moizes 2

Lives in United States Brooklyn, United States
Works as a prophotographer
Joined on Aug 19, 2003

Comments

Total: 109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

SETI: Not as good as Canon 24-70mm mkII

andrewD2. True. I've seen no images at 42MP. I've seen a lot at 50MP. While I am Nikonian, have to admit that Canon 24-70-2 is better. Simply like this.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 16:38 UTC

Life-less low contrast images. At 24mm, only central circle is sharp, with excessive amount of CA. Lens needs more expensive glass elements to get real contrast, more aspheric surfaces to be sharper to extreme corners, better MC to suppress haloes. Take it back, Sony, improve it, right now it is not the stuff to sell itself for asking price. Sorry. Your new 85 is out of questions, BTW, great lens. (My own conclusion). Gentlemen, let us keep discussion civilized.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 13:18 UTC as 29th comment
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2442 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: $1,699 for body-only. Mirrorless enthusiasts say that mirrorless cameras cost less to manufacture than DSLRs, but that doesn't seem to be reflected in their prices.

New Pentax. IBIS. The best huge optical VF. Full frame. Great highlights/shadows range. Astro, lah-lah... A lot of toys more... Beautiful set of new lenses to choose from. $ 1800. Something to think about for newbuyers, doesn't it?

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 21:17 UTC
On article Seriously sharp: Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM samples (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: I'd wait for Sigma to release the 85mm F/1.4 ART. You can be certain that it will be cheaper, sharper and will work well with the upcoming Sigma E-mount adapters.

Why not? I am Nikonian.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

moizes 2: My congratulation to designers of such the significant optical achievement! Very representative images posted for very first introducing of the one of the best zooms ever! Actually, I am very critical, ah... hmmm... sometimes, but not today! Nice job, guys, well done! I looked carefully at the all, but special attention to worker alone with ropes on the front. Wide open at 400mm, hand-held, the combo shows unthinkable before for any zoom detailing and sharpness! It is the ZOOM, Ladies and Gentlemen, ZOOM, not the prime, and almost of the same, if not the same quality, as the any 800mm prime is. What should I say? It cost every penny you gonna pay for it!

@Androole. Yeah, look at his "hard whelm" - the central label - looks like this is curbed with scalpel. 100% crop! At 400mm (actually 800!) wide open, 1/60, bad weather, hand-held!

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 16:44 UTC

My congratulation to designers of such the significant optical achievement! Very representative images posted for very first introducing of the one of the best zooms ever! Actually, I am very critical, ah... hmmm... sometimes, but not today! Nice job, guys, well done! I looked carefully at the all, but special attention to worker alone with ropes on the front. Wide open at 400mm, hand-held, the combo shows unthinkable before for any zoom detailing and sharpness! It is the ZOOM, Ladies and Gentlemen, ZOOM, not the prime, and almost of the same, if not the same quality, as the any 800mm prime is. What should I say? It cost every penny you gonna pay for it!

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 15:45 UTC as 35th comment | 2 replies
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: My first thought of this review is: $249 for a thumb grip. WTF is it made from???

@Tapper123 - Correct. It is not the thing which is selling itself. But initial price of the camera is already above the sky. This plastic thumb thing costs to manufacturer $ 0.5, at most. So, show some mercy to customers, do not scare us out.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 23:04 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: My first thought of this review is: $249 for a thumb grip. WTF is it made from???

Made from what you have already said... Looks like they lost their mind completely... For the small piece of plastic $250?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 20:46 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Julius: Unbelievable details, I have never seen before.

Easy. At the both sides of 2 people on the walls or floor there are points of the flat field - absolutely symmetrical without any CA. Every decentered lens has more CA on the wrong side, as well as loss of resolution on the same side wide open. Even one of my trying copies of 90 AA ($4000) was decentered, so price has nothing in common with QC. Gentlemen, do not try to look more knowledgeable than you are, look funny.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Julius: Unbelievable details, I have never seen before.

@ Julius. Indeed! We will see the QC on every copy when it go to the mass production. So far this copy of the lens is unthinkably good - there is no even trace of decentering. Have never seen anything better at 24mm wide open - among zooms, of course!

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 04:22 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2442 comments in total)
In reply to:

moizes 2: Sorry, really great lenses, but no IBIS, no deal. Looks overpriced without it.

Don, take a look at Sony Rumor - Nikkors thru NEW adapter are blazingly fast!

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2442 comments in total)

Sorry, really great lenses, but no IBIS, no deal. Looks overpriced without it.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 14:07 UTC as 477th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

Theory, or HOW you talking it, is contradicting to reality. So, this theory is wrong, or you, gentlemen, are wrong. Time will tell, let us wait!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 01:40 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

Guys, 1/3 of my lifetime - probably! - hah - I am spending to the top pro lab on the Ave U, Brooklyn. Do you REALLY think I do not know differentiation between sensors sizes, ISO used, MP quantities? (And correlation between those parameters, BTW). That is why I am calling you "Theoretical" photogs! Sorry, but enough said.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 17:52 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

Of course, gentlemen! Lost cause! Very last thing, again. As I already said, my 300/4 on my V2 is acting like 850/4 lens, ISO 200, f4.0, 1/1000sec. Two files, from D800 and V2, coming out ABSOLUTELY identical to my OLD eyes, EXIF's are identical. Of course, magnification, S/N ratio, AOV are different, but there was not hassle with heavy/small/big photons at all! Simply identical files but due to way smaller sensor of V2 the file from this body was professionally unusable. Smaller sensor is producing less data, that's all! So let me hide behind my practical experience, you guys stay with your theory - why not!

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

@HFLM - So were you see a total different? Looks like some of you guys have no idea what you are talking about. Physical specs of this Oly will not change if you set it on the HASSY. It is impossible, of course, accept it as a figure of speech. So on the Hassy it will act as a 110mm f4.0 lens, with great completely uncorrected vignette. Doesn't matter what kind of the back set - film or digital! Lust thing - mention of my age in aspect like this is impolite. I may say - you, guys, are hiding behind pseudo-scientifically looking demagogue.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 11:39 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

Of course it is pretty simple. But you are changing the objects. We are talking about physical specs of the SAME lens on the DIFFERENTLY sized sensors. I hate to repeat myself, so re-read my topic above. And, please, do not even try to explain me effect of magnification and so on. In my 72 I am on the field, and my arsenal is from Hassy to V2, with everything between. Come on, guys!

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 05:07 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

@matthew - some people do not want to accept the simplest thing - just cover the part of any light sensitive surface (film,sensor) with mask, leave only part of the one open. So what would be difference to ISO, focus or aperture used? NOTHING to change, AOV ONLY! Of course, if one wants the same field of view, as it was before covering, just go back. DOF in this case will be greater. Working pros know this for sure, no questions asked, but "theoretical" photographers like to rise this nonsense, time-to-time.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 03:59 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

Of course I have no idea. I am pro photographer for 55 years. The same discussions are in air since I used to work with wooden 8X10 Toyo. Absolutely the same, but without photons. Never ever somebody was able to proof himself, when was given the camera/lens combo. Everybody is free to say anything, but do not mislead innocent beginners.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 21:58 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

There is a logical mistake. Smaller sensor is a part of a bigger one. Cut out from bigger one, and gets its own photons, accordingly to its smaller size. So 1" sensor gets as smaller quantity of photons, as it is smaller geometrically. There is absolutely straight exponent of dependency. Say, if 4/3 sensor is 1/4 of FF, its getting 1/4 of photons. For sure, it isn't that simple, due to difference of resolution, so the quantity of micro lenses is not that exponential, but not affected the quantity of gathered photons very much. So what word is convincing you is not that important, the final images will be EQUAL absolutely, with some 5-15% differentiations due to shutters instability.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 19:18 UTC
Total: 109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »