babart

babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 206, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

John C Tharp: I have to wonder about this 14/T3.1 lens; the 14/2.8 SLR lens that it is based on has some wild distortion, and it's hard to imagine that it would make for a good cinematic optic when used on a 35mm full-frame system.

I've done some test video with it using my 6D, and while I can correct distortion in stills easily, it's not so easy to do that well in video!

True, John. But the 14/2.8 cost me $300. If there is a new lens formula that wouldn't be much more expensive, I suspect Samyang would be advertising same. Jumping from $300 to $2000 would be a bit much, especially since the less expensive lens is very decent. I wonder if the price difference is due just to the packaging of the video lens? I suspect not. It would be interesting to see both lenses tested by Lens Rentals.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

John C Tharp: I have to wonder about this 14/T3.1 lens; the 14/2.8 SLR lens that it is based on has some wild distortion, and it's hard to imagine that it would make for a good cinematic optic when used on a 35mm full-frame system.

I've done some test video with it using my 6D, and while I can correct distortion in stills easily, it's not so easy to do that well in video!

Yeah, but not for $2000 :). If it is a new optical formula, I wonder if the price is due to the lower number of lenses that will be sold or to a much better distortion profile. It would be interesting to learn which.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

John C Tharp: I have to wonder about this 14/T3.1 lens; the 14/2.8 SLR lens that it is based on has some wild distortion, and it's hard to imagine that it would make for a good cinematic optic when used on a 35mm full-frame system.

I've done some test video with it using my 6D, and while I can correct distortion in stills easily, it's not so easy to do that well in video!

I would suspect it is a different configuration.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

John C Tharp: I have to wonder about this 14/T3.1 lens; the 14/2.8 SLR lens that it is based on has some wild distortion, and it's hard to imagine that it would make for a good cinematic optic when used on a 35mm full-frame system.

I've done some test video with it using my 6D, and while I can correct distortion in stills easily, it's not so easy to do that well in video!

I see. That kind of distortion would not be good in a video lens.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 03:09 UTC
In reply to:

John C Tharp: I have to wonder about this 14/T3.1 lens; the 14/2.8 SLR lens that it is based on has some wild distortion, and it's hard to imagine that it would make for a good cinematic optic when used on a 35mm full-frame system.

I've done some test video with it using my 6D, and while I can correct distortion in stills easily, it's not so easy to do that well in video!

The wild distortion of the 14/2.8 lens is correctable, even for use in architectural interiors. PTLens does a decent job, although even here I often need to crop the extreme edges or poke a bit with the Warp function in Photoshop. It's a very sharp and useful lens in some circumstances and does very well as a star shooting lens. It costs $300 and for the money it can't be beat. The cine version is much more expensive.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Well, I'm certainly an aficionado of fine glass, but I can't imagine anyone rushing out to buy a $2000 24-70 or 84/1.4 lens. Good grief, does Sony truly believe their customers are all members of the 1%?

OK, OK, I yield to the concept of culture shock. I spent a whole $180 on a Pentax MX film camera back in the dark ages. It still functions after 30 years, is lighter than any DSLR and has a much better viewfinder. I can't imagine buying a new Nikon of Canon or Sony full-frame camera every couple years just to keep up. You say these are mainly for pros, but I doubt there could be that many pros that can afford to do that. Unless they are part of an organization that buys equipment for them.

Yeah, I know. I don't use film much anymore either. But I AM retired and have been priced out of the market long ago. It ticks me off, so there. :). When upgrading I resort to used last year's model buys, and stick to comparatively inexpensive primes like Sigma and Rokinon. It ticks me off. Oh, I said that.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 23:11 UTC

Well, I'm certainly an aficionado of fine glass, but I can't imagine anyone rushing out to buy a $2000 24-70 or 84/1.4 lens. Good grief, does Sony truly believe their customers are all members of the 1%?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 19:59 UTC as 74th comment | 9 replies
On article Sigma 20mm F1.4 'Art' lens real-world sample gallery (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Holloway: Maybe it's me and this is not a comment about the Sigma. I just don't see the need for 20mm f1.4 . Can someone explain where this lens would have a real practical use. Astrophotography? Not really something I'd think of for portraits. landscapes at f1.4? Thanks!

I have to side with Dave and Robert, as I also look askance at the size and weight of this, and other wide-angle f/1.4 lenses....those below 28mm. I'm not contesting the quality of the glass, nor the occasional use in low light. But considering the advances in noise suppression even at 3200 ISO (or higher in some cases) I'm not in love with big heavy lenses. I have a Rokinon (Samyang) 14/2.8 and even it weighs so much it usuall stays in my car trunk. Very useful for stars and very tight architectural uses (after correction.) One can buy a 21/1.8 Voigtlander Ultron for a bit more than the Sigma, and it weighs less than a pound (412gm) and is only 78mm long (3 inches.) Manual focus only, of course. Just indicating my own preference, and in no way distracting from the wants of others, but to me small and light has always been a good thing.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2016 at 15:00 UTC

Nice. I'll be interested, though, in seeing the IQ compared to the 18-55, non WR, light, small, Fuji lens :). Which I got bundled with a camera so it was half price.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 23:59 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Sports Dad: Superb camera from Oly.
The days of cheap mass market ILCs are mostly over IMHO. Everyone got crushed trying to sell the most P&S cameras, and the super tiny profit margins make it too easy to get hurt by 1 failure.

Find a niche. Do well at it. Make buyers want to spend $1000.

And while no weather sealing is a disappointment, durability and build quality are more important. This looks like a great solid camera built like a brick (in a good way). Time will tell if that is true.

Those days were over long ago with the Fuji X-Pro, X-E1, et alis, and the Sony alpha series. Been a few years, I'd say.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Jees. Do some people read DPR reviews just for the opportunity to denigrate everything and anything with snide, arrogant, derisive language?

I can see it now. "Weather? You call this weather? Look at that map: looks like an image from a pinhole camera distorted by squiggly lines. And what on earth are those squiggly lines? Isotherms or the doodles of a three-year old? And oh, wait, here's the corker.....they're saying snow tomorrow when the sky is blue today! Where do they get this crap, from a computer? Oh, that's a riot, don't they know about tablets?"

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 21:10 UTC

Jees. Do some people read DPR reviews just for the opportunity to denigrate everything and anything with snide, arrogant, derisive language?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 14:51 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

babart: I'm a Fuji user and enjoy the X-trans sensor. To me, however, the X-T1 at $400 less would be the better buy over the X-Pro2. The X-T1 has one of the best EVFs I've looked through, and it handles every lens the same way. An optical viewfinder that only works well on lenses from 28 to 50mm seems a bit useless to me, but then that's just me. Actually, the X-E2S seems quite the bargain at $700, with the improvements to the auto-focusing. I do appreciate the 24mp sensor, though, and hope it finds its way to the X-T....2 ? I've been putting off buying an X-T1 for some time now, suspecting a sensor change.

Indeed. Would love a 24mp X-T2.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: The old men are gasping and wheezing with this camera

Be careful....there's a lot of us old men still in this game :).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 22:37 UTC
In reply to:

babart: I'm a Fuji user and enjoy the X-trans sensor. To me, however, the X-T1 at $400 less would be the better buy over the X-Pro2. The X-T1 has one of the best EVFs I've looked through, and it handles every lens the same way. An optical viewfinder that only works well on lenses from 28 to 50mm seems a bit useless to me, but then that's just me. Actually, the X-E2S seems quite the bargain at $700, with the improvements to the auto-focusing. I do appreciate the 24mp sensor, though, and hope it finds its way to the X-T....2 ? I've been putting off buying an X-T1 for some time now, suspecting a sensor change.

Good point, Richard, and I can see the appeal to those who use shorter lenses. I'm one who uses lenses from 12 to 200mm, so for me it would be a waste.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 22:29 UTC

Seems to me the XT-1 is a better buy at $400 less than the X-Pro. The X-T1 has one of the best EVFs I've looked through, and it handles every lens the same. An optical viewfinder sounds nice, but one that only works in focal lengths from 28-50mm seems a bit of a waste. Just my opinion. Do appreciate the 24mp sensor and hope it becomes standard in the other models soon. I've put off buying an X-T1, suspecting that a sensor change was in the works. Right not, the best bargain is the X-E2s at $700, especially considering the upgrade to the auto-focus.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 22:10 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply

I'm a Fuji user and enjoy the X-trans sensor. To me, however, the X-T1 at $400 less would be the better buy over the X-Pro2. The X-T1 has one of the best EVFs I've looked through, and it handles every lens the same way. An optical viewfinder that only works well on lenses from 28 to 50mm seems a bit useless to me, but then that's just me. Actually, the X-E2S seems quite the bargain at $700, with the improvements to the auto-focusing. I do appreciate the 24mp sensor, though, and hope it finds its way to the X-T....2 ? I've been putting off buying an X-T1 for some time now, suspecting a sensor change.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 21:37 UTC as 199th comment | 6 replies
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X70 (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: A (relatively) simple optical viewfinder would have made this a cult camera and distinguished it from the GR and $300 Coolpix A.

Which will remind me in the future to be certain as to whom I'm directing a comment. Debating on the internet is confusing enough already :).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 12:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X70 (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: A (relatively) simple optical viewfinder would have made this a cult camera and distinguished it from the GR and $300 Coolpix A.

But the gentleman previous to you, a Mr. Sardi, did. I couldn't reply to his comment for some reason. Sorry for the confusion.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 13:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X70 (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: A (relatively) simple optical viewfinder would have made this a cult camera and distinguished it from the GR and $300 Coolpix A.

I use ACR and the RAFs sharpen with only moderate adjustment. I don't see them as being soft, but different processors give slightly different results. Glad Capture One worked for you.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 02:45 UTC
Total: 206, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »