Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 1841, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Full Stop: So there was a gap in m43 lense line up?
Between the 15mm 1.7 and the 17mm 1.8?
Looking at this lens it must have been a huge gap.

The "prime lens gap" for M4/3 is between 75mm and 300mm. There are no AF native mount lenses in that range.

Which is one reason I own a 75-300mm zoom lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 12:49 UTC

This is probably a stupid question, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance.

If this lens is "as good as an Art Lens" then why isn't it sold as an Art Lens? What makes an Art Lens different from Sigma's other lenses?

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 12:39 UTC as 25th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

dansclic: This is an anti mirrorrless lens.....
Of course, sigma has its own logic building 1kilo ff lenses but what mirrorrless people are looking for is compactness !

If you can't find a M4/3 lens small enough for you, then you just aren't looking hard enough.

There are literally hundreds of lenses with native M4/3 mounts, both AF and MF, and MANY of them are downright tiny, so it is fair to say there is something for everyone.

You just cannot say the same thing about any system designed for APSC.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 12:36 UTC
In reply to:

User9362470513: If you use M4/3 why would you want such a huge lens? Surely M4/3 is about small size and low weight? If you want this sort of lens you may as well get a FF camera and accompanying size and weight.

User, these Sigma prime lenses were all designed for APSC (16mm, 19mm, 30mm and 60mm) and then marketed for M4/3 simply because it is pretty easy to swap lens mounts and sell a few more lenses.

On APSC cameras they make sense because they convert to 24mm, 28mm, 45mm and 90mm. On M4/3 they are still useful, but make less sense at 32mm, 38mm, 60mm and 120mm.

As a M4/3 user, I am glad they exist but I won't be buying any of them. Even though they are really good lenses and very good values, they just aren't the best focal length choices for my M4/3 cameras.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

Thanks for that link. That was probably where I read it.

And I agree. Their MILC market share was probably much lower than 10%, even in their best year.

I think one big problem here is "too many competitors.... not enough customers" in this niche. So far, we have seen around 14 different MILC systems, with only four that have gotten much traction (Sony F/E. M4/3, Fuji X, Canon EOS M).

According to CIPA, MILC cameras as a group have around a 15% market share of a pie that has been shrinking. Clearly, there were too many competitors for too few customers.

Samsung NX is gone, but so is Nikon 1, Pentax Q, and Pentax K-01. And you have to wonder if Kodak, Sigma or YI will ever produce another MILC camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 11:44 UTC
On article Canon G1 X III vs. Sony Cybershot RX100 V (632 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: It might be interesting to throw the Panasonic LX100 into the mix, since it would be the best value of all three at around half the price of the new Canon G1 X, and has a much faster lens.

All three are around 24-70mm compacts, with the 4/3 sensor being somewhere midsized between the smaller 1 inch sensor and the larger APSC sensor. It also falls midway between the other two cameras in terms of size and weight.

True.... but they portion it uses is still 50% larger than the 1 inch sensor used in the Sony RX100 V. So it really is in between the RX100 V and G1X III in terms of sensor size.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 23:15 UTC
On article Canon G1 X III vs. Sony Cybershot RX100 V (632 comments in total)

It might be interesting to throw the Panasonic LX100 into the mix, since it would be the best value of all three at around half the price of the new Canon G1 X, and has a much faster lens.

All three are around 24-70mm compacts, with the 4/3 sensor being somewhere midsized between the smaller 1 inch sensor and the larger APSC sensor. It also falls midway between the other two cameras in terms of size and weight.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 19:11 UTC as 116th comment | 4 replies

Interesting stuff.... but still not worth $10 per month for the rest of my life.

They have to do better than this if they want me on their subscription plan.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 21:14 UTC as 52nd comment | 9 replies

The NY Times, despite all their progressive socialist ideology, really wants to make money. And one sure way to make money is to exploit your workers.

Many companies do exactly the same thing by having more "part time" and fewer "full time" workers to save the benefit costs. They use contractors for the same reason. Some even make all their employees "salaried" to avoid paying overtime.

They game the system for their own advantage, and workers pay the price for it. But honestly, I don't think the NY Times is any different than any huge corporation in that regard. You might expect them to be better, because they keep pretending they care about these things. But those are foolish expectations.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 21:00 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

I really don't believe "Samsung acted too slow."

Samsung NX was the SECOND MILC system, coming six months after Olympus joined Panasonic in and four months before Sony jumped in with Sony E. Samsung NX was 21 months ahead of Nikon 1, and two full years ahead of Fuji X.

By the end of 2012, there were:

> 33 AF lenses for M4/3
> 12 AF lenses for Sony E
> 11 AF lenses for Samsung NX
> 6 AF lenses for Nikon 1
> 5 AF lenses for Fuji X

Samsung was one of the very first companies to enter the MILC market, and they initially produced several decent lenses for it. They didn't leave the market because they were too slow. It probably had more to do with profitability and their failure to meet very aggressive targets they set for themselves.

I seem to recall Samsung saying they would be the MILC market leader by 2012. By then, they probably had perhaps a 10% share.

In the end, Samsung pulled the plug on their cameras because they weren't making money and they aren't a camera company.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: So based on a statistically significant sample (90 million is not bad), the average number of lenses per camera sold is only 1.44?! Less than one and a half lenses per camera?!!

Why bother with a lens mount at all? Seems most folks would be better off with a large-sensor "Bridge" camera!

Brian

@ Biowizard...

This is nothing new. According to CIPA, camera makers ship around 1.7 lenses per ILC camera sold each year. And this has been true for at least the past 20 years.

Canon might be averaging fewer lenses, due to all the Digital Rebel cameras they sell at Walmart and Target. Many of those buyers never go beyond the kit lens, and if they do it is "the other kit lens" they get.

Incidentally, also according to CIPA statistics, the average lens brings in more revenue than the average camera does.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 11:09 UTC
In reply to:

fberns: I never understood Samsung's insanely stupid camera division. It took them ages to build at least a bit of a lens slection that makes more or less sense. (Fuji did a much much better job with starting their lens programme) and finally they had a wonderful camera just to find out they better stop the whole thing?

Even though Samsung hasn't produced a lens in over two years, their APSC lens catalog is competitive with Sony E's offerings, and almost as good as Nikon DX and Canon EF-S.

If you want to complain about lenses, then pity the Canon EOS-M user. They have almost as many bodies as lenses! And how about those Leica TL and SL users?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 22:00 UTC
In reply to:

Eric Ouellet: I think that one of the major reason of bad reception was due to DPReview and all other reviewers. Most of you (reviewers) have taken so much time to come out with a review that it killed a lot of potential buyers enthusiasms. I was mystifyed by how long you took to review a so wonderful camera. It was remarkably long considering all the new features it was bringing. It look likes you were paid by Nikon or Canon to delay its review. Also, you made a big point against H.265 either if it is the best format ever created for video. H.265 is the format that everybody should be looking for. For today and the future. DPreview and other reviewers are big part of the death of that wonderful camera. Shame on you DPReview!

I can think of many better reasons that a camera review is delayed. And none of them involve being paid off by Nikon or Canon.

I assume Dpreview is anxious to review ANY significant new camera, if they can get their hands on a production copy, and they have reviewers available to do the work right after it is available.

The conspiracy theories all sound nice, but they just don't make logical sense. Amazon makes money selling stuff, and they don't care which brand you buy as long as you buy it from them. Their business model is based on profit, and not on taking bribes.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:12 UTC
In reply to:

grasscatcher: Would love to see collaboration between Samsung and Panasonic. Both have different products, but seem to have similar philosophies on bringing the latest, greatest tech to market in an easily-useable package.

True.

I was specifically thinking about other APSC camera makers who didn't make their own sensors. Like Nikon, Leica or Pentax. That 28MP Samsung sensor might have given them a competitive advantage in their APSC products.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

Graham Austin: if they decided to come back and go with one of the other lens mounts, they would do amazingly well I think. It was just too soon to switch to a whole new ecosystem for me.. now I am fully off canon and have put my cash in the Fuji and Sigma systems. Could have easily have been Samsung and Sigma

When Samsung exited the camera market... the entire market was down 50%.

I think it is unlikely they might reenter now that the market is down 75%.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: Who will buy it at this price??? Insane!!!

This explains why we don't have a universal lens mount. When everything else is equal, then price decides.

If it weren't for proprietary lens mounts it would be hard to sell an equivalent lens for 50% more. And it also explains why Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are so successful selling lenses for Nikon, Pentax, Sony and Canon.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 15:53 UTC

I think part of Samsung's problem was the reluctance of Japanese consumers to buy Korean electronic products. And this is due to some feeling of national pride in their own domestic brands.

The Japanese market is really crucial for camera sales. While Japan only has 1.7% of the world's population, and 6.6% of the world's GDP, they bought around 20% of all the MILC cameras every shipped by CIPA.

This is a huge hurdle for any Korean maker, or for any other "foreign made" company.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 15:48 UTC as 86th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

grasscatcher: Would love to see collaboration between Samsung and Panasonic. Both have different products, but seem to have similar philosophies on bringing the latest, greatest tech to market in an easily-useable package.

Samsung could really be disruptive if they would produce a modern four thirds sensor for Olympus and Panasonic.

And if it was a big improvement over the current Sony 20 MP four thirds sensor, they could sell a lot of them. But I can only assume that the market potential is too small to justify the R&D expense involved.

Still.... I have to wonder why their truly outstanding 28 MP APS-C sensor never found its way into any other brand's cameras? Was it lack of interest by other camera makers, high price, or lack of Samsung wanting to sell them?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 15:35 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1630 comments in total)

As people hold onto their cameras longer, the need for upgraded editing software diminishes, After all, the big reason to upgrade was always "I bought a new camera, and my software doesn't support it."

Adobe probably saw this coming when they decided to move to subscription only software. And it was a very good business decision for them, based on their record profits in recent years.

Someday in the future, the only option for the casual user who wants to avoid monthly subscription fees might be the software that came with the camera, GIMP, or Photoshop Elements, if it still exists as a non-cloud product.

And I really think someday Elements will go subscription only too.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 22:23 UTC as 545th comment
In reply to:

labradoodler: Wow! Nice gesture,but what about the Cameras folks lost?Not Sigma,s brief I know,but lets see how many makers match this.

No doubt, if it resulted in a big surge of new sales, then every lens maker would be tripping over themselves to invent more goodwill gestures for their customers.

Every goodwill gesture comes at a cost, and that cost must be passed on to the customer 100% of the time.

I do believe it is nice of Sigma to do this, and they probably will reap a public relations benefit from doing it, but the cost will be built into the price of future products. Fortunately, the cost will probably be very small. Just a few cents per lens very likely.

I'm not saying this to rain on their parade. Just pointing out that every business expense must be recovered in their sales margins.

It doesn't matter if they donate money to a good cause, or simply burn it, the cost will be passed on to their customers. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
Total: 1841, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »