PIX 2015
DStudio

DStudio

Joined on Jan 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 623, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

DStudio: "That was remedied with the borderline ridiculous $1,600 lens made from what has to be glass from the fires of Mordor; the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. That much bread for a Micro Four Thirds lens goes against everything (we think) the system stands for, which is why the Olympus 45mm F1.8 still stands as our studio lens."

Isn't this hypocritical? Top 85/1.4 and 1.2 lenses go for between ~$1000 and $2000 (and tends toward the higher end of this range, if you only count prices for new lenses). But this 85mm (equivalent) f/1.2 lens is outrageous at $1600?

[does double-take]

But wait - this is the *same* article where you praise the $4500 OTUS?!

*** double-standard alert ***

I haven't used the lens (and don't shoot m4/3), but it's as if this was thrown in there just for the purpose of being hypocritical. BTW, it's $1400 and is only one star short of a perfect user rating (94 of 95, with a lone 4-star review) from NY's biggest camera retailer.

It really depends on what you want, doesn't it?

For example, I'll shoot action on an 85/1.4 at around f/3.5.

But it's far from a "waste" to have an f/1.4 lens here, because this lens has the focusing speed and image characteristics I want. If I open it up too wide I don't get the results I like - plus the focusing accuracy becomes too critical.

Furthermore, at other times I shoot it between f/1.4 and f/1.8 because of low lighting.

In either of these cases, the Panasonic 42.5/1.2 could be fine. From what I read (and what little I've seen) it's a nice lens. It would have to be pretty bad for me not to prefer it over the Canon 85/1.8. The images from that lens just aren't special - at a focal length where many special lenses exist. I think there's a good reason they've priced it so low.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 01:42 UTC
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

DStudio: The Nikon 85/1.8G looks more 3D than the others. But the OTUS does hold an advantage on hair and bristles. And this Canon sensor gets the most out of it when it comes to detail.

The Canon 85/1.8 is a classic example of how they drive you to L glass - by producing under-performing entry and mid-range lenses (although thankfully, they're slowly improving that situation).

I think the 85/1.8G is the easy choice for most uses. Plus, it has auto focus!

They kept the scene relatively planar to minimize DOF issues, but it's still very 3D in its elements. But perhaps you haven't noticed, because ... Uh ... this is so hard to resist ... you're not used to seeing it in photos? ;)

Sorry, don't own Nikon. Only a fan when they do something well.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 21:54 UTC
On Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece article (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.

photominion - Truthfully, I'm not sure what to say to someone who's so content to live with evil in the first place ...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 20:14 UTC
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

DStudio: The Nikon 85/1.8G looks more 3D than the others. But the OTUS does hold an advantage on hair and bristles. And this Canon sensor gets the most out of it when it comes to detail.

The Canon 85/1.8 is a classic example of how they drive you to L glass - by producing under-performing entry and mid-range lenses (although thankfully, they're slowly improving that situation).

I think the 85/1.8G is the easy choice for most uses. Plus, it has auto focus!

Canon seems to be the only camera company which inspires such blind devotion.

It's like clockwork - you make an objective observation, and you're smugly shot down.

In general, owners of other camera brands have few pretenses. They understand the brand's strengths and weaknesses. What's the problem with Canon owners? Is it being "inside the system" that ruins their objectivity, or does Canon draw that type of person in the first place?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 20:08 UTC
On Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece article (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.

It looks like some people are having a lot of fun here. And I hope you are.

Because in real life this is vile behavior, denigrating a person (or a people) for everything they've ever done wrong - as well as many things they haven't done wrong. It serves many evil purposes - all of them self-centered, I believe.

If any of you have the misfortune of living with a person who speaks to you this way every day, RUN - as fast as you can! THAT is about freedom!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 19:31 UTC
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

DStudio: "That was remedied with the borderline ridiculous $1,600 lens made from what has to be glass from the fires of Mordor; the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. That much bread for a Micro Four Thirds lens goes against everything (we think) the system stands for, which is why the Olympus 45mm F1.8 still stands as our studio lens."

Isn't this hypocritical? Top 85/1.4 and 1.2 lenses go for between ~$1000 and $2000 (and tends toward the higher end of this range, if you only count prices for new lenses). But this 85mm (equivalent) f/1.2 lens is outrageous at $1600?

[does double-take]

But wait - this is the *same* article where you praise the $4500 OTUS?!

*** double-standard alert ***

I haven't used the lens (and don't shoot m4/3), but it's as if this was thrown in there just for the purpose of being hypocritical. BTW, it's $1400 and is only one star short of a perfect user rating (94 of 95, with a lone 4-star review) from NY's biggest camera retailer.

No, go ahead. I like hyperbole. And having a little fun while writing is a necessity.

I was just a little surprised to hear the general idea that this rental price-point ($64 for the Nikon 85/1.4G) was considered expensive in the first place. But yes, $146 for the OTUS is significant. I just don't think the Panasonic and Nikon lenses are out of the "prosumer" mainstream.

It's camera bodies (because of their high depreciation, I'm told) that shock me with their rental prices sometimes.

In any case, I appreciate the hard work DPR does on these reviews. And I realize re-testing could be arduous. But I'm afraid it may be time to upgrade the lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: Medium format will become affordable in the not very distant future, in fact it has already started and SOON medium format will be compact, affordable and take the same glass we already own.

abortabort, it may behoove you to further research it.

But the bottom line is the bigger surface area on MF glass gives it optical and resolution advantages over smaller lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 18:37 UTC
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

DStudio: "That was remedied with the borderline ridiculous $1,600 lens made from what has to be glass from the fires of Mordor; the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. That much bread for a Micro Four Thirds lens goes against everything (we think) the system stands for, which is why the Olympus 45mm F1.8 still stands as our studio lens."

Isn't this hypocritical? Top 85/1.4 and 1.2 lenses go for between ~$1000 and $2000 (and tends toward the higher end of this range, if you only count prices for new lenses). But this 85mm (equivalent) f/1.2 lens is outrageous at $1600?

[does double-take]

But wait - this is the *same* article where you praise the $4500 OTUS?!

*** double-standard alert ***

I haven't used the lens (and don't shoot m4/3), but it's as if this was thrown in there just for the purpose of being hypocritical. BTW, it's $1400 and is only one star short of a perfect user rating (94 of 95, with a lone 4-star review) from NY's biggest camera retailer.

Samuel, I'm usually not this critical of DPR.

But I think this is wrong, in this case. The affordability of a system is marked by its lens costs - not the cost of the bodies. This lens actually *establishes* the fact that it's not just an "inexpensive" system.

I haven't followed your exact test lens models for each brand (do you have an easy chart somewhere? That would be useful, simple, and fair). In the current state of the industry, it's no longer fair to penalize the latest camera bodies with lesser lenses. Sticking with the Olympus 45/1.8 is unreasonable, just as testing with the Canon 85/1.8 would now be (do you?).

And while I understand hyperbole, I fail to understand how $64 for 5 days (or even $146 for the OTUS) equates to "a kidney and a lung just to rent for an afternoon."

In other words, the rental cost *isn't* out of reach.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 18:04 UTC
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

DStudio: "That was remedied with the borderline ridiculous $1,600 lens made from what has to be glass from the fires of Mordor; the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. That much bread for a Micro Four Thirds lens goes against everything (we think) the system stands for, which is why the Olympus 45mm F1.8 still stands as our studio lens."

Isn't this hypocritical? Top 85/1.4 and 1.2 lenses go for between ~$1000 and $2000 (and tends toward the higher end of this range, if you only count prices for new lenses). But this 85mm (equivalent) f/1.2 lens is outrageous at $1600?

[does double-take]

But wait - this is the *same* article where you praise the $4500 OTUS?!

*** double-standard alert ***

I haven't used the lens (and don't shoot m4/3), but it's as if this was thrown in there just for the purpose of being hypocritical. BTW, it's $1400 and is only one star short of a perfect user rating (94 of 95, with a lone 4-star review) from NY's biggest camera retailer.

OK, reading more carefully, it appears you simply "used" it to prove how reasonable and down-to-earth you are. You know "the BMW is outrageously priced, so we use the Corolla as our standard. Now on to our Bentley review (which I'm gaga over)!"

I'm just not sure it's fair to make this apparently fine Panasonic lens a casualty here.

And frankly, it sounds like *exactly* the lens you should use in your comparisons. I'm disappointed you would handicap the m4/3 cameras like this.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 17:50 UTC
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)

"That was remedied with the borderline ridiculous $1,600 lens made from what has to be glass from the fires of Mordor; the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. That much bread for a Micro Four Thirds lens goes against everything (we think) the system stands for, which is why the Olympus 45mm F1.8 still stands as our studio lens."

Isn't this hypocritical? Top 85/1.4 and 1.2 lenses go for between ~$1000 and $2000 (and tends toward the higher end of this range, if you only count prices for new lenses). But this 85mm (equivalent) f/1.2 lens is outrageous at $1600?

[does double-take]

But wait - this is the *same* article where you praise the $4500 OTUS?!

*** double-standard alert ***

I haven't used the lens (and don't shoot m4/3), but it's as if this was thrown in there just for the purpose of being hypocritical. BTW, it's $1400 and is only one star short of a perfect user rating (94 of 95, with a lone 4-star review) from NY's biggest camera retailer.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 17:19 UTC as 36th comment | 14 replies
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)

The Nikon 85/1.8G looks more 3D than the others. But the OTUS does hold an advantage on hair and bristles. And this Canon sensor gets the most out of it when it comes to detail.

The Canon 85/1.8 is a classic example of how they drive you to L glass - by producing under-performing entry and mid-range lenses (although thankfully, they're slowly improving that situation).

I think the 85/1.8G is the easy choice for most uses. Plus, it has auto focus!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 16:52 UTC as 44th comment | 7 replies
On Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece article (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.

I think we'd be in a precarious situation if a scenario like the WWII era rose again.

If I believe the rhetoric I read around here, much of Europe is too wimpy or brainwashed to defend itself anymore. And based on the current administration's behavior, I'm not sure the US would care enough to defend them, either.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 05:12 UTC
On Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece article (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.

It's amazing how whacky people's beliefs can become when they lose track of their Creator.

If only the just were perfect. But they do much better than those who don't try to uphold justice.

It must be tough trying to rationalize the world without an understanding of how it started.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2015 at 23:37 UTC
On Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece article (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sean65: Some nice shots spoilt by an awful edit. 10,11,12,13???? don't belong in this edit.

Surprisingly, some photographers are multi-dimensional!

But yes, it was a bit awkward to see these thrown in the middle.

Actually, the only one I didn't like was #15. I understand the look he was going for, but it's so overdone, and it trivializes an otherwise good shot.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2015 at 18:06 UTC
On Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece article (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorepuusa: Wonderful pictures of war planes, but where are the pictures of US military planes bombing children and other civilians to pieces? Cannot see any. Romanticizeing killing machines feels absurd.

You're so right. Tyrants and terrorists should be left alone, so they can do the killing of citizens and children. They're so much better at it too, since they specifically target them.

It's so irresponsible of us to protect them, when they should be left alone to die. : . . (

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2015 at 17:52 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: Medium format will become affordable in the not very distant future, in fact it has already started and SOON medium format will be compact, affordable and take the same glass we already own.

Uh, sure, abortabort. Maybe you need to do a little more research on this particular topic.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 16:21 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: Medium format will become affordable in the not very distant future, in fact it has already started and SOON medium format will be compact, affordable and take the same glass we already own.

Of course you're joking, abortabort. The image circle is too small.

Even if you implement some tricky design to make the image circle big enough, you still loose the advantage of MF. Because one of the benefits of MF *is* the larger lenses they employ, which leads to better image quality.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 05:42 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: Medium format will become affordable in the not very distant future, in fact it has already started and SOON medium format will be compact, affordable and take the same glass we already own.

Who is "we," and what glass do we already own?

Because this imminent, nebulous, affordable MF camera certainly won't use 35mm-format lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 19:14 UTC
In reply to:

Papi61: Sad truth: Apple is greedy, Taylor Swift is greedy, the photographer is greedy. This society has made greed into its main value. Despite what they claim, no one gives a crap if someone else is exploited in the process, as long as there's some financial gain. The hypocrisy is virtually infinite.

Will we ever reach a money-less society, where poverty, crime and ignorance no longer exist, as envisioned in Star Trek? Nah, more likely we will self-destruct in just a few decades...

No, it's a flat out lie.

Even if Soviet Russia was indeed deliberately bankrupted by the US (I'm not taking a stand on that, because I don't have enough information), it doesn't automatically follow that the US is greedy.

Don't confuse success with greed.

It's a shame that (for whatever reasons) Russians have trouble being generous in these ways.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 23:38 UTC
In reply to:

Papi61: Sad truth: Apple is greedy, Taylor Swift is greedy, the photographer is greedy. This society has made greed into its main value. Despite what they claim, no one gives a crap if someone else is exploited in the process, as long as there's some financial gain. The hypocrisy is virtually infinite.

Will we ever reach a money-less society, where poverty, crime and ignorance no longer exist, as envisioned in Star Trek? Nah, more likely we will self-destruct in just a few decades...

Mark Alan Thomas:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/19/chart-the-worlds-most-generous-countries/

Russia isn't even on the chart.

Oh, but wait, I found them on the full list here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 23:01 UTC
Total: 623, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »