Reading mode: Light Dark

Oh My, Sigma introduces 30mm 1.4...

Go to last post
Zony in general is a rip off when you factor in the QC issues and compare the offerings to those from Canikon (1st party to 1st party).

Hopefully that 30 1.4 is indicative of some FE only glass to come from them. FE shooters buy way more non-kit glass than E mount shooters so there is money there.
 
Last edited:
exdeejjjaaaa said:
biza43 said:
I think that Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina have proved that they can make some great lenses, and have all the inherent capabilities.
Click to expand...
and if you look @ patents then some big names are actually using their designs :-)
Click to expand...
That does not mean that prices are low.

Mitsubishi produses parts for Mercedes but manufactures their own cars on a different level.

The point is that quality control, mechanics and optics cost moneay - no matter which Company stands behind.

Even Ferrari could build cheap cars, but then they wouldn't be that good ,-)

in fact they might be as good as Fiat - wait a second - Fiat owns Ferrari - so Fiat is as good as Ferrari?
 
Corelli said:
Fortunately (unfortunately?) I have managed to avoid the sports car passion. I'm very content with my 6 cylinder Passat. It's a great car for travelling longer distances.
Click to expand...
No doubt - the 2015 model (that I recently got as company car) is maybe even better than my previous BMW (drove 20+ years BMW as company cars) - VW did a fabulous job to make the cars more sporty and more agile. Progressive steering, sports suspension and slip diff in combination with inner curve wheel breaking like in formula one cars makes that big and family like car nimble and it feels more like a BMW used to feel before they made the suspension as soft as Audi does
Corelli said:
BTW, I love your tag lines. I hadn't heard that one from Einstein before. So, so true. :) :)
Click to expand...
Einstein was a phenomenal guy - it took top notch scientists some 100+ years to proof the gravitation waves - what a perspective to think about something that needs 100 years to be proven - chapeau!

Back on topic - it is foreseeable that FF cameras will get 60 | 80 or even 100 MPixel in the near future - just imagine 8 k 1:1 read out for super 35 mm format and we're at some 80 MPixel for the next step and this will happen sooner than later simply because it's doable and it will make fun ;-)

So saving on lenses and not buying top notch means that your investment might be necessary again in 3-4 years from now.

All my lenses are so good (look in my gear list) that no matter which camera I am going to use - all of them will be up to the task - no future investment necessary - at least on lenses ;-)

Lenses are keepers - cameras have a much shorter duration in my life

(and in case you want to trade in your lenses it is easier to have rare top notch glass compare to cheap mass production competition which leads to low used prices)
 
You certainly make a good point about the lenses. I've told my wife That the money in the bank is Losing value. Better to invest in Lenses. Not sure she bought that Line. :)
 
Corelli said:
You certainly make a good point about the lenses. I've told my wife That the money in the bank is Losing value. Better to invest in Lenses. Not sure she bought that Line. :)
Click to expand...
 
I hope cameras don't all go to 100+ MP. I still like to do the occasional panorama stitch.... 100 MP base files would make that impossible. I'd be working with files bigger than my RAM.

Thom Hogan touched on this. More MPs doesn't end at the camera unless you only shoot JPG and don't PP. At the minimum if those cameras do come out I would hope they'd have an "uncompressed sRAW" mode. A downsampled 100MP to like 25 MP would be good for me.
 
sportyaccordy said:
I hope cameras don't all go to 100+ MP.
Click to expand...
At least Sony is selling three cameras with ⅓, ⅔ and full MP count - I guess that makes sense - you build one body and have three different target groups of photographers - no need to have a dispute about the number of pixels as long as you have individually the chance to select your favorite number
sportyaccordy said:
I still like to do the occasional panorama stitch.... 100 MP base files would make that impossible. I'd be working with files bigger than my RAM.
Click to expand...
You think you'll be using your current computer in a couple of years from now still?

I've been editing 4 GB Images in 2005 already and it was for my taste fast enough on my water cooled Quad-G5 MAC - btw - my current laptop is 1/20th of the weight and has 2x the computation power and the perceived speed is significantly higher due to the usage of Open GL and the recent improvements in LR - I'd not worry about 80-100 MPixel RAW files - by the time we talk about these resolutions LapTops will be >2-3x faster and last a full day on battery - maybe not for image editing though
sportyaccordy said:
Thom Hogan touched on this. More MPs doesn't end at the camera unless you only shoot JPG and don't PP. At the minimum if those cameras do come out I would hope they'd have an "uncompressed sRAW" mode. A downsampled 100MP to like 25 MP would be good for me.
Click to expand...
My computers have always been faster than my needs - of course it is always too slow ;-)

But my current nMP 6 Core Dual D700 MAC is more than fast enough for whatever you'd like to use it for - 4k Video is just a joy to work on - I do a lot of stitching and work around the limitation of my camera - I do normally 20 shots for one image to get a "decent" resolution and DR - so I am used to big files and if they get 10x bigger I still have no issue - even with my laptop

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams
 
Last edited:
funny..I just sold my 35mm CZ 2.8 yesterday for $449.. It is a very good lens but I am getting the 24-70mm GM that is why I sold it but other than that you wont be disappointed..
 
The new MOUNT CONVERTER MC-11 allows you to use your SIGMA SA mount and SIGMA EOS mount interchangeable lenses with the Sony E-mount camera body.

all the sigma art full-frame lense are compatible with this new converter:

Loading…

www.sigma-global.com
 
joger said:
sportyaccordy said:
I hope cameras don't all go to 100+ MP.
Click to expand...
At least Sony is selling three cameras with ⅓, ⅔ and full MP count - I guess that makes sense - you build one body and have three different target groups of photographers - no need to have a dispute about the number of pixels as long as you have individually the chance to select your favorite number
joger said:
I still like to do the occasional panorama stitch.... 100 MP base files would make that impossible. I'd be working with files bigger than my RAM.
Click to expand...
You think you'll be using your current computer in a couple of years from now still?

I've been editing 4 GB Images in 2005 already and it was for my taste fast enough on my water cooled Quad-G5 MAC - btw - my current laptop is 1/20th of the weight and has 2x the computation power and the perceived speed is significantly higher due to the usage of Open GL and the recent improvements in LR - I'd not worry about 80-100 MPixel RAW files - by the time we talk about these resolutions LapTops will be >2-3x faster and last a full day on battery - maybe not for image editing though
Click to expand...
I keep computers for a really long time. I pretty much only replace them once they break. So what I have now is what I see myself using for a long time.
joger said:
joger said:
Thom Hogan touched on this. More MPs doesn't end at the camera unless you only shoot JPG and don't PP. At the minimum if those cameras do come out I would hope they'd have an "uncompressed sRAW" mode. A downsampled 100MP to like 25 MP would be good for me.
Click to expand...
My computers have always been faster than my needs - of course it is always too slow ;-)

But my current nMP 6 Core Dual D700 MAC is more than fast enough for whatever you'd like to use it for - 4k Video is just a joy to work on - I do a lot of stitching and work around the limitation of my camera - I do normally 20 shots for one image to get a "decent" resolution and DR - so I am used to big files and if they get 10x bigger I still have no issue - even with my laptop
Click to expand...
 
sportyaccordy said:
joger said:
sportyaccordy said:
I hope cameras don't all go to 100+ MP.
Click to expand...
At least Sony is selling three cameras with ⅓, ⅔ and full MP count - I guess that makes sense - you build one body and have three different target groups of photographers - no need to have a dispute about the number of pixels as long as you have individually the chance to select your favorite number
sportyaccordy said:
I still like to do the occasional panorama stitch.... 100 MP base files would make that impossible. I'd be working with files bigger than my RAM.
Click to expand...
You think you'll be using your current computer in a couple of years from now still?

I've been editing 4 GB Images in 2005 already and it was for my taste fast enough on my water cooled Quad-G5 MAC - btw - my current laptop is 1/20th of the weight and has 2x the computation power and the perceived speed is significantly higher due to the usage of Open GL and the recent improvements in LR - I'd not worry about 80-100 MPixel RAW files - by the time we talk about these resolutions LapTops will be >2-3x faster and last a full day on battery - maybe not for image editing though
Click to expand...
I keep computers for a really long time. I pretty much only replace them once they break. So what I have now is what I see myself using for a long time.
sportyaccordy said:
sportyaccordy said:
Thom Hogan touched on this. More MPs doesn't end at the camera unless you only shoot JPG and don't PP. At the minimum if those cameras do come out I would hope they'd have an "uncompressed sRAW" mode. A downsampled 100MP to like 25 MP would be good for me.
Click to expand...
My computers have always been faster than my needs - of course it is always too slow ;-)

But my current nMP 6 Core Dual D700 MAC is more than fast enough for whatever you'd like to use it for - 4k Video is just a joy to work on - I do a lot of stitching and work around the limitation of my camera - I do normally 20 shots for one image to get a "decent" resolution and DR - so I am used to big files and if they get 10x bigger I still have no issue - even with my laptop

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams
Click to expand...
Well not everyone wants to or can build a brand new super powerful computer on a whim. I have too many expensive hobbies.... post processing comuter power is very low on my $$$ priority list.

For me 1080P and ~24MP are good video and image sizes to work with.
Click to expand...
My 2009 (7 year old) 8 core Mac Pro was up to the task to process 4 GB TIFF files - the 'new' one is just for Design reasons - i like the black finish

all personal taste - you can always Limit yourself with individual rules

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams
 
Last edited:
just knows one direction - down!

One of the other reasons to sell my 5 year old Mac Pro from 2009 2 ½ years ago was due to the fact that this machine consumed some 170 W in idle plus monitor - now I have some 78 W in idle and peak level is normally around 280 W system performance (nMP including 27" monitor)

Not only goes the power consumption goes significantly down but also the heat dissipation is less critical with more advanced technology and thus your office stays cooler in summer.

And a third reason for replacing computers every 3-5 years is to stay modern with the design and to save money.

I normally don't pay much for my computers - I declare them at the tax office for business purposes => - 45% of the purchasing price plus some 40 % rest value after 3-4 years of using my MACs => only some 10 -15 % real cash out of the value in 3-4 years => 30 -40 % of the computer values in 10 years.

If you keep your machine for 10 years it is definitely outdated and you loose 100 % of the financial value plus you electrical bill and CO2 footprint goes up.

So you might say that that installing a new machine and making everything workable costs a lot of time.

On a MAC is is as simple as plugging in the new machine and connecting it with the old and click on transfer data and you're done - after some 2-3 h (depending on the bandwidth all rights, installations and data will work just as they did on your old machine.

My spouse never needs me for that task - I have lost an important value add for the relationship :-P
 
Those are all pretty weak justifications for replacing a computer every 2-3 years. My laptop is 6 years old and I am certain my main desktop (which I also bought used) is even older. They both work fine. I'd rather spend money on bodies, lenses, motorcycles and vacations.
 
sportyaccordy said:
Those are all pretty weak justifications for replacing a computer every 2-3 years. My laptop is 6 years old and I am certain my main desktop (which I also bought used) is even older. They both work fine. I'd rather spend money on bodies, lenses, motorcycles and vacations.
Click to expand...
:-P

No justifications - truth and strategy in practice for me over 20+ years - I literally spend near to nothing for my always contemporary machines over time and I replace them every 3-4 years - I keep them at least as long as I got the Apple warranty - which is 3 years.

The funny thing is that you complained about your machines not being up to the task of handling slightly bigger 80 or 100 MPixel files :-D

BTW - how many lenses do a photographer need?

I own a very narrow range of exquisite optical fun bringers - all of them are top notch - once bought they virtually last forever. No need to purchase new ones - except you've got 3rd party lenses that fade away after 5 years of extensive using it - experience over a 35+ photographing years.

That's why IMHO quality matters for traveling photographers that concentrate more on photography rather then waiting for the results coming out of a too slow computer.

Sold all my Nikon glass for more money than I spent a decade ago - probably better interest rate than the stock market and more fun for sure.

P.S. I have regularly amateur photographers in my LR-classes with older LabTops - I know what to expect from hardware and they experience it as well

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams
 
Last edited:
joger said:
sportyaccordy said:
Those are all pretty weak justifications for replacing a computer every 2-3 years. My laptop is 6 years old and I am certain my main desktop (which I also bought used) is even older. They both work fine. I'd rather spend money on bodies, lenses, motorcycles and vacations.
Click to expand...
:-P

No justifications - truth and strategy in practice for me over 20+ years - I literally spend near to nothing for my always contemporary machines over time and I replace them every 3-4 years - I keep them at least as long as I got the Apple warranty - which is 3 years.

The funny thing is that you complained about your machines not being up to the task of handling slightly bigger 80 or 100 MPixel files :-D
Click to expand...
There's not really a huge need for 80-100 MP files though, even for huge prints.
joger said:
BTW - how many lenses do a photographer need?

I own a very narrow range of exquisite optical fun bringers - all of them are top notch - once bought they virtually last forever. No need to purchase new ones - except you've got 3rd party lenses that fade away after 5 years of extensive using it - experience over a 35+ photographing years.

That's why IMHO quality matters for traveling photographers that concentrate more on photography rather then waiting for the results coming out of a too slow computer.
Click to expand...
I don't remember saying anyone needs a ton of lenses. I personally would be fine with 4- ultrawide zoom, fast 35, fast 50, cheap tele. I agree that focusing on photography is a good idea but I'm not really seeing how that justifies 100 MP or replacing a top of the line computer every 3-4 years (for me).
joger said:
Sold all my Nikon glass for more money than I spent a decade ago - probably better interest rate than the stock market and more fun for sure.

P.S. I have regularly amateur photographers in my LR-classes with older LabTops - I know what to expect from hardware and they experience it as well
Click to expand...
 
sportyaccordy said:
I hope cameras don't all go to 100+ MP. I still like to do the occasional panorama stitch.... 100 MP base files would make that impossible. I'd be working with files bigger than my RAM.

Thom Hogan touched on this. More MPs doesn't end at the camera unless you only shoot JPG and don't PP. At the minimum if those cameras do come out I would hope they'd have an "uncompressed sRAW" mode. A downsampled 100MP to like 25 MP would be good for me.
Click to expand...
Once you go past around 24mp APSC crop or 55-60mp FF then diffraction will be an issue, but I do think they will eventually go up to about 96 mp and then a 2x crop would be 24mp which would be nice. If they do go to 96mp then I am sure they would have a pixel bin mode for stopping down past F8.
 
Don't worry, it's for APS-C. I was hoping that SIGMA 30mm F1.4 has a raffle which is same as other DN series, so I could use it on FF without crop once Raffle has removed. Unfortunately, this lens's raffle can't be removed.
 
Dawson53 said:
Don't worry, it's for APS-C. I was hoping that SIGMA 30mm F1.4 has a raffle which is same as other DN series, so I could use it on FF without crop once Raffle has removed. Unfortunately, this lens's raffle can't be removed.
Click to expand...
I don't know that I'd call these usable

Loading…

www.dpreview.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top