SMPhoto

SMPhoto

Lives in United States Austin US, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at http://scottmonroephoto.com
Joined on Jun 26, 2007

Comments

Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Tom Nokin: The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.

True, and since the coma performance looks respectable, it will probably hold some allure to astros.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

SMPhoto: 150-450 seems like an interesting choice to get one of the first 2 development spots, when you don't have the necessities covered yet, like a 24-70 2.8, 16-35 2.8, etc.

Points well made. I suppose I wasn't giving enough consideration to the fact that they have time to introduce those before or with their first FF body, and therefore lauched ones more attractive to current customers first.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2015 at 03:22 UTC
In reply to:

Diablorini: Will be interesting to see how these perform compared to fixed density screw in filters from the likes of B+W, Hoya, Formatt Hightech, Tiffen and so on.

I wonder if that ND 100.000 filter is strong enough to image the sun in full?

Very well. Based on lab tests of other filter types, such as Cir Pol and UV, Marumi is consistently ranked near or at the top along with B+W (and Hoya's best for UV). I like B+W's rings a little better, but in terms of optical quality, Marumi are among the best on the market.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2015 at 03:20 UTC

150-450 seems like an interesting choice to get one of the first 2 development spots, when you don't have the necessities covered yet, like a 24-70 2.8, 16-35 2.8, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 19:59 UTC as 5th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Hey Tokina! 1987 called, and it wants its lenses back!

Really, could they have made these lenses look any more cheap and generic? If the lenses turn out to be great performers (which would not surprise me), then the horribly dated looks will be even more unfortunate!

To me it's not even the finish that makes the 24-70 look cheap, it's the "trombone" external extension. Screams kit lens. I much prefer the design of the Canon, Nikon, and Tamron 24-70 2.8 that have very little extension. Or for that matter, my old Tokina 28-80 2.8 FROM about 1987 (ok, more like 2000) that's sitting in the closet that didn't extend at all and was a great looking lens that was built like a tank. Unfortunately not so great autofocus and not real sharp or I might still use.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 02:45 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Nokin: The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.

True. Like most other photography tools, it's really about fitness for a particular purpose. For landscape work, the 16-35 f4 is probably a better option do to the ability to use filters and unlikely need for f2.8. For low light indoor shots, the Tamron probably would be a better choice.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Nokin: The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.

The ability to take filters is definitely a big plus. Or, anyone on a tight budget willing to give up another 1mm could go for the older 17-35 2.8-4.0 and save nearly $1000. It's a quite solid performing little lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 02:28 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review preview (441 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: I don't understand why manufacturers (other than increasing gross sales I suppose) come out with ILCs then don't offer them as body only.

Well if that's the case, then I guess I'm mistaken. The article only mentioned the kit for $899 and when I search a few retail sites like amazon, i also only saw kit.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 20:54 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review preview (441 comments in total)

I don't understand why manufacturers (other than increasing gross sales I suppose) come out with ILCs then don't offer them as body only.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 04:56 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Tom Nokin: The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.

Given that their 24-70 and 70-200 VC lenses are on par with Nikon equivalents, and I think the 150-600 is probably on par through the overlapping focal range with the 80-400, I'd think that it's realistic to hope it will be. The 14-24 is very good, but I"m betting this is lens is in the IQ ballpark with it and the 16-35. Build quality may be slightly down, but the latest crop of Tamron FFs are built quite impressively for the $

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2015 at 03:28 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1448 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: It reminds me another website where we discussed interest of 1" sensors (13mm x8.9mm, essentially half of APS-C) and we agreed that these are great sensors today, largely over the quality of a D300 (for what I know) in any way, thus able to deliver better results in any conditions in a smaller form factor.

Today we have an incredible offer in terms of sizes, from medium-format to 1", including "full frame", APS-C, micro-4/3, etc.

I think we are pretty lucky to have all these options, to enable everyone to find what is really relevant for it's kind of photography.

Having shot both, I'd have to doubt that the 1" sensors Are largely better than a D300 sensor. While some may offer a little more resolution, I think when you factor in Dynamic Range and High ISO noise, I think the older APS-C still has an edge. I recently sold a night cityscape 24x36 print shot 9 years ago with a Canon 10D that had a sensor vastly inferior to the D300, and I don't think my wife's new Nikon 1 could produced a significantly better print based on what I've aeen.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:00 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pritzl: Necessary lens to add to the "pro" credentials of the Fuji system but I think it's a bit too large for the Fuji bodies. I think when I finally get a Fuji system I'll stick with the smaller, stellar primes.

Now bring on the ETTL flash systems.

I suspect the "X Pro 2" will be a cornerstone of their strategy as well, be interesting to see what it brings.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

baggy1: So this weighs more & is a lot more expensive than my Nikon 24-85 VR which can sit on an already small & light Nikon d750 which also has the benefit of full frame & mind blowing AF & incredible flash system.I don't get all the Fuji love in.Can someone enlighten me?

mind blowing AF...mind blowing IQ...its close to the same

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 22:22 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

boarderphreak: Fuji just trounced Canikon and people bring on the hate. Amazing - and totally expected. :D

Given that both the Canon and Nikon 17-55 2.8 lenses for APS-C also have a 77mm filter thread, I fail to see how that astonishes you on the Fuji? or has anything to do with a 300 f4. Did you expect Fuji to wave a magic wand and shrink it? Just because Fuji is eliminating the mirror and making the body smaller than the DSLRs designed for those other similar lenses doesn't mean they can magically change the light gathering needs of the lens to feed the same sized sensor. Fuji has an excellent 18-55 f4 if you want to trade size for light.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 22:17 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lab D: Fuji has taken the lead in APS mirrorless. Samsung looks poised to do well too. Both now have multiple F/2.8 or faster zooms.
It will be interesting to see of the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless offerings this year are APS or only FF.
It's been almost 2 years since Sony announced a new APS mirrorless lens and zero are on the horizon. There may be too much competition looking in that format size.

I'm not sure about old Fuji film cameras, but in terms of digital ILCs, I know of only two, Nikon DX (which made sense when Nikon was building the bodies) and the new Fuji X mount. I wouldn't say that makes Fuji prone to abandoning lens mounts.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 19:55 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: $1200 for aps 2.8 zoom w/o stabilization makes no sense. It should be at least f2.0 to be competitive against FF zooms.

Unless you are a manufacturer that wants to court high end shooters, but has no FF sensors in their lineup. Like Fuji or Oly, hence the introduction of this lens. As far as Canon or Nikon shooters go, I agree. I doubt the $1400 Nikon 17-55 2.8 would exist if Nikon had FX bodies at the time it was introduced.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 19:45 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

whyamihere: The most popular complaints appear to be:

"It's heavy and big!" I'm not sure what you were expecting out of a f/2.8 zoom made mostly of metal and glass. It's about the same size and weight as most other f/2.8 APS-C zooms out there.

"If I attach this lens to my Fuji camera, it's no longer the ultimate travel camera!" Unless you lost all of your other lenses, you can still mount them to your camera when you travel.

"It has no IS!" Most zooms of this type don't, either.

"But the Canon and Samsung lenses have IS!" Those lenses also have inconsistent optics. Which is more important to you: IQ or IS?

"It's overpriced!" Except it costs roughly the same as the competition.

I don't own Fuji gear, but, come on, these arguments are pretty weak.

It's smaller, lighter and cheaper than the beast sized Nikon 17-55 2.8G, which honestly is the only truly similar APS-C lens in terms of optical specifications and build quality I can think of.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 17:18 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (816 comments in total)
In reply to:

AmateurSnaps: I love the idea of a bridge camera but at this price what are the advantages of this camera over a Canon/Nikon/Sony with for example the Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro?

Mirror lockup. The more difficult issue to get around is shutter induced vibration. This is why Nikon redesigned shutter on D810.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 07:15 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (816 comments in total)
In reply to:

AmateurSnaps: I love the idea of a bridge camera but at this price what are the advantages of this camera over a Canon/Nikon/Sony with for example the Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro?

A little size. Also, potentially lens sharpness. I'm not sure about that Tamron 16-300, but most superzooms are pretty bad at the long end, and I know at least the RX10 is suppose to be pretty sharp out at 200 corner to corner. I know I had a Nikon 18-200 on a D7000 for a few months as a travel kit when on motorcycle rides and it was so bad I sold the lens. Useless beyond 150 or so. And while the APC sensor has much better high ISO, the 2 stops of lens speed will make up for that.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 21:48 UTC
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 article (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

Evgb: I just can't understand Panasonic:
12-32 kit is fine,
but if you want some portrait focal lengs -
to snap the kids,
you have to buy Panasonic's 14-140 superzoom lens -
or to have 2 lenses with you, and swap them all the time.
Thus, only the lens is more expensive - and not compact anyway - then Canon 700D with 18-135 STM kit.

Very dissapointing. It seems that if you have a family - it's a a point-and-shoot or a DSLR.

40 would make a lot of difference. You are correct that 64 equiv is a little short on for great portrait work, though not significantly so compared to 24-70 2.8 FF lenses that, while not ideal for portrait work, are the typical lens on a good dlsr if you are only carrying one lens. Though that's only from a feature compression standpoint, not depth of field, where obviously the 24-70 FF has a tremendous advantage.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 22:22 UTC
Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »