jdh99

Joined on Sep 28, 2012

Comments

Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20
On article Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L (229 comments in total)

Hats off to canon, what an amazing lens! But the main reason I recently hired a 14-24 f2.8 nikon was for astro landscape photography and this new lens at only f4 is too slow for that. It's not a lens I would buy because of its astronomical price and 11mm is all but too wide for the majority of situations. That said I guess canon users will now have a sharp lens covering the 11-15mm range which they haven't had until now. I'm sure it will be a classic over time for canon

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 07:35 UTC as 59th comment
In reply to:

jdh99: I wish this had been a 400mm f5.6 with fresnel design. I'm sure this new lens will be good, although how much impact the fresnel design has on sharpness remains to be seen. It just seems slightly late to the party when you consider you can get to 600mm with Tamron and Sigma zooms for less money albeit more weight. Better late than never but I don't think I will be parting with my old 300mm F4 AFS unless this new lens is significantly sharper.

You're right ;) but seriously thats what i have permanently attached to my 300mm AFS and it works but i recon it would be better image quality if I didnt need it and Nikon had a reasonably priced fixed 400mm in the first place

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 23:18 UTC

I wish this had been a 400mm f5.6 with fresnel design. I'm sure this new lens will be good, although how much impact the fresnel design has on sharpness remains to be seen. It just seems slightly late to the party when you consider you can get to 600mm with Tamron and Sigma zooms for less money albeit more weight. Better late than never but I don't think I will be parting with my old 300mm F4 AFS unless this new lens is significantly sharper.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 20:31 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies
On article Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

jdh99: In my opinion there are some people posting who are looking at this lens in the wrong way. There seems to be people who don't feel this is really an f2.8 lens compared to say the canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses and that somehow Fuji are inferior to Canon and Nikon/Sony because of the weight of this lens. If we take that same argument why aren't these people complaining about Canon/Nikon full frame lenses in terms of subject isolation/weight compared to say the equivalent focal length medium format lenses...its the same pointless argument.
Make no mistake this is an f2.8 lens!
Yes in terms of subject isolation it will behave slightly differently to a 24-70 f2.8 full frame lens...The best way to look at it is that it will behave the same as a full frame 16-55mm f2.8 lens!

Nerd, I disagree, full frame 24-70 f2.8 lenses and bodies are not dirt cheap in my opinion and I wasn't referring to cost/versatility but to equivalence in terms of weight and focal length and aperture with medium format.
Secondly, I don't believe I am mistaken, this lens behaves the same in terms of depth of field as a full frame 16-55mm f2.8 lens. This another way of looking at it...If you shoot your full frame 24-70 at 55mm f2.8 and look at the subject isolation do you complain/worry about it often....because that's how much separation this Fuji lens will give at its longest focal length... Its still substantial. If you want more subject isolation on your full frame camera at 55mm then buy a cheap 50mm f1.8 prime lens....If you want more subject isolation than this Fuji lens gives at its longest focal length then buy a prime lens. All of these fast zooms are heavy, Nikons 17-55 f2.8 without OIS weighs in at 750g, if this is an issue dont buy it

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 18:36 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens (295 comments in total)

In my opinion there are some people posting who are looking at this lens in the wrong way. There seems to be people who don't feel this is really an f2.8 lens compared to say the canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses and that somehow Fuji are inferior to Canon and Nikon/Sony because of the weight of this lens. If we take that same argument why aren't these people complaining about Canon/Nikon full frame lenses in terms of subject isolation/weight compared to say the equivalent focal length medium format lenses...its the same pointless argument.
Make no mistake this is an f2.8 lens!
Yes in terms of subject isolation it will behave slightly differently to a 24-70 f2.8 full frame lens...The best way to look at it is that it will behave the same as a full frame 16-55mm f2.8 lens!

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 18:02 UTC as 14th comment | 6 replies
On article Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

HiRez: Not sure why all the hate on this lens, it looks like a pretty good package to me for the price. 24mm-84mm equivalent is a good range, 84mm is in the range of a true portrait lens. With most high-end FF zooms you get 24-70. Plus weather sealing and < 1 foot minimum focus. Sure OIS would be nice but it's really not necessary in this focal range, again most comparable FF zooms will not have it either.

Big question for me is how is the performance wide open? It has to be exceptional at 2.8.

Agreed. This lens will produce head and shoulders portraits with less distortion of facial features than a 24-70 with the caveat of less background blur

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 09:21 UTC
In reply to:

jdh99: This is a shocking development and a blow to Sony's E mount. Mount adapters always degrade image quality. Consumers shouldn't expect to have to adapt the mount

Jhinkey, yes to a certain extent adapters (not that this product is, although tampering with the mount could have similar results) will always degrade image quality, whether its perceptible or not depends on a number of factors. You should read this article on the issue for clarification from one of the best lens testing resources on the internet.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

Quezra, I wasnt saying that the mount was the cause of the vibration issues, just another problem altogether on the A7r. Hopefully this together with other issues will be resolved in next generation bodies.

Finally to me it was a shock seeing this since I have never seen such a product before for another other system and I have been considering buying an A7R. Since the consensus seems this is a unnecessary product I am no longer shocked and maybe if Sony iron out a number of other issues in the next gen bodies would seriously consider buying one.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

jdh99: This is a shocking development and a blow to Sony's E mount. Mount adapters always degrade image quality. Consumers shouldn't expect to have to adapt the mount

I haven't had the time to personally conduct or search for surveys on this issue, I have better things to do, clearly fotodiox must be drawing straws in their product design meetings or as you imply this is a dpreview/canon/nikon conspiracy. Products tend to exist for a reason but clearly not in this case.

I'm glad you haven't encountered any issues with telephoto lenses, but since you give your subjective opinion, I have seen substantial evidence in various blogs and forums that there are issues with the A7R and lenses over 100mm (vibration etc) (Sorry I havn't read your report yet). But maybe Im not allowed to mention this since I haven't yet conducted a survey on the issue and I don't own the camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

jdh99: This is a shocking development and a blow to Sony's E mount. Mount adapters always degrade image quality. Consumers shouldn't expect to have to adapt the mount

quezra, Im sorry you seem to have taken my post so personally! Maybe the words I used were a slight exaggeration but I stand by my general point. As a consumer interested in Sony A7 cameras, seeing the announcement of a product like this together with comments from people like Stu5 is concerning. Excuse me if I'm mistaken, Im not an engineer, I don't own this camera and Im not a metal fetishist. Lets put it another way, does Fotodiox make a similar product for nikon and canon mounts? Not that these other companies products have been free from any problems but the fact that a product like this exists suggests there is a problem either with the mount or the camera and that concerns me especially considering we have no heavy 'pro' lenses yet available in FE mount.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

jdh99: This is a shocking development and a blow to Sony's E mount. Mount adapters always degrade image quality. Consumers shouldn't expect to have to adapt the mount

I stand corrected in my terminology but my point is this suggests sony under-engineering the E-mount. Should consumers be expected to adapt/change the lens mount to mount larger lenses on their camera? I personally don't think so.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 13:00 UTC

Just adjust the white balance in post processing. I don't see the need for this except maybe for film shooters

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 11:00 UTC as 22nd comment | 8 replies

This is a shocking development and a blow to Sony's E mount. Mount adapters always degrade image quality. Consumers shouldn't expect to have to adapt the mount

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 10:39 UTC as 77th comment | 12 replies

Looks like this new tc-14iii has limited compatibility! Nikon USA only shows its compatible with the new 400mm and newest 70-200 f2.8. Crap

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2219/AF-S-Teleconverter-TC-14E-III.html

Link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 19:21 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

2PK: ROFLMAO! 3 years ago Sony released the Alpha 850, full frame, 24mp sensor, less than $2000 and barely a word was said apart from a little known Barnaby Britton praising Sony for doing so.

Then Nikon announce the D600 and are heralded as the saviours of the photographic world despite being late to the affordable FF party.

As for the high iso low noise performance there are already cameras out there that cost less and peform as well if not better. So will all the Nikon fanboys put their toys back in the pram and quietly but quickly please leave the buidling, and if the Canon club could just join the tail of the line too please.....

Oops you're right. I meant the opposite. It's been a long day :)

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

2PK: ROFLMAO! 3 years ago Sony released the Alpha 850, full frame, 24mp sensor, less than $2000 and barely a word was said apart from a little known Barnaby Britton praising Sony for doing so.

Then Nikon announce the D600 and are heralded as the saviours of the photographic world despite being late to the affordable FF party.

As for the high iso low noise performance there are already cameras out there that cost less and peform as well if not better. So will all the Nikon fanboys put their toys back in the pram and quietly but quickly please leave the buidling, and if the Canon club could just join the tail of the line too please.....

Whether or not this actually matters to you depends on whether or not you shoot raw, shoot at high iso or shoot big prints etc. The OMD is an awesome camera and may well suit your needs perfectly irrelevant of the above.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

2PK: ROFLMAO! 3 years ago Sony released the Alpha 850, full frame, 24mp sensor, less than $2000 and barely a word was said apart from a little known Barnaby Britton praising Sony for doing so.

Then Nikon announce the D600 and are heralded as the saviours of the photographic world despite being late to the affordable FF party.

As for the high iso low noise performance there are already cameras out there that cost less and peform as well if not better. So will all the Nikon fanboys put their toys back in the pram and quietly but quickly please leave the buidling, and if the Canon club could just join the tail of the line too please.....

Comparing RAW at ISO 6400 the nikon D600 enjoys around a 2 stop noise advantage over the OMD. In other words in RAW, the nikon d600 at ISO 1600, performs about the same in terms of noise as the OMD at ISO 6400. Look at the graph, the noise on the y axis, the ISO on the x axis and extrapolate the line across. This applies to all aspects of noise dpreview meaure: grey noise/black noise/chroma noise
This is also backed up by the in studio photos posted a few days ago on this site. Particularly look in the shadow areas around the cotton reels as these areas reveal the most noise.

These graphs only look at noise at 100%. This doesnt take into account the loss in dynamic range the smaller sensor cameras will loose as well as the fact that the nikon has more megapixels so downsampled to lower resolutions it will look even better. The canon 5dmkiii will show a similar performance to the nikon vs other micro 4/3 cameras ie OMD
I dont consder that a marginal difference but a very signifcant one

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

2PK: ROFLMAO! 3 years ago Sony released the Alpha 850, full frame, 24mp sensor, less than $2000 and barely a word was said apart from a little known Barnaby Britton praising Sony for doing so.

Then Nikon announce the D600 and are heralded as the saviours of the photographic world despite being late to the affordable FF party.

As for the high iso low noise performance there are already cameras out there that cost less and peform as well if not better. So will all the Nikon fanboys put their toys back in the pram and quietly but quickly please leave the buidling, and if the Canon club could just join the tail of the line too please.....

The fuji is a great camera no doubt. Its sensor performs brilliantly, its not cheap though especially considering its limitations. If you dont need DSLR and the advantages that a dslr system brings then its a wonderful camera.

I find your second comparison laughable. So your trying to say the omd and pentax k-01 and sony cybershot has lower noise than a full frame dslr. I can see youve carefull screwed the results ie JPEG only and only chroma noise.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

jdh99: D600 looks great in RAW at high ISO. To my eyes equals if not betters 5dmiii which costs $1400 more. Combine that with amazing dynamic range and you have an amazing product.

The JPEG performance at high ISO isnt as good as the RAW. I get the impression Nikon purposely does that to ensure the D800 and d4 remain top of the pile. Most online comparisons only look at JPEG noise which is meaningless to most shooters who use RAW converters

Yep but it's nice to see the differences with ones own eyes. DXO sensor ratings are questionable.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: It is interesting to compare the RAW images of the D600 to the D3200 using the dpr tool

Up to ISO 800 I doubt anyone could tell the difference in an actual photo and that is without having to spend ages using post processing to get the best out of the D3200 image. At ISO1600 there is clearly more noise in the D3200 shot but the detail is still there some with so post processing I think once again you would have a hard time telling the output apart in an actual photo.

I am sure there must be some people who shoot above ISO 1600 all the time but not many.

Therefore I think people should evaluate why they want a FF camera on more issues than high ISO noise. There are certainly valid reasons to go the FF route (e.g. DOF , gain at the wide angle end) but also valid reasons to stick with aps-c (e.g crop factor makes wildlife photography much cheaper lens-wise, often much faster frame rates).

Obsessing about noise if you rarely shoot above 1600 is nuts - and costly kit-wise.

Agreed but Id expect the D600 RAW files at low ISOs to have much more dynamic range and lower noise base so that lifting shadows etc would give superior results.

Just upgrading for resolution wouldnt make much sense considering the cost. Theres lots of other advantages to going to FF but also some disadvantages like you say

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 14:38 UTC

D600 looks great in RAW at high ISO. To my eyes equals if not betters 5dmiii which costs $1400 more. Combine that with amazing dynamic range and you have an amazing product.

The JPEG performance at high ISO isnt as good as the RAW. I get the impression Nikon purposely does that to ensure the D800 and d4 remain top of the pile. Most online comparisons only look at JPEG noise which is meaningless to most shooters who use RAW converters

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 14:27 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20