Nilangsu

Joined on Jun 25, 2009

Comments

Total: 137, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

A lot of comments here seem to ridicule this fascinating technology. I am very impressed. Also very well explained. Only Rishi does it so well.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 21:59 UTC as 45th comment
On article Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM sample gallery (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Mother of heaven! With ƒ/4 lenses that render so nicely and cameras offering so much better noise performance now than they did even 5 years ago does it make any sense to lug around ƒ/2.8 zooms anymore

Mike, it is possible that Thoughts is referring to me. I have previously expressed my intolerance for the price of this lens and the fact that it is potentially correcting distortion by software. A $1700 lens should not have to do that.

Mr. BrightSide, you appear quite intolerant of divergent use cases. Perhaps a little explanation will help. I am shooting my young and mobile children inside the house in a perennially dark country (the UK). I need as wide as they make. I only need the central two-thirds to be very sharp. The lens I use (the Sony FE 16-35 f/2.8 GM is sharp all all apertures everywhere in the frame, a marvel of modern optical excellence - like the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L III). People with my use case will lose shallow-DOF advantage and light with f/4. Also, we need as low ISO as possible while shooting at 1/250 or faster. Most wedding photographers will think like this.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2021 at 21:44 UTC
On article Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM sample gallery (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Mother of heaven! With ƒ/4 lenses that render so nicely and cameras offering so much better noise performance now than they did even 5 years ago does it make any sense to lug around ƒ/2.8 zooms anymore

I, on the other hand, will pay £/$ 1000 for 1 stop. I need to stop movement indoors at 1/250 and want to use as low an ISO as possible. So, f/4 is out of the question.

Also natural light is natural light.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2021 at 22:02 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S II review (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nilangsu: This one seems to be a rare wrong strategy from Fujifilm. I agree with the many commenters below that the FF cameras like Z7II, A7R4 and R5 are much more compelling propositions at their price points. The old sensor is not so much the issue - though it is not really much better than the latest FF sensors unlike the 100 MP sensor which is much better resized to a common size - the issue is leaving out basic things like phase-detection AF that all of us have grown used to. This stinks of marketing-driven crippling a bit like what we are used to from Canon.

Couple that with relatively expensive and limited lenses and the value proposition for once is not there in a Fujifilm MF camera. A Sony shooter gets a lot more bang for the buck with a A7Riii, Tamron 2.8 FE zooms and Sigma DN primes.

Certain things just can’t be excluded from the specs at any price point. Autofocus is one of them.

Regards
Nilangsu

Yes, it is not crippling now that you remind me that Sony doesn’t make a 50 MP MF sensor with PDAF. But contrast-detect mirrorless really belongs in the 2010s - one will recall the many complaints with Panasonic. So my point about value proposition remains. Even a Nikon D850 is so much better, sleeker and more polished at so many levels (if more weight can be borne with) at a lot less money.

The sensor is not a differentiator any more. Anybody can buy from Sony. It’s what else you put in the box.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2021 at 00:28 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S II review (499 comments in total)

This one seems to be a rare wrong strategy from Fujifilm. I agree with the many commenters below that the FF cameras like Z7II, A7R4 and R5 are much more compelling propositions at their price points. The old sensor is not so much the issue - though it is not really much better than the latest FF sensors unlike the 100 MP sensor which is much better resized to a common size - the issue is leaving out basic things like phase-detection AF that all of us have grown used to. This stinks of marketing-driven crippling a bit like what we are used to from Canon.

Couple that with relatively expensive and limited lenses and the value proposition for once is not there in a Fujifilm MF camera. A Sony shooter gets a lot more bang for the buck with a A7Riii, Tamron 2.8 FE zooms and Sigma DN primes.

Certain things just can’t be excluded from the specs at any price point. Autofocus is one of them.

Regards
Nilangsu

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 23:56 UTC as 52nd comment | 4 replies
On article Hands-on with the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: Nikon 14-30 f4 is substantially cheaper and pretty good from what I have read, not stunning maybee . but I think there is a market for a fully pro spec uncompromised lens at F4 higher price in this format, especially for professional / serious hobbyist landscape travel stuff. Of course it should deliver on that.

My second point is directed specifically to you - a person that spends a lot of his time in these comments sections on the ergonomic refinements provided by big mirrored dinosaurs that never needed software correction in their lenses and yet immediately inhabits the modern world of mirrorless cameras where size dictates compromises in lens design.

This overpriced lens (no better than the 14-30 f/4 like which it will take great photos) is just a reason for people like me who were enticed by the R5 but will not consider it because of the pricing path Canon have taken.

I can afford the R5 and this (I use the Sony GM 16-35 f/2.8) but know when money is ill-spent. This is one such occasion.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2021 at 21:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: Nikon 14-30 f4 is substantially cheaper and pretty good from what I have read, not stunning maybee . but I think there is a market for a fully pro spec uncompromised lens at F4 higher price in this format, especially for professional / serious hobbyist landscape travel stuff. Of course it should deliver on that.

Thoughts R Us:

Let me break my thought process for you.

This lens and the Nikon 14-30 f/4 will both take far finer photos than most photographers, you or I will ever take. The equipment will not limit the photographer in this case.

But the Canon is priced £ 800 higher than the Nikon (and please do make the school debate-club argument about the 5 mm at the longer end) and could also be digitally corrected. That is my point and several commenters’ as well - the price for what it gives.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2021 at 21:40 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: Nikon 14-30 f4 is substantially cheaper and pretty good from what I have read, not stunning maybee . but I think there is a market for a fully pro spec uncompromised lens at F4 higher price in this format, especially for professional / serious hobbyist landscape travel stuff. Of course it should deliver on that.

It is a great lens, far better than the F mount 16-35 f/4 even with which great photos have been taken. This forum is about splitting hairs about non-issues by us gear-heads. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2021 at 18:32 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

PPierre: Looks like a nice lens. Of course it's expensive, yet it's still cheaper than the f2.8 versions of all systems, and if it's really good (no matter how software-corrected it is, which I couldn't care less about), then I can see it as a cheaper version, smaller, and not that slower. Kind of a deal.

Now, for sure, if you can't afford to pay that much money, I understand the disappointment. But to be fair, since the beginning, Canon has been very clear: they aim at the photographers for whom price doesn't matter as long as quality is top-notch. There are other brands that offer top-notch lenses, and more affordable lenses also, and even sometimes more affordable top-notch lenses. As a consumer, you can choose these brands. But blaming Canon for releasing expensive, top-notch lenses only is a bit weird to me. They never said they would have a different strategy.

I wish you a great future with digitally corrected and ridiculously expensive Canon F/4 UWA zooms. My system doesn’t have such compromises, so I have little to worry about when I am spending top dollar on their lenses. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2021 at 18:02 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

PPierre: Looks like a nice lens. Of course it's expensive, yet it's still cheaper than the f2.8 versions of all systems, and if it's really good (no matter how software-corrected it is, which I couldn't care less about), then I can see it as a cheaper version, smaller, and not that slower. Kind of a deal.

Now, for sure, if you can't afford to pay that much money, I understand the disappointment. But to be fair, since the beginning, Canon has been very clear: they aim at the photographers for whom price doesn't matter as long as quality is top-notch. There are other brands that offer top-notch lenses, and more affordable lenses also, and even sometimes more affordable top-notch lenses. As a consumer, you can choose these brands. But blaming Canon for releasing expensive, top-notch lenses only is a bit weird to me. They never said they would have a different strategy.

Thoughts R Us:

We don’t know what the uncorrected distortion on this lens is. But if it is software -corrected to a significant extent, the corner sharpness will suffer due to the stretching. That’s why Sony doesn’t do this (by this, I mean a real distortion of 6-8% corrected by software) with its GM and G wide angle primes and zooms. It manages to do that with lens design while keeping the lenses small, an example being the FE 12-24 G which has 3.79% distortion uncorrected at 12 mm. Canon will fall beneath that quality with this very high priced lens if they have had to resort to software correction. It will play more in the class of MFT wide-angle zooms and the Nikon 14-30 f/4.

“Manufacturers have to do it because it’s mirrorless” and “go and use DSLRs” are just poor, defensive arguments trying to defend Canon for design compromises if Canon have at all done that.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2021 at 14:11 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

PPierre: Looks like a nice lens. Of course it's expensive, yet it's still cheaper than the f2.8 versions of all systems, and if it's really good (no matter how software-corrected it is, which I couldn't care less about), then I can see it as a cheaper version, smaller, and not that slower. Kind of a deal.

Now, for sure, if you can't afford to pay that much money, I understand the disappointment. But to be fair, since the beginning, Canon has been very clear: they aim at the photographers for whom price doesn't matter as long as quality is top-notch. There are other brands that offer top-notch lenses, and more affordable lenses also, and even sometimes more affordable top-notch lenses. As a consumer, you can choose these brands. But blaming Canon for releasing expensive, top-notch lenses only is a bit weird to me. They never said they would have a different strategy.

Except that quality is not proven to be top-notch. We do not know. I am not impressed by what I see in the-digital-picture.com. Distortion also may have digitally corrected, which should never be done for the L-series. We will wait for more reviews.

F/4 is strictly landscape. F/2.8 plays that game and two more - environmental portraiture and astro. Your price comparison is like comparing the latest Merc C Class with the E from 2019, to take a crude example.

As most commenters say, the price is outrageous and reminds me of the EF 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS when they came out.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2021 at 21:24 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: There are a whole lot of lenses from the 70s on ebay for pretty cheap that "dared to express various aberrations"

Come to think of it there are also a lot of current model, brand new Chinese lenses that "dare to express various aberrations" at very low prices.

Very well said.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2021 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

andrewD2: Going way back I was generally ahead in using higher resolution bodies, 11MP when most were using 6 or 8. 21MP when most were using 12.

Now with 24MP and 42MP the difference on a full length group shot of eight people is being able to read the time on a wristwatch on one, and on the other I can see the seconds hand. Incredible detail on both - 24MP is plenty for most applications.

Going to 42MP as a primary body made most difference to the folder size to be backed up.
I was happier dropping down to a more responsive primary 24MP with 42MP as a second body.

I'm not in the market for big Canons anymore, my last was a 1DIV, but I think the R3 looks excellent and I'd be very happy with the resolution.

Very sane comment.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2021 at 10:48 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 Di III-A RXD (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonby: Will be great for Fuji users if it does come out in that mount.

Current Fuji offerings are (B&H prices):-
10-24mm f/4 WR - $999
8-16mm f/2.8 WR - $1499 (reduced from $1999)

Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 - $829

Nice to have options.

I agree. One mm is a big deal.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2021 at 15:34 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 Di III-A RXD (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonby: Will be great for Fuji users if it does come out in that mount.

Current Fuji offerings are (B&H prices):-
10-24mm f/4 WR - $999
8-16mm f/2.8 WR - $1499 (reduced from $1999)

Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 - $829

Nice to have options.

The f/4 Fujifilm zoom isn’t directly comparable with the f/2.8 zoom. As the poster above said, a lot of people pay a lot of money for the wider aperture. I own a 16-35/2.8 and shoot at 2.8 a lot of the time. It’s immensely useful for people photos inside and is the difference between ISO 2000 and 4000. Even if one is a landscape shooter, a lens benefits from stopping down.

Also, give the track record, this Tamron will be a very sharp lens like their FE 17-28/2.8 is.

Tamron is bringing a lot of competition to the OEMs which is very good for consumers.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2021 at 11:33 UTC

How much for the lens cap?

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2021 at 15:51 UTC as 41st comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

2nd Wind: I think the only real question regarding this photographers death is was it worth it? Are people so disconnected from the realities of conflict that they need a daily dose of photos to show them what's been going on for thousands of years and already documented ad nauseam? I think not. If he had a family it's especially sad. The small salary he made was not worth it nor any altruistic reasons. Perhaps he died doing what he thought was worth his life but I don't think so. His photos will merge with countless others and even every photo he took has footnote, his death is still not worth it.

I agree with you. It’s a noble thought. If the taking of these kinds of battlefield photos is lethal to the photographer, I do not want to see them.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2021 at 21:21 UTC

Very sad news. A remarkable chronicler of the appalling difficulties faced by human beings. Makes our contributions look small and irrelevant. Rest in peace.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2021 at 17:48 UTC as 23rd comment

This is an excellent addition to the arsenal. A completely new design and very good AF, fit for the K3 III.

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/star_lens/special/sp_da16-50/index.html

In the link above (someone kindly posted below), we can see how much better it is than the old lens in optical properties. A price of $ 1400 while high is in the ballpark of latest APS-C flagship lenses.

Well done.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2021 at 16:23 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

BrentSchumer: Meanwhile $1,300 will get you an F2.8 14-24mm zoom on E mount.

Nikon and Canon really need to open up to Sigma and Tamron.

“Generally not high” is not valid description of the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN lens made for the FE and L mount. It’s the second best 11/12/14-24 lens ever made according to objective tests. It’s only beaten by the new gold standard, Sony 12-24/2.8 GM. None of them are relevant for users of the RF mount but you should not make vague statements maligning the efforts of Sigma.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2021 at 15:34 UTC
Total: 137, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »