PIX 2015
nicolaiecostel

nicolaiecostel

Lives in Romania Timisoara, Romania
Works as a photographer
Joined on Aug 16, 2011

Comments

Total: 405, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

neil holmes: It is getting an E mount?
Sorry....could not help it.

Sir, you don't understand the meaning of electromagnetic aperture. It's not a magnet that holds the lens, it's a little electromagnet inside it that closes the aperture upon release.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 22:35 UTC

"without much hunting" while testing the sony.

Why is the test not ok ?

a) the lens on the Sony is a 35 mm, giving more DOF than the 50 on the DSLR's
b) the lens on the Sony is a genuine lens while the DSLR's are tested with a Sigma lens

Yes, it's impressive that the little guy focuses precisely in such low light. But other than that, there really isn't much to draw from this.

If you like it, go get it, it will be great. Just don't make this into what it is not.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 12:07 UTC as 68th comment | 5 replies

Cool story, bro !

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 08:45 UTC as 61st comment
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: The 7DII is a great, great camera. DPR showed its "toys for boys" colourful candy bias when it scored the camera low. Next time how about throwing actual field photographers a bone when reviewing stuff, DPR?

It has an outdated and outperformed sensor. The fact that it has won is due to the fact that Nikon did not put out a similar product.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 00:45 UTC
In reply to:

En Trance: Are there any European Camera Manufacturers???

Leica, Phase One, Hasselblad, Sinar. The really high end ones.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

tecnoworld: Interesting. No prize for samsung nx1. Perhaps they didn't know of its existence.

It's not an important camera, just another Samsung down the pipes.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

volks 1: The 24mm lens should make a nice 36mm lens for DX.

The canon is 105 grams for a tiny little crop lens, this full frame "gigantic" Nikon is 355 grams, a whole 250 grams heavier than that little canon lens. To put it in perspective, a canon 50 1.4, which is a small lens, is 60 grams lighter than this "gigantic" Nikon.

Is it expensive ? Well, the price will certainly go down to around 650-700 dollars, probably. At 750 launch price I wouldn't call it expensive for what it is, but it's certainly expensive if you only want a 35 milllimeter equivalent for crop.

Why are we saying you shouldn't compare it to that small Canon ? Because this is a lens with a different target. You can do 65 miles an hour with a Honda Jazz and with a Ford Mustang, but if you want a car to comute at work doing 65 on a motorway, you shouldn't dismiss the Ford in favor of the lighter, cheaper and more economic Jazz. Compare apples with apples or just accept the differences and move on.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 23:17 UTC
In reply to:

topstuff: If Sigma bring out a 24-70 2.8 ART lens with VR soon they will sweep up, if they price it aggressively and the quality is there. This Nikon looks great but super expensive. Maybe it will be discounted. But there is an opportunity for Sigma I would think..

Nikon glass will always be superior to Sigma. There is a reason why a Nikon costs twice as much and it's not all in the branding. I have the Sigma 85 f/1.4 but given the money and if not for the trippy AF, I'd take the Nikon 85 f/1.4 G anyday of the week because of the color it renders, the contrast.

Sure, the Sigma is sharp and has very little chromatic aberation but it fails to impress with colors, bokeh, contrast, like all other Sigma lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

volks 1: The 24mm lens should make a nice 36mm lens for DX.

So now we're comparing a f/1.8 full frame lens to a f/2 lens for crop ? Sheesh ..

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: A few years ago I almost bought a 70-200 VR 1 from a photographer friend and talking about gear he told me he was quite desperate about the 24-70. He repaired more than one copy for the approximate cost of 1000 US dollars/lens because the lens zoom would jam at 35 mm. Also, the repair was done in Germany, I think, because our country didn't have such a qualified service.

I seem to recall that this was a problem back in the day and is the reason I never considered a 24-70 and the reason why the 28-70 still sells at high prices.

On the other hand, Nikon putting VR, 82 mm filter and 500 dollar bump in the 24-70 VR is not good news.

I want nikon to:
- release an update to the 135 f/2
- release an update to the 16 fisheye
- release a new 100 f/2
- rethink the 50 f/1.4 G as this one is flawed and it gives me 2/10 weirdly misfocused images
- rethink their autofocus strategy because it's too jumpy, going from perfect focus to hunting for better focus for sh*ts and giggles.

It would be rather silly from me to complain about the jumping Af while shooting in AF-C, wouldn't it have been ?

I was. off-course, talking about taking pictures in single AF, when I'm taking group pictures at the wedding, I'm getting full lock on the focus, I take 2 or three pictures with the focus point in the same place and one of them or more, with the 50 1.4 , is slightly out of focus. My Sigma 85 1.4 does not do that and from the tests I made, the 85 1.4 AFs Nikon does the same, so the 35 1.4, but at a slightly lesser extent.

The 50 1.4, however, drives me nuts because of this. AF-S on the D700, btw, and I'm far from being a beginner.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:46 UTC

A few years ago I almost bought a 70-200 VR 1 from a photographer friend and talking about gear he told me he was quite desperate about the 24-70. He repaired more than one copy for the approximate cost of 1000 US dollars/lens because the lens zoom would jam at 35 mm. Also, the repair was done in Germany, I think, because our country didn't have such a qualified service.

I seem to recall that this was a problem back in the day and is the reason I never considered a 24-70 and the reason why the 28-70 still sells at high prices.

On the other hand, Nikon putting VR, 82 mm filter and 500 dollar bump in the 24-70 VR is not good news.

I want nikon to:
- release an update to the 135 f/2
- release an update to the 16 fisheye
- release a new 100 f/2
- rethink the 50 f/1.4 G as this one is flawed and it gives me 2/10 weirdly misfocused images
- rethink their autofocus strategy because it's too jumpy, going from perfect focus to hunting for better focus for sh*ts and giggles.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 05:10 UTC as 96th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: "At least for the first few years of its production, the older 24-70mm F2.8 was notorious for cracking rubber around the zoom ring, and for the zoom barrel jamming."

That's the first time I've ever heard of those issues. Sounds like hyperbole.

I had a photographer friend who was quite desperate about the 24-70 a few years ago. He repaired more than one copy for the aproximative cost of 1000 US dollars because the lens zoom would jam at 35 mm.

I seem to recall that this was a problem back in the day and is the reason I never considered a 24-70 and the reason why the 28-70 still sells at high prices.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 05:05 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

mgm2: These images are indeed nice, but quite frankly I am not sure they are better that what I get with my Pentax K3 and the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro.

I seem to recall Canon and Sony also cheating on the ISO for certain cameras in the past. All in all, if the lens in f/2 vs. f/2.8, and assuming that the T stops are still one stop apart, you do get 1 stop of ISO extra with the Fuji.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 13:28 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

wandiba56: As of now I know no camera that can produce colours as striking as Fuji’s...Bar none, Fuji gives the best colours one can ever imagine. And I have used far more expensive, much more popular and higher megapixel capturing devices yet I dare say they all come short to meet the exquisiteness of Fuji colours...Well done!!

I have a strong feeling these shots were not taken by Rishi...

The age old Fuji argument. Look at that dynamic range, look at those colors.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 07:47 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

mgm2: These images are indeed nice, but quite frankly I am not sure they are better that what I get with my Pentax K3 and the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro.

Well you get one extra stop of light, that's for sure.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 01:43 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: These Fujinon lenses never fail to amaze me. The images they produce put Nikon and Canon to shame. I was thinking of migrating to Samsung or Sony, but I may just stay with Fuji forever.

Canon and Nikon lenses are amazing. In fact, 50 years old Nikon lenses are amazing (don't know much about old canons). Just because an expensive fuji lens is better than a bargain nikon or canon lens doesn't mean fuji puts them to shame.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: After seeing all the samples at 100% I can say that this is a pretty decent lens, a 7.5/10. It really shines between f8-f11 but at wider apertures it shows some flaws like edge softness and quite visible chromatic aberation, mainly green and purple fringes.

Close up shots at 80 mm are quite useless unless you want soft, fuzzy pictures.

Shooting with the sun in the shot also doesn't do the lens any favors, decreasing the contrast and showing iregular flare.

I'm a prime shooter so this has no appeal to me but for others it might just be what they were waiting for.

The Pentax 16-85 seems ok but after looking at all the photozone samples, I wasn't blown away by the sharpness, especially wide open where there is also some green fringe. And bare in mind it was tested on a 16 Mp camera, not 24, and it's half a stop darker on wide and a full stop darker on tele.

I guess that this kind of ~5x zoom is a bit of a compromise, as good as it will be, it won't be perfect, so you'll either have to settle with a little lower quality in the corners and edges at wide apertures or a little more careful shooting at darker apertures.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 22:15 UTC

After seeing all the samples at 100% I can say that this is a pretty decent lens, a 7.5/10. It really shines between f8-f11 but at wider apertures it shows some flaws like edge softness and quite visible chromatic aberation, mainly green and purple fringes.

Close up shots at 80 mm are quite useless unless you want soft, fuzzy pictures.

Shooting with the sun in the shot also doesn't do the lens any favors, decreasing the contrast and showing iregular flare.

I'm a prime shooter so this has no appeal to me but for others it might just be what they were waiting for.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 20:30 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies

Really sharp but the edges show very high levels of CA, the kind that can't be fixed. Usable at f/2 without problems but still, why24-35 ? It's not like it's optically perfect, it's a little flawed and heavy enough, they should have gone for 20-35 or 24-40.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 20:59 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
On RS_Sigma24-35_1C3A7915-24mm-F2 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

OMG, just look at the color noise in her hair and on his face. ISO6400 like.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 20:17 UTC as 1st comment
Total: 405, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »