September 22, 2014, 12:33:28 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 - Woody

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 39
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?
« on: October 15, 2013, 06:27:20 AM »
Oh my God! ... the lens isn't even out yet but people already know it has "inconsistent AF" and that too from just knowing that it is "much heavier" and that it has "82mm filter size" ::)

On Sigma website before it was taken down:
    Lens Construction: 19 elements in 14 groups
    Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 3.5in x 4.3in
    Maximum magnification ratio: 1:4.6
    Weight: 885g / 31.2oz
    Minimum focusing distance: 45cm /17.7in
    Angle of view (35mm equivalent): 84.1°-23.3°
    Filter size: 82mm
    HSM delivers high AF speed and quiet performance
    Offers F/4 brightness throughout the zoom range
    OS (Optical Stabilizer) functionality
    Super Multi-Layer Coating reduces flare and ghosting
    Rounded 9-blade diaphragm
    Mount conversion service available
    Sigma USB Dock compatible

As for inconsistent AF, well, I had the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC (ART) lens. Used it for a week and got rid of it. DPReview had similar problems with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The Sigma 24-105 f/4 won't be any better... of course its f/4 aperture may help to mask some of its AF problems.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?
« on: October 15, 2013, 04:33:12 AM »
Much heavier. 82 mm filter size. The same old same old Sigma inconsistent AF.

No, thanks. I'll pass.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D610 yes D600 minor upgrade!
« on: October 10, 2013, 12:26:12 PM »
I never read about the "they spent a lot of time" and onwards part before. Where did that get documented?

You'll need to comb through Rob Galbraith's website: his long series of articles on 1D Mark III AF, various preludes to aforementioned articles as well as his criticism of Canon's offerings after the 1D Mark III. The info is all there.

Ultimately, like what others have pointed out, why do you think Rob Galbraith finally had to quit his job?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D610 yes D600 minor upgrade!
« on: October 09, 2013, 08:31:11 PM »
Except that the "fix" never really fixed the problem completely.

So says Rob Galbraith... who has since then retired into anonymity.

Also, Canon at least had the courage to own up to the problem. Nikon, on the other hand, has never really fessed up to their issues.

"The sad thing is that this isn't the first time Nikon's been unable to fess up to a problem. This is now endemic with them. As Michael Johnston at Online Photographer points out, this sort of problem denial goes way back into the film days for Nikon..." - (Thom Hogan, a loyal Nikon supporter)

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 09, 2013, 09:28:03 AM »
Its good for all of us. Don't get wadded up on the fact video features are part of the team now too.

It all sounds good except Canon seems to be crippling the video capability on their DSLRs... Don't believe? Just look at what MagicLantern did with video features on Canon DSLRs. Ironic isn't it? They are afraid DSLR sales will eat into their camcorder business. ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 09, 2013, 03:19:46 AM »
We’re also told any follow-up to the EOS 7D will get a new sensor and not use the 20.2mp sensor that is found in the EOS 70D.

The sensor may be different, but the still image quality will be nearly the same, just like the 70D 20 MP sensor vs 700D 18 MP sensor. IOW, zero improvement in dynamic range. ;)

Lenses / Re: A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: October 07, 2013, 05:29:58 AM »
Depth of field isn't everything to everybody.

Then, why get FF? The EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 macro is just as good. :)

Lenses / Re: A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: October 07, 2013, 05:03:38 AM »
Make it an EF 50mm f/2.5 USM IS Compact-Macro with the same 1:2 magnification, and perhaps weather-sealing, then I'll be interested. Otherwise, what's the point of it either not being f/1.4 or super-cheap? It's one or the other.

The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is merely 0.67 stop. Change in DOF is not significant.

Now, between f/1.4 and f/2.5, the difference is 1.67 stop... that is significant. I will not get a 50 f/2.5 lens, useless to me.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EOS M, 2 Lenses & Flash Kit Deal via BuyDig $399
« on: October 07, 2013, 04:01:20 AM »
Here’s what’s probably one of the last deals we’re going to see on this camera.

But when is the replacement coming? Still no CR2 info... What's Canon waiting for?... Clear their warehouse goods or for Sony to announce their NEX-FF systems...

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M + Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC = One sexy camera!
« on: October 07, 2013, 03:55:58 AM »
Maybe Canon will come up with a comparable pancake?

Pancake lenses are never very fast (f/1.4).

The closest lens is the Canon 35 f/2 IS.

Lenses / Re: A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: October 06, 2013, 10:08:31 AM »
If this lens performs as well as the 35 f/2 IS, I'll get it in a jiffy.

I've seen rumors...

It's a rumor or at best a patent. Enough said.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« on: September 23, 2013, 12:55:38 PM »
So, you've had grief with two pre-Global Vision lenses and have seen complaints about other lenses you haven't tried...(complaints that haven't shown up in any of the reviews I've read.) Based on this you feel qualified to contradict the premise of this thread?

Here's a review of the most recent 18-35 f/1.8 lens:

"We shot with a range of Canon SLRs, from the entry-level EOS 100D to the top-of-the-line EOS 7D, and all had problems focusing absolutely correctly all the time. This was usually only obvious when shooting at apertures larger than F2.8...

We looked at whether the focus problems we saw from the 18-35mm could be mitigated by using autofocus microadjustments. With a Sigma USB Dock to hand, we set about determining and programming in a full set of autofocus microadjust parameters for all of Sigma's specified focal lengths and focus distances (18, 24, 28 and 35mm; infinity, 0.5m, 0.35m and 0.28m). This took several hours to set up, even with specialised focusing targets to hand...

This procedure certainly improved overall focus accuracy when shooting at the distances used for microadjustment. However these are fixed by the software, and there's no option to specifically correct any distance between infinity and 0.5m. Unfortunately though, the vast majority of subjects end up somewhere in between, and we found that the lens still had some problems with focus accuracy even when fully programmed as above..."

My experience with the updated Sigma 30 f/1.4 Art lens mirrors DPReview's article above.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« on: September 23, 2013, 03:30:52 AM »
For me, these optically fantastic Sigma lenses have zero attraction. I have far too many painful AF issues with Sigma lenses (including the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC HSM Art lens).

Not touching them with a ten foot pole

EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 11:00:16 PM »
Can the Olympus OM-D E-M1's EVF display the full color depth, dynamic range, and responsiveness to motion that the human eye can perceive?  If so, how does the EVF transcend the capabilities of the image sensor (which are far less than the eye's capabilities)?

Precisely. There is NO WAY an EVF can show what the human eye sees. As long as the EVF can 'show in the dark' what the naked eye cannot see, that already tells us the EVF processes information that falls on the sensor.

I spent one whole year with the E-M5, trying to convince myself the system is for me. Alas, while the camera has helped me capture some great moments, I came to the full realization that EVFs are not for me. I totally hated my EVF experience. I ended up selling my entire m43 system (cameras, lenses, accessories) and plunged head-log back into the safe embrace of Canon's OVF systems. The EVF seriously impairs my ability to compose because what the EVF/sensor shows is simply not what I see with my naked eyes. On the other hand, an OVF merely 'crops' my view.

Well, to each his own. :)

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 39