zavart

Joined on Jan 18, 2012

Comments

Total: 90, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: You forgot to mention the other downside of the long flange distance: lack of adaptability of other lenses.

For a company whose primary sell is to provide third party lenses for other manufacturer's bodies, it is cheeky that they do not allow their own cameras to be adaptable to other mounts.

The Name is Bond "Since only about 3 people use their cameras.." If You know the names of the other 2 people who use Sigmas I would appreciate greatly if You could get me in touch with them ! I feel very distinguished to be in such a special group :)

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2017 at 02:46 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boissez: Erh, those highlights and shadows are awful. Even for studio use, such a poor dynamic range is a dealbreaker.

I always bracket my Merrills in the high contrast scenes, and if needed, I always find the solution later in the PS. Not perfect , but then again ...I can not afford perfect ! lol

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2017 at 02:26 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (557 comments in total)

I have a strange feeling that all these comparisons of Sony a9 to Canon or Nikon SLR are akin to comparing first LCD monitors to CRT monitors. Yes, sure at first LCD were inferior but the problem for CRT was that LCD technology had all the future, evolution and time in front of them while for CRT this was really the end of the line :(

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 13:29 UTC as 33rd comment | 15 replies
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (557 comments in total)
In reply to:

ghostwind: Is the image quality better than the 1DXMKII or D5? If not, then I don't see what all the excitement is about. Sure 20fps is nice (at times), and silent is nice too. EVF can be a mixed bag IMO. And the idea of not having a mirror is also nice, and clearly mirrorless is the future. But what exactly would I get today by using this over a 1DXMKII or D5 besides 20fps, silent shutter, and EVF? Why would one WANT to switch? Just for those few features? Crazy, because there are big downsides - battery life, slow buffer, Sony complex menus, bad ergonomics, inferior weatherproofing, no native lenses yet, etc. I don't see it, but yeah, it's a nice camera. I want to see a real sports photographer use it - not Sony sponsored Artisans or whatever. This look like a camera for rich hobbyists who want to shoot kids sports. The images here (and in other places I've seen) are bad in terms of composition, depth of field, etc. They are taken by gear heads, not sports photographers.

..."All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? " I think Your comment is very much in Monty Python vein lol

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 13:14 UTC
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)
In reply to:

zavart: On the subject of legacy and compatibility I would like to remind everybody that Canon did exactly the same thing as Sony now back in 1987 with EOS 650 and later with EOS 1 . Somehow nobody then was really concerned that previous Canon's lenses were not compatible ! In fact the situation back then looked even worse for people who already owned Canon lenses. At least in Sony case You can use via adapters most other lenses with only reduced functions ! Play forward ...and You see stacks of Canon lenses at major olympics ! So much for the loss of business lol So...back in 1987 Canon was playing the same game as Sony is playing thirty years later !!!

blink667 My first Nikon F3 was also giving me results I wanted ! As a matter of fact it was a fantastic camera, but it still it didn't stop others to buy new Canon cameras with one tiny little improvement which had nothing to do with the image quality...Now, to some people all these Sony improvements like, live view, no mirror vibrations, no more backfocus problems , would mean absolutely nothing but to others ...well, others will increasingly embrace them !

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 07:02 UTC
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)

One of the primary reasons why Canon or Nikon are stubbornly sticking to their mounts is backward compatibility of their entire lens range. The only problem is...the future compatibility ! In other words this whole thing will soon become totally irrelevant once the number of pixels on sensors start to hit 70 or 100 mega ! Now what kind of old lens would be able resolve that !

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 03:33 UTC as 37th comment | 4 replies
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)
In reply to:

zavart: On the subject of legacy and compatibility I would like to remind everybody that Canon did exactly the same thing as Sony now back in 1987 with EOS 650 and later with EOS 1 . Somehow nobody then was really concerned that previous Canon's lenses were not compatible ! In fact the situation back then looked even worse for people who already owned Canon lenses. At least in Sony case You can use via adapters most other lenses with only reduced functions ! Play forward ...and You see stacks of Canon lenses at major olympics ! So much for the loss of business lol So...back in 1987 Canon was playing the same game as Sony is playing thirty years later !!!

dash2k8 ...well the title of this article is "Why being better might not be enough" indicating that somehow people entrenched in Canon or Nikon camps are not going to make a switch because of the cost associated with it . I simply wanted to point out that on numerous occasions that already was the case in the past and not only in the camera business but also in music or computer industries. Otherwise we would still be stuck with the compact cassettes and floppies ! I know that it is something which costs money to everybody concerned ...from Manufactures to ...consumers , but unfortunately this is the price of progress !

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 03:16 UTC
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)

On the subject of legacy and compatibility I would like to remind everybody that Canon did exactly the same thing as Sony now back in 1987 with EOS 650 and later with EOS 1 . Somehow nobody then was really concerned that previous Canon's lenses were not compatible ! In fact the situation back then looked even worse for people who already owned Canon lenses. At least in Sony case You can use via adapters most other lenses with only reduced functions ! Play forward ...and You see stacks of Canon lenses at major olympics ! So much for the loss of business lol So...back in 1987 Canon was playing the same game as Sony is playing thirty years later !!!

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 02:22 UTC as 45th comment | 7 replies
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)
In reply to:

zavart: If Canon or Nikon or any other big camera manufacturer for that matter wants really compete with Sony , they should start developing (like Fujifilm) their own sensor technology. At the moment it is almost like being forced to use one kind of film in every camera ! This is not good for photography and also sooner or later it may spell doom for the big FF oldies ! One reason why I still buy Sigma cameras , even though technologically they are well behind every other maker is their ...sensor I.e different picture quality from all other bayers out there ! If NIkon or Canon could really come up with some truly innovative sensors of their own ...I'm sure most photographers would quickly forget about inconvenience of OVF or loud shutter ! After all taking pictures is all about ...the PICTURES !

Yes...true ! But unfortunately it is still based on Bayer design ! I'm talking about something like what Fuji has done or Foveon...

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 15:05 UTC
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)

If Canon or Nikon or any other big camera manufacturer for that matter wants really compete with Sony , they should start developing (like Fujifilm) their own sensor technology. At the moment it is almost like being forced to use one kind of film in every camera ! This is not good for photography and also sooner or later it may spell doom for the big FF oldies ! One reason why I still buy Sigma cameras , even though technologically they are well behind every other maker is their ...sensor I.e different picture quality from all other bayers out there ! If NIkon or Canon could really come up with some truly innovative sensors of their own ...I'm sure most photographers would quickly forget about inconvenience of OVF or loud shutter ! After all taking pictures is all about ...the PICTURES !

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 14:58 UTC as 118th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Although it's a shame the tech doesn't get the respect it deserves, I'm glad that Sigma develops it because if Canon/Nikon/Samsung etc had suffered the same lack of commercial success they would have dropped it years ago. Sigma have done this out of love and probably made little or no profit. It might not make them millions but I'm sure there's a sense of satisfaction in possessing what is in some aspects the best sensor tech out there.

"Foveon is poor at higher ISO" ..Kodachrome was also poor at higher ISO ( actually the highest ISO for Kodachrome was ...64 ) ! I own all 3 Foveon Merrill cameras ! ...and while taking photos with them is proverbial pain in a.. , the results are simply mind blowing ! Yes I have to stick to 100 ISO, yes I have to change battery every 40 or so pictures, yes I have to spend half an hour to properly process one picture in photo pro software...but again the moment I see the print I know, that it was worth it :) ...So Yes I'm very grateful that Sigma has brought finally DNG...because I'm, for one, going to still use their cameras !

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2017 at 11:13 UTC

Quote from the past ..."The task for us in this review was an interesting one, first of all we had to review the camera in the same way we would any other digital SLR but also to explore many of the assumed advantages and disadvantages, myths and facts around full-frame. The results of our 'extended test suite' were a confirmation of what we expected (and knew), that a full frame camera fully exposes the limits of the lens used and that simply because the pixel pitch is larger we aren't automatically going to get more dynamic range and lower noise. (Remember the EOS 5Ds pixel pitch is the same as the EOS-1D Mark II)." I think it is good from time to time to revisit the past to make present decisions based on facts rather than hyperbole...

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2017 at 07:34 UTC as 36th comment
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: Smaller sensors have advantages over larger ones. Larger sensors have advantages over smaller ones. The advantages are different. This has been the case since the birth of film. No news here.

I think there is no point to continue chatting with somebody who knows EVERYTHING about cameras ! Have a nice day !

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2017 at 00:15 UTC
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: Smaller sensors have advantages over larger ones. Larger sensors have advantages over smaller ones. The advantages are different. This has been the case since the birth of film. No news here.

"LIGHT TRANSMISSION and the AMOUNT OF LIGHT are not the same." That was simply a mental shortcut...basically it is the same when you ask for a faster car You don't have to state the car with the more powerful engine because it is obvious that one equals the other ! and staying with the car metaphor...just like when You get a Ferrari it doesn't mean that You are able to go all the time at
300km/h , the same is with the lens with large aperture ...sometimes You use it to control DOF, sometimes because you want to increase the shutter speed to catch this fleeting moment, and sometimes because there is so little light that You want to squeeze all You can while still having relatively low ISO value and moderate shutter speed ! ...Is it really so hard to understand ?

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2017 at 11:01 UTC
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: Smaller sensors have advantages over larger ones. Larger sensors have advantages over smaller ones. The advantages are different. This has been the case since the birth of film. No news here.

"Don't you realize that different cameras have different sensors and different sensors have different photo sites with different sensitivity range?" ...So if I understand correctly OLYMPUS E-1 with its 5mpx sensor had much greater quality and sensitivity range than present NIKON 801!!!, after all the photo sites on this camera were much bigger than on NIKON...whoa they were even bigger than on the present day Medium Format Cameras !!! ...

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2017 at 10:51 UTC
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: Smaller sensors have advantages over larger ones. Larger sensors have advantages over smaller ones. The advantages are different. This has been the case since the birth of film. No news here.

" What is Aperture? Simply put, aperture is a hole within a lens, through which light travels into the camera body. It is easier to understand the concept if you just think about our eyes. Every camera that we know of today is designed like human eyes. The cornea in our eyes is like the front element of a lens – it gathers all external light, then bends it and passes it to the iris. Depending on the amount of light, the iris can either expand or shrink, controlling the size of the pupil, which is a hole that lets the light pass further into the eye. The pupil is essentially what we refer to as aperture in photography. The AMOUNT OF LIGHT that enters the retina (which works just like the camera sensor), is limited to the size of the pupil – the larger the pupil, THE MORE LIGHT ENTERS the retina."

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 13:48 UTC
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: Smaller sensors have advantages over larger ones. Larger sensors have advantages over smaller ones. The advantages are different. This has been the case since the birth of film. No news here.

OMG Your explanation is the most convoluted metaphor in the history of mankind ...LOL

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: Smaller sensors have advantages over larger ones. Larger sensors have advantages over smaller ones. The advantages are different. This has been the case since the birth of film. No news here.

.."Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is not a 70-200/2.8, so they are paying $1300 for a 70-200/5.6 equivalent lens with a smile on their faces" ...They are paying for LIGHT TRANSMISSION ! and that means F2.8 is F2.8 on ANY format !!! IT just might be that NOT everybody WANTS DOF of FF lenses but they want the same F value and equivalent focal length !

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: Now awaiting similar article from DPREVIEW titled "Opinion: Thinking about buying Full Frame format? Read this first " ...and comparing this format to Micro 3/4 format :)

jlabelle "A Nikon 85mm f/1,8 is faster, lighter, and 3 times cheaper than the Nocticron. All this while being 1.5 times sharper." well, we will see how this lens is going to cope once Sony inroduces 80-100mpx sensors for FF which will roughly correspond to 20mpx sensors of MFT (pixel size) !!! But the main point I was trying to make is NOT to make MFT better than FF...because after all everybody knows that it is not ...just like everybody knows that medium format Fuji or Hasselblad offer better quality than FF ! Rather , just like in old days some people were using 16mm cameras because they were small and highly portable not to mention cheaper ...while still allowing for other formats where portability was not an issue ! After all the most important is....to go out there and take pictures regardless of formats :)

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 03:10 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: Now awaiting similar article from DPREVIEW titled "Opinion: Thinking about buying Full Frame format? Read this first " ...and comparing this format to Micro 3/4 format :)

So as I understand if I set nikon D750 with 35mm lens at F16 and olympus with 17mm lens set at F8 they are both getting the same amount of light ? Even though they have matching DOF with the matching focal length ? As for incredible lenses...Yes exactly right !!! They make them to the very high standard because the sensor size is so small it is similar to what Angenieoux made for the super 8mm or 16mm cameras They had to be EXCEPTIONAL precisely because the area was so small, Now imagine Sony introducing soon 100mb pixel FF cameras with the pixel size of MFT but the lenses which are nowhere as good to squeeze out all those 100milon of pixels from FF sensor ! Now tell me how much and how big would those lenses have to be to equal this ..?

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 12:01 UTC
Total: 90, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »