Kevin Sutton: Excellent article but I find I tend to agree with the 1950's American publishers regarding the photos. Some of the subject matter would have been much more interesting if it was in focus and not blurred etc. Maybe I just don't understand Art...
"I have an iq of 154, but I really don't get what passes for art sometimes. No joke."
Please. The joke is that you expect us to infer your superiority in this matter via your result on one of many highly variable, culturally biased tests of narrow cognitive ability.
zinedi: Inceribly slow glass for such small sensor.
It's also a small lens, you dolt.
theiC: What a waste of time. I did read critical thiings about the challenges section here before I joined; it turns out the critics were right.
vqueen, if you lack the intellectual capacity to predict the outcome of your challenge title, I suggest you should live with your own shortcomings and welcome the entries submitted, rather than making up for lack of rigour by changing the rules as you go along.
I'm finished here.
vqueen -- the point is this: if you're not specific enough to begin with, and people enter the challenge with photos that fit the rules as stated, then it's FAR better to accept those entries and embrace the expanded scope of the challenge than it is to retroactively disqualify a bunch of participants--_especially_ if you're gone for several days in the interim.
kimchiflower: Olympus' 14-35mm f2.0 (28-70mm) weighed in at a similar 900g to the Sigma. It boasts legendary sharpness and is weather sealed.
It is currently $2300 on Amazon, despite being released years ago. I'd expect this sigma to be around that price bracket upon release.
yabokkie: rubbish, as usual. The 14-35 is acknowledged to be one of the highest-performance standard zooms for any format. It's only "not worth the price" if you think 4/3 is somehow crippled by "basic physics"... i.e. from nonsense comes nonsense.
qwertyasdf: Seems there are only 2 companies that is genuinely passionate about photography.....Sigma and Cosina (Voigtlander)Others...Leica is just a nameHasselblad is a lunacySony and Nikon are OKPentax will go out of business (though i really think they should be the one to bring out a 1.8 zoom, given that they "all-in-ed" the APSC format)Don't even mention Canon......
agentul: the hood thing is annoying, yes; but if that's all you can come up with...
It's pure snobbery not to mention Olympus .. even if you don't appreciate the 4/3 and m4/3 formats, you can't deny they've put in every ounce of their engineering talent -- particularly into the lenses. If that doesn't define "passion", I don't know what does.
yabokkie: I have a problem with the word "super-fast". it isn't. this lens is an equivalent of 24.6-53.7mm f/2.8 on Nikon and Sony APS-Cs. it's just as fast as an f/2.8 zoom on 35mm format.
p.s., it's a 25.8-56.4mm f/2.9 on Canon APS-Cs. the real range and f-number may be different that we will likely have a slightly narrower range and less fast zoom.
yabokkie has this same argument with different people in every single gear announcement.
Eventually he's reduced to nonsense claims about "basic physics", and then you know you've hit the wall.
It's more productive to count the loose change in your couch.
yabokkie ... when pretty much everyone argues or disagrees with each one of your interpretations and opinions, it's time to consider whether you may in fact be -- wrong.
lucianopeixoto: I fell in love with this lens!
Do tell. A poem?
yabokkie: a natural thing which will happen sooner or later. think it's a bit late that the APS-C SLRs are fading out of the market. hope m4/3" gang can have 12-35/1.4s before it's too late.
yabokkie: it's not a very good idea to use a lens on a format it was not designed for. but for 4/3" users they don't have other choices at the moment. 4/3" makers have been refusing to make large aperture lenses because they want to cheat with small ones.
@yabokkie: You keep saying "basic physics" like it means something. It doesn't.
@marcio: okay, but what's the point of a small camera system if it doesn't have small lenses?
You'd get no benefit from an MFT 12-35 f1.4 over a 35mm 24-70 f2.8 -- same DOF control, similar low light performance, and (other than the body) similiar size.
I'd say that's "why the h*ll" such a thing doesn't exist. :-)
"I stand with basic physics."
Since when does "basic physics" produce subjective conclusions such as "4/3 image qualities are low"?
The best (micro) 4/3 images have better color depth, dynamic range, and resolution than the original 35mm Canon 5D, with its 4x area sensor.
The quantity of light entering the lens is irrelevant; it's how that light is translated into a digital image that matters. The sensor is the thing.
@yabokkie: "the fundamental reason why 4/3" image qualities are low"?
You're talking in absolutes for a relative measurement; you could make exactly the same argument for why 35mm "image qualities" are low in comparison to medium format.
The fact is that 4/3 (or more accurately, M4/3, with the newer sensors) has "image qualities" that are more than acceptable for a large number of applications--certainly acceptable enough for most of the photography engaged in by members of these forums.
Your original comment is also risible. What do you consider a "large aperture" -- f/1.8? f/1.4? Or how about f/0.95? Because there are native MFT lenses in all those speeds.
marcio: unless you're a lens designer, you're just blowing smoke.
Anyway, the f2.8 MFT lens you're talking about is about half the size and a quarter of the weight of the equivalent 35mm f2.8 .. so I don't get your complaint.
If it was the same size as the FF lens, then it could probably be faster. Oh, right, like the Olympus 14-35...
panos_m: I wonder. Can pictures like these stop domestic violence? I believe not. But then what is the point of these pictures? Please help me understand.
steelski: what's the point of calling 911 twice? And what do you make of the victim's approval to publish the pictures? Are we to understand you think your opinion is more important?
ryansholl: Allow me to completely depart from the "she's a terrible person" parade for a moment.
Having been around similar situations with both males and females flying off the handle, I say as not a small guy that there was really nothing she could have done to make things better aside from physically restrain the man. How many here have tried to physically restrain someone for an extended period? Someone much stronger, as I imagine this man is?
The police were probably right that intervening probably would have only resulted in making him even more angry and getting the both of them assaulted.
So, instead we have photos illustrating a bit of what situations like this can be like. Many may never have any idea otherwise. It's very easy to forget about if you are lucky enough to not be involved or know someone involved.
Kudos to her. I'm glad that no one was seriously hurt and hopefully the guy can get the help he needs and the girlfriend can see herself away from the situation.
I completely agree.
It's bizarre how quickly others have condemned a fellow photographer for bravely documenting such a difficult subject in close quarters. I'm sure the emotional toll was not insignificant.
newcameralight: I love photography and my cameras. But, at some point I would have been using my high dollar Nikon as a brick upside that punks head. No way would I busy myself shooting pictures while some macho punk is beating on a woman. If anybody wants to volunteer info that that girl "disrespected" him and asked for a beating, then he/she needs counseling.
You're the true hero of this story.
It's facile to cry exploitation and shame: the same argument could be made for conflict photographers across the globe. We recognize the value in bluntly documenting the reality of war; why not the reality of domestic violence?
(I also wonder if the moralists here disagree with the police's advice that intervening would have been the wrong decision.)
io_bg: Oh noes! Now my D90 is lagging two generations behind ;(
@Peiasdf: don't forget the SSDs!
The Samsung 840 Pro is probably the best value high performance model at the moment, but even the last-generation SandForce drives are fine for photo editing, and they're cheaper still...