Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 759, showing: 201 – 220
« First‹ Previous910111213Next ›Last »
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1594 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Richard's viewpoint is right on the money. In my humble opinion the only reason to currently move into full frame is to use a 24 to 28mm shift (or tilt/shift) lens for achitecture, so as to have the advantage of the moderate wide angle lens. Even then, it helps to have a slew of film (full-frame) lenses :). I'm in both camps and I'm buying a used A7 and a PK to Sony E adapter.

Other than that I can't see myself outgrowing my Fuji equipment in the near future. I can load an X-E1 body mounted with a 27mm pancake, and two excellent zooms of 18-55 and 55-200 in a case that's about 10 x 6 x 4 inches and weighs a bit over 3.5 pounds (1.5kg.) The image quality is superb, and I suspect it's the same with any APS-C system with a 16 - 18 mpix sensor and some decent lenses.

I have a friend that has a full-frame Nikon with a battery grip and both of the Nikon f/2.8 zooms (24-70 and 70-200.) He wonders why he's so tired at the end of his vacations. :)

Cheers,
BAB

One moves to full-frame for the same reason one moves from an f/4.5 lens to a better f/2.8 lens, and it's the same gap.

If you don't need that, fine. But if you do...a stop is a stop, and full-frame is a little more than a stop.

And your friend needs to get in shape. Here's my vacation kit:

5D
24-105/4L IS
70-200/2.8L IS
35/1.4L
Sigma 15mm fisheye
2x teleconverter
Small flash
Four extra batteries
Seven extra cards
Mini tripod
Cleaning supplies
Remote release

No problem carrying that all day every day.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 00:52 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1594 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

Well, that's the exact logic I followed. Notice that not one of the lenses I bought was EF-s.

Further, even if you do buy EF-s lenses, what's the big deal about selling them as you migrate to full-frame? The only thing that would make this something other than an "upgrade path" is if you are forced to do it all at once. I would argue that cars aren't on an upgrade path because you don't use pieces of your old one with your new one (usually). But with cameras, you can.

You can even keep EF-s lenses and full-frame at the same time. I'm actually about to do that. I'm going to sell my 17-40L (rarely used on full-frame because I like the fish better) and replace it with an 18-135STM because that's a better walk around on crop and a better video lens. If I need a rectilinear ultrawide, I'll use the fish on crop and defish or use it on full-frame and crop and defish.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 21:11 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1594 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

My basic range isn't 17-105 now, it's 17-200 (17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200L). That's not far different from the original 27-216 (17-40L, 28-135IS) + 19mm. I used to have a 75-300IS, now I have a 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III. I used to have a 50/1.8 on crop, now I have an 85/1.8 on full-frame. I didn't mention this but I also used to have a 20/1.8 on crop, now I have a 35/1.4L.

It's all basically the same, just with better optics, faster equivalent speeds, better focusing performance, and of course the 1 1/3 stop geometrical advantage of full-frame when I use the full-frame camera. I still have, and still use the crop camera as well, and my plan for the next year or so is to buy a 7D Mark II as an upgrade to my 20D and either a 6D or 5DIII replacement as an upgrade to my 5D.

I used to shoot with the 17-40L on my 10D and the 28-135IS on my 20D. Now I shoot with the 24-105 on my 5D and the 70-200/2.8 on my 20D.

As I said, all of this has been pretty continuous.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 20:52 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1594 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

Calling it a "myth" is a pretty strong statement that this process doesn't exist. But it does exist, and many including myself have followed this "mythical" process. And that means it isn't a myth. It exists both in concept and in practice.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 20:28 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1594 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

No, every lens did the function for which I purchased it, I just smoothly upgraded the quality and expanded the range over time.

That process is often called an "upgrade path", which is a path I followed, from crop to full-frame, retaining my crop camera and all capabilities along the way.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 20:25 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1594 comments in total)

It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 19:56 UTC as 236th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: What good are these things with such short transmission ranges?

500 meters? In practice, it's more like 4,000 meters but regardless do you know what this tiny thing would look like at 500m? A dot, if you're lucky.

In practice you're going to keep a little thing like this within about 200m.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 15:04 UTC
On article Enthusiast compact camera roundup (185 comments in total)

Weird...my top two aren't even listed, and they're from Canon.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 04:07 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

DVT80111: About time Canon but I won't cancel my Tamron 150-600 order.

400mm is no quite long enough for birds.

Based on the MTF charts, the Canon looks to be sharper with a 1.4x than the Tamron is bare at 600mm.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 06:19 UTC
On article Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II (210 comments in total)

Couple minor errors, but a good video and obviously a good bit of effort and time.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 01:49 UTC as 103rd comment | 1 reply

I'm hoping for a compact APS film camera with a 38-65 equivalent f/7.1-13.5 lens and no flash.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 14:14 UTC as 735th comment | 1 reply
On article Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: 8.5% Don't know anything about photography apparently according to the poll.

Those people may be the ones that realize the poll itself is stupid because it doesn't specify what you are shooting. Some of the best and most difficult photography I've ever seen is done with sensors of around 1/4" - planetary astrophotography, with real focal lengths around 10m (10,000mm).

Other things are better done with larger sensors, but MF isn't too great for sports and wildlife because the cameras and lenses are just not built for that purpose.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
On article DynaOptics wants to bring zoom lenses to smartphones (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I'm having a hard time understanding how this could not produce lots of astigmatism, coma, CA and so on. Also, it would seem that aperture would be constant leading to either a very narrow zoom range, some crazy fast f-stops at the wide end, or some crazy slow f-stops at the long end.

Many aberrations are not correctable in software, and corrections of many sorts cause an increase in noise or a decrease in acuity. It's not a magic bullet for everything. Mostly it's good for a small amount of vignetting, moderate geometric distortion, and lateral (not axial) CA.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
On article DynaOptics wants to bring zoom lenses to smartphones (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I'm having a hard time understanding how this could not produce lots of astigmatism, coma, CA and so on. Also, it would seem that aperture would be constant leading to either a very narrow zoom range, some crazy fast f-stops at the wide end, or some crazy slow f-stops at the long end.

It probably would, as it would almost certainly mean horrible aberrations.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 19:59 UTC
On article DynaOptics wants to bring zoom lenses to smartphones (44 comments in total)

I'm having a hard time understanding how this could not produce lots of astigmatism, coma, CA and so on. Also, it would seem that aperture would be constant leading to either a very narrow zoom range, some crazy fast f-stops at the wide end, or some crazy slow f-stops at the long end.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 19:26 UTC as 12th comment | 13 replies
On article GoPro announces Hero4 lineup (114 comments in total)

The Debut Hero is twice the cost of a Möbius, doesn't have interchangeable lenses, and is about as aerodynamic as a brick. Hmmmm...which to choose for a fast R/C airplane...I think I'll get two Möbius cameras, a medium focal length for the plane and a long focal length for my hat so I can make my own flight videos from two angles.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 06:43 UTC as 28th comment

#4 isn't a particularly good shot of Horsehead and Flame. I routinely see better ones on Cloudy Nights and in other places. It's not bad, but it's not special either.

Here's one I just found that I like:

http://www.astrobin.com/full/28275/0/

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 14:57 UTC as 19th comment | 4 replies
Total: 759, showing: 201 – 220
« First‹ Previous910111213Next ›Last »