I read the article and I personally don't agree with a lot of things. Raindrops inside tubes don't behave like light in photos, sensor size does not matter the technology and quality of the sensor does not have to do with its size. This article tries too hard to impress the amateur photographer with magic tricks but actually it does not offer anything new except maybe some confusion about how you should take photos without much noise.
Noise at low ISO, and very aggressive denoise on higher ISOs. My overal impression its that photos are too grainy at all ISOs and skin tonalities are muted.
backayonder: Out of interest how many megapixels did my old Canon A1 have when using a roll of Kodachrome?
6 to 8 MP equivelant
I wish I had not spend so much money on canon lenses, nikon and sony make better and better cameras and canon is not following. 5D 20D were wonder cameras but ever since canon has made minimal improvments and inovations on photography, (canon focusing more on video?). 7DMKII and now 5Ds, its like seeing a remake of older models, minimal improvements on Dynamic Range and ISO. If I shoot the same 1600asa pic on a 5D and on a 5Ds or a 5DMKII and print it on a 1meter poster the Dynamic Range will be the same and the details will be the same. How many professionals need to print over 1meter? And why not giving at least a 4k video capability on the new 5Ds? So many things seem wrong to me in how canon "rewards" people who invested in canon lenses.
Most of the photos seem over-retouched to me and the colors are heavily manipulated. Some years ago NatGeo was punishing their photographers for this kind of "photos" now they reward them. Makes me wonder why.
I am not impressed at all with the video samples on this review, from what I saw it does not even come close to DSLR HDvideo quality. I have seen way better sample videos from GH2 so maybe the reviewer used weird settings or YouTube messed up the quality? Though good tonalities tend to show even when you downsample videos. My personal opinion is... I have seen better video and photos from cheaper compact cameras.
Stefan Stuart Fletcher: One of my many buying mistakes was the Sigma 50 mm f/1.4. My copy suffers from distortion, incredibly soft corners wide open (on a full-frame, admittedly) and short-focusing. Perhaps I was just unlucky with the copy and the 5DII is a harsh task master on below-par lenses. What _is_ certain, however, is that the lens is huge and bulky. It looks outsize on a 5DII and a 7D. I can't imagine how ungainly it must be on a smaller body.
I think you really need to test this lens before spending money on it. You really must need its optical qualities, such as they are, if you're ready to tout this monster around.
I was about to buy this lence too but scipped it.After using a canon 50mm for a day, I noticed that the canon is very very soft and full of cromatic bleedings. Almost all the shots had a foggy feeling.The sigma was fairly sarper than the canon and with more contrast but still had all the issues as seen on the previus posts.
I ended up buying the sigma 30mm f/1.4 and I am amazed with it, sharper than ANY canon I have used, even wide open it delivers beautiful sharp photos. Only problem I have noticed is that tends to miss the focus point very often.
Maybe it is hard for the canon focus system to cooperate with the 1.4 especially under dim light conditions. I never had focus issues with any of my other 2.8 lenses so I am sure is the lens and not me.
A weird thing I noticed on the sigma 30mm 1.4, is that near the corners of my photos, the bokeh from small lights forms in triangles and not circles as it normallly happends to other lenses. It is not something bad, just a bit unkomon.