qwertyasdf

Joined on Sep 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 605, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

bakhtyar kurdi: What is wrong with their (now old) Tamron 90 2.8 VC?
it is still the king of Macro lenses at 90-105 range, smallest and lightest and most affordable.
The only thing I think of is for some reason it is not selling very well, marketing problem, probably people mix it with older versions.

I don't think a macro lens would ever be a hot seller....
Tamron's 60mm f2 macro was also very good, and could replace a 50mm f1.8....it was potentially a good seller, but I think the marketing flopped for that lens though.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 11:49 UTC

And I thought the previous Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro VC was very good already...I doubt the need for an update...

As a very experienced macro shooter, I'd much rather see something like a 150mm f4 Macro IS lens, that is light. I shoot 99% of my macro pictures at f8 or above anyways. (I think all serious macro shooters do too)

But anyways, such a lens would be too niche....

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 11:31 UTC as 37th comment | 5 replies
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)

Congratulations to all Pentax users!
Still i think pentax should go mirrorless, judging the strengths, they are THE BEST in making small and high quality primes. Small prime +mirrorless FF would attract crowds of photographers. On the other hand, lets be honest, their AF is lagging behind the competition for decades literally, so their DSLR has little advantage over a mirrorless with decent EVF.

P.s. I absolutely hate my A7r, I rly want an alternative other than Sony :(

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 05:47 UTC as 56th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

greypixelz: Bad Sigma!
Build the 16-300/1.2!
Stop kidding us around, Sigma!

Ain't good enough, I would still need to bag an extra 8mm fisheye in case I need it.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 04:08 UTC

This lens is exquisite yet impractical.
One can bag a Canon 50/1.8 STM + 85/1.8 USM at 160g + 425g = 585g
Both decent performers, fast focusing and cover FF.

If the convenience of a zoom is necessary, which usually means sports, the 100mm FL is lacking.

I do own the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, and I've found a sweet spot of using it on a 1D APSH body, 1.3x crop. Usable from ~20mm giving me a 23-45mm, with F2.3 DOF equiv. giving me better subject separation than even a zoom on FF.
I would never us it on an APSC body though, I'd rather bring a 6D + 24-70mm f2.8.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 04:06 UTC as 54th comment | 2 replies
On article Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: "And because we picked the APS-C format, also SIZE and operability"

I cannot agree with this. I have a X-A1 and the 18-55 f2.8-4, and stopped buying Fuji lenses, they are huge, esp. the 10-24mm f4.

Canon EF-M 11-22mm / EF-S 10-18mm is ~ 220g, vs Fuji's 10-24mm's 410g.
Ok, not exactly the same FL and aperture, but that's 80% weight premium.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 10:38 UTC
On article Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo (354 comments in total)

"And because we picked the APS-C format, also SIZE and operability"

I cannot agree with this. I have a X-A1 and the 18-55 f2.8-4, and stopped buying Fuji lenses, they are huge, esp. the 10-24mm f4.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 03:32 UTC as 78th comment | 5 replies
On article Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom_A: I have a Fuji GA645 medium format AF rangefinder.
Compact, light, stellar results. Same approach in digital would be awesome...

Awesome camera indeed, many digital cameras come and go, but it's the GA645 that traveled around the globe with me.

I'm happy sticking with film for MF, and one of the biggest strength of GA645 is price, which would not be the case if it's digital.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 03:28 UTC

In shot #13, the grain doesn't look organic at all.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:24 UTC as 27th comment

One really nice thing about Oly lenses is the very high magnification, 0.24x physically (0.48x FF equiv. as they say). This is very handy in capturing small birds, animals and larger insects, which would add a healthy variety for a wildlife trip.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 08:29 UTC as 29th comment | 1 reply

Happy to see such a lens, but I'm always surprised the M43 camp is so slow to realize their crop sensor's advantage in reach.

Now, please release a 150/200mm f2.8 prime, which is priced around the range of FF 150/200mm f2.8 primes (read: moderately priced).

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 01:51 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: 9xx comments?! WTH
Nobody use to care about Samsung, and now so many people caring for them loll

justmeMN, that's an excellent metaphor!!!

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2015 at 02:33 UTC

9xx comments?! WTH
Nobody use to care about Samsung, and now so many people caring for them loll

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 16:11 UTC as 155th comment | 5 replies
On article Good genes: Samsung NX500 review posted (521 comments in total)
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: Good genes?! It's coming from the worst bloodline lollll

Well, one of the main reasons I ditched Samsung is becoz I can't adopt Leica M lenses to it, which I have a decent collection. The relatively long flange distance is silly, it turns pancake lenses to cupcake lenses. I know many disagree, but that's just me.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2015 at 23:47 UTC
On article Good genes: Samsung NX500 review posted (521 comments in total)
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: Good genes?! It's coming from the worst bloodline lollll

Ofcoz I have idea, Samsung makes great cameras, no doubt.
No one buys them regardless, also no doubt.

I have used all major brands, Samsung included, and I parted with it the quickest. There's just something not right with it, which I really can't explain lol....

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2015 at 14:48 UTC
On article Good genes: Samsung NX500 review posted (521 comments in total)

Good genes?! It's coming from the worst bloodline lollll

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2015 at 11:41 UTC as 25th comment | 11 replies
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (744 comments in total)

Fairly speaking, Canon and Panasonic mirrorlesses have decent battery life, Sony's bad, and Olympus is absolutely miserable (less than 200 shots per charge on EM5, IBIS off)

I want to suggest something out of the ordinary, how about a collapsible telephoto lens to keep everything small?! Since telephotos really have a lot of air space in them.

Since the picture is showing a Fuji camera, I'm particularly disappointed with them, why the heck are their lenses becoming bigger and bigger?!?!?! I love Fuji, but stopped with the X-A1 and 18--55mm F2.8-4, I have no desire to buy any of their huge lenses.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 16:53 UTC as 144th comment | 5 replies

To cater to the current generation, Rishi, where's your selfie?!

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 15:44 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marty4650: Expensive but a bargain in it's category.

If you want a full frame 35mm fixed lens compact camera, then your only options are this one and a Leica Q for twice the price.

I give Sony a lot of credit.

It's the most expensive in it's category (with the cheapest one being the RX1 1st gen!!!)

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

Chaitanya S: This is exactly what Sony should do, take atleast 2-3years for product upgrades rather than willy nilly every couple of months. This is certainly a drool worthy camera, and the upgrades it offered over 1st gen Rx1 will definitely juatify the upgrade for anyone.

(cough cough) Nex5 5N 5R 5T.....Nex3 C3 3N F3....

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 15:53 UTC
Total: 605, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »