wus

wus

Lives in Germany Munich, Germany
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Nov 1, 2006

Comments

Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)

One of the reasons why 50 - 135 / 2.8 never got as popular is probably because they aren't really equivalent to 70 - 200 on FF. They'd have to be 50 - 135 / 1.8 in order to be really equivalent, including the same shallow depth of field as a 70 - 200 / 2.8 on FF.

It's similar comparing FF 24 - 70 / 2.8 with APS-C 16 - 50 / 2.8 lenses. Sigma seem to have realized this and introduced their excellent 18 - 35 / 1.8. It doesn't cover quite the same zoom range, but at least in the range it covers, it offers equally shallow depth of field.

Its bigger aperture also helps to combat the noise that most APS C sensors exhibit, making up - at least to some degree - the other advantage that FF still offers over APS C.

I hope Sigma soon complements the 18 - 35 / 1.8 by a 35 - 70 / 1.8 and ultimately by a 70 - 135 / 1.8 or 2.0.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 13:53 UTC as 46th comment
In reply to:

Wing Wong: Hmm... "Class 3" UHS-I = 95MB/sec read and 85MB/sec write? Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-I cards have been at that that performance level for a few years now. That, and I'm sorry, but have had too many crappy Transcend cards crap out on me. Sandisk all the way.

Wing.

Edit:

32GB Sandisk Extreme Pro cards for my camera. (95MB/sec read/write)
128GB Sandisk Extreme Plus card for my laptop/camera (80MB/sec read/write)

All of the Sandisk Extreme cards are rated against harsh environments as well. Have yet to have one fail on me.

Right, I really wonder what significance a card with read/write speeds of 95/85MB/s has 9 month after Toshiba announced their UHS-II cards with 260/240MB/s.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2014 at 10:28 UTC
On SD card labeling for 4K video announced article (50 comments in total)

To me, 30 MB/s sounds more like a major step back, my old 64 GB Extreme Pro UHS I already has a write speed of 95 MB/s. Strange.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 20:49 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies

I hope is is not quite correct when DPreview writes above

"
All but the Sony mountS will incorporate Sigma’s proprietary Optical Stabilizer (OS) technology to compensate for camera shake. This functionality is omitted from Sony mounts to accommodate for that manufacturer’s in-camera image stabilization system.
"

because only Sony's A-mount cameras have in-camera stabilizers. The NEX and the new A7 series with the E-mount don't, so if Sigma will really omit the in-lens stabilizer from the E-mount version, too, it will be quite a show stopper.

Anyone on here KNOW any details?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 08:50 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

tinternaut: So what's the difference between this and the Canon equivalent? Are we looking at a very comparable lens, for potentially quite a bit less (once the prices stabilise)? The Canon 24-105 seems make the 6D kit quite a bit more expensive than Nikon and Sony equivalents (but then again, if I did buy Canon full frame, then for what I shoot, I wouldn't want to be without it).

We still have to see how well the new Sigma performs optically, but if we assume it is similarly good as Sigma's other "Art" lenses, then there is no real equivalent lens by Sony!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 08:44 UTC
In reply to:

Michaels7: I keep reading all of the negative post on the lens that hasn't even come out yet. Let's wait for it to hit the streets before critique it.

- sorry ...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 08:43 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sad Joe: So so bored.....sorry Nikon & Canon ( I have BOTH so can dis BOTH too) this is simply a TINY improvement over the D600 and for most users makes no sense at all. Wake up Nikon - the game has moved on - its ALL about FULL TIME working AF with VIDEO - Cue the Canon 70D = the biggest step forward in DSLR cameras since the first FF Canon 5D. Most of the rest are just like the D610 a tiny step forward trying to gain as much cash from us photographers as possible.....

After reading the comparison of the 70D's video AF with the (much older!) Sony A77's SLT on DxOMark it should be clear that the 70D's Dual Pixel AF is also just a tiny improvement. After all it's results which count. Sony's SLT system is the only really revolutionary new design in SLR arena so far.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 20:41 UTC
On Nikon 1 AW1 preview (588 comments in total)

Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2013 at 19:51 UTC as 75th comment | 7 replies

I wonder what the real sizes of these sensor are... normally 1/4 is 3.2 x 2.4 mm, at 5 MP (2582 x 1936 pixels) this results in a pixel pitch of 1.24 microns, resulting in a pixel area 22% smaller than what it would for the 1.4 microns claimed above.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2012 at 10:50 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply

Again, as already when introducing the HDTV "standard", the industry association fails to specify a minimum frame rate.

1080 @ 24p is already ridiculous, before we move to 4K we should really introduce a higher frame rate for the standard 1080p material that renders fast movements sharp AND smooth. IMHO this is much more inportant than increasing the resolution.

After trying 24, 30, 50 and 60 p with full HD resolution I would think the minimum should be around 72 fps. And for any upcoming 4K standard we should aim at a minimum of 100 fps, and 200 fps for 3D material so that the effective frame rate for full 3D reproduction remains at 100 fps.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 15:19 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies

All tablets that I know lack a couple important features which I think are really mandatory before they "rightfully" deserve the term "tablet for photographers":

- a full size SDXC card slot (in addition to a micro sized one!), capable of UHS-1 speeds - and yes, I am aware that this requires accordingly fast and big internal memory (SSD), this is a sub-requirement which follows as a conclusion,

- an HDMI input plus app allowing to use the tablet as a larger (full HD) monitor on a DSLR when shooting video.

There's a couple more requirements but as long as these 2 aren't available I won't buy a tablet.

Did I overlook a tablet which offers these features?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2012 at 11:22 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
On Sigma 19mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (9 comments in total)

How does it compare with the Sony 16mm pancake?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2012 at 15:22 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Karl Gnter Wnsch: Unless they manage to produce sensors that can convey the *full* dynamic range of the scene (not just 6-7 EV in video mode like today, which is at least 20 stops short of the required range) and the EVF would manage to show the same dynamic range (the OLED is limited to about 5-6 EV) and that without lag and without heating up the sensor and without draining the battery... EVF is a solution to a non existing problem, OVF is and always will be superior, it's just hapless NOOBs which crave for the EVF solution as they lack the knowledge (and with an EVF they will never acquire this knowledge) to judge a scene.
EVF are incapable of showing the vital aspects in any high contrast scene - so they are a deal breaker for many!

I hope future EVFs will be backed by a signal processing with considerably higher color depth than 8 bit per color. 16 bit would be phantastic, but even 12 or 14 bit - color depths as used by today's DSLRs for the RAW image - would be a big progress. OLEDs can reproduce much bigger contrasts than LCDs, so in my opinion such a step would be necessary to take full advantage of these display's potential.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 13:30 UTC
In reply to:

Karl Gnter Wnsch: Unless they manage to produce sensors that can convey the *full* dynamic range of the scene (not just 6-7 EV in video mode like today, which is at least 20 stops short of the required range) and the EVF would manage to show the same dynamic range (the OLED is limited to about 5-6 EV) and that without lag and without heating up the sensor and without draining the battery... EVF is a solution to a non existing problem, OVF is and always will be superior, it's just hapless NOOBs which crave for the EVF solution as they lack the knowledge (and with an EVF they will never acquire this knowledge) to judge a scene.
EVF are incapable of showing the vital aspects in any high contrast scene - so they are a deal breaker for many!

Without doubt, the MicroOLED display we are talking about here has the potential of a big progress over existing EVFs (if it ever makes it into a commercial consumer camera). But one aspect is still neglected as it seems.

If it's true what the company writes, it has a contrast of 100000:1. Unfortunately, the company also says it supports 16 million colors. That tells me that they haven't understood the contrast problem in viewfinders yet. 16 M colors means a color depth of 24 bit, or 8 bit per basic color. With 8 bit per color you can differentiate only 256 brightness levels. With such a coarse stepping it is not possible to reproduce a 100000:1 contrast while still maintaining "very smooth transitional tones" as they write on their website.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 13:30 UTC
In reply to:

Karl Gnter Wnsch: Unless they manage to produce sensors that can convey the *full* dynamic range of the scene (not just 6-7 EV in video mode like today, which is at least 20 stops short of the required range) and the EVF would manage to show the same dynamic range (the OLED is limited to about 5-6 EV) and that without lag and without heating up the sensor and without draining the battery... EVF is a solution to a non existing problem, OVF is and always will be superior, it's just hapless NOOBs which crave for the EVF solution as they lack the knowledge (and with an EVF they will never acquire this knowledge) to judge a scene.
EVF are incapable of showing the vital aspects in any high contrast scene - so they are a deal breaker for many!

Also I love the low light capability of the A55's EVF. I shot with OVFs - good pentaprism implementations of Minolta's top models - for 25 years, but the fact that I couldn't see much in real low light situations always bugged me. For the advantage of being able to see, for the first time after all those years, a strongly brightened up version of a low light scene in the EVF I can easily accept that the picture that I get to see there is very noisy, and updates only a few times per second. At least I can see something!

You'll have to accept that for me the EVF is the answer to problems that did exist for along time, like it or not. And I know that I'm not alone. Your writing ("hapless NOOBs" ... "they lack the knowledge (and with an EVF they will never acquire ...") is so harsh that I was *VERY* close to clicking the "Flag as inappropriate" button. You insult all users of such cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 13:29 UTC
In reply to:

Karl Gnter Wnsch: Unless they manage to produce sensors that can convey the *full* dynamic range of the scene (not just 6-7 EV in video mode like today, which is at least 20 stops short of the required range) and the EVF would manage to show the same dynamic range (the OLED is limited to about 5-6 EV) and that without lag and without heating up the sensor and without draining the battery... EVF is a solution to a non existing problem, OVF is and always will be superior, it's just hapless NOOBs which crave for the EVF solution as they lack the knowledge (and with an EVF they will never acquire this knowledge) to judge a scene.
EVF are incapable of showing the vital aspects in any high contrast scene - so they are a deal breaker for many!

I agree that dynamic range and brightness are rather limited in today's EVFs for very bright environment such as full daytime sunshine. I'm using a Sony A55 so I know what I'm talking about. At the same time I can say that even the A55 EVF offers advantages in other respects that compensate this disadvantage by far.

Before I bought the A55, I tried several other APS-C SLRs with optical viewfinders. But these viewfinders were all too small for me. The A55 is the first APS-C camera which overcomes this size limitation.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 13:28 UTC
In reply to:

revio: "1280x1024" said somebody would not be sharp enough...eeeeh...this new EVF is said to be much better than that:
"The 5.4 million-pixel density microdisplay comes in full color (16 million colors), SXGA or monochrome formats (2,560 by 2,048 pixels)"

Why rant on, and critisize, "only 1024x1024" then???

Because the real resolution of the color version of MicroOLED's new display has indeed only 1280 x 1024, by their own definition (look up their website!)

2560 x 2048 is only for the monochrome version.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 12:42 UTC
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17