abortabort

abortabort

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 1259, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

abortabort: The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.

End of discussion because DPR changed the text. They changed it for a reason after the point was raised, end of discussion.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.

Oh that's rich :P

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 16:08 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.

@ Thorgrem - Understand that not everything is about you.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.

@ ThePhilips - "Nowhere, NOWHERE, DPR said that the Oly 4.0/300mm is equivalent to FF's 4.0/600mm. It has only said/implied that FOV is equivalent to that of 600mm on FF."

It originally said 600mm f4. It was then changed AND I put a follow up post directly below my OP...

So SETTLE yourself

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 13:25 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.

Thanks I see it has been changed to the more diplomatic text that you used for the 7-14mm :)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 10:02 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: DPR - does the Air have IBIS?

Thanks Barney, that's a shame.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 10:00 UTC

DPR - does the Air have IBIS?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 09:33 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies

The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 09:33 UTC as 23rd comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

nikonson: Rich man's lens: FE 90mm/F2.8 = $1,500
Poor man's lens 1: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.7 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4
Poor man's lens 2: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.4 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4

"That Sony 85mm may not work full frame as the Maxxum 50mm. If it's APSC then the FL is 85mmX1.5"

I think you may be confused how this works. IF it were an APS-C lens it would still be an 85mm lens regardless of what sensor you put behind it, it would only be 85mm x 1.5 IF you used it on an APS-C body, the same could be said about a 50mm with teleconverter.

However the 85mm IS a FF lens, is small, light, sharp and inexpensive. Build is low, but what does one expect? It is considerably smaller and lighter than this macro because it isn't a macro (well 0.25x magnification).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 06:44 UTC
In reply to:

nikonson: Rich man's lens: FE 90mm/F2.8 = $1,500
Poor man's lens 1: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.7 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4
Poor man's lens 2: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.4 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4

Poor man's lens, Sony 85mm f2.8 - 170g, less than $200 most of the time. Much better than clunky 50mm plus adapter.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 02:39 UTC
In reply to:

art99: I would have expected to see a 24-150 constant aperture like 3.5 or 4

They already have a 28-135mm f4.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: Wow, I bet that 28mm + 21mm adapter is heavier, more expensive, and WAY less sharp than the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G. Further proof that Sony's business tactic is STILL to just throw BS at the wall and see what sticks...

Yes, but the 28mm + 21mm adapter is a LOT smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Nikon 20mm f1.8G + 28mm f1.8G.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 23:49 UTC
In reply to:

Linerider: These look like great lenses!!
Now all Sony needs is to make a FF camera with "decent" battery life and im sold

It depends much more on 'how' you use the battery. I have shot 1300+ frames on a single battery on my A7S while using a mixture of native and A-Mount lenses. Today I shot much fewer frames, but a battery lasted about 70-80% of a day of shooting all day, again mixed. Second battery barely got used. The batteries are tiny and a second or fifth one is very little bother. If I had used the grip I probably wouldn't have needed a battery change at all.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 13:33 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jokica: Old news. That sensor is presented in August 2010.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html

Don't worry though, in another 5 years they will wheel out their (by then) forgotten 2MP super high sensitivity sensor as 'proof' that they are still working over there ;)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 10:14 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

AEY: 2010 Prototype..................... NOW
2015 >>>>>>>>............... STILL "PROTOTYPE" Ha Ha Ha.

I was about to say the same thing. Sounds like they just wheeled out an old prototype to show they are still doing something...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 10:12 UTC

Actually think that 24-240mm would be quite at home on the A7S which with its 'easy to please' pixel density and high ISO abilities covers a huge range in a still really usable package that will work perfectly well in most lighting. Keen to try one of these out (it's not a typically desirable lens on paper, but I already know I can shoot just fine in any lighting with the 70-200mm f4, I don't think this will struggle to resolve the sensor so it is actually pretty interesting). Just about any lens is good on the A7S so the fact this has a pretty darn useful zoom range makes it quite appealing.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 10:08 UTC as 96th comment
In reply to:

Treeshade: G3X is a bit taller than G7X (60mm tall). If they use the same LCD, then I guess the filter thread of G3X is about 55mm. 600mm equivalent is 222mm for 1-inch sensor. 222/55=4. The F/stop value is at most 4.

But consider FZ1000 (another 1-inch superzoom), which uses 62mm filter, is only F/4 at 400mm (max 2.4 in theory, but in practice the lens barrel has zoom and focus parts). If we assume the same ratio (60%), then the F/stop value is about 6.7. Seems a bit slow even for 600mm equivalent.

Dude, filter thread isn't aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

McBrian: Yet another Pentax article that can't be written without a childish barb,

Did DPR fling a barb at Sony when they showed their new lens mockup models?

Sad really.

Perhaps you could kindly ask Barbara to remove her veil if it bothers you so? Just don't become a wedding photographer ;)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 15:06 UTC
In reply to:

KL Matt: Dream come true. But why is the 35 in Pentax mount, but the 24 isn't????

You would think pentax and Sony would be a priority due to their respective lack of a 24mm f1.4 (Sony at least has the very good f2).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
In reply to:

DavidNJ100: My question: does the 150-600 contemporary feature microfocus adjustmant and customization via the USB dock?

All global vision lenses do.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 05:52 UTC
Total: 1259, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »