nicolaiecostel

Lives in Romania Timisoara, Romania
Works as a photographer
Joined on Aug 16, 2011

Comments

Total: 758, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »

Yes, yes, but how much does this 85 art weighs ? I have the original 85 sigma and it's around 750 grams, a hell of a lens. At 1.4 it focuses precisely and fast and it's sharp but it could be a little sharper.

But if the Art weighs more than the 750 grams, I might stay away from it, depending on the weight difference, as I shoot events with 4 lenses on my belt.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 21:40 UTC as 27th comment | 8 replies
On article Metz mecablitz M400 flash unveiled at Photokina (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

robbinsbox: Does Metz have good qc/reputation?

They were highly regarded in the previous century. In this one they mostly made cheap, creaky alternatives, and when they tried to recreate the old magic with that powerhorse that was the CL45 or whatever, the battery lasted for a couple of shots, some users complained.

I have had Nissin and Yongnuo and honestly, I would only buy Nikon at this point.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 21:37 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: Good lenses, but not quite as exiting as the previous Sigma Art.

The prices went up for what they are. Quite a bit.

The first zooms under f/2.8 were Olympus, with f/2 aperture. They are a few years old, also.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
On article Metz mecablitz M400 flash unveiled at Photokina (44 comments in total)

The 1970's called, they want their flash back :)))

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:11 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Alphoid: Good lenses, but not quite as exiting as the previous Sigma Art.

The prices went up for what they are. Quite a bit.

Really? How much does the 50 Art costs ? Almost twice the price of the non Art ....

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:00 UTC

Why ?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 23:06 UTC as 24th comment

Forgot this thing existed. Any users ?

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 23:52 UTC as 9th comment | 6 replies
On article ESPN publishes iPhone 7 Plus photos from US Open (340 comments in total)

Image quality looks like a compact camera from the early 2000's. Still a good thing.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 01:34 UTC as 96th comment
In reply to:

Dheorl: Beautiful looking lenses, although I do find it funny that these days all it takes to qualify something as a cine lens is some gearing and a clickless aperture.

Exactly. Screw no distortion, no breathing, parfocal and/or anamorphic lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 12:54 UTC
On article Updated: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV real-world sample gallery (486 comments in total)

The focus isn't where it's supposed to be in some shots. Pleasing images but I'm not impressed by the sensor output.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2016 at 11:43 UTC as 47th comment
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2146 comments in total)
In reply to:

role_of_72: I won't have one but it is a really nice camera!

And for those who are desperate because of the 1.65 crop factor in 4K mode: just mount a Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 or Samyang 8mm on it and come back to thank me the good advice. :)

16-40 is, tamron 15-30 vc, 11-16 f/4 for pure wideness

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: superb camera for photographers that use cameras to take photos. meh camera for internet experts.

I'm sorry but you're just trolling right now. It's really easy to check out my work, and yet you seem to not have bothered, just like you haven't bothered to understand what I am posting.

Can you not understand that sometimes bad light is bad light and there is no high ISO magic that is going to fix it ? Light is not about quantity alone, is about direction, color, scattering. The images taken in bad light are going to look crap no matter what body you use. I've shot in many many light scenarios, trust me.

And I'm sorry but stating that the D750 is not a high ISO body is just hilarious, seen that Canon just rolled out a camera (5D4) that is comparable to the D750 in terms of low light capabilities. I know that the D3s is a little better, and the D4s/D5, but these aren't the only low light cameras, are they ? And half of stop better doesn't make or break a camera, it's all about the light you have or make ...

This conversation is pointless, let's just agree to disagree.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: superb camera for photographers that use cameras to take photos. meh camera for internet experts.

I've probably shot more than half a million shots in everything from caves to luxury venues. I have 8 years of experience shooting weddings, portrait, concert, fashion, product, sport [...] in all lighting conditions. I use flash, videolight, natural light. I don't think you get my point.

I did not sugest you shout use tripods for concert photography, or you should use direct flash or any other kind (though you can make images shine with it if you know how to use off camera flash and gels), and I stated clearly that you don't need high ISO for concerts, you need fast glass, and that's what you need to shoot in dark places anyway. Have you ever heard of a technique called shutter dragging ? It's the most effective in clubs and dark venues where you would literally get sh*t images just by using high ISO. Shutter drag + off camera flash and you get images in another class from a noob shooting ISO30.000. I own a D750 so I know what hi ISO means.

Educate yourself before dissing others.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 09:13 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: superb camera for photographers that use cameras to take photos. meh camera for internet experts.

If the light is so bad that you need ISO 30000, you probably won't get much in the way of color or dynamic range and you should be using flash or a tripod. And I know this is not a popular opinion but light quality is also important, not only the quantity.

If you need to use ISO30.000 at a concert, then you are probably shooting at f/8, and I really don't see the case for that. I have concert pictures at night shot at ISO200 with a stabilised lens, I'm not kidding. Yeah, there are those dark venues and pubs and those heavy metal bands shaking their heads, but I can't see more than ISO12.800 being necessary.

The only type of photography where ISO30000 would be useful (I'm sure that high of an ISO on the 5D4 won't be any good anyways) is astrophotography, to freeze yet properly expose that milky way.

Just my opinion

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: superb camera for photographers that use cameras to take photos. meh camera for internet experts.

And you can use them with the 5D4 ? I shoot weddings for eight years and the highest I ever went was ISO11.000 (I rarely use autoISO), as selected by autoISO. Why on earth would you need ISO30000 ?

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 20:34 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2146 comments in total)
In reply to:

HenryDJP: At $3400 and no IBIS or articulating screen. Not worth it.

pros dont need either

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 18:01 UTC

superb camera for photographers that use cameras to take photos. meh camera for internet experts.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 22:21 UTC as 6th comment | 12 replies
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2146 comments in total)
In reply to:

role_of_72: I won't have one but it is a really nice camera!

And for those who are desperate because of the 1.65 crop factor in 4K mode: just mount a Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 or Samyang 8mm on it and come back to thank me the good advice. :)

Yeah, great tips, except that the 5D4 cannot take crop lenses. It's not Nikon, you know ..

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 21:54 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: Buy this instead of the D500 and you'll have money for a trio of really nice lenses; the 20mm f1.8, the 50 1.8, and the 85 f1.8. What more could a photog want?

Proper focus, dedicated buttons, a good comfy grip.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 14:24 UTC

IFrom a customer perspective, Nikon has lost it. They release a lesser camera and call it an upgrade and they release a 70-300 with a slower aperture at max focal than the lens it replaces. Couple with retarded prices from my country (24-70 non VR is 2500 dollars, Tamron 24-70 VC is 1000 !!!), I can only see Nikon going one direction.

The only things I would buy right now to suit my D750 is the 35 1.8 G FX, with the current Nikon pricing in my country, I might just switch to Canon, since their glass is better and cheaper, and their bodies are much more reliable (my D750 has a bright white pixel, it freezes when the buffer fills up, it refuses to trigger the shutter from time to time, it doesn not trigger the flash sometimes.)

This camera should have had 4k, a new sensor and some of the bells and whistles that would have atracted mirorless folks. Instead, it comes with 1080p, 11 AF points, ONE crosstype and the same sensor ..

They should have called it the SE :))

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 11:48 UTC as 68th comment
Total: 758, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »