January 28, 2015, 03:45:16 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 - lintoni

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
This thread is funny! ;D

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Announcements Coming Next Week [CR3]
« on: January 27, 2015, 05:16:17 PM »
Is there some reason that this new high MP camera couldn't be the next of the 1D's?  Or is there some details I'm not aware of?
An earlier post by Canon Rumors suggested that the high MP body would not be a 1D series body.

3
Post Processing / Re: Is Coma Fixable in Post for Astrophotography?
« on: January 27, 2015, 04:33:13 PM »
Guess what Nancy, I already did lol. Tonight was going to be the first time I would've given her a try but just as luck would have it, it ended up being a cloudy rainy night here at Chandler, AZ.  Anyway I figured it was more work researching this fangled equation (I'll leave it for the brainiacs) rather than just pony up the 300 for this jewel.
Congratulations on your new lens!

If you use Lightroom, mrsfotografie provided a correction profile for use with this lens here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17252.msg366306#msg366306

4
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art
« on: January 26, 2015, 08:05:32 AM »
Nice review Justin.  I had purchased this lens a while ago and had to return it three times due to none of them were able to focus correctly without micro adjustment.  Once they were adjusted the images were beautiful and I was able to capture tack sharp images at f/1.4 on most of them.  Though I had returned it seven months ago due to it would not work on bodies that does not have build in micro adjustment function, I had always missed it.

Last week, I decided to purchase it again and this time with the USB DOCK.  The copy I received still needed micro adjustment to work; however, after spending two nights of adjusting and testing all focusing ranges in the Sigma USB Dock software, I can now say that it is tack sharp without any micro adjustment ☺.

Now, the big elephant standing in the room is: "would I need to recalibrate the lens again if I put this calibrated lens on another Canon EOS body?"  Luckily, I do have access to cameras and after testing my calibrated Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART on a T5i, 7D Mark II, 5D Mark III and 1DX by multiple photographers, I can confidently say that no calibration or micro adjustment will be required once a copy of a 50mm f/1.4 Art is calibrated correctly with the Sigma USB Dock and will work on any Canon EOS bodies.

By the way, this lens will also works (auto focus with all 61 focus points) with both Kenko 1.4x and 2.0x Teleplus Pro 300 DGX teleconverters on a 5D Mark III (so as Tamron 150-600mm DI VC USD but not the Tamron 28-300mm PZD VC).  Using 1.4x @ f/2 images looks like taken from a "soft focus" lens; however, when using the 2x @ f/2.8 it is sharp (that was unusual!).  Both become sharper when closed down one stop.

Thanks again for reviewing this product and nice to see your beautiful work on your website and flickr.  Heavy it may be, I still rather use this lens than any other 50mm f/1.4 (or f/1.2) out there by any other manufactures.
Which begs the question, if the 50mm Art can be calibrated using the USB dock, why are Sigma shipping lenses from their factory that require calibration to work properly?  The flippant answer would be, to sell their USB dock.  But seriously, the cost in returns and adverse publicity regarding the AF of this lens must be painful for Sigma to bear.

You calibrate the lens mounted to a camera body. If you have two camera bodies that require any lens to have different afma settings, that is no different with the 50 Art, I mean how could it be the same on every body?

My problem is that it misses back and front to the point where it's impossible to get focus on the same spot twice in a row, and therefore any value almost will give the same percentage of sharp shots...

I decided to sell mine yesterday, but it gives me some incredible shots once in a while when the AF actually gets it right, so I can't decide whether to sell it or take 30 shots of each picture to get it right.
I wasn't talking about AFMA.  George Wang's post seems to say that once the lens is calibrated, it behaves consistently with Canon bodies.  So why aren't Sigma shipping them properly calibrated so that once you perform AFMA, as with any other fast lens, it works as expected?

I must admit, I'm saving for a 50mm prime and this lens is a possibility. But user experiences like yours are weighing heavily against the Art.

5
Software & Accessories / Re: lee system
« on: January 25, 2015, 05:26:43 PM »
Good advice on the filters.

I have a Hahnel Giga T II Pro remote that hasn't let me down so far.  Though to be honest, since installing Magic Lantern with its intervalometer and programmable bulb, I've used it a lot less.

6
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art
« on: January 25, 2015, 09:10:41 AM »
Nice review Justin.  I had purchased this lens a while ago and had to return it three times due to none of them were able to focus correctly without micro adjustment.  Once they were adjusted the images were beautiful and I was able to capture tack sharp images at f/1.4 on most of them.  Though I had returned it seven months ago due to it would not work on bodies that does not have build in micro adjustment function, I had always missed it.

Last week, I decided to purchase it again and this time with the USB DOCK.  The copy I received still needed micro adjustment to work; however, after spending two nights of adjusting and testing all focusing ranges in the Sigma USB Dock software, I can now say that it is tack sharp without any micro adjustment ☺.

Now, the big elephant standing in the room is: "would I need to recalibrate the lens again if I put this calibrated lens on another Canon EOS body?"  Luckily, I do have access to cameras and after testing my calibrated Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART on a T5i, 7D Mark II, 5D Mark III and 1DX by multiple photographers, I can confidently say that no calibration or micro adjustment will be required once a copy of a 50mm f/1.4 Art is calibrated correctly with the Sigma USB Dock and will work on any Canon EOS bodies.

By the way, this lens will also works (auto focus with all 61 focus points) with both Kenko 1.4x and 2.0x Teleplus Pro 300 DGX teleconverters on a 5D Mark III (so as Tamron 150-600mm DI VC USD but not the Tamron 28-300mm PZD VC).  Using 1.4x @ f/2 images looks like taken from a "soft focus" lens; however, when using the 2x @ f/2.8 it is sharp (that was unusual!).  Both become sharper when closed down one stop.

Thanks again for reviewing this product and nice to see your beautiful work on your website and flickr.  Heavy it may be, I still rather use this lens than any other 50mm f/1.4 (or f/1.2) out there by any other manufactures.
Which begs the question, if the 50mm Art can be calibrated using the USB dock, why are Sigma shipping lenses from their factory that require calibration to work properly?  The flippant answer would be, to sell their USB dock.  But seriously, the cost in returns and adverse publicity regarding the AF of this lens must be painful for Sigma to bear.

7
Cheaper than I thought it would be, but the lack of a filter thread rules it out for me.

Still, it's great to see a genuine alternative appearing and I'm sure this lens will sell well, assuming it's of a decent optical standard.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel 750D Spec List [CR1]
« on: January 21, 2015, 11:39:52 AM »
Quote
Flicker Detection technology
What does it mean?
As in the 7D2 - for shooting under fluorescent lighting.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:38:40 PM »
I don't expect them to take place until the competition makes significant and consistent market gains against Canon. It's a mistake to think of the DSLR business as anything other than a business.

I'll agree with the second sentence but not the first. After all, isn't it better to make the changes before losing market share rather than after? Mismanaging major technological transitions drove Kodak into bankruptcy.

The managements of Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji and Samsung all decided, more or less simultaneously, that the case for MILCs over DSLRs was compelling enough to make major investments to overcome serious barriers to entry, the biggest of which seems to be getting stores to carry not-Canon/not-Nikon cameras so that consumers can look at them and buy them. It very much remains to be seen whether Canon and Nikon can leverage their installed base and very extensive DSLR lens lineups in the transition to MILCs.

The biggest of which seem to be getting people to actually buy MILCs instead of DSLRs... ;)

If there was sufficient market demand, stores would stock them.

How does the market demand products if many/most of the people in that market may not even know they exist? Furthermore, stores stocking more not-Canon/Not-Nikon cameras means (1) they have to reduce the stocking levels of Canon and/or Nikon and/or (2) they have to stop stocking something completely unrelated (i.e., expand the sizes of their photographic departments) and/or (3) they have to expand the size of their stores.
B&H are now carrying Yongnuo products.  How many people know about or have heard of Yongnuo.  Yet B&H are stocking them. Why? Because they think they can sell them. Why aren't they stocking more MILCs? Answer please...
First, B&H already carries just about every MILC made. Second, most photographic non-gearheads outside of New York City (at least the ones that I know) have never heard of B&H. However, I do know of two people who bought their Rebels at Sam's Club. Another acquaintance bought his at Best Buy. We're not talking about highly educated consumers here, but their money is just as good as yours or mine.
Their money is indeed as good as yours or mine, and when stores think that they can get people to part with that money in exchange for a MILC, then stores will stock MILCs.  Why would you think stores would stock something that there isn't sufficient demand for?  Because you believe that people are ignorant and they would all buy a MILC if only they knew that they existed? 

11
Lenses / Re: The Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L
« on: January 19, 2015, 05:46:42 PM »
There's something missing.  I've read it twice now and still can't see the bit that says "like and share to be in the draw to win".  :D

Congrats on the lens!

12
Software & Accessories / Re: DPP 4.1 - No exif on jpeg upon conversion.
« on: January 18, 2015, 05:00:48 PM »
Wehen I convert from Raw to Exif-Jpeg.
The resulting Jpeg does not have exif.

Am I missing something? or this is a bug?

Thanks.
I've just tried it with DPP 4.1.50.0 and the jpeg does have EXIF info.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 18, 2015, 08:42:05 AM »
More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Oh come on and quit with the conspiracy garbage will you?


I can tell you're sincere, Dilbert, but apparently you've never taken a class in statistics, even a basic one.  The word "bias" in this case is not an accusation against Flickr, it's a potential flaw in the data.  I'm not saying at all that Flickr may be biased, I'm saying the data may be biased in a way that prevents us from drawing certain conclusions.  Again, this is not a conspiratorial assertion, it's a statistical assertion.   I'll let you read the Wikipedia article on it.
...
In summary, Dilbert, Flickr's data can lead to a valid conclusion summarized as: "among all Flickr account holders who keep metadata in their images, the prevalence of cameras is given in the chart below..."

What they did NOT say, and which would NOT be true, is that they can extrapolate that to the entire camera-buying community to infer what kinds of cameras people would like to buy.

Sure, you're concerned that there could be bias in the source of the data (for example, people expunging EXIF data.)

My assertion is that the expunging of EXIF data is not specific to a particular manufacturer and that any inaccuracies in data equally effects all vendors thus the percentages and changes in them are representative of the actual market.
Which is an entirely unwarranted assertion.  Personally, I'd hazard a guess that the average smartphone photographer doesn't even know what EXIF data is, let alone how to strip it from their photographs.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 15, 2015, 03:48:24 AM »
Absurd.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 14, 2015, 07:17:20 AM »
The interesting numbers are growth from 2013 -> 2014:
Nikon +0.8%
Canon +0.4%
Sony +0.7%
Samsung +3.2% (mostly phones?)

In terms of %'s, this growth is:
Nikon: +6.8%
Canon: +3%
Sony: +20%
Samsung: +133%

So you might say that roughly twice as many people will buy a new Nikon or Sony camera as they will Canon.

If I was a Canon exec, that's something that would concern me.
You really don't have a grasp of how numbers work, do you? :o

As there are no absolute numbers given for the size of the sample from which the ratios are derived, to talk of growth is totally erroneous - the sample size could have diminished by half, or conversely it could have doubled.

Further, the numbers show that Canon has strengthened its position as the most popular camera of Flickr's users.

Now, I'm sure you're not really foolish enough to believe that these numbers are causing any concern, whatsoever, to Canon's executives, so why do you waste your time making such asinine posts?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26