callaesthetics

Joined on Mar 26, 2012

Comments

Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2487 comments in total)

Wow, great image quality. It's right along up there with full frame sensors. Those JPEG's are amazing though, surpassing all of the full frame i've compared it to on your charts.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 03:25 UTC as 295th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ozturert: It looks as big as Canon 100-400mm or Nikon 80-400mm. As you go telephoto, APSC advantage diminishes I guess.

My arguement is if you can make a fuji 35 f1.4 a lot smaller than a Canon 35 f1.4, why can't you do the same for the 100-400....but like someone mentioned, i guess it's different for long tele lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Too many new tech features, including the crappy X-Trans sensor.

It's funny cause i rate my XT1 to a 24MP bayer sensor, dare i say this sensor appears to have more resolution than my 5D3.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 09:23 UTC
In reply to:

callaesthetics: If i put a full frame 300 f4 lens with an adapter on the Olympus i get the same image and exposure correct? And it only uses a small image circle from the full frame lens, the Olympus is engineered so that it uses only a image circle made for m43 sensor, so why are the lens the same size? Shouldn't this lens be smaller?

That mostly makes sense, so the main reason for this lens being double the price of the Canon can be contributed to new tech and supply & demand.

I say it mostly makes sense because most 35mm lens are longer than 50 & 85mm lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 07:42 UTC

If i put a full frame 300 f4 lens with an adapter on the Olympus i get the same image and exposure correct? And it only uses a small image circle from the full frame lens, the Olympus is engineered so that it uses only a image circle made for m43 sensor, so why are the lens the same size? Shouldn't this lens be smaller?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 06:13 UTC as 34th comment | 13 replies

40-150 f2.8 + teleconverter = this lens?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 03:58 UTC as 40th comment | 6 replies
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review (1318 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnEwing: "No touch screen" is actually a point in its favour.

the 'one hit zoom to 100% of your focus point preview' button is a lot faster than touching and pinching.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 02:04 UTC

I feel Slater has been wronged. Wasn't it Slaters intention to have the monkey take some pictures. Take Slater out of the picture = no monkey selfie = no pictures for Wiki to exploit.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 05:14 UTC as 33rd comment | 4 replies

Amazing!

Now even more excited for 7D2

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2013 at 06:30 UTC as 62nd comment
In reply to:

chlamchowder: The Nikon AF-S 200-400/4 VR II is $6750, and the TC-14E is $500. Together, they would cost $7520.
So, the question is, is the convenience of having the teleconverter built in worth $4480?

where as the Nikon add-on teleconverter will degrade the image a bit due to it being an afterthought piece, there is no image degradation in Canon's built-in version. It was engineered to operate with it's teleconverter without compromise.

It's a specialty lens, for the time when a photographer is shooting in a snowstorm, sandstorm, hostile environment, etc and attaching the teleconverter is out of the question.

But i do agree, it's too pricey.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 05:00 UTC
On photo ISO-102400-IMG_0066 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (4 comments in total)

wow, that's very nice for that high of an ISO

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 13:20 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Canon EOS 6D Beta preview samples gallery sample gallery (4 comments in total)

wow, that's very nice for that high of an ISO

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 13:20 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Mssimo: Added the Canon.

Nikon 35mm F1.4G vs Canon 35mm f1.4L vs Sigma 35mm F1.4

Elements 10 vs 11 vs 13
Groups 7 vs 9 vs 11
Filter 67mm vs 72mm vs 77mm
Weight 600g vs 580g vs 665g
Special Elements (one aspherical) vs (1 aspherical) vs(1 FLD and 4 SLD elements)
Price $1620 vs $1329 vs $899 (current amazon price)

Canon stops down to F22, sigma and nikon go to F16.
Canon has 8 Blades, Sigma and nikon have 9

Canon has red ring, nikon has gold ring, sigma has no rings.

Sigma has a 67mm filter thread

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2012 at 18:43 UTC
On article Photokina 2012: Sigma Stand Report (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: So does the 35/1.4 replace the 30/1.4? Guess I should get the old version quickly then. Sigma has a weird habit of upgrading great oddball lenses to crappier mainstream versions (usually from EX to OS).

The new 35 1.4 is made for full frame sensors. 30 1.4 is crop only.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 22:11 UTC

not sure what all the complaint is about, but given the price point to sensor size, lens compatibility, accessories, image quality, etc...no other camera comes close. And all this at a small package.

I myself probably won't buy it (my 5d3 does me wonders) but i can see this heading in a potentially great direction.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 04:44 UTC as 30th comment | 8 replies

these are decent samples but don't do any justice to the 5D3. my experience with it has been a great deal of joy. I still can't believe how clean high iso images look.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2012 at 02:23 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16