How to know when lens technology has come far enough? The answer is when someone deliberately does lenses that are of bad optical performance. Calling bad lens design art is ridiculous, vintage simple lens designs were not considered artsy with their aberrations then, why should they now?
Robert Soderlund: Oww, this hobby can be expensive, for that price one can pick up one or two very capable DSLR's used, and that 500 is just for a flash. Getting a macro lens with that and its a grand or so.
I dont seem to ever get my point correct, whenever i post someone posts something to counter my personal opinion. I would end up with 3 bodies, but the point was not how many DSLR bodies you have. Point was simply that 500 can get you loads of photo equipment. and no some OEM flashes might be 500 but for 75 you can get bounce flash easily. Just because they are going for 500 doesnt mean you spend 500 and buy them, the consumer chooses not the producer.
Oww, this hobby can be expensive, for that price one can pick up one or two very capable DSLR's used, and that 500 is just for a flash. Getting a macro lens with that and its a grand or so.
Dimit: So much trouble for m43 ???Olympus makes great cameras but nullifies itself by not upgrading to ff.Pitty..
Philips, whats so silly about that, are you mocking people that have no life and have no reason to go anywhere? I can see what you mean that they would be the only ones that would be actually arsed to carry anything if theyd get a possibility to go anywhere?
Mirror speed is never as fast as shutter speed can be, the video does not remind the viewer of this.
Robert Soderlund: In the last balloon picture, doesn't it take few milliseconds for the sound to reach the flash at a meter or two? How did it fire in time?
Because it takes much longer for sound than 1/20000 seconds to reach the flash in the first place, since it was probably positioned a few meters from the target. Sound travels approx 340 m/s indoor temp, yet the explosion is in its starting stages. It takes 1/340 of second for sound to reach a flash a meter a way, by that time a burst would no longer be in the starting stage i believe, i could be wrong, any ideas? Add to that possible millisecond reaction time of the electronics involved.
oscarvdvelde: Looking at the full gallery, the panel will have a hard time going through the images. Of the 10 pages only a minority of submissions qualify as scientific photography.http://rps-science.org/competition/all/International-Images-for-Science/entries/?page=10&sort=&category=&competition=1
I agree, it seems its half biology which of course is science, but mostly it seems to just be fine pictures that can have something to do with science. They are very basic pictures that try to cater for everyone, not particularly for science oriented people. Many true science pictures can be very boring for someone who does not understand it, and very interesting for someone who does. Like a microprocessor, or anything that doesnt exactly say anything except for the scientist. Butterfly pictures for example could only be called true science for 9 year olds in school.
I dont quite follow, setting a shutter even to 1/8000 would not suffice, it is the flash that illuminates the scene making the sensor capture only what happens during the intensely short flash duration, the shutter itself has minimal difference, we are talking tens of times shorter duration than shutters can do.
In the last balloon picture, doesn't it take few milliseconds for the sound to reach the flash at a meter or two? How did it fire in time?
Any idea whether current version supports Sigma 18-200mm C model?
As usual these capture the moments where a certain expression has nothing to do with reality, but rather the emotion the photographer tries to express. If a person has a certain look, he too often chooses that photo and thinks it expresses the situation of the population in question.
Emotion in photography should in my opinion have no weight, what photography does if done correctly is documenting the facts, not twist them and make people draw conclusions of a certain second in a certain war that could take years. Its the experience of suffering that is bad, you can only capture part of it, the emotions are not to be taken in pictures.
For example, everyone who has been ill knows that taking a picture of themself does not explain how they felt during that illness. If you however got blue or pale, thats where photography comes in handy, to bring out the truth, not how your lips or expression was during a certain time of the day.
I dont understand why people bother to look for sharpness in samples that are sharpened, if one would want to critique a picture one would view unsharpened unprocessed RAW or unprocessed JPEG output. Lenstip is one of the only ones that uses science over beauty in samples. When you put "real world samples" on the web its just marketing how it CAN look, not how it performs as standard.
If it would be with a viewfinder i'd understand how it would be more stable and more enjoyable to shoot with than simple "knuckles to skull" shooting. I do not see why it has such a grip, but there must be a reason, until i understand i will not mock it, but when i do, i just might.
Well at least rotational shake is minimized with such a wide grip, especially for a left eye shooter, other than that i don't know.
Simply put i'm sure many agree, these are images, not photos.
D800.. which one is measured here, the camera or the lens itself? Pretty hard to compare lenses when the tests are done on different formats and cameras altogether.
Must have some sort of a standard, as in same camera for every lens.
Volkan Ersoy: Looking at samples in Steve Huff's review, it's sharp enough wide-open in the centre. However it has a strange bokeh character with blurred highlights having a swirling effect. Many viewers say it gives dizziness. Also, the lower parts of bokeh halos are missing, compared to Leica's Nocti. Huff claims it is close to Noctilux and Hyperime in 3D pop and sharpness though bokeh can get odd at times.
Indeed, get close enough and nail the focus or you could stay shooting studio if bothered with OOF things.
"Bokeh shmokeh" as they say, stop it down and bokeh no longer bothers if there is enough light. Bokeh seems to be some sort of sensor size thingy these days, smartphone users want it, slr users bother more than ever in the film days about it.
Robert Soderlund: This is in my opinion how people should do photography these days, not censor out things with bokeh and unrealistic post processing which makes pictures graphics and not photographs.
Photography is about catching the moment, not feed people your own ideas how things in the world "should" or how you would "want" them to look.
I think you are trying to be funny there with your statement on the bokeh. Seriously speaking we cannot "oust them from photo" only time will ultimately show us what photography is all about.
This is in my opinion how people should do photography these days, not censor out things with bokeh and unrealistic post processing which makes pictures graphics and not photographs.
I rely on lenstip myself, waiting for their review.
Perhaps we can see something that is "Nothing to carp about" and "simply sensational" along with "deserves our praise" or to have "any reservations".
Joking about the wording, but lenstip tests without sharpening.
What is going on, i see complete discussions deleted at least one where i was active