Light Adrenaline

Lives in United States All Over, United States
Works as a Professional Photographer & Graphic Designer
Has a website at www.lightadrenaline.com
Joined on Feb 9, 2011
About me:

I admire all types of photography, but I've focused my work on athletic action and promotional shooting for my "day job". I've shot many weddings through my career, but have moved away from that arena in recent years to focus on aid work with orphans in multiple countries overseas.

Comments

Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
On article CP+ 2016: Hands-on with new Sigma SD cameras and lenses (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

probert500: By having a specialized camera that cannot be adapted to other lenses is a major mistake. I could see using this for specific situations (copy work) if my current lenses could be easily adapted. As a mirrorless, this has to be seen as purposeful.

additionally, though the ART lenses are very very good, they are very very large and heavy. By being limited to them, you are once again facing unnecessary constraints.

All very curious. I'd still love to test the foveon though.

le_alain:

I'm not taking anything away from YOUR point, but perhaps you missed what dr. noise was saying in response to 500. He might be saying that Canon and Nikon haven't changed THEIR mount to ANOTHER vendor's. People seem to think Sigma should have taken another manufacturer's mount instead of using its own so that more lenses would work. dr. noise seems to be suggesting that staying with the SA mount makes sense because it's SIGMA's mount.

In other words, you don't see Canon offering camera's with F mounts, E mounts or X mounts because they are Canon and NOT Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. One could argue m43 is an open standard, but still developed by Oly and Pana and used by some video products. Not sure the image circle of a smaller m43 lens would work properly on a larger C or H sensor, but I'm not an optical engineer

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: I'm also perplexed why no pure mirrorless mount. Not everyone wants sigma lesnes only

By "pure mirrorless" do you mean like m43 (which is used by Oly, Pana and Blackmagic)? All other mounts I know of are proprietary (even those kind of are). Third party lens makers like Tokina, Tamron and... cough, SIGMA, accommodate those mounts so people will by their lenses.

Makes no sense for Sigma to redesign all new lenses for an all new mount when NO ONE ELSE will likely make optics for it. They don't have the market power of, say, Sony, to produce lenses for TWO mounts AND get others on board.

The drawback is larger, heavier optics than the non-FF competition. The pros? Only player in the game with this sensor tech really and solid optics already in play.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 22:05 UTC
In reply to:

Cameracist: Pentax K-01 done right? Except for the viewfinder. We left-eyed are clearly not Sigma-compatible.

I too am left-eyed, but I'd think regardless, that's a helluva position for a right-handed grip camera...

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 21:36 UTC

Agree with many here as well, I'd LOVE for these to be contenders! Heavy lenses (SA) for a mirrorless (losing some advantages?) and the design (though trending oddness with Sigma Q bodies) has me wondering if I'd be able to set it down without it tipping over. I'd expect color and detail to be excellent, just curious about RAW compatibility with non-proprietary software, ISO performance over 400 and user speed. I look forward to seeing how these pan out!

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 20:44 UTC as 147th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

straylightrun: Great lenses, but seriously overpriced.

I agree on the 45mm at least, but if you want the VC feature, which is nice, then it might be worth it compared to traditional 50mm lenses on the market. The 35mm is a bit more competitive I think.

The 35mm, is full frame, weather-sealed, has fluorine coatings and, at least for Canon/Nikon, has image stabilization.

Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC - $600

Canon 35mm f/2 IS - $600 (slower)
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 - $600 (no VR)
Sony 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss - $800 (much slower, no OSS)
Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS - $500 (not full frame)
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 - $900 (faster, but no IS, 33% more $)

I've been keeping an eye on these b/c I'm in the market for a FF 35, so I did some looking while I await more reviews from users and get a look at more sample images.

If one wants a non-sealed, manual-only, non-stabilized lens then a Rokinon/Samyang or older AF/MF lens will be cheaper.

The 45 is a bit out of its element I think right now, but VC could help sell it.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 17:08 UTC

Dear Kimio Maki,

I own an a6000 and am looking to shift the rest of my gear over from Nikon to Sony with the introduction of the A7rII. Since you love your customers, here's a question for you: Why can't I use the PlayMemories app with my a6000 in movie mode? Panasonic EXCELS at this! Even with my GM1, I could do everything with very responsive WiFi feed. It's tragic that a tech giant like Sony can't get these "little things" right. I love the gear, but connectivity is a BIG part of the experience. I'm just glad I can finally do firmware updates from OSX...

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 19:28 UTC as 51st comment | 1 reply
On article Sony issues firmware 1.10 for Alpha 7 II (59 comments in total)

Anyone know if Sony firmware updates work with Mavericks?

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 01:25 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ChrisSwiss: Keep in mind that it was only produced to entertain the DPReview community. I just ordered two (I like the case).

Hahahah. Get a Pelican

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2014 at 17:11 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Everyone seems to ridicule Hassy about this and similar cameras. But in reality, all this tells more about Sony's own attitude towards their own IP and the level of respect, service and integrity for their own users.
I.e., if Hassy is able to better Sony's user experience using same components, then what was Sony's goal in the first place?

Hassy's *betterment plan* was to take a camera another company designed, the guts another company manufactures, coat it with an extra layer of *protection*, pair it with another company's optics and charge 2x for it? It's a joke and a sad one. Photojournalists as well as nature, sports and war photogs would be the only ones likely in the market for a camera this *heavy duty*, but at this price no shooter would want to fork over the cash with that size sensor. They tout the rebranded Pelican case as the truly environmentally-resistant component. Unless I missed something, the original body was dust and moisture resistant. Don't we get freeze-proof for our $12K? I'm going to do an edit for them: *This camera is aimed squarely at people who don't just love taking pictures - but love taking them while looking stupid* My gut tells me that the five guys who buy this paperweight won't shoot with it in public.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2014 at 17:11 UTC
On article Integrating the Apple MacBook Air into a pro workflow (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jon Plain: Interesting read, it does slightly feel like an advertorial but I've also been considering a new air to replace my 2011 13-inch macbook pro.

I also do video editing however so would be curious to know if a new air would still be worth a look or if I'll just have to stick with getting another Pro....

Pro will certainly offer you more power

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2014 at 17:29 UTC
On article Integrating the Apple MacBook Air into a pro workflow (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jon Plain: Interesting read, it does slightly feel like an advertorial but I've also been considering a new air to replace my 2011 13-inch macbook pro.

I also do video editing however so would be curious to know if a new air would still be worth a look or if I'll just have to stick with getting another Pro....

I use my 11" for some FCPX stuff. Decent and obviously screen real estate is terrible, but when I'm on international travel working on getting video/audio syncing and basic edits with what I happen to be carrying with me it does the job. I wouldn't want it to by my only editor, but for a small system, it's my favorite all-time for convenience and weight with digital shooting and preliminary documentary film editing. 13" offers SD slot and more screen space, but I opted for weight and size. It's nice to make clips and delete the bad stuff on the go so I don't have to lug it all back to the states and then sort it out. Also helps me get editing boards (tentative layouts) in place while they are fresh on the brain. If you have the HDD space, it'll do well. An external USB3/TB drive is a huge help as well. Cheers

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2014 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

Dan4321: I've been there, it's hard to use these cameras for sporting events if you are used to the modern automatic DSLRs. Autofocus can't be relied on, ever so slight viewfinder lag, etc. They can be fine for a lot of things, but for sporting events, basically zone focus and keep your other eye open all the time to not miss any action... not saying it can't be done, just that I wouldn't choose it given the choice.

I agree. I've tried them as well. As a professional sports photographer, it's hard enough with the latest gear (D4, D3s) and pro optics to always perform well. Add to it the inherent limitations of AF and responsiveness and it's out the window for some things. With gymnastics - rings and beam might be ok, but swimmers up for air in and out of water and erratic sports with obstacles in the way like volleyball - I'm thinking not. Will be very interested in seeing the quality and hearing the tales...

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2012 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Goodman: Amazing. No one moves anything but his/her head.

Ha, ya, seems easier to retake a bad pic than to make sure no one moves any muscles! This is ridiculous...

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2012 at 14:00 UTC

Now, if only someone would invent a camera that would remove distracting elements, perfectly balance exposure without ever needing filters or flash, pose the subjects, use acceptable composition strategies, not only look for missed expressions but also determine when a smile is "fake", then we wouldn't have to do anything at all!

Honestly, if you're investing in a camera, just learn to use the freak'n thing. Why you'd want a piece of software telling YOU whats best in YOUR images is beyond me. Why are you even taking photos if you can't retake it if it's crap? Seems simple enough.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2012 at 13:59 UTC as 33rd comment
On article Nikon J1 real-world samples gallery (336 comments in total)

The images aren't awful and the noise and the noise handling (for limited test images of course) isn't bad. I'm pulling from memory, but my E-PL2 wasn't any stronger even at 800 and didn't look as clean at 3200. Of course a blue color cast on a breakfast plate is not exactly an industry standard for such illustrations, but it's at least admirable. Now, is it admirable for $650-900? That's another story. If you're coming from the DSLR market, we'll likely be hoping for more. Of course if the tech is great here, the new flock of DSLRs - whenever they may arrive - might be significantly better. If you're a point-and-shooter, this will almost certainly be a major improvement unless you're using the very best high ends like a G12 at which point you'd be gaining the lens flexibility and shooting speeds. I'll admit, I don't hate these images. Though I'm not sure someone forking upwards of a grand is going to take a lot of pics of eggs and peoples ankles from behind. Ha!

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2011 at 15:02 UTC as 85th comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon 1 System First Impressions (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

Light Adrenaline: Honestly, as many have mentioned, the trip up for most seems to be the 2.7x crop on the smallish sensor. Of course, we don't get stellar results out of the 24MP NEX cams IMHO - not for $1400 anyway - and the noise levels on virtually all Panasonic m4/3s is terrible. I had an E-PL2 and it was ok, but struggled under certain conditions as well.

Long story short, if the images are strong off the little thing, then no one will care what the dimensions are. If noise is well controlled, it'll be even stronger.

Of course if they're weak, Nikon will look a fool.

Ha. I totally agree on several points. DOF is gonna be an issue for sure. But apparently it's aimed at users that might not know any different! You're also right about price. It must be in the fancy tech cause it's high for a smaller sensor camera. The other problem is that audience is typically pixel driven and 10 MP just sounds low! If I'm getting the marketing campaign right they are after lower end consumers who don't mind spending more on an ICL unit with a bigger sensor than a PAS, but smaller than less expensive offerings from established mirrorless vendors. They better hope that AF system and high-speed shooting are legit or it'll be a long up-hill battle for Nikon.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 22:12 UTC
On article Nikon 1 System First Impressions (248 comments in total)

Honestly, as many have mentioned, the trip up for most seems to be the 2.7x crop on the smallish sensor. Of course, we don't get stellar results out of the 24MP NEX cams IMHO - not for $1400 anyway - and the noise levels on virtually all Panasonic m4/3s is terrible. I had an E-PL2 and it was ok, but struggled under certain conditions as well.

Long story short, if the images are strong off the little thing, then no one will care what the dimensions are. If noise is well controlled, it'll be even stronger.

Of course if they're weak, Nikon will look a fool.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 21:04 UTC as 115th comment | 2 replies
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17