September 15, 2014, 08:56:06 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 - jdramirez

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 156
I personally prefer the ones that have the feet at the bottom so they become a make shift tripod on flat surfaces.  I'm on my phone so it is a hassle to check if the ones you pointed to see like that, but that is what I'm leaning towards. 

As much as I would like to see a pay per view fight between photogs, maybe we should step back and take a breath.

Canon General / Re: $10,000
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:06:22 AM »
This is funny. A lot of people would get a sh*t load of cr*p & only a few would rather focus on quality. Quality over quantity any day!


5D3 x2
35 mm prime
85 mm prime

That's about it and pretty much 10k spent and a perfect set acquired for general shooting.

85L mkii?  Slow auto focus?  Not exactly ideal for wildlife or sports...

I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.

I forget where I heard it (other than everywhere)... but once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a trend.  It all boils down to sample size.  Maybe Bryan did everything perfectly a just got a bad copy.  Maybe the UPS guy played soccer with the box before it got to his front door.  But if you and 14 others come to the same conclusion... then what we have here is a cheaper otus with AF usable only at f/4 or f/5.6... which REALLY makes the lens less desirable. 

And there is nothing wrong with questioning scientific fact (which this test would not be considered). 

Can't wait for a 24-70 2.8 art !
Nope... but the rumored Sigma 24-70 f/2 is very intriguing. 

SoI was afma'ing my 85 f1.8 and I noticed that the plane of focus didn't go in the direction I thought it would... but that wasn't all over the place like this suggests. 

All things considered, I do want consistency in my auto focus... I don't want to treat it like it is a manual focus lens, and I hope the test is flawed.

Simply not using a wired shutter release might make a difference... though that is grasping at straws.

I have a friend who often states, "In god we trust.  All others must bring data." 

Love the line.  I doubt I'll steal it because I require evidence from all deities as well.

And even the most well respected scientists have been wrong.

Watson and Crick got right what... what's his name for wrong... what is his Damn name?  Christo de jesus!

There could also have been an earthquake (or minor tremors) rumbling through ...


Maybe.  Being from California, I know what earthquakes feel like, and have been through several major ones.   Bryan lives in Pennsylvania, where like New England, what gets reported on the evening news as an earthquake causes our house to shake less than our young kids running around upstairs...   :P

I live in pa.  It has been windy lately... And cold... so there might be a shiver factor.

Here's a dumb question... south this type of inconsistency... how do you afma the lens?  Just find a mean, mode or median and pray.

474 takes two to tango or in this case autofocus (camera plus lens.)

True, but it's hard to dance with a partner that has two left feet, one of which they tried to reverse-engineer to be a right foot.   :P

I would have said that it's hard to dance with a partner and match their footsteps when you can't see their feet :P

Fine...but Canon owns the dance club and calls the tunes.  If Sigma can't keep up or trips over their own feet, that's not Canon's problem.

Who dances at the club?  Don's you just buy a whiskey sour and lets the girls gyrate up and down? 

it has been well over a decade since I have written a scientific paper. but if I recall correctly when you do perform a scientific tests and you write down the results it is incumbent upon you to describe set up as well as the preparation to eliminate and control this instance there are sufficient questions which can be brought up. much of the same way scientific papers by prestigious and well-respected scientists are peer-reviewed. the assertion that he did or did not used in a can be disputed because he did not specifically site whether she did or not. additionally it would have been helpful, and maybe I missed it , if he listed the lighting conditions in a unit of measurement such as foot candles or whatever other units.

We have no way of knowing which of the sample 10 photos is most representative of the most optimum focus his particular camera and lens combination is capable of producing. 

There are 10 images presented, 6 of which are similarly sharp, 4 of which are not as sharp (and one of those 4 is a blurry mess).  Are you suggesting that the 6 similarly sharp images are all random misses from optimum focus that happened to coincide in terms of sharpness?  I think Friar William of Occam would disagree with you. 

Precision and accuracy are independent, although they may certainly appear to be related, depending on the resolution of the measurement method relative to the accuracy and precision of the system being tested.

I certainly agree that it's premature to base an overall conclusion about the 50A's AF perfromance on issues found by two review sites, each testing one lens.

In this instance of trying to measure precision, the lens could be front or rear focused.  So the to and fro of the lens at its furthest point might look like a mess, but if the lens were afma'd correctly, the focus could be within three units of the proper focus... making all of the shots tolerable versus some of the shots being as many as six units of auto focus off.

We want to make sure we are only identifying its precision... not its accuracy which is why afma is a requirement.

In regards to negativity... it does seem to be within my tolerance range.  Most peddle are more than decent here and those that aren't... I don't know their names so when I see their subsequent posts I don't make the connection.

I am surprised that people are throwing the 50 art under the bus before they have even used it.  I use auto focus 95% of the time, but I really don't consider the art deaf on arrival nor do I believe that all subsequent arts will be rendered useless.

It seems that people are indeed jumping the gun.

I'll wait... I'll test at the store... And I'll come to my own conclusion.  Reviews are nice... but I wouldn't call them all scientific.  Isolating variables can be challenging and scientists don't always do an adequate job of doing so... so I won't hold reviewers to a higher standard.

And after having said all that... I jumped the gun on dismissing the 6d... And in retrospect I have a good deal of esteem for the 6d...

I'm very curious to see how this compares to the 24L II.  Unlike the 50L, it's a very sharp lens and won't be so easy to beat, at least in terms of sharpness.  The biggest issue with the 24L II is the vignetting so that might be where they try to outdo Canon.

Also, I really don't get the, "Why not a 85 stuff"?  They just release their latest 85mm in 2010 (to a lot of good reviews), while they don't even have a 24 f/1.4 lens.  They have a 24 f/1.8, but from the reviews, it looks to be terrible on full frame cameras.

They'll beat it in the price tag.  I'd guess another sub $1000 offering.  If matches image performance... And at that focal length where depth of field is typically less of a concern... it will be fine. 

I found the af test disconcerting too... but it is about context.  Run the same test with a 50L and let me see the results.  We AOL know that shooting at small depths of field is a game of roulette... sometimes we win... sometimes the eye is blurry and the Damn eye lashes are perfectly in focus. 

And those saying the art is dead.... then the otus certainly never should have been born.  Geesh.

EOS Bodies / Re: Petition to Canon regarding the EOS 5D Mark III
« on: April 22, 2014, 11:25:36 PM »
1 and 3 have been small annoyances for me... but nothing that made me too angry.  I'd rather see dual pixel added and when hitting the rear button AF, the aperture doesn't open wide changing the way my video looks. But there's a chance I may simply not know which setting I need to adjust to fix that...

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 156