qwertyasdf

Joined on Sep 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 555, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article 2016 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (193 comments in total)

Whenever friends or relatives consult me on which mirrorless camera to buy, I usually reject their idea, and offer them my rule of thumb:

If you plan to buy less than 3 lenses, stick with a high quality compact camera, they are freaking good nowadays.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 12:30 UTC as 50th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: Wow, I'm totally impressed, they listened to their customers (complaints), and solved the poor LCD problem of the M9!!!

They can proudly proclaim: The problem is now gone!!!

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 10:59 UTC

Wow, I'm totally impressed, they listened to their customers (complaints), and solved the poor LCD problem of the M9!!!

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 09:13 UTC as 118th comment | 1 reply
On article The Canon that can: Canon EOS 80D Review (538 comments in total)

Reviews nowadays have a strong focus on DR, but this leaves me wondering, if this metric is so important, the Fujifilm EXR cameras of the bygone era should have been much much more popular that it was!

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 19:09 UTC as 134th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Toselli: "...offers stabilization, 1:1 magnification and focusing as close as 13.9cm/5.5in"
Isn't the normal distance for 1:1 magnification of lenses around 100mm of about 30 cm? Does this lens reduce the effective focal length when focusing close or is it calculated from the front of the lens instead of the focus plane?

I think 13.9cm/5.5in is the minimum WORKING distance, which is different from the minimum focus distance, which manufacturers list by convention.
MFD is distance from subject to focal plane (the sensor), MWD is distance from subject to the front element, which arguably is the more useful and convenient figure.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1111 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlliHjelm: (Sorry, my other post did not post correctly. Here it goes again) :)

Nice review and well balanced. Agree with most of the cons, which are all of them fixable with a new firmward.

My humble Leica Q review:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57449082

Yes, the Q is an amazing pice of machinery. Bravo Leica!

After reading your review, I honestly think that the photographer is what matters most :) Awesome photos!

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 04:03 UTC

Best thing I like is that they offer two versions, a tough version and a lightweight version!

Hope other manufacturers can do the same, because there are many people (like me) whom just take good care of their lenses, not even a scratch after years of use. I'd rather sacrifice sturdiness to bring a few extra lenses!

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 03:55 UTC as 21st comment

Need to consult an equivalency troll....cough...cough...um...i mean expert on how these cut up lenses work.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2016 at 16:02 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Ilia Snopchenko: "It's got 32 elements in 18 groups." (slide 7)
Looks like someone was a little bit too excited while typing. :) Looks more like 23 to me (which is the same as the similar Canon lens).

Though I wonder what lens could have 32 elements - I think 23-24 is as much as we're getting in consumer products now. :)

I can only count 22 elements in 17 groups lolll

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2016 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: The sensor size between the APSC and APSH body is very small!
23.5×15.5mm vs 26.6×17.9mm

The sensor size of Canon 1D is 27.9 x 18.6. So the Quattro H would probably give a crop factor larger than 1.3x

Interested to see if this is deliberate, if it might be that a lot of APSC lenses have an image circle around the size of the sensor inside the Quattro H.

By larger...1.4 is larger than 1.3....and so on

The spec does list it as 1.3x, but precisely, it's 1.349x....so marginally correct to be rounded to 1.3x lollll
The APSC model's crop factor is 1.536x, so the difference is only 0.187x

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 21:11 UTC

The sensor size between the APSC and APSH body is very small!
23.5×15.5mm vs 26.6×17.9mm

The sensor size of Canon 1D is 27.9 x 18.6. So the Quattro H would probably give a crop factor larger than 1.3x

Interested to see if this is deliberate, if it might be that a lot of APSC lenses have an image circle around the size of the sensor inside the Quattro H.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 10:58 UTC as 62nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Nick Spiker: It's too bad really, you've taken a SLR flange distance, but not given us the benefit of a mirror. So now we have to use the screen and have to use Sigma lenses. It's a sub frame camera, with a full frame size mount, so now we've wasted the extra area with a crop factor.
Good job :(
Don't get me wrong, I love the Foveon design, I even have a SD-14, but can we please get a full frame with a short flange distance?

"The further flange distance however makes it easier to create lenses"

This is totally untrue, for shorter flange distances, a lens manufacture can always add in extra distance by extending the lens tube. But it can't be done the other way.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: 700 grs for a 1.8 85...

To put it into perceptive, the canon 85/1.8 USM is 425g, and nobody complained about its build quality, adding to that it's by no means a bad performer.

85mm is not a typical walk around lens....true. This make things even worse lol....if I were to bring a secondary lens, I'd think twice before taking a 700g lens that I may or may not use.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 00:18 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: And I thought the previous Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro VC was very good already...I doubt the need for an update...

As a very experienced macro shooter, I'd much rather see something like a 150mm f4 Macro IS lens, that is light. I shoot 99% of my macro pictures at f8 or above anyways. (I think all serious macro shooters do too)

But anyways, such a lens would be too niche....

Yea....hope it's just a cosmetic makeover, really don't want Tamron to waste R&D resources.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

Daft Punk: Come on Tamron - Pentax K fit please.

I want to get a K1. So hurry up, make some K fit primes and take my money.

They would probably add a Pentax label together with a nice price premium.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 12:18 UTC
In reply to:

bakhtyar kurdi: What is wrong with their (now old) Tamron 90 2.8 VC?
it is still the king of Macro lenses at 90-105 range, smallest and lightest and most affordable.
The only thing I think of is for some reason it is not selling very well, marketing problem, probably people mix it with older versions.

I don't think a macro lens would ever be a hot seller....
Tamron's 60mm f2 macro was also very good, and could replace a 50mm f1.8....it was potentially a good seller, but I think the marketing flopped for that lens though.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 11:49 UTC

And I thought the previous Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro VC was very good already...I doubt the need for an update...

As a very experienced macro shooter, I'd much rather see something like a 150mm f4 Macro IS lens, that is light. I shoot 99% of my macro pictures at f8 or above anyways. (I think all serious macro shooters do too)

But anyways, such a lens would be too niche....

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 11:31 UTC as 36th comment | 5 replies
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (616 comments in total)

Congratulations to all Pentax users!
Still i think pentax should go mirrorless, judging the strengths, they are THE BEST in making small and high quality primes. Small prime +mirrorless FF would attract crowds of photographers. On the other hand, lets be honest, their AF is lagging behind the competition for decades literally, so their DSLR has little advantage over a mirrorless with decent EVF.

P.s. I absolutely hate my A7r, I rly want an alternative other than Sony :(

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 05:47 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

greypixelz: Bad Sigma!
Build the 16-300/1.2!
Stop kidding us around, Sigma!

Ain't good enough, I would still need to bag an extra 8mm fisheye in case I need it.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 04:08 UTC

This lens is exquisite yet impractical.
One can bag a Canon 50/1.8 STM + 85/1.8 USM at 160g + 425g = 585g
Both decent performers, fast focusing and cover FF.

If the convenience of a zoom is necessary, which usually means sports, the 100mm FL is lacking.

I do own the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, and I've found a sweet spot of using it on a 1D APSH body, 1.3x crop. Usable from ~20mm giving me a 23-45mm, with F2.3 DOF equiv. giving me better subject separation than even a zoom on FF.
I would never us it on an APSC body though, I'd rather bring a 6D + 24-70mm f2.8.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 04:06 UTC as 54th comment | 2 replies
Total: 555, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »