March 05, 2015, 07:04:50 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 50
241
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 12:47:26 PM »
Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

You don't seem to know how to read the graph or what a typical graph is. This lens actually has LESS falloff in resolution between the center and corners than the Zeiss Otus, and 3 times less falloff in corner resolution than a typical competitor. On top of that it's as sharp in the corners wide as most 50mm lenses are stopped down in average resolution at f/2.8. For all intents and purposes it's tack sharp on full frame in the corners wide open. All lenses have some sharpness falloff in the corners, the Otus has significant drop, but for both lenses we are talking about being ridiculously sharp in the center and nearly ridiculously sharp in the corners. The Sigma is 2-5 times sharper than any other 50mm prime with autofocus in terms of average resolution, so the whole image is very clear.


You're also missing the point of their quote. The Sigma 50 A is not competing with canon or nikon it's competing with zeiss and makes Canon and nikon obsolete. That's the point of the quote, and that's what they accomplished.

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.
Gentlemen, it´s just a lens ... A lens we have only seen in pictures ... we have seen a few graphs and a couple of totally uninteresting images ... Let´s wait with the insults and bombastic conclusions until we have had a chance to try it out. Or at least until we have seen a couple of proper reviews. What we have seen so far are just preliminaries ... ::)

I actually prefer the old Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG HSM over any other fast 50 with AF. It's bokeh and sharpens wide open just wins. If the new one is meant to be a replacement for it, then it cannot cost more than $1000. IMHO, Sigma has already surpassed both Canon and Nikon 50/1.4, so now they are aiming for the crown (vs. the Zeiss). Otus optics may be better, but I'm sure that many will prefer Sigma for the price.

P.S. I hope Samyang will join the fast 50 competition soon.

242
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 05:24:53 AM »

One more thing learned -- weighs 28 oz /  1.75 lb / 0.8 kg.

- A

Wow, that's quite heavy for a 50/1.4!

:) I thought it was 470g (from dpreview).

243
Lenses / Re: Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?
« on: March 31, 2014, 06:46:30 AM »
“To make money” was the most obvious answer and I thought that was already covered but I appreciate your take on that – why limit your production to only one camera system.

It was only until today that I discovered that Sigma also makes camera bodies… I can’t recall a company making parts for themselves and and a competitor / rival. It’s akin to finding out Chevy also builds parts for their trucks and for Ford, too.

I am more interested in the actual thought process beyond that such as; “here’s a great company that makes great camera body – like us – let’s make lenses for them, too.” Was there a eureka moment that someone had and said “Since we can’t make the best cameras out there, why not we make the best lenses for the best cameras!?”


Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Samyang, Voigtlander - they are all making money from bigger players lens mounts. There's nothing wrong with it. Samsung is making computer parts for Apple too.

244
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2014, 07:05:18 AM »
What about a 4D? It's just a matter of time :)

No then all the Physicists would get confused they might think it were referring to advanced hypothetical spacial relationships beyond the current acknowledged 3 Dimensions...  :-*

Why do you think they went from 1D and then straight to 5D?
Bypassing 2D, 3D and 4D... then 7D.... whoops we missed the 6D so lets fill that space too...
I don't think they would ever do a 2D, 3D or 4D... simply because its a pun waiting to happen...

I think they went from EOS 1 to EOS 1D and then from EOS 5 to EOS 5D later. So, there is a deeper, historical explanation for that. Canon can call their cameras whatever they want (Rebel "terminators" or Kiss series), I really don't care. However, I wouldn't call any camera a 2D or 3D, because it would be awkward and confusing, specially when using internet search engines (?shopping) and that could be affecting sales very much. If 6D was released just a few years earlier, then it could have been called 5D something (like 5D WG). Nobody is trying to fill any spaces between numbers :), they are just numbers.

245
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 27, 2014, 12:03:05 PM »

1920*3=5760 which is exactly what 5D3 got.
3840*3=11520

That would be a 2:1 aspect ratio, not much love here. And It would require odd blending/skipping patterns to capture standard video. Not much love either.

The first fitting, in tradition of the 5760px of the 5D3, resolution would be 1920*2*2 - to get full RGB for 4k-video and 39.3MP stills. going for the slightly larger 4096 flavor would net you 44.7MP. Current OTS cores can handle that resolution up to about 30fps; in a dual config. that should work even with continuous AF. no line skipping also implies less moire and less noise at higher ISOs. Dual photodiodes allow for higher low ISO DR. Who could argue against such a machine?

Yes, 39.3MP would be nice for 3840*2 and 1920*2*2 (or 1920*2 crop mode). I just have this feeling, that Canon wants to bring something exclusive to the market. Something the competition can't match any time soon.

246
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 27, 2014, 05:16:07 AM »
I would expect a 44.2MP 4K FF sensor (11520x7680)

Curious - how did you get that sensor size?

Isn't 4k twice 1080 which is 1920 x 1080 so twice would be 3820 x 2160?

I'm sorry, it is 88.4MP, my mistake :).
1920*3=5760 which is exactly what 5D3 got.
3840*3=11520

247
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 27, 2014, 05:10:58 AM »
I would expect a 44.2MP 4K FF sensor (11520x7680)
Can't you even multiply ?  :o

11520x7680 = 88473600 = 88.4MP

Yes, it's 88.4, thank you. It was ~03:00 in the morning when I was typing that :).

248
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 06:20:23 PM »
I would expect a 88.4MP 4K FF sensor (11520x7680)

249
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: March 21, 2014, 03:38:34 PM »
This thread is furrtastic  :D

250
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: March 21, 2014, 06:34:18 AM »
6D + EF 40mm f/2.8 STM + 430EXII


IMG_3594 by ecka84, on Flickr

251
A hypothetical Samyang 50mm F1.2 with autofocus that works well, good sharpness and contrast at F1.2, and costing less than $1000 is a dream. In fact, I'd be happy with a 50mm F1.4 that is so good with Zeiss Otus, but costing only $500. :P

I'll get it even if it only has an AF confirmation chip if it'll be as good as the Zeiss otus but $500 or less.

I think that AF confirmation chip would be too little (it'a DIY thing) and autofocus is a bit too much to expect (for the price).
How about electronic aperture?

252
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:20:55 PM »
ecka
"because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ"

I would dispute that claim Olympus & Fuji both make very good and high IQ lenses for CSC cameras. Lenses like the Olympus 12mm f2 ED, 60mm f2.8 ED, 75mm f1.8 ED, Leica 45mm f2.8 in micro four thirds or the Fuji XF 27mm f2.8 all perform excellently.
The lenses you mentioned are not really "tele" lenses

Well, not the 12mm, but taking that crop factor into account, current primes get you to the equivalent of 150mm (I would add the 45mm Olympus to the list), with very high image quality.  As for Micro 4/3 zooms, they tend to compare quite favorably with their dslr equivalents and are, of course, much smaller and lighter.

Well, for me, the cheaper m4/3 output is not good enough to choose it over a good P&S camera or two, or three (G1 X, RX100, RX10) and the expensive one just makes no sense.
150mm on FF is a short telephoto, nothing powerful really :), just like anything else in 100mm to 200mm range. So, for m4/3 it must be 100mm+.

253
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: March 11, 2014, 12:42:46 PM »
dead end is a generous description.  this system was still born - Canon shoved it out the door ...  Now you're in
a "pasting feathers on a turkey" mode and you might be better off kissing it off and starting from scratch.

The EOS M was the second best-selling MILC in Japan last year.  One country's meat is another one's spoiled turkey...   ;)

I just wonder how many Japanese buyers buy it with only one lens and will never even put another lens on it. Of course, as I recall, the average number of lenses owned by Canon DSLR buyers is less than two.

There are many people who would buy it without any EF-M lenses. They only care about adapters for lenses they already have, like Canon EF. That makes a lot of sense for telephoto, because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ. EF-S 55-250mm IS STM can be considered "near native" lens for EOS-M (via the adapter) - fast AF, nice optics, stabilized, compact (for 88-400mm equivalent :) ) and affordable. Many are using old manual lenses and they love it.

254
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 04, 2014, 06:54:56 PM »
So the only important bit is to educate people on the apparently simple concept of magnification.

At the very essence of all this is:

1. How big is the object as you now see it in relation to how big it is in real life.
2. How big was the aperture opening.

The first allows for everything involved in the reproduction; focal length, distance to object, coc, sensor size, crop, print or screen size, and viewing distance. Each of those affects the magnification. Plugging these values into a dof calculator just allows it to calculate the magnification taking the print or screen size and viewing distance as standards for a set CoC, some calculators actually allow you to change the CoC and magically your DOF changes,  even though the image is already taken.

The second dictates the amount of blur in relation to the magnification.

Hyperfocal is a side issue with no merit, stuff falling within the hyperfocal is still not as sharp as the plane of focus. magnify it the same and it is just as blurred (try it with the images on the LL link, I did for a thread a long time ago). Indeed lenses marked hyperfocal scales are historically at least one stop wider than accepted norm CoC figures because they used a different value to calculate them. But the important bit is that hyperfocal is just another manifestation of magnification, it isn't sharp, it is just small enough to give the illusion of sharp.

It is all about the illusion of sharp. The actual plane of focus is always at it's thinest, which is the diffraction limit of a lens. However, when the CoC becomes as small as a single pixel of your camera sensor, it is perfectly sharp from that point and smaller. That's how you gain the depth (of field ;) ). You will cross the line when it is impossible to magnify it enough, because the resolution is too low.

255
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 04, 2014, 02:28:05 PM »
It is just magnification and aperture, once you accept that, however convoluted the route to getting there, then it is easier on the mind.

Start to think magnification and aperture and all the inconsistencies and complications fall away.

Well, there are other things involved in "magnification" which are not taken into account by most people who are trying to learn how things actually work, so it may be an oversimplification. This rule may not work that well when shooting something farther away, because UWA lenses would go hyperfocal, while the tele lens would still produce some blur in the background (due to stronger magnification) and that's the rare situation when the CoC thing becomes important before you actually take a picture. You have to take the convoluted route first, and then, if you survive :), you can calculate using the magnification and aperture, because you'll know the exceptions.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 50