Erick L

Erick L

Lives in Canada Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Canada
Has a website at http://www.borealphoto.com
Joined on Aug 17, 2006

Comments

Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

danieljcox: Wow, these lenses are confirming all that I've been saying about the Full Frame mirrorless systems. Big sensors = Huge optics. No size benefits in the FF mirrorless systems as far as lenses are concerned. I can't believe how huge the the coming Sony 90mm F/2.8 macro is.

The Rokinon is just an adapted lens soit won't be lighter than the Canon. I don't know why the Sony A is different.

Olympus is a better exemple IMO.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 17:25 UTC
In reply to:

danieljcox: Wow, these lenses are confirming all that I've been saying about the Full Frame mirrorless systems. Big sensors = Huge optics. No size benefits in the FF mirrorless systems as far as lenses are concerned. I can't believe how huge the the coming Sony 90mm F/2.8 macro is.

I found the two Rokinon for Sony at B&H. Sony A is listed at 907g vs 570g for FE. The FE is longer and I guess it's just an adapted lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

danieljcox: Wow, these lenses are confirming all that I've been saying about the Full Frame mirrorless systems. Big sensors = Huge optics. No size benefits in the FF mirrorless systems as far as lenses are concerned. I can't believe how huge the the coming Sony 90mm F/2.8 macro is.

The Rokinon 14/2.8 for Sony A and FE are the same size but the mirrorless version is much lighter. Both are MF so there's no advantage for either.

Same for the Olympus 9-18/4-5.6 in m43 vs plain 4/3, which is pretty small to begin with.

That's exactly what mirrorless promised: size/weight reduction in bodies and wide angles, not so much for longer lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 15:42 UTC
In reply to:

danieljcox: Wow, these lenses are confirming all that I've been saying about the Full Frame mirrorless systems. Big sensors = Huge optics. No size benefits in the FF mirrorless systems as far as lenses are concerned. I can't believe how huge the the coming Sony 90mm F/2.8 macro is.

Read again, Oly's m43 are smaller than their own 4/3 DSLR lenses. Same format, same speed, same focal length. Same everything.

Rokinon, same lens, same speed, both FF, one for Sony A, one for Sony FE. Mirrorless lens is almost half the weight and I suspect they just used the same barrel. I bet it could be made smaller as well.

So yes, mirrorless lenses can be made smaller.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 21:53 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: WRONG:

""Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication," says wildlife and nature photographer Marsel van Oosten."

CORRECT:

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" says Da Vinci.

NEXT Please!

There is no *any* reason to looking any photos more for the *reason* above.

Maybe DaVinci heard that from his local baker. :p

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 21:51 UTC
On Quick Look: The art of the unforeground article (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: Thing is, the sand pic has a foreground element: the ripples in the sand. Try again!

This is what the article says:

"What I'm talking about are images which have room for foreground, but whose massive, detailed, classical foreground element is missing"

What I see in the second photo is a massive, detailed and well defined foreground, leading lines included. It isn't subtle in any way. It's a good photo but I don't think it illustratres the article very well.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 20:56 UTC
In reply to:

danieljcox: Wow, these lenses are confirming all that I've been saying about the Full Frame mirrorless systems. Big sensors = Huge optics. No size benefits in the FF mirrorless systems as far as lenses are concerned. I can't believe how huge the the coming Sony 90mm F/2.8 macro is.

Richt2000, how does Olympus manage to make mirrorless lenses almost half the size of their DSLR lenses? Rokinon makes the same lens for DLSR and mirrorless and the latter is almost half the weight. Did they break the laws of physics?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 19:29 UTC
On Quick Look: The art of the unforeground article (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: Thing is, the sand pic has a foreground element: the ripples in the sand. Try again!

It's still a classic foreground, despite what the author says.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 17:36 UTC
On WaterWeight rethinks the sandbag approach to stability article (78 comments in total)

A prime exemple of a solution looking for a problem.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 01:41 UTC as 17th comment
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

DR, noise and owning a DSLR is the point.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 8, 2014 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: Remember when dpreview used to be about actual news instead of rumors?

DPR members have always been whinning about everything. That's why I began reading the forums. Entertainement.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2014 at 08:54 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-CM1 to go on sale in UK article (160 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think there is a popular myth that cell phone users all want an outstanding camera. The truth is, almost all of them are very happy with a "pretty good camera for snapshots, email attachments, and for web blog and facebook photos."

There is probably another myth that serious photo enthusiasts would pay any price to own a good camera that can make phone calls too.

There are probably a few people who will want one of these, but not very many who will be willing to pay the very high price for one. Most photo enthusiasts would rather spend that much money for a high grade lens or a photo trip than for a cell phone that can take better photos.

Bottom line... the cell phone fans won't need it, and the camera geeks won't want it, leaving very few customers left.

This makes it an interesting exercise, but an epic commercial failure.

Andreas, there's a direct "camera" button on the Panasonic.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2014 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: And for those not wanting go get into FF because of price, weight, size, there may even be an a6000 upgrade, with smaller/better/sharper lenses?!

http://www.dailycameranews.com/2014/10/sony-a7000-specs-price-leaked/

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr2-some-more-a7000-info-256-phase-detect-and-125-contrast-detect-points/

If that happens, it will be another nail in Canikon's coffin. I know, it's only a rumor, but I will be getting one if it happens ;)

Menneisyys, why would you use FE lenses on a crop E body?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2014 at 17:10 UTC
On Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

JimPearce: Wow! Captive animals and baiting in one video.

They don't roam freely. That's the whole game farm business. They are taken out of their enclosures to a wilderness setting for the photo session, sometimes hundreds of kilometers away.

It's really just like a zoo: http://tinyurl.com/q7xs5cc

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 19:48 UTC
On Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Erick L: No tigers and lions in Seattle but I'm sure you have wild birds.

Yeah, but try to get a picture of them!

Bird photography is more common than other wildlife. It would make a better "real life situation" video. Having a lion run towards you with a 70-200 is closer to what a sports photographer would encounter than someone shooting wildlife. Then there's the whole game farm ethics.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 14:26 UTC
On Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II article (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

JimPearce: Wow! Captive animals and baiting in one video.

karlwunsch, who are you to give moral lessons to the OP?

Game farms animals are kept in enclosures, like a zoo. They come out for photo sessions.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 14:17 UTC

"...the move to a rotating zoom design should resolve problems associated with dust being sucked in during operation."

That's a myth. Any non-internal zoom is more prone to dust. The dust settles on the inner barrel and makes its way inside the lens.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 04:53 UTC as 59th comment | 2 replies
On Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II article (191 comments in total)

No tigers and lions in Seattle but I'm sure you have wild birds.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 04:29 UTC as 79th comment | 3 replies
On Manfrotto introduces new lens filter lineup article (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: "pro" filters are to photography what monster cables are to hifi.

Monster Cable is generic for overpriced.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2014 at 13:12 UTC
In reply to:

Stacey_K: " and successive cameras".... well that is unless Olympus decides to change the lens mount again. I'm done trusting this company to support the customers who invest in their system.

Through corporate mis-management and a partnership with a crappy sensor manufacturer (panasonic), Olympus killed the 4/3 mount right as they had a sensor (the one used in the OMD) in their hands that would have made their lovely ZD 4/3 optics shine. Instead they pull this bait and switch to m4/3. I give then 3-4 years before they bail on this format and switch to yet another mount.

Olympus's problem has never been their optics, and I'm sure these will be fantastic lenses. But I'm willing to bet they will decide in the future the 4/3 sensor is too small and ditch this mount, leaving anyone who buys these lenses left in an orphaned system. I would never trust this company again after what they did with 4/3.

I don't feel sorry for 4/3 users. That mount was DOA.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 03:31 UTC
Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »