Astrotripper

Astrotripper

Joined on Jul 12, 2013

Comments

Total: 98, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 article (378 comments in total)

Looks really nice. And I mean both physically (I like this new design a lot more than G6), and in terms of capabilities. For $799, this is a bargain.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 13:17 UTC as 83rd comment
On Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses article (259 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: The 8mm FE is announced at $999. Currently the Samyang MF 7.5mm 2.8 FE is available for less than £200. I have the Samyang and it's excellent. It should be pretty obvious that if there's one lens that doesn't really need AF, it's an FE.
Save yourselves lots of money unless you're planning to shoot goodness knows what, with an FE, in the rain.

I also have a Samyang 7.5mm. Great lens, but it's f/3.5 and is prone to flaring. I would exchange it for the new Olympus in a heartbeat if I could afford it. Not for the AF, but for f/1.8 and flare control.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 07:15 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Not worth the money if comparing to a FF lens. Nikon sells the 20 f1.8 cheaper and is rumored to have a 24 mm f 1.8 on the way which should be even cheaper yet and have better depth of field control.

Well, 28/1.8 is even cheaper, so is 35/1.8. But if I wanted or needed 24mm equivalent FOV, I would NOT be buying any of those. So really, that argument is just silly. At least compare something that will give similar results.

Even more silly is the notion that Fuji users should care about rumors of some Nikon lens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 08:15 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Not worth the money if comparing to a FF lens. Nikon sells the 20 f1.8 cheaper and is rumored to have a 24 mm f 1.8 on the way which should be even cheaper yet and have better depth of field control.

But this is not a 20mm equivalent FOV, so what are you comparing and why?

And I fail to see how non-existent Nikon lens makes this Fujinon not worth the money for Fuji users.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 07:54 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Weird, surprisingly sensible price. It is significantly cheaper than Canon and Nikon full-frame wides (although those have a benefit of extra shallow DOF, which is probably not a big deal for most users), and only $150 more expensive than the new Sigma. So that looks like a pretty good deal, assuming it performs well.

It even looks better considering that APS-C DSLR users' only option is manual Samyang 16/2. And I don't think any other mirrorless system has a 24mm equivalent that is so fast.

So, good for Fuji users, their system is shaping up nicely.

Which is exactly the reason why I wrote it's not a big deal for most uses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 07:47 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)

Weird, surprisingly sensible price. It is significantly cheaper than Canon and Nikon full-frame wides (although those have a benefit of extra shallow DOF, which is probably not a big deal for most users), and only $150 more expensive than the new Sigma. So that looks like a pretty good deal, assuming it performs well.

It even looks better considering that APS-C DSLR users' only option is manual Samyang 16/2. And I don't think any other mirrorless system has a 24mm equivalent that is so fast.

So, good for Fuji users, their system is shaping up nicely.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 06:50 UTC as 42nd comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

The Squire: The camera the Canon XC10 *should* have been.

EDIT: I take that back. I love this as a GoPro replacement but was expecting it to be more of a system camera, able to mount a screen, grip etc. So, nice action cam but not as versatile as a XC10. And no 4K?

4K is available on Micro Studio Camera 4K: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicmicrostudiocamera4k

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 08:44 UTC

"We don’t feel we have more FX than DX products now"

LOL, they don't feel? And now I have this feeling that all single digit numbers are bigger than two and three digit numbers. Now, if only I could find someone who feels the same way, I'd happily do business with them.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 10:55 UTC as 78th comment
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)

Interesting points on convergence, can't disagree here.

But the thing is, XC10 does not exist in a vacuum. And it's kind of an odd ball. I refrain from final judgment until Panasonic's NAB announcements.

And I do have a feeling that we'll see some stuff at NAB that will make XC10 look rather bland and pricey proposition. We'll see soon.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 19:31 UTC as 221st comment
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.
The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.

@LegacyGT

Yeah, DSLRs can be tricky in this regard. I made my first steps with a DSLR and it was indeed a major pain. Now, with Olympus, I have it easy with live view boost and x14 view magnification.

Also, when stopping down, watch out for shifting focus. Some lenses that exhibit spherical aberration will change focus point as you stop down. So you might get your focus perfect, but once you stop it down, it all goes to waste. I always fine tune with DOF preview engaged (if not shooting wide open).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.
The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.

@ManuelVilardeMacedo

Well, you are the only one here who talks about bokeh and refuses to accept the fact that large aperture lenses can have different uses than for achieving bokeh or shallow DOF. This can only be explained by some kind of obsession with bokeh, really. The fact that you're projecting makes it even more obvious.

And you do realize that with this lens, even at f/1, everything from 8 meters to infinity will be in focus, right?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 17:26 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.
The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.

@ManuelVilardeMacedo

It's pretty clear that the only person here suffering from bokeh mania is you.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 08:58 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.
The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.

@LegacyGT

I would personally be using this lens predominantly for nightscapes, with focus at infinity to show starry sky. And with Live View Boost turned on, manually focusing on stars is trivial.

f/0.95 might be a bit too much, but not because of thin DOF. At 10.5mm, hyperfocal distance is just couple of meters in front of you, even wide open. So unless you have something in the foreground that you'd like to have tack sharp, DOF should not be an issue.

But I'm pretty sure it would need stopping down to at least f/1.2 or 1.4, but that's to reduce vignetting and aberrations and improve sharpness.

But really, we'll only know once it hits the shelves and people start shooting with it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

micke69: Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical is $569

Well, that's great, but you need a Full-Frame DSLR to use it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 23:25 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.
The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.

Have you ever tried shooting the Milky Way at f/22?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 22:59 UTC

With this price tag, lets hope that corner performance is at least on the level of their 42.5, which was significantly better than 25 and 17.5 up to f/1.4.

And I want to see some serious sample photos.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 22:56 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies

Great video. Very well done and informative at the same time. Nice to see the camera in action.

Great job. Hope to see more videos of this quality from you guys.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 15:57 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

Astrotripper: "We also want to add some more reasonably-priced lenses for entry-level users, similar to the 45mm F1.8 - we’re looking into this now. "

Yeah, that'd be nice, but I wonder if it's not too late for that. MFT has already earned a reputation for being on the expensive side, at least in some regions. Excluding body caps, 45/1.8 and 17/2.8 are the only affordable primes here. From zoom lenses, 40-150 is the only good value proposition. All other lenses are either expensive (some rightly so) or just ridiculously overpriced.

And there's still no middle ground zoom in MFT. You either stay with the kit lens, or have to pay serious money for large and heavy f/2.8 PRO zoom. I still can't understand why we don't have a f/2.8-4.0 zoom.

Not here where I live, and that's the point. I don't care what Americans pay for those lenses, I'm not in US. That's why I wrote "at least in some regions".

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: "We also want to add some more reasonably-priced lenses for entry-level users, similar to the 45mm F1.8 - we’re looking into this now. "

Yeah, that'd be nice, but I wonder if it's not too late for that. MFT has already earned a reputation for being on the expensive side, at least in some regions. Excluding body caps, 45/1.8 and 17/2.8 are the only affordable primes here. From zoom lenses, 40-150 is the only good value proposition. All other lenses are either expensive (some rightly so) or just ridiculously overpriced.

And there's still no middle ground zoom in MFT. You either stay with the kit lens, or have to pay serious money for large and heavy f/2.8 PRO zoom. I still can't understand why we don't have a f/2.8-4.0 zoom.

@Impulses

Yes, I'm only talking about Olympus here. 25/1.8 is around 60% more expensive than 45/1.8 here where I live. Not something I'd call a good deal, especially considering that DSLR users get 50/1.4 for less money. So, instead of buying Olympus 25/1.8, I bought Sigma DP2 Merrill just to have the "standard" focal length. Paid roughly the same.

And my use of words "good value" was unfortunate. I meant affordable. I actually think Olympus provides good value at the high-end, with PRO lenses for example. Those are expensive, but for what they are, they are worth it. But I'm not a pro and I can't justify such huge expenses on lenses. And Olympus does not offer me much.

And note I wrote "at least in some regions". I can see that the prices in US for example look a bit differently.

And I don't particularly care for other systems. I know Fuji is expensive, that's why I never considered buying into it. I'm using MFT and I just wished I'd had a bit more choice of affordable lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 19:53 UTC

"We also want to add some more reasonably-priced lenses for entry-level users, similar to the 45mm F1.8 - we’re looking into this now. "

Yeah, that'd be nice, but I wonder if it's not too late for that. MFT has already earned a reputation for being on the expensive side, at least in some regions. Excluding body caps, 45/1.8 and 17/2.8 are the only affordable primes here. From zoom lenses, 40-150 is the only good value proposition. All other lenses are either expensive (some rightly so) or just ridiculously overpriced.

And there's still no middle ground zoom in MFT. You either stay with the kit lens, or have to pay serious money for large and heavy f/2.8 PRO zoom. I still can't understand why we don't have a f/2.8-4.0 zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 18:26 UTC as 40th comment | 6 replies
Total: 98, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »