quatpat

quatpat

Lives in Greece Athens, Greece
Works as a Product Designer
Joined on Sep 16, 2007

Comments

Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Well, a full frame lens is a full frame lens, no matter what body you put behind... This said, it seems like a lot fo people are mislead by the relation body to lens size, which make these lenses in the photos look bigger than they really are.

Some of the commenters here below seem to forget how small the A7 bodies are, which is why they think that the lenses are huge in relation to them.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 16:27 UTC as 51st comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: "extremely useful for Macro Photography and Portrait Shooting "

Portrait shooting? Strange, but I have never had the desire to do 2x marco shots of the people of whom I take portraits.

Yep, God needs activate brain before opening mouth.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2015 at 07:16 UTC
In reply to:

quatpat: Why don't we see any photos of the extended lens? Too ugly to show?

Yes that's true, but there is still a tube extending in the front. It proabably looks similar to the 70-300L when extend:
http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Standard/Lenses/Comparison/No-Hood/Extended-MFD/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 15:14 UTC

Why don't we see any photos of the extended lens? Too ugly to show?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 12:36 UTC as 39th comment | 3 replies
On Photokina 2014: Canon stand report article (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jon_Doh: Canon continues to fall farther behind the competition. There will come a point in time when they can no longer rely upon "it's the entire system that matters" and their lens line up. True, the 7D II is a great upgrade, but the 5D III is long in the tooth and over priced and the rest of their line up simply stinks.

Canon is not bringing out anything really new and fails to replace their stone-old 100-400mm, Nikon does not seem to want to take the D300 to a D400 and concentrates on full-frame only, Sony brings out only FE mount lenses and completely forgets about A-mount... where is this all going? Are we doomed? Will there be no tomorrow? Maybe Nostradamus got it all wrong, and it is all going to happen right now, at Photokina 2014...!!!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 18:45 UTC
On Sigma announces two 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM zooms article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank_BR: If you think this lens is too heavy, you should not forget that you still need a tripod weighing as much as the lens itself. I.e., using this lens incurs an additional weight of about 6kg in your photographic bag.

I wonder at the wisdom of Sigma in designing a lens like this. Perhaps it would be more interesting if Sigma had designed a 50-300mm F3.5 lens for M43. I believe it is technically possible to build a professional lens with those specs, but that does not weigh much more than 1kg. Such a lens could be used handheld by most photographers. It would be a winner.

I guess you haven't done much of hand-held bird photography? For example, when shooting form a car 2-3kg is not too heavy, and this weight can even be used hand-held for quite a while if you are used to it. On the other hand, a 50-300mm for birding would be simply too short, unless you live on the Galapagos Islands, or maybe in Costa Rica.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2014 at 14:35 UTC
On Sigma announces 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM 'C' article (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

DrLogic: No stabilization for Sony? The extra reach is useless without stabilization... And this is a very large range kit lens - the single IQ compromise range somebody takes on a holiday to replace a whole a whole bunch of lenses, so they aren't likely to be using a tripod. Doesn't make sense.

Tamron and Sigma have been doing this for a long time... since they sell less items for Sony and Pentax mounts, it must be cheaper for them to make a second version without OIS.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 09:50 UTC
On Sigma announces two 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM zooms article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

jamesbm: Hi - is the Contemporary version available in Sony FE or A-mount - the article seems to contradict itself? Thanks

Looks like FE mount only for the near future... but you're right, it could be both too, since they are announcing the lack of OIS for Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 09:46 UTC
On Sigma announces 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM 'C' article (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

DrLogic: No stabilization for Sony? The extra reach is useless without stabilization... And this is a very large range kit lens - the single IQ compromise range somebody takes on a holiday to replace a whole a whole bunch of lenses, so they aren't likely to be using a tripod. Doesn't make sense.

Does make sense for Sony A-mount cameras, since they have sensor stabilization. Maybe for Sony E-mout they will leave the OS in...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 07:20 UTC
On Sigma announces two 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM zooms article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: Another @3 KG lens..too heavy. 1 KG heavier than Tamron.

That's why they also offer a second, lighter version...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 06:40 UTC

Hahaha... good laugh!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 19:24 UTC as 59th comment
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: I worked with the MkII and 16-50 f2.8 and 70-300G for a few weeks doing some vendor analysis for them. My conclusions are:
* It is supremely well built and ergonomically laid out
* Indeed the autofocus in half way decent light is leagues better than most anything available out there at any price, HOWEVER get it in very low light (which I'm sure is rare) and it won't lock focus at all. We are of course talking about light where only a -3EV or -4EV rated camera would lock focus
* Their LCD is to die for, color accurate and rich and vibrant even outdoors
* On bright reflective subjects the SLT mirror will STILL rear it's ugly head with a hazy reflection in the picture
* Love love love that first curtain shutter. The shutter is a pure delight
* The 16-50 f2.8 is an ideal kit type lens providing near NO compromise performance. The 70-300G's on the other hand are very "copy dependent"
* If you have the $$ get a 70-400G those lenses are unreal

"On bright reflective subjects the SLT mirror will STILL rear it's ugly head with a hazy reflection in the picture."

You sure that this doesn't come from the lens? I have yet to see that "hazy reflection" in my A77 photos... ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 17:06 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (840 comments in total)
In reply to:

oldfogey: Either I'm blind or DPR has missed the most significant advance that this camera represents. The high ISO RAW files from the FZ-1000 are almost as good as the best m4/3 cameras, are significantly better than those of the Sony RX-10 and are dramatically better than those of the Nikon V3. If this really is the same 1" sensor that Sony put into the RX-10, Panasonic know something about signal processing that Sony/Nikon did not.
DPR's also claims that the Sony lens is sharper than the Panasonic's. If so the test images shot with the Sony must be a bit out of focus.

To oldfogey: The difference between the Nikon V3 and the Pansonic/Sony is due to the absence of an AA-filter in this camera. The noise of th V3 is finer but coarser, while there is slightly more detail retained compared to the other two. You can see this most clearly at around iso 3200, where the Nikon image seems sharper while having more noise. If you use a bit of noise reduction software it will probably look exactely like the others...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmcfz1000&attr13_1=sony_dscrx10&attr13_2=nikon_v3&attr13_3=sony_a6000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.6751675801851393&y=0.4109262351409529

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 18:10 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (840 comments in total)
In reply to:

oldfogey: Either I'm blind or DPR has missed the most significant advance that this camera represents. The high ISO RAW files from the FZ-1000 are almost as good as the best m4/3 cameras, are significantly better than those of the Sony RX-10 and are dramatically better than those of the Nikon V3. If this really is the same 1" sensor that Sony put into the RX-10, Panasonic know something about signal processing that Sony/Nikon did not.
DPR's also claims that the Sony lens is sharper than the Panasonic's. If so the test images shot with the Sony must be a bit out of focus.

I don't know on what you base your observation, but the RX10 looks the same or a tad better at higher iso's, if anything, while the Nikon V3 is about half a stop worse. Not really a big deal IMO.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmcfz1000&attr13_1=sony_dscrx10&attr13_2=nikon_v3&attr13_3=sony_a6000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.47928792374218804&y=0.11563820794590025

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 06:28 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1267 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: About that 500 $ Difference: here into germany the FZ1000 costs exactly 849 EUR, whileas the RX10 costs 885 EUR - so the difference between them is a very marginal 36 EUR, which is kinda a joke. (online price check. 2.7.) *If* the FZ1000 would cost here around 600 EUR, that would make a difference in price terms. Apart that lil price difference - both bridgecams does have their pros and cons - nothing is perfect.

Here in Switzerland the cheapest online price is : FZ1000 = 999 Chf, and RX10 = 999 Chf. So much to the price difference, although the Pani is likely to go down more once it's a few month on the market.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 06:08 UTC
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (894 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: Is the on-sensor phase detection AF capable of properly focusing A-Mount lenses, or do we still need the Adapter with SLT mirror?

Looking at the A7, I fear the later...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 07:17 UTC
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (894 comments in total)
In reply to:

wb2trf: If the focus on this is really as fast as Sony says, and I have no reason to doubt it, that is huge. Nikon got superfast focus with the 1, but that is a quite small sensor by comparison. Doing that with 24mp APS-C is a complete game changer. The only question in my mind is whether to grab this or wait for the 7000, if there is going to be one.

Focus speed always depends on two elements: The camera and the lens. Sony might have the fastest AF with a few lenses, but probably not with most of their lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 07:04 UTC
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (894 comments in total)
In reply to:

plasnu: imaging-resource.com says that the A6000's EVF is the clear winner as it produces much more accurate colors and easy to discern details, compare to NEX 6. hmm...

To Ericofthenorth: You sound like you have not yet discovered what that little wheel does next to the viewfinder...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 07:02 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2792 comments in total)

I compared some RAW-files in a neutral RAW converter (Raw Photo Processor) and noticed that the Sony A7 files have quite a bit less contrast natively than the Canikon ones. Since the lens used on the A7 was a CZ85mm/1.4 (which only exists in A-mount but not in E-mount), could it be that they were shot with a LA-EA4 adapter, which contains an SLT-mirror? In that case the difference in contrast and higher noise levels of the RAW-files at higher ISOs would make sense, and DPR should put a notice in order to inform people about the difference in testing parameters.
If the set was however shot with a LA-EA3 adapter, then I wonder why the RAW-files of the A7 have so much less native contrast than the Canikon ones...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2013 at 08:32 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

quatpat: Wow, 3.6kg... My Minolta 400/4.5 + 1.4x converter + A77 body weight around 3kg all together. But then of course I shoot at f6.3 instead of f5.6 at 560mm... just didn't know that 1/3 f-stop weights more than half a kilo! Oh, sorry I forgot that I counted mine with the camera... so the 1/3 f-stop weights more something like 1.2 kg. Too much for me.

Talk about fanboyism, roby...

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 07:59 UTC
Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »