moizes 2

moizes 2

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

Comments

Total: 101, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (337 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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (337 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!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 04:22 UTC
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!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 16:01 UTC

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

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 14:07 UTC as 317th 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!

Direct 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.

Direct 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!

Direct 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.

Direct 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!

Direct 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.

Direct 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.

Direct 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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 19:18 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 - we would not need to stop the lens down, as well as increase ISO. Set 300mm Nikkor, wide open, on V2. Point it on the evenly lit object, as a minute ago the same lens on D800. So what we got? Absolutely equal images, the same EXIF, the different only is AOV for V2 - about 850mm, what is reflecting on V2 EXIF (or not, depending on adapter, does not matter, which one, but not the optical one, of course!) So in order to get equivalent images we would not need to change ANYTHING. So the 300/4 lens will work as a 850/4 lens on V2, without any warnings, simply like this, needless to say more.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 13:17 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 - To follow your theory Nikkor 300/4 on DX is 450/5.6 lens. Yes, it will have the angle of field-of-view of 450mm. BUT IT IS STILL F 4.0! Under any circumstances!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 03:06 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

@forpetessake - you started wordings like this. Have you ever seen a real camera/lens combo? What you are insisting on is wild ignorance. Absolutely wild.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 03:00 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

Forpetessake - stop talking nonsense - F8.0 for calculation of DOF, but equivalent is 600 f4.0 of any other respect, it will be f4.0 regardless of sensor size. Do not mislead people. So ignorance is fully yours!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: This lens is definitely capable of producing some very fine details.
Unfortunately it also exposes the weakness of the M43 sensor (at least the current gen): a lot of blown highlights and lack of details in the less than bright areas. Need sensors w better dynamic range. Check out the images taken by the just released Nikon 200-500mm f5_6
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/nikon_afs_nikkor_200_500mm_f_5_6_e_ed_vr_photos/

Correct, but we are speaking about the lens only! So let us wait for the next generation of Oly bodies...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 05:00 UTC

This one is the sharpest long lens ever seen by me, for my 55 years in pro photography. Very good color, can't see any significant CA or distortions to speak about! Well done, Olympus!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 03:19 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II added to studio test scene (211 comments in total)

Looks like the lens is eaten alive by new sensor. I am not sure if it is possible to fix with firmware update. Let us see.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 21:33 UTC as 41st comment | 6 replies

There is no optical system that projecting its own imperfections(dust) onto light sensitive surface - film, sensor, so on. It true for Hubble, as well. Dust on the sensor, do you mean?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2015 at 12:27 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
Total: 101, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »