GlobalGuyUSA

GlobalGuyUSA

Lives in United States Los Angeles, United States
Works as a International Trade
Joined on Jun 24, 2007
About me:

My business is marketing international trade, not photography. My hobbies are primarily graphic art and then photography. Take comments with a grain of salt. I'll learn as much from you as I hope to share with others.

Comments

Total: 224, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Just Ed: Love that green color for the lining. The hard bottom with a foot to help it stand sounds usefull as well. Wonder if the top suspension system will take a fat lens like the Canon 100-400l?

That should be a 70-200 on the side in the above picture. So you can easily imagine that a 100-400 would fit in the center column no problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

Steven R. Rochlin: Have the Case Logic medium camera holder (with lens storage on each size) and it's great. The solid/plastic bottom is very stable and useful. Very well built case of course. Just ordered the above backpack for travelling to take to events / locations. Not the cheapest backpack, yet Case Logic has always done right with quality and durability.

Actually, its pretty cheap compared to similar sized bags. Too many bags cost $200-$300 dollars. At lease this is $150.

I honestly think that nearly all these manufacturers are getting away with robbery when its over $100 though. But this particular bag is HUGE.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 06:34 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: The Tamron should start at 100 mm or even better at 50 mm – to match perfect.
The Tamron always tends to overexposure my animal pictures, I have to correct at least -½ EV and -1 EV – what gives me shorter exposure times then any other super-tele-zoom in this range.
I have the Canon 4.0/200-400 mm x1,4x L IS too and worked a lot with Nikon 4,0/200-400 mm and extenders – both are very heavy and not made for free hand shooting – 1 year ago I got my Tamron, it is so light, that I can shoot with 1/1000 and 1/500 second handheld with best possible image quality.

The Side-by-Side testing with the 4,0/200-400 mm sounds a bit unfair to me – with the Tamron you get an overexposed f:5,6 at 410 mm,
but if I need 600 mm it is overexposed f:6,3 – which leads to a shorter time at 600 mm against f:5,6 at 560 mm – and the Tamron makes a clear point.

In fact, I would argue that the lens manufacturers WANT us to be slightly unhappy and WANT us to "switch lenses often" (not have much overlap" -- precisely so that we will need to buy an additional lens. In other words, our (very slight) discomfort is good for sales.

Therefore, again, unless a start-up company makes a 50-200/2.8 non-VR lens -- sells a few and threatens to put VR in it or sell the design to someone who can -- then its likely Canon/Nikon will not make it on their own.

This is also why those guys are always copying each others zoom ranges (16-35, 24-70, 70-200, etc, etc) without originality. They only go so far as they have to go to avoid losing to competitor. As such, our happiness is not part of the economic equation -- only our purchases. But the ACTION of a startup or competitor can prompt change (for example, Fuji and Sony and 4/3rds has lit a fire under Canon/Nikon which they cannot resist for much longer..... though they will wait as long as they can! lol).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: The Tamron should start at 100 mm or even better at 50 mm – to match perfect.
The Tamron always tends to overexposure my animal pictures, I have to correct at least -½ EV and -1 EV – what gives me shorter exposure times then any other super-tele-zoom in this range.
I have the Canon 4.0/200-400 mm x1,4x L IS too and worked a lot with Nikon 4,0/200-400 mm and extenders – both are very heavy and not made for free hand shooting – 1 year ago I got my Tamron, it is so light, that I can shoot with 1/1000 and 1/500 second handheld with best possible image quality.

The Side-by-Side testing with the 4,0/200-400 mm sounds a bit unfair to me – with the Tamron you get an overexposed f:5,6 at 410 mm,
but if I need 600 mm it is overexposed f:6,3 – which leads to a shorter time at 600 mm against f:5,6 at 560 mm – and the Tamron makes a clear point.

No, no. This is a misinterpretation of economics. Its not a matter of whether or not we are "happy" with what they build -- its a matter of whether or not we BUY what they build. And as you quite well know, everyone is buying these lenses, because, precisely as you mention, correctly, there are not alternatives that are "ideal." So we buy "next to ideal." But happiness doesn't come into the equation, only utility and purchase rate/volume.

In this sense, saying that we are happy or unhappy does nothing. The only thing that can change this situation is taking ACTION -- which is, again, to patent some lens designs and start a Kickstarter and make your own (hey, every company has an origin maybe this is yours), or to boycott buying lenses.

But if someone wants a 50-200/2.8 VRIII, and the only thing is available is a 70-200/2.8 VRII, then most likely they are not going to buy a used 80-200/2.8 non-VR instead, they will buy a 70-200, unless an upstart makes a 50-200/2.8 non-VR first!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: Does the dotted line being ABOVE the solid line mean that samples were better than the published MFT curve... or worse?

The reason I ask this is that we talk about "variation" -- but if variation exceeds quality, then we should not worry about that range of exceptional improvements.

Rather, we should only consider those that fall below (unless I am mistaken, in which case vise-versa, or, perhaps, some other method of understanding).

The Leicas seem to have dotted lines (variation) quite often above the solid lines.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 21:40 UTC

Does the dotted line being ABOVE the solid line mean that samples were better than the published MFT curve... or worse?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 06:11 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

QuarryCat: The Tamron should start at 100 mm or even better at 50 mm – to match perfect.
The Tamron always tends to overexposure my animal pictures, I have to correct at least -½ EV and -1 EV – what gives me shorter exposure times then any other super-tele-zoom in this range.
I have the Canon 4.0/200-400 mm x1,4x L IS too and worked a lot with Nikon 4,0/200-400 mm and extenders – both are very heavy and not made for free hand shooting – 1 year ago I got my Tamron, it is so light, that I can shoot with 1/1000 and 1/500 second handheld with best possible image quality.

The Side-by-Side testing with the 4,0/200-400 mm sounds a bit unfair to me – with the Tamron you get an overexposed f:5,6 at 410 mm,
but if I need 600 mm it is overexposed f:6,3 – which leads to a shorter time at 600 mm against f:5,6 at 560 mm – and the Tamron makes a clear point.

@QuarryCat

By all means, start a KICKSTARTER with your phototechnic lens designs and get those lenses made! You clearly know something "the Japanese" don't. Odd, "the Germans" and "the Americans" don't seem to be doing it either.

The world needs people like you to do something about, otherwise it sounds like you are accusing a whole race of hard-working people of laziness, while you type about them, sitting on your couch. Make the design, patent it, start a Kickstarter!

"QuarryCat Optics International LLC, makers of the original light-weight, affordable 14-400mm f/2.8-4.0 full-frame lens, since 2015." I'd buy one, if you could make it under $2,000.

But you know I'm kidding. Certainly a 50-200/2.8 VR is possible, but its just going to be a while before you get it. Similar the progression found with 28-70/2.8 -> 24-70/2.8 -> 24-70/2.8VR, you have to let is pass through. Its going like this 80-200/2.8 -> 70-200/2.8 -> 70-200/2.8 VR I -> VR II.

Next stage maybe?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 05:40 UTC
In reply to:

John Swenson: I just received the Sigma 24-105 f4 lens that is on back order just about everywhere. I've wanted it for months and it finally arrived today. I'll use it on my Nikon D800.

I'm sure a lot of photographers (me included) want to know if the Sigma 24-35mm is significantly better (or any better) at f4 and above in the 24-35mm range than the Sigma 24-105.

@John
I haven't seen any measurements yet -- but its almost guaranteed to be sharper at f/4 than the Sigma 24-104/4. In fact, given the high-resolution of cameras these days, I would wager to bet that this lens will be SHARPEST at f/4 on 36MP+ density-equivalent sensors given diffraction. Back in the 6-12MP days we could say, stop down to f/8. But on the D810, for example, f/5.6 is usually more often your friend. Not much difference between f/4 & f/5.6 with BRIGHT, sharp lenses, so having the option for f/4 at sharpest can be great for light.

Other zooms won't likely come close without spending much more. That being said, the 24-105/4 is great at its wide end. I think it mainly suffers in other areas, like corners, and fall-off, etc.

For those reasons, if you do shoot at f/2 ever AND you would like to shoot at f/4 (for light, etc), then you should consider this lens, which is a wiser investment than Sigmas 24/1.4 ART & 35/1.4 ART for the purposes youre considering.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 05:22 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: Nice pix, as always; but in terms of lens-autofocus system interaction, it looks to me like the pairing of camera and lens isn't quite nailing it when it comes to getting the eyes in perfect focus.
All the people pictures look like they're focused on the eyelashes or somewhere other than the surface of the eye. Like in the marquee photo, you can see the photographer reflected in the woman's eye, but he's fuzzy when he should be sharp as a razor.
Which flavor of autofocus was being used? Single point or multipoint?
I wonder are we seeing a problem with the lens? Or the camera? Or a little of both?

Of course, the catch-light and the iris are often on the same plane, given the angles of common lighting set ups.

Does anyone else love that we are talking about planes of light on the eye, instead of focusing on "the eye" in general?? Lol.. good times to be a photographer.... in the past, we used to worry about not hitting the eyeball at all, but now, with high-megapixel counts & super high-rez lenses....

You get to choose which eyelash is in focus!!! :-D

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 05:05 UTC
In reply to:

caravan: Zooms might be convenient but none can match even a modest Prime.

@ChrisH37

Guilty. In good tradition of DPReview, I should bitterly argue with you and defend nonsense. But I'll just say, "when you're right, you're right." And you're right. However, the generalization exists because of HOW LARGE the segment is that uses wide angles for that purpose. Its not a justification of a myth, but there is an economic basis in reality. Can this lens replace the 24/1.4 ART and the 35/1.4 ART at f/2 and above or not?

You cut off the question -- albeit with a reasonable tangent. I'd like to know the answer regarding stopped to f/2 and more to understand the relative sharpness of this lens vis a vis Sigma's other offerings.

Rishi mentioned that this lens is sharper than many primes -- so I am curious about how does it compare to the other Sigma primes. Fair question, I think. Even if worded poorly.

Best regards.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 04:56 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: The Tamron should start at 100 mm or even better at 50 mm – to match perfect.
The Tamron always tends to overexposure my animal pictures, I have to correct at least -½ EV and -1 EV – what gives me shorter exposure times then any other super-tele-zoom in this range.
I have the Canon 4.0/200-400 mm x1,4x L IS too and worked a lot with Nikon 4,0/200-400 mm and extenders – both are very heavy and not made for free hand shooting – 1 year ago I got my Tamron, it is so light, that I can shoot with 1/1000 and 1/500 second handheld with best possible image quality.

The Side-by-Side testing with the 4,0/200-400 mm sounds a bit unfair to me – with the Tamron you get an overexposed f:5,6 at 410 mm,
but if I need 600 mm it is overexposed f:6,3 – which leads to a shorter time at 600 mm against f:5,6 at 560 mm – and the Tamron makes a clear point.

Personally, I do wish Sigma would make a 300-600/4 VC, or a 300-600/5.6 VC. Sigma made a "SPORT" version of the 150-300, so I don't know why they couldn't make prime-sharp 2x zoom version. They've shown interest in a 1.5x zoom lately.

Would also like Sigma to update their 50-500 OS with a 60-600 OS. I don't really understand why Sigma chased Tamron on the 150-600. It just never made sense to me. Maybe because they felt Tamron was copying their 150-500, but that was never their best lens.... The 50-500 was better, ironically.

Sigma should have underscored its talents, and driven the market with a 60-600/OS Contemporary, and a 300-600/5.6 OS ART lens. That would have been fantastic and compelling! They still could have replaced the 150-500 with a 150-600. But, did they really need two versions?? I think they are chasing Tamron's brief head start bit and forgot their strength in this new market. So they find themselves looking "me-too" a bit, when the world is ready for more.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 09:10 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: The Tamron should start at 100 mm or even better at 50 mm – to match perfect.
The Tamron always tends to overexposure my animal pictures, I have to correct at least -½ EV and -1 EV – what gives me shorter exposure times then any other super-tele-zoom in this range.
I have the Canon 4.0/200-400 mm x1,4x L IS too and worked a lot with Nikon 4,0/200-400 mm and extenders – both are very heavy and not made for free hand shooting – 1 year ago I got my Tamron, it is so light, that I can shoot with 1/1000 and 1/500 second handheld with best possible image quality.

The Side-by-Side testing with the 4,0/200-400 mm sounds a bit unfair to me – with the Tamron you get an overexposed f:5,6 at 410 mm,
but if I need 600 mm it is overexposed f:6,3 – which leads to a shorter time at 600 mm against f:5,6 at 560 mm – and the Tamron makes a clear point.

Its not a mistake, its a function of weight vs. optical quality. It was hardly long ago that "28-70/2.8" was possible. We're only in the era of "24-70/2.8" right now. This has been prolonged by adding VR. So really we are in the next step, which is "24-70/2.8 VR". Maybe some day we will see a "20-70/2.8" or a "24-90/2.8" but we simply aren't there yet. Its not a "Japanese mistake" -- its physics and costs and weight.

All of the lenses you want already DO exist, but within the realm of physics/economics. You can buy a 24-85/variable VR right now. You can buy a 24-105/4 OS. Hell, you can buy a 24-120/4 VR. And a 50-500/variable OS! Those lenses exist. You just can't have it f/2.8.

I think what you might be suggesting -- if I catch your drift -- is that you'd be willing to pay 3-4 times more money for each of those lenses & lift 3-4 times more weight, if they would make those things f/2.8 or f/4? But most people wouldn't, which is why there isn't a market for it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 09:04 UTC
In reply to:

Kuroneku: Why were this images so muddy???

ALSO: Its a 4x tele-zoom for $1000. Not a prime at a $1000. Not a 2x f/4 fixed zoom at $6000. Its a 4x tele-zoom for $1000. And we're looking at the long-end of its images, where tele-zooms are always weakest.

Not really going to expect optical perfection at the long end of a cheap tele-zoom. Oh yeah... and "shimmering" or whatever. :-P

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 08:51 UTC
In reply to:

caravan: Zooms might be convenient but none can match even a modest Prime.

Too general/ambiguous, Rishi.

The images look pretty good. How does this compare to the Sigma 24/1.4 ART and 35/1.4 ART @ f/2, Rishi? Considering that f/1.4 is hardly needed for those lengths, and that Sigma's prime lenses are virtually lead weights the size of bricks, is this THE lens to replace them with for those who need only f/2 (many landscape photographers don't even need f/2.8)?

Put another way -- this is only a less-than-2x zoom -- but are the 24/1.4 ART and 35/1.4 ART -sharper- at f/2 and above?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 05:56 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

afterburn: I like the images C1P produces when someone else has edited them, but I couldn't produce a result I like to save my life with it. So, I will stick with LR which gives me results in a few seconds.

But... you may say, that is because you don't know how to work the program. And you would be entirely correct. I might even be able to get better results in C1P than I get in Adobe products if I knew C1P inside out.

But why would anyone throw years of learning and experience of product A in the bin just to invest money and time to acquire and learn product B when product A does everything you need it to do?

On principle -- Competition vs. Monopoly.

For flexibility -- Slightly different strengths.

To "push" the leader to keep innovating instead of resting on laurels and getting stupid. Not that this is a critique of either.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 19:47 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: Mirrorless enthusiasts claim that the former is less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs, but that claim doesn't seem to be reflected in the price of most mirrorless cameras.

It most certainly is fruitful, because it gets at the question, "is a lens bright enough" for a certain format (given the REALITIES of that format vis a vis another). Simply there is an unmistakable gap between high ISO image quality with a FF sensor and a 1" sensor, even when using the same f/stop lens, at not even high ISOs -- but any ISO above 400. At least in my experience. Obviously this has to do with sensor generation and processor generation as much as anything (ISO is an outdated term, but, in general, it works for comparisons, because cameras still use ISO-f/stop-Shutter as main controls).

That's a 3x crop. I'm just guessing that for MFT, which is a 2x crop, it is less pronounced by a certain factor. But that its probably significant (in the sense that it is noticeable). And then, as others have mentioned, for APS-C, which is 1.5 crop, its hardly noticeable, though slight.

Is a FF+f/4@ISO6400 "as bright"/clean as a MFT+f/2.8@ISO6400? Exposure compensation allowed.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 17:35 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: Mirrorless enthusiasts claim that the former is less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs, but that claim doesn't seem to be reflected in the price of most mirrorless cameras.

@IarekB
Its true, I was asking the question; although it might sound like I'm answering the question as well... in reality I was just proposing thoughts/ideas to trigger responses (and I see many have replied). I'm just really curious WHY does an f/4 at ISO 3200 look "pretty good" on a D750, but "really, really bad" on a Nikon 1? Nikon 1 uses a 1" sensor, and has a 3x crop factor against Fullframe. But the core of the question is -- using different aperture lenses with different sensor sizes.

So the real question is -- is it 3x worse at ISO 3200? I would apply the same thought to this situation of SONY vs. OLY. In this case, the crop factor is only 2x. I'm legitimately asking. If we use, say, ISO 3200 (which a lot of people use these days), on a SONY+f/4 Lens, vs. a OLY+f/2.8 OLY Lens....... which one is going to look better? Will they look the same? I'm just wondering if the SONY "cleans up" well enough to overcome the aperture gap, but virtue of the sensor & sensor size.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 05:56 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: Mirrorless enthusiasts claim that the former is less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs, but that claim doesn't seem to be reflected in the price of most mirrorless cameras.

@IarekB
I understand what you're saying based on what you've outlined -- but WHY is a "Nikon 1," for example, so terrible, even with an f/3.5 lens, at ISO 1600, when compared to a Nikon "D750" with an f/3.5 lens, at ISO 1600?

Whether or not everyone can agree that an APS-C is "similar" to a Fullframe, we can certainly see a difference between Fullframe and MFT. Furthermore, we can see a significant difference between APS-C and 1" sensors. Even more, we can see a significant difference between 1" sensors and cellphones.

Even when they are all using f/1.8 or f/2.8 lenses, the differences are readily apparent in quality. I am not saying that difference isn't rapidly shrinking. But I am curious how do you account for the difference?

I think "CLEAN" ISOs is exactly what we are talking about.

And rightfully so.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 00:01 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: Mirrorless enthusiasts claim that the former is less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs, but that claim doesn't seem to be reflected in the price of most mirrorless cameras.

How can the Sony full-frame f/4 lens be "too dark" compared to a MFT camera lens? I thought that if full-frame is 100%, then the MFT has a 2x multiplier. I know this doesn't apply equally to all aspects of light capture, but given IDENTICAL sensors, in general isn't this the case:

An f/1.4 MFT lens = f/3 equivalent compared to the Sony f/4.
An f/2.0 MFT lens = f/4 equivalent compared to the Sony f/4.
An f/2.8 MFT lens = f/6 equivalent compared to the Sony f/4.

Lens blur being different from aperture, but can be a visible illustration (MFT won't be as blurred as a full-frame at same aperture). But given that Sony's sensors class-leading and more sensitive than Oly's and other MFT's manufacturers, shouldn't the brightness question be less cut-and-dry? I think the Full-Frame Sony at f/4 would be plenty bright, compared to MFT at f/2.8, or at least similar. And the bokeh blur would even be stronger.

Or am I wrong about that?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 05:54 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1198 comments in total)

I don't think it looks better at all.

It seems to look worse at the majority of ISOs in the majority of the frame. I have no idea what is supposed to be the improvement here. Okay, it has some basic 4K (not even the best implementation of it), but let's face it, the majority of new cellphones have 4K now. So what's the deal with this?

They should charge less for this camera than its predecessor or exactly the same price as the current one is right now. I don't see how this improves a photographers ability to make pictures. Still a good camera; but Sony needs to try harder if they want this to be considered a different version, though.

This a Mark III.5, not a Mark IV.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 05:50 UTC as 141st comment
Total: 224, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »