side - to my surprise L was noticeably better in corners at widest range while Tokina had more consistency throughout whole range, with a bit of smeary extreme corners @28. Tokina was also quite slower in terms of AF and coatings seemed on the cold side. To my surprise L lens was pitiful near 35 range, just unacceptable, probably due to non-existed field flatness. Might be also decentered copy though corners were even. My guess there's a lot of copy variation with most UWA zooms due to complexity of designing these, or maybe I got spoiled by 24-70L mk2 and Sigma 35/1.4, before I got these 2 lenses I've been shooting primes only for 2 decades (mostly mf minolta mc/md & nikkor ai on film and 5dc). If this rumor turns out to be true I'd gladly settle with shorter range in trade of better IQ.

24
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 27, 2014, 04:55:51 AM »
Tried all 3 of them, Tam24-70, 24-70L mk1& mk2. Would have gotten the mk1 but couldn't find new one in stock. My main concern was the build quality and resale value so I went with mk2. All 3 lenses are great but I didn't like tammys oof render plus build quality is far behind any L.

25
Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: August 28, 2013, 11:51:04 AM »
Never had a CF card die on me, I could easily do just shooting on one CF card without a back-up SD/CF in the same camera.

On the other hand, I had couple of "pro" SD cards which just died for no apparent reason. I don't trust SD cards at all. It might be due to contacts, my guess is that you can easily destroy one with static electricity or some magnets.

Single SD card slot is my main drawback from getting 6D, I could easily do with other lack of features.

26
Lenses / Re: We want more EF-S lens
« on: August 23, 2013, 11:28:34 PM »
As long as no one is complaining about lenses being weather-sealed L coated Canon already got you served.

Welcome to teh FF, now give them more money for the new set of lenses.

27
Canon General / Re: Should I get into this industry?
« on: August 19, 2013, 12:55:09 AM »
You can always try with stock sites such as stocksy or gettimages. It is better than being wedding photog.

28
Due to flange distance there is no 'legal' way you could mount any leica m-mount lens on any of the existing dslr platform. Unless you are willing to remove the mirror box and completely adapt the mount on your eos camera.

29
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 16, 2013, 05:49:48 PM »
All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.

Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.

As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)



As for noise, my eyes see no noise, my digital camera records effectively zero noise at the iso's I use (sub 400, the same as the film I shot), why should I accept the compromise of noise/grain in film prints? Noise and grain are not "natural" looking, they are defects that we became accustomed to due to technological inadequacies, those inadequacies are no longer there so why accept them?

I am in the camp that firmly believes noise and grain do not add detail, as so many seem to misunderstand, they are comparatively crude devices that can be used to some stylish effect, if that is what is desired. Further, it is a lot easier to add the effect than take it away, I'll take the time and skill to shoot noise/grain free whenever possible and add in post if I want the style.

Have you checked corners or periphery of your eyes recently, I'm pretty much sure you don't get that much blur and lack of sharpness with any of the lens you might be using on that 1Dsmk3? Also the flare, when was the last time you were looking at the sun? Flare, blurry corners and other abberations are quite natural things yet most of the photogs try to avoid them.. Sorry, that 'natural' talk was the most invalid argument I heard recently.
People should just stick with their own preferences without giving any further explanations otherwise when someone writes a nonsense like the mentioned one it just gives a ground for suspicion other arguments in their posts might be corrupted as well.
I have yet to see architecture/landscape print shot with MF/35mm DSLR which could rival depth and DR most of the stuff shot on 120s or bigger.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: August 06, 2013, 05:52:29 PM »
Life is unfair - kill yourself or get over it.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6