dbm305

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Academic Philosopher
Has a website at www.dbm305.smugmug.com
Joined on Feb 24, 2008

Comments

Total: 69, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

Hmm. It's a similar size and weight to something like the Batis FF FE 25/2; which has a roughly equivalent AOV, DOF and light gathering capacity and which will therefore be no worse at high ISO and better when not light limited due to the larger sensor.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it: if you want a compact M43 system with slower compact lenses, and have an occasional need for lower DOF or low light work, sure. But it does mean I think there is little point in the format if you intend to mainly have lenses like this (except perhaps on cost grounds) since these fast M43s don't give you much saving of weight against FF.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 07:55 UTC as 117th comment

RIP; been learning from Michael for twenty years.
Maybe I still will be able to.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2016 at 11:29 UTC as 59th comment

First fast aperture 85 with stabilisation? Zeiss Batis Sonnar 85mm 1.8 T*!!!!!

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 13:09 UTC as 28th comment | 6 replies
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aldian: Official sample from zeiss. looks like my samyang 14 mm quality. hmm..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/26057717012/sizes/o/

Yep the 18 3.5 is in another league; a considerably worse one according to Lloyd chambers.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 12:48 UTC
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: 18??? Why not 35 or 50??????

Whoah just looked at the shootout. Hard to say without a direct comparison, but that is not performance I recognise from my FE 35 1.4. Wide open it's awful rather than not-quite-as-good-as-Sigma-orCanon, and it never really gets great stopped down. Whereas I'm used to really decent if not super sharp wide open, and as good as it gets stopped down.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 11:01 UTC
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: 18??? Why not 35 or 50??????

I too wonder if Rishi had a bad copy of the FE 35 1.4; buy all accounts they abound - skewed, decanted or just plain softer everywhere. Maybe that's a reason not to get a ticket in the FE 1.4 lottery, but a good one is perhaps not as sharp as the new Canon wide open, but by f2 is up there with the Sigma and at all smaller apertures. Yes it has onion rings, but on the other hand the structure and smoothness of the bokeh otherwise is really lovely.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 10:57 UTC
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: We need a Batis 35mm 1.8 now!

The 1.4 is pretty sharp at 1.8; or at least sharp enough. And very sharp stopped down. Agreed it's not the lens that the new Canon is. And it's a lot of size and heft and dollars for 1.4 when the 1.4 is fine but not stellar (I do like the bokeh though). And the 2.8 is a great hiking lens... But for all that a great 35 1.8 that was a lot smaller than a 1.4, but fully sharp wide open, would give you the effective usefulness of the 1.4 with less size and weight. I often aperture bracket, and blend in an f2.2 exposure of the subject to an f1.4 exposure of the b/g...

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 06:39 UTC
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: We need a Batis 35mm 1.8 now!

There is a nice 90mm 2.8: but it's an internal focus macro and therefore large. A 90-100 2.8 can be tiny if it's not macro. It'd be a great thing to bring out in the

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 23:09 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2126 comments in total)
In reply to:

markie_jan61: USB charging is a deal-breaker, regardless of a camera's capabililties.

Don't know why Sony continues to travel down that road.
--

If it's that important buy a charger.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
On article Hands on: Sony FE 50mm F1.8 and 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

peeyaj: The 50mm f/1.8 is seriously tempting and at $249, will quell the complaints of FE lenses having no cheap options.. Good job, Sony.

As someone else has said they are rounded: but also the shorter the lens, and the slower the lens (i.e. the smaller the absolute, non-relative aperture) the less need for massive number s of blades to keep the bokeh balls round. Seven rounded is plenty for a 50mm 1.8

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 02:16 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2126 comments in total)
In reply to:

dbm305: On the comparison tool the A6300 seems a bit sharper at base ISO than the A6000. That's odd. Is there are weaker AA filter? Is it a different lens? Am I fooling myself?

The corners vary; top right A6300 is much worse, not much difference in the lower ones. So the corners must surely be lens symmetry differences. Of course the centre could be lens differences as well - I'll look to see if they say they used the same lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 10:08 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2126 comments in total)

On the comparison tool the A6300 seems a bit sharper at base ISO than the A6000. That's odd. Is there are weaker AA filter? Is it a different lens? Am I fooling myself?

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 07:20 UTC as 319th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

left eye: Master of wavy distortion?

Check the s.steel edge at the front of the kitchen shot, and the next, the front of the swimming pool.
Not just simple barrel or pin, which I don't mind seeing (esp at wide angle) this looks like the distortion of the various lens elements - are fighting against each other!
So a new term to add to barrel and pin, wavy.
Sure ACR in time will be able to map this complex geometry out, but if like me you don't always want to remove distortion - this will be impossible for this lens - unless wavy is suddenly the mark of the professional, cool and the way to go?

All this agonising about distortion! What matters is how much resolution is left after distortion correction (whether that's optical or software). And to find that out we have to wait for controlled tests. There are lots of things that handheld sample photos framed in an uncontrolled way with objects not parallel to the sensor plane tell you: but information about resolution and especially post correction resolution is not amongst them.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 10:14 UTC
In reply to:

Stanchung: Definitely something special. and nice review.

Since it's a shift lens, is it able to get front to back sharp of say a field of lilies? Something impossible with a non shift lens even when stopped down?

Hi goufawkes
I think I read that this lens only has vertical shift, so the anti lamp post strategy you describe would only work in portrait orientation.

If I were to use this lens for perspective correction in full frame I think I'd just hold it parallel to the building I shifted and crop out the foreground (which would give a similar effect to shifting in APSC.

I think, though, that you bought his lens if the effect you can get from ultra wide macro is your principl interest. It's infinity performance is fun, perhaps useful in an emergency, but no substitute for a regulat UW.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 19:57 UTC
In reply to:

Stanchung: Definitely something special. and nice review.

Since it's a shift lens, is it able to get front to back sharp of say a field of lilies? Something impossible with a non shift lens even when stopped down?

It's tilt you need for that, and this lens only shifts.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 02:51 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: To sum it up... mirrorless is nice for small sensors and small primes. If you need your daily workhorses (24-70 2.8+70-200 2.8) the Mirrorlessconcept is nuts. At least for size/weight.

Aside from the usual comment (lots of other reasons for mirrorless besides size/weight) it's just not true that there is no saving if you need fast primes. You save a lot on the body, and I for one find the overall balance better and more like SLRs of old rather than big DSLRs. But the other size weight advantage comes if you want to take along a few small primes with your f2.8 zoom.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

Coyote_Cody: Since apparently LOTS of reading challenged users here:

"Put simply, the Sigma MC-11 adapter allows the use of Sigma-mount and Canon-mount Sigma lenses, such as the excellent Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, to be adapted to Sony bodies with no autofocus compromises whatsoever. "

Notice the word sigma mount AND Canon mount Sigma lens, so NOT just SA mount lens adapter(s?) !

Also note that Rishi will 'change' his Nikon mount into a Canon mount to use via this!

So this adapter looks like a HUGE WIN-WIN-WIN, can use many more lens, maybe great cheap lens (Canon) as well as nice Art and other Sigma mount lens, etc.

This adapter can make a Sony E mount palatible for many users with NON Zony lens thus - a HUGE WIN-WIN-WIN !!!

ASSumption: If you can mount a Canon mount Sigma lens, why not a Canon lens ? (maybe there are s/w limits to NOT allow this?, otherwise a very smart move for Sony buyers of this adapter)

Coyote Cody the MB is generally understood not to override each lens with different firmware, but to emulate a generic converter to send commands to the existing lens firmware. Sigma presumably have access to their own lens firmware for temporary replacement. There's no reason o suppose they can do that for any other brand ( though they could offer the MB type approach to get some generic performance - we don't et know if they will)

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2016 at 11:16 UTC
In reply to:

Max Iso: Im curiours, will the lenses still be compatible with the USB dock? One thing i don't like about standard ML design is a lack of AFFT in case focus shift shows up, and i tend to use fast lenses. If Fine tuning is an option, this could be the adapter that makes E mount a viable option for myself.

Summary of Jim's work on this:
(a) there's a fair bit of focus shift around not just on Sony lenses but on rangefinder and DSLR lenses too. At first he thought it might be more common on mirrorless (because they can focus stopped down) but it turns out to be just as strong on the Leica Apo-Summicron 90!

(b) The distinctive issue with the Batis is a tendency for AF to optimise sharpness in the red channel, which doesn't quite give best overall focus perceptually. Before you put your Batises on eBay it's a minor, maybe-you-can-manual-focus-better-if-you-are-good issue. Sony lenses seem to get it right.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

Coyote_Cody: Since apparently LOTS of reading challenged users here:

"Put simply, the Sigma MC-11 adapter allows the use of Sigma-mount and Canon-mount Sigma lenses, such as the excellent Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, to be adapted to Sony bodies with no autofocus compromises whatsoever. "

Notice the word sigma mount AND Canon mount Sigma lens, so NOT just SA mount lens adapter(s?) !

Also note that Rishi will 'change' his Nikon mount into a Canon mount to use via this!

So this adapter looks like a HUGE WIN-WIN-WIN, can use many more lens, maybe great cheap lens (Canon) as well as nice Art and other Sigma mount lens, etc.

This adapter can make a Sony E mount palatible for many users with NON Zony lens thus - a HUGE WIN-WIN-WIN !!!

ASSumption: If you can mount a Canon mount Sigma lens, why not a Canon lens ? (maybe there are s/w limits to NOT allow this?, otherwise a very smart move for Sony buyers of this adapter)

I doubt that metabones can pull this trick: the sigma is basically overriding the lens firmware with custom firmware for the specific lens when used on an adapter. Metabones would need to know a lot more about each individual lens to be able to do that - I doubt if it's the kind of things that its practical to reverse engineer. Of course they might be able to get all the functions working in a generic way but protocol translation, but thats not the same..

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 21:18 UTC
On article UPDATED: CP+ 2016: shooting the Pentax K-1 in Yokohama (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

dbm305: Carey says ". In fact, for a good number of photographers, the increase in depth-of-field control is as much a disadvantage as it is an advantage."

I don't understand this; I can see how it might be no advantage, if you don't like thin DOF.

But disadvantage? You can stop down further on FF to get the same DOF as on smaller formants, and diffraction limiting sets in *at the same equivalent depths of field" Of course you are a smaller aperture, but then your sensor is larger, so that cancels out.

So your IQ should never be worse for equivalent depth of field, your IQ will be better if there is good light, and you have the option of thin DOF if you want it.

Yes you do need more light from somewhere; but because the sensor is larger you can run at a higher ISO and not be any worse off than if you were on a smaller format. So if on APSC you needed f5.6 and ISO 800, you would need f8 and ISO 1600 (holding SS fixed) for the same DOF on full frame. But full frame is usually about a stop or so better in DR and noise: so you aren't worse off. Of course you aren't better off in this situation either - but you are in others. My point was just that. You are never worse off (except for cost and bulk, which of course are real issues) and often better off.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 21:47 UTC
Total: 69, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »