July 30, 2014, 06:44:51 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 - Albi86

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 56
241
Interesting lens, but I'm disappointed that they didn't just fix their previous 50mm.

Thing is, that lens is GREAT and is DIFFERENT. It was able to mix very high center sharpness with the creamiest bokeh. It had 3 problems: it was huge, AF was unreliable, and corners where never sharp even after stopping down. In a way, it was a sharper and much cheaper analogue of the Canon 50mm L, though obviously also a tad slower.

Fixing that lens, even only AF-wise, would have given them a real winner. Instead, it seems that the point of this lens is more like porting their 35mm A into a 50mm FL. Good for lens collectors, but I imagine many people in the field would rather take the 35mm and do some cropping. That's what I'd do, at least.

242
Lenses / Re: TAMRON SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Hitting Market
« on: January 06, 2014, 03:51:18 PM »
Hmmmmm......quite good, at least in these samples.   Although it seems to translate signs into a language I can't understand......

I think it's Swedish  :)

Anyway, samples do look SWEET.

243
I insist that you try it :) I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story :)

I'm positive that using the thing for a week is way different than just for a couple of minutes in an expo - so I can only tell about my first impression with evfs... but dpreview had more time and still came to the same conclusion, that's why I quoted them. But alas, in a decade we're all in for it anyway ;-)

I manage ok with the EVF on my NEX. If you hold the camera still, it's almost like an OVF, very impressive. But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.

The a7's are miles ahead ;)

But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.

They'll never "beat" it because from what I remember from my physics classes, it's hard to outrun photons at 300.000 km/s :-> ... I wonder what the current and "acceptable" lag for an evf is, I'm sure the manufacturers already have an idea how long they'll keep ovfs around for action shooting.

If you can watch an action movie on your LCD screen, that typically has a 2-8ms response time and 60-100 Hz refresh rate, you can probably also take pictures :)

244
If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.

I'm a yay-sayer when it comes to the potential of mirrorless, but I have to admit I am atm very attached to an old-school optical viewfinder that draws no power and shows me what I see with my bare eye without feeling like in a sci-fi movie.

Every time I pick up a new Sony gadget (there's ample opportunity in Berlin in the Sony Center) and look through the current evf generation I jump a little and think "Yuck! Gimme my ovf back"... so I agree with dpreview's assessment, see http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/5

Quote
For its part, the EVF is a means to an end - much as I prefer an optical viewfinder, knowing that the α7 is going to capture an impressive image in a smaller package than the average full frame digital SLR makes the EVF a necessary evil worth tolerating.



I insist that you try it :)

I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story :)


245
Canon General / Re: Are Metal Mounts Better Than Plastic?
« on: January 05, 2014, 07:22:17 AM »
I've been preaching forever that weather sealing is a marketing gimmick. A spec without benchmarks, a claim not backed up by any warranty or whatever.

I agree with Roger than some sealing is arguably better than no sealing, but hopefully all those people swearing that weather sealing saved their gear back in that difficult situation will now reconsider. The thing is, without specific benchmarks is impossible to attribute the merit of any gear survival event to weather sealing. Roger's statistics also seem to imply that the weather damage events are not less frequent on weather sealed lenses.

The effectiveness of stabilisation systems and battery life are both independently tested.

The ingress protection rating system already exists, and some camera manufacturers use it for their waterproof cameras:

Canon D20, IP68: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_D20/index.aspx
Olympus TG2, IPX8:
http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/cameras/digital_cameras/tough/tg_2/tg_2_specifications.html
Nikon AW1, IP68:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/aw1/spec.htm

Why not use the same system for lenses and bodies? I know they're each only half the system, but it would easy enough to test each independently, and the consumer will then be aware of the limits of their system (the lower score of the lens and body). I wouldn't expect even the best DSLR/lens to get IPX5 rating, but a weather sealed product could be as low as IPX1 or as high as IPX4. Quantifying this would really help the consumer.


Exactly. The waterproof designation comes with a pressure/depth value that clarifies to which extent it works. Weather sealing hints at something but declares nothing; it sort of invites the buyer to wishfully think of a degree of resistance that is not there.

246
Simple truth: the OVF is a passive device that has tied camera progress for years. This has been supported by Canikon being the benchmark of photography and by their being uninterested in developing EVFs.

That said, the EVF is a dynamic, active device that gives plenty of advantages. Magnification, exposure preview, peaking, zebras, etc are only some of them. More than that, an EVF can be extensively developed and improved over time, OVFs not quite. OVFs are the past, EVFs are the future, and we are now in a transition zone.

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.

247
Canon General / Re: Are Metal Mounts Better Than Plastic?
« on: January 05, 2014, 05:39:37 AM »
I've been preaching forever that weather sealing is a marketing gimmick. A spec without benchmarks, a claim not backed up by any warranty or whatever.

I agree with Roger than some sealing is arguably better than no sealing, but hopefully all those people swearing that weather sealing saved their gear back in that difficult situation will now reconsider. The thing is, without specific benchmarks is impossible to attribute the merit of any gear survival event to weather sealing. Roger's statistics also seem to imply that the weather damage events are not less frequent on weather sealed lenses.

248
Canon General / Re: Review - Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
« on: December 31, 2013, 10:01:26 AM »
I totally agree with Justin's take. I had it and it was good in many ways but nothing special in any way, so I sold it pretty quickly.

The Nikon is better in every way but suffers from the same limitation: it has nothing special that makes me pick it. I find it great for B&W though.

249
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS
« on: December 30, 2013, 12:41:43 PM »
With rumors of a 24-70/2.8 with IS coming out at some point next year, it seems that canon might do a similar thing as with the 70-200: available in many flavors and as many price points.

250

I'm less convinced by the lighting. The left side looks clearly brighter than the right, in my opinion. The head tops are also a bit undefined.

Forgive if this seems like a dumb question but upon reading that, am i to assume that with group shots, lighting is supposed to be even/uniform as opposed to key/fill like single subject portraits I've done before?



This is great people. Exactly the kind of advice I was looking for. Thnx :)
[/quote]

It can be a style choice of course, but in my opinion a gradient light in a group shot introduces an involuntary "priority" effect that is not pleasant. As if, so to say, the people on the right were less important.

251
Hi,
    Found a review in Japan:
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trinitylumberton.org%2Fcategory29%2F

 The reviewer do a compare using a 7D and 6D with the following lens:
1) Tamron SP 150-600 mm Di VC USD F5-6.3
2) EF300mm F2.8L IS + Extenderx2.0 Ⅲ
3) EF500mm F4L IS Ⅱ + Extenderx1.4 Ⅲ
4) EF800mm F5.6L IS

   Look very good to me...

   Merry Christmas!


Looks very good indeed!

252
I'm less convinced by the lighting. The left side looks clearly brighter than the right, in my opinion. The head tops are also a bit undefined.

253
Cosina-Voigtlander make some really nice, ultra fast MFT primes. Full metal and manual focus only, should be great for video.

254
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability
« on: December 18, 2013, 10:31:14 AM »

Even if the IQ is acceptable, I worry about AF performance.  Either the aftermarket just doesn't have good reverse engineers, or Canon has hidden some things that can't be duplicated.    If Tammy could really nail the AF, for advanced AF cameras like the 5D3 and 1DX, I think many would accept small compromizes in edge sharpness, maybe a little contrast, and and even  bit of CA that could be corrected in post.  Its just that when you are out in the wild with a 600, the last thing you want is an AF system that misses some x percent of the time, as you probably won't get that moment back.     

I believe it will be a personal decision whether that moment is worth paying 12,700$ for the 600/4 L or if a fair rate of misses are well worth what you save with the 1,070$ Tamron.

255
Lenses / Re: Another strike against UV filters
« on: December 17, 2013, 03:56:25 PM »
I just received my new 70-200 f2.8 IS II a few weeks ago and put on a Hoya filter I had been using on my 24-105.  Well, the other day, the 70-200 fell off the table onto the hardwood floor.  I heard glass break and was fearing my $1900 investment was just ruined.  Luckily, it was just the filter.  I thought I had escaped damage but after gently cleaning out the glass, I noticed there are now some scratches on the front element.  If I had not had a UV filter on there, the lens would have been undamaged.  I think I'm going to reserve filters for situations where I'm shooting in dirty, dusty, sandy, snowy or rainy conditions but leave them off until then.

You drop the lens, you get away with a few scratches... and you blame it on the filter?  :o

That's the spirit! Consider a career in politics  ::)

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 56