Vitruvius

Joined on Aug 12, 2011

Comments

Total: 196, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Leandros S: Yeah, well, we need a Pentax mount version of this lens. Whether it be from Tamron or Pentax, same difference really.

@ Tonio - I think brendon means that if Pentax made a lens with the same specs it would be more expensive.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

dlkeller: B&H doesn't list VC as one of the features in the Sony version. If this is true Sony A mount users are being screwed again. Hope it isn't true as it looks like a lens I would buy--but not if VC is left of my version.

I agree. I have the A77 and I have to pay the same price for every lens if I want the most recent optics even though I don't get the VC in the lens. In general Optically Stabilised lenses are much more than the non-OS. It is implied that this cost it most due to the VC and the VC technology. So if the Sony version doesn't include any of this then why is it the same price. I agree, we are kind of getting screwed. At least I have added a custom edited EXIF AF confirm chip to my manual focus lenses for about $20 and they become image stabilized. Something Canon and Nikon users can't do. So you got to take the good with the bad.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

hires: $1069. This thing is going to get wriiten up in no time. The low price could mean that it can't stand up against a Canon 400L. Maybe it will put a little pressure on Canon to stabilize the 400 5.6L.

Looks like it kicks the Canon L butt even without the VC turned on here:
http://camahoy.com/

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

Ikeepem: I'm going with the old saying if it sounds too good to be true...well you should know the rest...

Looks like your wrong this time....
http://camahoy.com/

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

Photowyzard: If the optics and IQ are as good as I expect, this will be the "next" lens in everyones kit. I can hardly wait to see what type of image this Tamron delivers for $1200.

Answer to your question is Yes. Not only does it "trump" it, but it destroys it in every way for less money PLUS ZOOM!

http://camahoy.com/

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 15:06 UTC

Looks like this is even better than the Canon 400mm f5.6 L USM at the same 400mm f5.6

AND it is a zoom that goes all the way from 150 to 600 at the same time as having higher IQ.

http://camahoy.com/

Wow, and only $1069

AF speed also seems to be much faster than the Sigma 150-500 HSM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZX9oy6a7OE

Love to see this DxO Marked. Glad Sigma and Tamron are forcing Canon and Nikon to get off their ASSets

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 14:58 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Homemade rig captures extreme macro shots of snowflakes (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: Very inspiring. Not sure how to "zoom in" a prime lens but will try it some time. I tested the lens reversing idea once and found that the wider the focal length the higher the magnification. So with my 16-50mm reversed at 16mm I got a single letter on a coin full frame (APS-C). And that was with the front of the lens right tight to the camera. Now I am inspired to build a marco tube. Thanks! Awesome. Also proves you don't need the best equipment.

Ahhh! I didn't think about the camera had a zoom lens as well. Thanks for clarifying.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2013 at 00:43 UTC
On article Homemade rig captures extreme macro shots of snowflakes (186 comments in total)

Very inspiring. Not sure how to "zoom in" a prime lens but will try it some time. I tested the lens reversing idea once and found that the wider the focal length the higher the magnification. So with my 16-50mm reversed at 16mm I got a single letter on a coin full frame (APS-C). And that was with the front of the lens right tight to the camera. Now I am inspired to build a marco tube. Thanks! Awesome. Also proves you don't need the best equipment.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2013 at 21:46 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies

Same story from Sigma over and over. Must have replaced some of their software staff with optical designers because they sure are good optically for the price.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2013 at 18:34 UTC as 14th comment

Holy Crap! I am actually really impressed with how well the RX1 does against the others at "only" 24 MP against the two with 33% more resolution. Check out the lock of hair. Wow.

Is that a superior lens resolution issue?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2013 at 23:05 UTC as 6th comment
On article Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology (314 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: It makes perfect sense that the filthy rich purists are more likely to drop big cash on a sexy exclusive camera that the Joneses don't have if it DOESN'T have video (although it has HDMI) or wireless (even though those feature probably cost pennies), but for $2750 this thing dosn't even have 1/8000 shutter speed! I am sure some purist will get their shorts in a knot just because it has live view. Interesting that Nikon decided to fill the void that Hasselblad failed to fill.

My point is 25 years ago NIKON had it and today for $2,750 they actually go backwards.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 00:24 UTC
On article Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology (314 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: It makes perfect sense that the filthy rich purists are more likely to drop big cash on a sexy exclusive camera that the Joneses don't have if it DOESN'T have video (although it has HDMI) or wireless (even though those feature probably cost pennies), but for $2750 this thing dosn't even have 1/8000 shutter speed! I am sure some purist will get their shorts in a knot just because it has live view. Interesting that Nikon decided to fill the void that Hasselblad failed to fill.

"1/8000 is a relatively new thing" ???
The Nikon F-801 (N8008) was made in 1988 and had a 1/8000 second shutter, 1/250s flash sync, and 3.3 frames per second (includes moving the film). It is now $40 on ebay. I guess 25 years of development for Nikon is "relatively new".

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 17:50 UTC
On article Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology (314 comments in total)
In reply to:

km25: I will say it again, when I bouhgt my first Nikon I bought the Nikkormat, because I was un able to aford the F. This is like the Nikkormat cost more money, because it has less. Six monhts from now these cameras are going to be sold for $1500.00, with lens and extras.

"Six months from now these cameras are going to be sold for $1500.00, with lens and extras."

Actually they won't because anyone who can afford to throw this much money away on something so vain won't be desperate to sell it later either. It will sit on their display shelf from day 3 on and stay there.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 03:23 UTC
On article Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology (314 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: This so called"retro" trend must be a very effective way of milking the vain and the shallow. Why not make even older looking cameras and put even more absurd prices on them.

I was thinking the same thing. Next will be D-TLR camera so you can buy two of every lens, one for the sensor and one for viewfinder, coupled of course. Just so you can look really cool behind the camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 03:15 UTC
On article Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology (314 comments in total)

It makes perfect sense that the filthy rich purists are more likely to drop big cash on a sexy exclusive camera that the Joneses don't have if it DOESN'T have video (although it has HDMI) or wireless (even though those feature probably cost pennies), but for $2750 this thing dosn't even have 1/8000 shutter speed! I am sure some purist will get their shorts in a knot just because it has live view. Interesting that Nikon decided to fill the void that Hasselblad failed to fill.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 23:04 UTC as 16th comment | 7 replies
On article Behind the Shot: Winter Paradise (41 comments in total)

I am finding it very difficult to set focus acurratly with night shots and large apertures. You can't just turn it to the infinity end because the lenses go past infinity and the foreground becomes out of focus. Of course the camera can't autofocus most of the time. And the the new lenses aren't designed for manual focus work since rotating the ring just 1mm has a big impact on the focal distance. Lots of time consuming test shot trial and error.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2013 at 21:47 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Vitruvius: I used to shoot film with optical viewfinder and loved it. Then I got the Powershot Pro1 and got used to the electroninc viewfinder. Now I bought new DSLR with optical viewfinder again and I LOVE it! Seeing the scene with my 300 to 600 megapixel eyes is SO much nicer. I don't mind the extra bulk at all anymore now that I know what I was missing. It is simply far more enjoyable shooting now.

The human eye can only view a small area at any given time. We scan the scene with our eyes and our mind combines this information. You will never see 300 - 600 megapixels through a viewfinder but it is available to your eye through an optical viewfinder. It is NOT available through an EVF.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2013 at 01:01 UTC

I used to shoot film with optical viewfinder and loved it. Then I got the Powershot Pro1 and got used to the electroninc viewfinder. Now I bought new DSLR with optical viewfinder again and I LOVE it! Seeing the scene with my 300 to 600 megapixel eyes is SO much nicer. I don't mind the extra bulk at all anymore now that I know what I was missing. It is simply far more enjoyable shooting now.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 19:52 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies

A 45mm medium format lens is not 35mm equivalent on "full frame". Perhaps the Leica system is not true medium format. Even so there is 6x4.5 or 6x6, or 6x7 etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2013 at 13:04 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies

If you think you can color balance digitally without loss of image quality you are wrong.

Lots of professional photographers have tested and proved this. The best way to retain the most amout of image data is to set the digital camera WB to daylight and color balance the scene with an actual physical filter. Digital camera sensors are daylight balanced by design from factory.

Do your research.

http://tedfelix.com/Photography/Filters.html

http://photo.net/equipment/filters/digital

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 19:04 UTC as 7th comment
Total: 196, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »