whyamihere

whyamihere

Lives in United States Philadelphia, United States
Works as a Higher Education IT
Joined on Apr 8, 2012

Comments

Total: 182, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I know speedring adapters exist, but I really wish they would have stuck with the Bowens S mount. The Alien Bees clamping mechanism is fiddly and I never thought it felt secure.

Still, I'm certainly interested in these lights to complements the strobes I have.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 19:53 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

art99: If the can be powered from DC source like V or Gold mount ENG type batteries then that would really be awesome as I would not have to look around for AC sockets or a generator.

If you can find a 36V DC source with the right connector - looks to be 4 pin XLR - I don't see why not. That's going to be a honking big battery though.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 19:50 UTC

"Somewhat cryptically, Ricoh says it will announce availability for the camera at the beginning of July."

I'm going to assume that probably translates to: "Recent earthquake messed up our supply chain. We need to figure out a reasonable timeframe for delivery, but we didn't want to not announce something because August/September is a busy time for the camera industry."

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 22:17 UTC as 97th comment
In reply to:

notnaff: Oh, goody. Does anyone know who sells a laptop with usb-c and usb-A ports?

Notnaff: Lenovo has a number of laptops with both connectors.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 02:34 UTC
In reply to:

Godiwa: 515MB/s? Why can't we have SD cards with this speed? And without costing as much as a space shuttle...

SD cards will never achieve those speeds for all the reasons Impulses mentioned. Another important consideration is the simple matter of space. An SSD has a lot of x/y/z space to work with, so it doesn't matter that your typical drive is the size of a small smartphone. Memory cards for cameras have to be small, otherwise you wind up with a much bigger camera.

Either way, modern SD cards are just too simplistic in their design and have pretty much scaled to the maximum of their capability. Other formats might get beyond 500MB/s as technology advances, but that won't be anytime soon.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 00:23 UTC

DPR: Assuming the following isn't already under consideration, might I suggest...

1. Testing the D4/s and see if this is a trend for the series. If so...
2. Investigate whether there's a tradeoff between sacrificing dynamic range for unedited high ISO output.

Considering the target for these cameras is photojournalists and sports photographers, they're not likely to spend much time adjusting images after-the-fact, meaning the exposure they have is what they're going to turn into an editor, which is better than no photo at all. Nikon could be making a technical decision here, and that there's no real middle-ground between 'has insane high ISO' and 'has amazing dynamic range'.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 00:20 UTC as 158th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

JOrmsby: No OS, No interest here...

"It's borderline moronic to launch a 1.5kg tele lens without IS."

Yeah, about that...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539401-REG/Tamron_AF001NII_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207356-GREY/Nikon_1909_Telephoto_AF_S_Nikkor_300mm.html

Care to revise that statement?

PS: Those were only the first four lenses I could think of. There are more, I'm sure.

Edit: I forgot the most obvious example...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551436-REG/Sigma_597306_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

$26,000, 15.67kg, and no IS. Shocking.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

Ruy Penalva: Without image stabilization with this focal length is not a good stuff.

Find me all the Canon and Nikon primes at the equivalent focal lengths that have image stabilization. Also, I'm sure the tripod foot is there for a reason...

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: I'm just curious how many of the vocally enthusiastic people will actually buy this lens.

The cheaper and lighter 18-35/1.8 isn't actually that great of a seller.

Seems to me like Sigma is flooding the market with lenses that nobody ever asked for while ignoring the "usual suspects": 84/1.4, 135/2, 24-70/2.8 OS or an updated 70-200/2.8 OS.

Amazon sales charts are snapshots in time and not indicative of trends. It's a significant difference, and something I wish people who quote Amazon stats would learn and realize they mean almost literally nothing. Also, are you looking at all five variants of the 18-35mm, or just one single mount? Are you assuming Amazon is representative of the whole market?

Niche products can be lucrative if they don't cost a lot to make and sell well enough to justify their existence. Breaking even on cost to produce and resale is not a reason to not make it (see: Sigma's camera business). Niche ≠ poor seller. Niche = very specific audience, which may or may not be predisposed to buying this product.

Their Art primes are popular because they have a specific audience. They're a high quality value alternative to Nikon and Canon. As I pointed out earlier, the lack of IS means nothing when you consider the primes it replaces also lack IS (and there's a tripod foot, meaning they want you to use it).

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 20:56 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: I'm just curious how many of the vocally enthusiastic people will actually buy this lens.

The cheaper and lighter 18-35/1.8 isn't actually that great of a seller.

Seems to me like Sigma is flooding the market with lenses that nobody ever asked for while ignoring the "usual suspects": 84/1.4, 135/2, 24-70/2.8 OS or an updated 70-200/2.8 OS.

"The cheaper and lighter 18-35/1.8 isn't actually that great of a seller."

Data? Source?

"Seems to me like Sigma is flooding the market with lenses that nobody ever asked for while ignoring the 'usual suspects'."

I think their avoiding flooding the market with the 'usual suspects' and carving out a lucrative niche market for lenses they can produce without exceeding or lagging behind demand. (They're a small company in Japan, after all.) Sure, most of their existing Art series primes are competitive, but, on the whole, they're 'just another option'. Nothing else like the 18-35mm f/1.8 exists, and I'm willing to bet that it sells well enough to justify for it to be produced on an ongoing basis.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 20:33 UTC
In reply to:

LF Photography: Sigma is quickly becoming the most exciting lens manufacturer of today. Every new lens released lately has been a revolutionary marvel of speed and sharpness, and all for an extremely competitive price.
If the rumors are true, I can't wait to combine this 50-100mm f1.8 with the (soon to be mine) 18-35mm f1.8, both of which effectively make my Pentax K-3II with IBIS have less ISO noise than any FF DSLR with a f2.8 lens, at least wide open.
It's a good time to use APS-C DSLR's!

Now if Sigma could only do something about the AF issues...

"Sigma is introducing the heaviest lenses on a market that is now demanding light stuff. This is again a good reason to buy mirorrless."

If that's true, Sony and Fuji are doing something terribly wrong with some of their lenses. The three Sony G Master lenses weigh about as much as their DSLR counterparts, and Fuji's 16-55mm, 50-140mm, and 100-400mm lenses, aren't exactly light.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 20:11 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: So on Canon and Nikon, the 24-70 f2.8's are pretty close in price to the 70-200 f2.8's. Sigma's 18-35 f1.8 is $799, why would the 50-100 f1.8 be so much more money (reported $1500)? Seems like their price target is their own 18-35 f1.8 doesn't it? Maybe $999?

Canon 24-70: $1,800 70-200: $2,000
Nikon 24-70: $1,800 ($2,400 stabilized) 70-200: $2,100
Sigma 18-35: $800 50-100: ??

$1,500 seems high for an APS-C zoom. Even one that fast.

I might add that, when you consider the prime lenses this single zoom is replacing in either full frame terms (e.g. 85mm, 100mm or 105mm, and 135mm), or APS-C equivalent (50mm, 85mm, 100mm or 105mm), you're either breaking even at $1,500, or saving a fair bit of cash.

That is to say, if $1,500 is the real price, some would probably prefer to have the single lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

JOrmsby: No OS, No interest here...

Interesting that you mention the 'no OS', considering few competing primes at these focal lengths and equivalent apertures have OS, either.

Also, there's a monopod/tripod foot. Perhaps they're telling you something...

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 19:47 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (539 comments in total)

"[S]wapping batteries or powering up from a long period of inactivity results in a lengthy delay before the camera will even display an image, much less snap a photograph."

"[O]nce the buffer is filled, the camera will write to the card for anywhere from ~20 seconds (extra fine JPEG) to ~30 seconds (compressed RAW plus ultra fine JPEG). During this time, menu and playback modes are unavailable to the user."

These are problems with a number of Sony mirrorless cameras I've had my hands on, including the a6000 I own. While perhaps not deal breakers on their own, I must admit it's a number of inexplicable little things such as these that mar the experience of owning a Sony camera for me, and I'm hesitant in considering another for myself or suggesting them to others.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 18:53 UTC as 146th comment | 5 replies
On article A classic reinvented? Domke Chronicle Review (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Canvas is heavy and cheap (at least to the manufacturer.) This bag is over 4 pounds, empty. Canvas tends to soak up water too, even when treated. The only upside is that it looks like you're roughing it. Those big metal hooks add weight as well, and there's no shoulder pad. Ballistic nylon may not look as cool but it's much lighter and the good stuff is practically waterproof. To each his own.

I have to agree with you regarding the use of materials and the weight. 4 pounds empty is nothing to sneeze at, and I'd gladly trade the admittedly cool looking canvas for something lighter that's weather resistant and just as durable. I understand character and looks carry a premium, but I'd never sacrifice functionality for form.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

amblepath: To me the pros of this lens are

1. I get a 600 mm field of view with shutter speeds equivalent to an f4 lens. In a size that can easily be handheld.

2.From the review I read the image stabilization is amazing on Em-1 and Em-5II enabling hand held down to 1/15 of a second.

3. Also from the review this lens is razor sharp centre and corners and doesn't even suffer from diffraction until f12/f16 and then only slightly.

4. On a lens like this I would be happy to take the extra depth of field and view it as a definite plus. ( Whole bird or face in focus at f4. )

5. Very high quality build.

6. Good for Macro work. (I don't understand Richard's comment as all I care about is what I see in the viewfinder and again I'll take the extra depth of field as a plus.)

Cons
It is expensive. (Translation... I can't afford it.)

As an aside. The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well.

Oh, well, in that case: People got distracted by Nikon D5 and D500. They were announced a few hours after the Panasonic lens, and it appears they were a tad more popular. I feel kinda bad for Panasonic, in that respect. They probably thought Nikon was just going to throw a bunch of CoolPix cameras at us and call it a day. (That's what Canon did after all, as is the CES tradition.)

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 02:08 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms),"

To mention "light gathering" at all & in that context is typical FF fanboism BS. Why did you even mention it?

I'll correct that whole statement for you!
"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, its still impressively small and light for 600mm equivalent lens. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."

Please, stay credible by not looking like a FF fanboi.

Of course, being 300mm it is going to be smaller & lighter than a 600mm lens!

Considering Richard has written a number of positive reviews of Micro 4/3 cameras, I highly doubt he's a 'fanboi' (a general insult that had little meaning before you degraded it further by trading a 'y' for an 'i'... trust me, I've been dealing with 'fanboys' since the mid-90's).

DPR has made it a regular habit to mention equivalency over the last few years. Read any story or review about a compact camera, and you'll find a chart or a paragraph about equivalency (e.g. yesterday's TS100 overview, all of the Sony RX100 reviews, etc.). Micro 4/3 users are not being singled out. To think they are is false and unwarranted.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

amblepath: To me the pros of this lens are

1. I get a 600 mm field of view with shutter speeds equivalent to an f4 lens. In a size that can easily be handheld.

2.From the review I read the image stabilization is amazing on Em-1 and Em-5II enabling hand held down to 1/15 of a second.

3. Also from the review this lens is razor sharp centre and corners and doesn't even suffer from diffraction until f12/f16 and then only slightly.

4. On a lens like this I would be happy to take the extra depth of field and view it as a definite plus. ( Whole bird or face in focus at f4. )

5. Very high quality build.

6. Good for Macro work. (I don't understand Richard's comment as all I care about is what I see in the viewfinder and again I'll take the extra depth of field as a plus.)

Cons
It is expensive. (Translation... I can't afford it.)

As an aside. The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well.

"The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well."

By 'dog pile' do you mean 'a mere single mention'? And, did you read the whole Panasonic 100-400mm overview? From the article:

"Naturally, the small size and weight do come at a cost: with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same as what you might get with a full-frame 800mm F5.6 lens."

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms),"

To mention "light gathering" at all & in that context is typical FF fanboism BS. Why did you even mention it?

I'll correct that whole statement for you!
"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, its still impressively small and light for 600mm equivalent lens. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."

Please, stay credible by not looking like a FF fanboi.

Of course, being 300mm it is going to be smaller & lighter than a 600mm lens!

Try reading those articles again, carefully this time. You might realize the physical size of the sensor does not receive the same amount of light as something twice its size, and that has a tangible impact.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms),"

To mention "light gathering" at all & in that context is typical FF fanboism BS. Why did you even mention it?

I'll correct that whole statement for you!
"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, its still impressively small and light for 600mm equivalent lens. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."

Please, stay credible by not looking like a FF fanboi.

Of course, being 300mm it is going to be smaller & lighter than a 600mm lens!

And, yes, technomad, they do talk about physics. I also like physics, and yet, what was said in the article is not wrong (despite even my believing quite the opposite in the not too distant past).

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 23:55 UTC
Total: 182, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »