goshigoo

goshigoo

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 5, 2011

Comments

Total: 65, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Vobluda: I have give a try to Olympus 45/1.8 two times but evenutally sold it as I was not satisfied with its optical performance.
It is plain glass with no asph or ed and it is visible on the pictures (and that is the reason why it is so cheap). For now I have Panasonic 45/2.8 that is slightly more expensive than Olympus 45/1.8 but optically superior.
From what I can see googling new Panasonic 42.5/1.7 will have asph element (s) and that is the reason why I think that it will be much better then Olympus 45/1.8 though a bit more expensive.

You sure you have read and understand this?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2

I am sure you do not fully understand the meaning of equivalence when you said
"it's still 1.2 while they are 1.8 and not 0.9"

f/1.8 is f/1.8 but it is really pointless without taking the format into consideration

my iphone's camera has aperture f/2.2; so do you think it is better than 28 f/2.8?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 01:48 UTC
In reply to:

Vobluda: I have give a try to Olympus 45/1.8 two times but evenutally sold it as I was not satisfied with its optical performance.
It is plain glass with no asph or ed and it is visible on the pictures (and that is the reason why it is so cheap). For now I have Panasonic 45/2.8 that is slightly more expensive than Olympus 45/1.8 but optically superior.
From what I can see googling new Panasonic 42.5/1.7 will have asph element (s) and that is the reason why I think that it will be much better then Olympus 45/1.8 though a bit more expensive.

Sigma82; you still do not understand "equivalence dof"
the canon f/1.8 @ 135 FF is equivalent of f/0.9 in m43

have you checked?
http://www.mu-43.com/threads/63080/

You can understand it better if you know how telescope for astro works; focus length and aperture does not really matter
the key is the diameter of the main lens

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 07:17 UTC
In reply to:

Vobluda: I have give a try to Olympus 45/1.8 two times but evenutally sold it as I was not satisfied with its optical performance.
It is plain glass with no asph or ed and it is visible on the pictures (and that is the reason why it is so cheap). For now I have Panasonic 45/2.8 that is slightly more expensive than Olympus 45/1.8 but optically superior.
From what I can see googling new Panasonic 42.5/1.7 will have asph element (s) and that is the reason why I think that it will be much better then Olympus 45/1.8 though a bit more expensive.

It is easy to compare dof control; it is not easy to compare dof quality

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 01:33 UTC
In reply to:

Vobluda: I have give a try to Olympus 45/1.8 two times but evenutally sold it as I was not satisfied with its optical performance.
It is plain glass with no asph or ed and it is visible on the pictures (and that is the reason why it is so cheap). For now I have Panasonic 45/2.8 that is slightly more expensive than Olympus 45/1.8 but optically superior.
From what I can see googling new Panasonic 42.5/1.7 will have asph element (s) and that is the reason why I think that it will be much better then Olympus 45/1.8 though a bit more expensive.

I cannot convince myself getting 42.5 f/1.2 @ over $1200 USD

especially when the Canon/Nikon 85 f/1.8 only priced at ~$420; and it's bokeh behaves like a 42.5 f/0.9 @ m43 camera....

Well, I know m43 is different from FF....the price of 42.5 f/1.2 is just...way overpriced..

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 10:12 UTC
In reply to:

Vobluda: I have give a try to Olympus 45/1.8 two times but evenutally sold it as I was not satisfied with its optical performance.
It is plain glass with no asph or ed and it is visible on the pictures (and that is the reason why it is so cheap). For now I have Panasonic 45/2.8 that is slightly more expensive than Olympus 45/1.8 but optically superior.
From what I can see googling new Panasonic 42.5/1.7 will have asph element (s) and that is the reason why I think that it will be much better then Olympus 45/1.8 though a bit more expensive.

I am very pleased with Olympic 45 f/1.8; it's cheap and gives very good image

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 13:39 UTC

Do you think it is better to release a D810AM, equipped with mono sensor where it can merge RBG or RGBL internally from 3 / 4 shots?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 10:24 UTC as 73rd comment | 2 replies
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.

Exactly; I would say "I use stitching only when its absolutely necessary"

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

acassino: Needs an articulated LCD.

Try BackyardNIKON?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

Prixnobeldefoot: wish they had included a bigger flash, 12m range is a bit short for my astrophotography....

Yes, Pluto is usually too dim; we need a big flash with GN 1 Quadrillion

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 10:19 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.

I agree a lot of shots can be done via Stitching and there are benefits using Stitching

But UWA is UWA, there are shots which cannot be replaced by Stitching

there is really no need to continue this discussion if someone insists stitching can fully replaces UWA

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2015 at 09:37 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.

It depends on what subject are you trying to take!

Stitch is ok on static subjects

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2015 at 06:20 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.

Stitch does not replace UWA; come on!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2015 at 01:48 UTC
On Canon introduces 11-24mm f/4L USM wide angle zoom article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: 3 mm is huge difference in wide angle

"Can you give examples where the shot can only be taken with f/2.8 but not f/4;"

You can take wide angle Milkway shot even at f/8 or smaller aperture

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 10:08 UTC
On Canon introduces 11-24mm f/4L USM wide angle zoom article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: 3 mm is huge difference in wide angle

Yes, I have an ioptron GEM and use my wide lens at f/4 or 5.6 instead of wide open.

We would usually go for the lighter Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for wide angle Milkway shot

I rarely see people using Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 for astrophotography

you can try to check
http://www.astrobin.com/
see how many photos are taken with nikon 14-24 vs samyang 14mm

so you just gave a really bad example

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 09:42 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.

le_alain
can you give example?

I am talking about zoom lens that covers that focal length continuously

Don't tell me sigma 12-24

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 09:08 UTC
On Canon introduces 11-24mm f/4L USM wide angle zoom article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: 3 mm is huge difference in wide angle

This wide angle lens is mainly for landscape shooter, obviously
Do you take landscape photos?

Can you give examples where the shot can only be taken with f/2.8 but not f/4; please bear in mind that we are talking about landscape

For landscape shots, it's usually taken at f/8 or the best aperture of the lens on a tripod

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 09:04 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.

If you want to shoot 11-13mm in a non-rectilinear fashion
this is the ONLY lens in this world that offers it

Do you know it is a huge difference for that 3mm in wide angle?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 07:36 UTC
On Canon introduces 11-24mm f/4L USM wide angle zoom article (51 comments in total)

3 mm is huge difference in wide angle

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 07:30 UTC as 16th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

goshigoo: I think the new 14mms, like the 20mms, is just cosmetic update

I hope Panasonic release a 14mms f/2 or faster lens even it is larger than the current one (smaller than 20mm)

The 15mm is too big; I want the same as 20mm but larger aperture

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

sjredo: NEW FULL ROADMAP!

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sony-lens-roadmap-sep-2014.jpg

I think we will see Zeiss 85 f/1.4 in 2015

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 00:53 UTC
Total: 65, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »