PIX 2015
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: 252, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On The new Canon 35L II will be a thing of beauty article (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gary Martin: I can't tell the ads from the articles any more ...

I think I realized this when I was reading his review of the 15-30/2.8 VC Tamron, I believe? I felt like he was going out of his way to prove a point about how great it is. I felt it was a commercial.

But what I realized is that since I own the 14-24/2.8 Nikon, I just wanted there to be more flaws with the 15-30 VC than there actually may be. That was my bias.

If he would have dinged it a bit more, I probably wouldn't have thought that way. But then again, the lens is innovative, in a way, and did deserve praise. I'm guessing this Canon is similar.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 02:30 UTC
On The new Canon 35L II will be a thing of beauty article (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gary Martin: I can't tell the ads from the articles any more ...

Like you, I felt that Rishi's articles and comments always sound like he is paid by the manufacturer. You can do a review of his comments and articles and see how enthusiastic he is (questionable for a reviewer, we expect heavy negativity somewhere). So, at first, I thought he was on the payroll, but what I found out is that he seems to grab on to things he likes, and then he frames them in a very bright/enthusiastic way. In some sense, there is a lack of nuance. But in another sense, it is focusing on positive attributes. And when pressed, he will tell you exactly what he thinks about the competition or those that fall short. So I don't see this kind of comment being justified.

Whatever the case, I think we should all agree that this Canon lens is probably deserving of praise to Canon. Not only is it innovative but does look optically superior with very, very pleasant attributes. I can't see how anyone could fault an article for stating the obvious.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 20:30 UTC

Nearly 1 year old technology -- dumped on the US market to get rid of excess stock? How generous. Just kidding, I read that somewhere.

Actually, I also think this camera is going in the right direction -- as is Nikon's latest mirrorless semi-pro iteration -- and was QUITE PERPLEXED as to why they didn't release in the US more than 6 months ago, when the fire was hot.

Both need work, but you can't sell anything, unless theyre in the market!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 02:06 UTC as 47th comment
In reply to:

jiayaw: Can someone explain how this provides an advantage over arca swiss plates? I can have dedicated arca plates for each of my camera and telephoto lens and have better stability and still end up paying less than what I'd need to pay if I were to get this...

Thanks @BJN!!!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

jiayaw: Can someone explain how this provides an advantage over arca swiss plates? I can have dedicated arca plates for each of my camera and telephoto lens and have better stability and still end up paying less than what I'd need to pay if I were to get this...

The clamp is not replaceable - its a Super Pro Head 229 3D. This thing is AMAZING. I love it. Fantastic. The most solid & easy to use tripod gear I have, much, much preferable over my RRS ballheads. Of course, a bit heavier too.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0017LEESA/

What I didn't want to do is disturb the "stability" of the system by having the FIXED/PERMANENT hex head-clamp + a hex plate + an arca head-clamp on the hex plate + arca swiss foot + camera -- to me that would introduce too much wobble. That's not Arca Swiss's fault, while the Hex system is super-secure, it has a very tiny amount of play & layers on top of it would amplify that problem. But you did prompt me to make a search... and look what I found! Im hoping this adapter will replace the HEX itself, even if clamp is fixed.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/555502-REG/Kirk_SQRC_HEX_Quick_Release_Clamp_for.html

In this case, maybe I can get away with FIXED hex clamp + THIS arca adapter + arca plate! W00!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

jiayaw: Can someone explain how this provides an advantage over arca swiss plates? I can have dedicated arca plates for each of my camera and telephoto lens and have better stability and still end up paying less than what I'd need to pay if I were to get this...

You're correct: Arca Swiss is better -- but Arca Swiss is not universal. I think everyone would agree with that, actually.

Honestly, I think people like me, who are invested in some of Manfrottos more serious gear (some of their heads were QUITE GOOD), especially those crappy "Hex" plates, could use this.

Does anyone know a way to convert a "Hex" plate into an Arca Swiss? Or do I need this thing?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 18:47 UTC
In reply to:

jiayaw: Can someone explain how this provides an advantage over arca swiss plates? I can have dedicated arca plates for each of my camera and telephoto lens and have better stability and still end up paying less than what I'd need to pay if I were to get this...

You seem to have totally missed the key word "universal."

Contrast that with "Arca Swiss" -- which is...... "Arca Swiss." In other words, Arca Swiss arent the only kinds of plates that exist in the world. There are SOME PRODUCTS which -cannot- accept Arca Swiss plates. They are really good products! Which is why we bought them. Obviously, we'd prefer they were Arca Swiss, but, for some reason, their manufacturers didn't make it compatible.

In that case, this might be helpful.

That being said, I think they need to reduce the profile height on that sucker by 50% -- it is pretty chunky. But it is a great idea.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 18:34 UTC
In reply to:

SidePod: don't organic materials age fast? OLED displays and organic color filters in homecinema projectors are said to suffer from this ....

No one knows yet. We don't know what its made out of exactly. Apparently its new.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 07:50 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Still amazed at how relatively inexpensive the 200-500mm lens is. If it's good optically, it's a bargain.

^What are you talking about. No one was commenting on lens choices -- the comment about the 70-300VR is related to the COST of the lens for its construction. The 200-500VR is a non-gold ring lens. For it to be 3 times more expensive than the 70-300VR, if it is of similar construction is totally believable, as they both are non-gold ring lenses. Three times more expensive sounds "about right" for a same class, bigger, lens.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 06:20 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: A few years ago I almost bought a 70-200 VR 1 from a photographer friend and talking about gear he told me he was quite desperate about the 24-70. He repaired more than one copy for the approximate cost of 1000 US dollars/lens because the lens zoom would jam at 35 mm. Also, the repair was done in Germany, I think, because our country didn't have such a qualified service.

I seem to recall that this was a problem back in the day and is the reason I never considered a 24-70 and the reason why the 28-70 still sells at high prices.

On the other hand, Nikon putting VR, 82 mm filter and 500 dollar bump in the 24-70 VR is not good news.

I want nikon to:
- release an update to the 135 f/2
- release an update to the 16 fisheye
- release a new 100 f/2
- rethink the 50 f/1.4 G as this one is flawed and it gives me 2/10 weirdly misfocused images
- rethink their autofocus strategy because it's too jumpy, going from perfect focus to hunting for better focus for sh*ts and giggles.

Nicolai, that never happens to any of my Nikon lenses except the Nikon 85/1.4G. Everyone one of the other ones are dead solid and confident at the AF you describe (at least on the D810).

The Sigma 50/1.4EX, on the other hand performs exactly like the 85/1.4G (but much, much worse, with dramatic insane swings in focus). The Sigma 50/1.4 Art is a bit better, but not truly confident.

I do know what you are talking about though; but was just clarifying. I don't think this is a Nikon issue "in general" though, as the rest of my lenses are solid.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

Cheng Bao: 200-500 is steal

What are you talking about? Please don't be insane or weirdly stalker-ish. There were only 3 options in the vote, "I want it," "I own it," and "I used to own it."

There is no option for "I'm considering it." So I voted the closest thing, as others did. But none of us have seen it yet.

Also, please re-read my comment, "But let's see how it performs." While I feel doubtful Nikon has made a winner (I have the 28-300VR and the 70-300VR afterall... both "good" lenses" but by no means "great"), and the fact that Nikon didn't put a gold ring on this one makes me suspicious, that's all it is. Suspicion.

However, my HOPES are that its truly excellent. But we shall see.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:57 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: regarding the 200-500: will it be sharper or equal to the 80-400mm in the 200-400mm range?...we have to see the comparisons, but the price of this new lens is a strange move from nikon since it will be almost 1k less than the 80-400.

with the popularity of the tamron and the two sigmas with their wider and longer focal range, the nikkor should have to do quite good on performance if they want to sell alot of copies. The extra 100mm of the third party options still a big deal for many wildlife photographers.

Maybe for many nikon shooters, this lens migh be kind of the 400 f5.6 canon version they were asking for... so in that case, this lens must do great also in the AF performace... and for that price i doubt it.

What do you mean PDAF? Is that something the Canon has? The D7200 has its own advantages, such as more pixels, PLUS far, far more dynamic range. I guess what I would say is that it could use a larger buffer and more frames per second for those specific uses. But it stills seems very "professional" to me. Its funny how Nikon basically created the "DX" cropped category by making its users -- over a decade ago -- believe that it would never have an FX fullframe body in digital -- and now it makes them believe it doesn't support DX anymore. What a stupid little game to play. I fully agree that a "D5"-esque "D500" needs to come out and end the question of Nikon's commitment to DX. We are well beyond the "D400"'s timeframe. Sometimes you need a flagship simply precisely to be that.. a flagship that sales rallies behind, because it shows the path forward clearly.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:52 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: A few years ago I almost bought a 70-200 VR 1 from a photographer friend and talking about gear he told me he was quite desperate about the 24-70. He repaired more than one copy for the approximate cost of 1000 US dollars/lens because the lens zoom would jam at 35 mm. Also, the repair was done in Germany, I think, because our country didn't have such a qualified service.

I seem to recall that this was a problem back in the day and is the reason I never considered a 24-70 and the reason why the 28-70 still sells at high prices.

On the other hand, Nikon putting VR, 82 mm filter and 500 dollar bump in the 24-70 VR is not good news.

I want nikon to:
- release an update to the 135 f/2
- release an update to the 16 fisheye
- release a new 100 f/2
- rethink the 50 f/1.4 G as this one is flawed and it gives me 2/10 weirdly misfocused images
- rethink their autofocus strategy because it's too jumpy, going from perfect focus to hunting for better focus for sh*ts and giggles.

Anyway, everything can be improved. Better that Nikon and competitors think about it. The 24-70/2.8 definitely does get a LOT of "play" due to the way its used. Compared to studio use of an 85/1.4 or a group-photo to landscape 24/1.4. When you are running around with a 24-70/2.8 zooming in and out continuously and focusing forward and backward severely every weekend as a wedding photographer, intensely not to miss a single once-in-a-lifetime moment, something is eventually going to give. Any weak point will show itself. Sports lenses often have to be tougher for similar reasons. I dont doubt the 24-70/2.8 could be improved. But I'm guessing that THIS is the improvement! It looks fierce.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

Cheng Bao: 200-500 is steal

Its not a steal if it isn't optically as good as the 150-600s --OR-- if its ONLY AS GOOD as the 150-600s. In that case, the 150-600s will still be cheaper & more preferable, with longer range to boot.

If this was a 300-600, I would care more. 200-500 has been done. Hell, you can get a very good 50-500 OS Sigma right now; they are fantastic, and its probably worth the $200 more than the Nikon, if the Nikon isn't PERFECT at 500mm.

And since when is Nikon ever perfect at its longest length in a non-gold-ring zoom? I'm guessing that this is just an over-inflated $400 70-300VR.

But lets see how it performs. Being 2x vs. a 4x zoom could have a significant advantage over the 150-600s. If its absolutely sharper at 500mm, then my money is with the Nikon!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:31 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: going to 82mm filters now? Nikon obsession with constantly changing filter sizes is vexing...

Or they make the LENSES and the filter is an after-thought -- instead of designing lenses around filter-sizes.

Seriously, it is absolutely no big deal whatsoever to convert every single lens to a 77mm using a step-up filter ring. But there are physical limitations to what can be done without a large front element. So if you want more and more resolution and sharper and sharper corners, you're going to need bigger front elements. That's just how it is.

I think this is a smart move by Nikon, because the Tamron already exists and is well-established, and the Nikon 24-70/2.8 is an extremely good alternative which can now reduce in price or stabilize. Meanwhile, there is added value in a truly superior lens.

The only reason this lens has an 82mm filter size is because it was designed to be truly superior to the current one.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:26 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: on another note... Nikon going to very large front elements and 'E' models with electronic aperture motors is an obvious attempt to do everything they can to innovate without changing the F mount.

they would be better off creating a new mount like Canon did with a larger throat and more contacts. it would give them more versatility as they migrated to the inevitable mirrorless models

I don't know what you guys are complaining about. Film is dead. There are plenty of film lenses out there which resolve film just fine. Go with those lenses. Literally millions and millions of lenses.

Let's move on already.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:23 UTC
In reply to:

Shangri La: The 24-70 VR is MASSIVE!

Based on the demo photos, the bokeh is GREAT.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:19 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Still amazed at how relatively inexpensive the 200-500mm lens is. If it's good optically, it's a bargain.

Why? The 70-300VR is $350-400 bucks.

You shouldn't surprised that its "big brother" will cost over 3x more. The only reason you are surprised is because of how much Nikon has ripped us off on the 80-400VR.

Hell, even the amazing 70-200/4VR is only about a grand.

So let's not act like this is a great price. Its a normal price, instead of an insane price. Sad when the market is accustomed to "insane." haha

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:18 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: "At least for the first few years of its production, the older 24-70mm F2.8 was notorious for cracking rubber around the zoom ring, and for the zoom barrel jamming."

That's the first time I've ever heard of those issues. Sounds like hyperbole.

I feel like a lot of comments are being "planted" here to suggest somehow that the new lens shouldn't be purchased. Frankly, if the 24-70/2.8 had any weaknesses (and mine certainly does not), then this new version will take care of it.

This is a new lens, so talking about older lenses doesn't really make sense. You might as well be talking about the 50/1.8D. It doesn't have relevance.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:16 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: "At least for the first few years of its production, the older 24-70mm F2.8 was notorious for cracking rubber around the zoom ring, and for the zoom barrel jamming."

That's the first time I've ever heard of those issues. Sounds like hyperbole.

I've had mine for 5-6 years and never once had to replace the rubber. And the barrel has never jammed once.

I think there are people who use this lens HARD; and perhaps it could be made TOUGHER for those users (probably wedding photographers, I'm guessing, where the lens is there bread and butter).

I bet you anything that this new lens truly satisifies. It looks awesome.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 06:13 UTC
Total: 252, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »