ecka84

ecka84

Lives in Lithuania Lithuania
Joined on Sep 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 954, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mosc: DOF is so small at 135mm f1.4 from headshot type distances that AF isn't going to work too well anyway.

135mm is not for headshots.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Bring back Ektachrome for ART SAKE !!! Digital pictures are for the lazies and artless !!!

Pictures are not all about art.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 22:07 UTC

At least you get 3kg of good stuff for your $3000. Unlike things with Leica badges :)

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 21:27 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

Artem Holstov: What is this lens equivlent to in FF terms then?

105mm F1.1 equivalent on the GFX

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: 14mm f1.8 would be great as an ~24-25mm ff.equiv.fov fast prime

for many shooting ~x1.6+ crop

whether:
1.641x doing 4k dci on EOS FF 5D4 dSLR
or
1.614x doing 1080p on EOS APSC (dSLRs or M)

provided AF was silent STM ... not USM (nor sigma af)

would like to see Canon offer a
EF14mm f2 STM (STM silent AF for motion capture)

and for stills:
TSE14mm f1.8L

Well, mounting this kind of optics on APS-C seems really pointless. Why not just use a smaller lens on FF then?
14mm F1.8 on Canon APS-C is equivalent to 23mm F2.8 on FF. And there are much smaller, cheaper and even stabilized 24mm F2.8 FF lenses. And if you have to use a wide and fast lens BECAUSE your FF camera can only shoot cropped UHD video, then Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 may be the right tool.

TS-E 14mm F1.8 would be too big and too expensive for most people. Which is possibly the reason it doesn't exist.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: those shot don't seem any different than my A6500 and 10-18mm (or EF-S 10-18 if one like Canon)
Only difference is F4 vs F1.8 and APS-C vs full frame

huge difference in weight and price
worth it or not you be the judge

i said not worth it, I don't need thin DOF (look ugly to me)

F1.8 only use to me is for low light can use 2 stop lower ISO (tolerate the thin DOF)

"Only difference is F4 vs F1.8 and APS-C vs full frame"
- That's a giant difference right there :). Such 3.4 stops of light difference could solve your low light problems pretty well.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: if use this lens in F11 for landscape htan this F1.8 is a total waste

Paid high price and heavy weight for that F1.8

And shooting the landscape at F1.8 could be a total waste of a nice landscape :)

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

dosdan: For years, when APS-C cameras started producing very good technical measurements and were much cheaper than FF models, FF fanbois have claimed that a big subjective difference was how the larger FF sensor reduced the quality requirements of FF lenses, so the images usually looked better.

But, now that MF cameras have become more affordable, the FF fanbois have switched from subjective image quality to the value-for-money aspect. What happened to the "larger MF sensor reducing the quality requirements of MF lenses" argument?

Strange...

Dan.

@Teila Day
The only nonsense today is the aggressive marketing propaganda and all the simple minded folks believing it and spreading it by preaching stuff without any facts or evidence.
The ability to print twice larger without any quality compromises is "twice better"! Of course, MF is better, but I've learned to quantify the difference and understand the reasons for it. The thing is that better cameras can shoot lower quality images, but not vice versa. This simple concept is enough for smart photographers. While the rest are living in a fantasy of "their own truth".

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

dosdan: For years, when APS-C cameras started producing very good technical measurements and were much cheaper than FF models, FF fanbois have claimed that a big subjective difference was how the larger FF sensor reduced the quality requirements of FF lenses, so the images usually looked better.

But, now that MF cameras have become more affordable, the FF fanbois have switched from subjective image quality to the value-for-money aspect. What happened to the "larger MF sensor reducing the quality requirements of MF lenses" argument?

Strange...

Dan.

@BlueBomberTurbo
No, they don't. The closest measurement that takes part in determining IQ is the P-MP, but it mostly depends on a lens. So ... to calculate the IQ they have to measure the potential of each camera objectively. Unfortunately, they pile together all kinds of hair-splitting along with some actual data and call it a score. There shouldn't be a score at all. Image quality is a spectrum of things resulting in a more or less accurate representation of reality in an image. The more correct data it contains, the higher is the quality. You don't measure noise to quantify quality. Larger sensors simply gather more data even if the amount of noise is proportionally higher as well. Can't you see that some older MF cameras got lower scores despite that they obviously can produce images superior to FF?
Don't waste your time on DxO if you can't understand and make use of the information they provide. The "score" is just a marketing thing. Best all-in-one can still have mediocre IQ.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

IEBA1: I'm missing the "lapse" part of it.

Drone. Yes.
Orbit. Yes.
Nauseating. Yes.
Lapse? Very, very little.

Now if they did a very scenic area and orbited it every day for a year, morning noon and night, capturing trees leafing up as the sun rises (over the course of weeks) or changing colors and leaves falling as the sun sets (over the course of weeks) and combined these shots, matched the tracking, to have a single orbit have time change dramatically within, then, THAT would have been an orbiting drone lapse.

Maybe it was in there. I couldn't watch more than a minute or so.

Exactly. But showing 5 minutes in 1 minute is a laps too.
You think those "orbits" are done in just a few seconds? Drones don't fly that fast.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

dosdan: For years, when APS-C cameras started producing very good technical measurements and were much cheaper than FF models, FF fanbois have claimed that a big subjective difference was how the larger FF sensor reduced the quality requirements of FF lenses, so the images usually looked better.

But, now that MF cameras have become more affordable, the FF fanbois have switched from subjective image quality to the value-for-money aspect. What happened to the "larger MF sensor reducing the quality requirements of MF lenses" argument?

Strange...

Dan.

@BlueBomberTurbo
Because DxO doesn't measure image quality.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 03:11 UTC
In reply to:

dosdan: For years, when APS-C cameras started producing very good technical measurements and were much cheaper than FF models, FF fanbois have claimed that a big subjective difference was how the larger FF sensor reduced the quality requirements of FF lenses, so the images usually looked better.

But, now that MF cameras have become more affordable, the FF fanbois have switched from subjective image quality to the value-for-money aspect. What happened to the "larger MF sensor reducing the quality requirements of MF lenses" argument?

Strange...

Dan.

@Butoa
It seems like you have no idea what DxO is actually measuring there. You only care about point? Btw, D850 and A7r2 are both FF.

@BlueBomberTurbo
"They have the same image quality ..." - NO! The image quality is not that.
"... it's just that the D850's sensor is larger, so it has more pixels" - which is exactly why it is 2.35 times better.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 02:02 UTC
In reply to:

dosdan: For years, when APS-C cameras started producing very good technical measurements and were much cheaper than FF models, FF fanbois have claimed that a big subjective difference was how the larger FF sensor reduced the quality requirements of FF lenses, so the images usually looked better.

But, now that MF cameras have become more affordable, the FF fanbois have switched from subjective image quality to the value-for-money aspect. What happened to the "larger MF sensor reducing the quality requirements of MF lenses" argument?

Strange...

Dan.

FF is over twice better than APS-C, for the same price. This pseudo-MF (44x33) is like 30% better than FF, but the price is much much higher. While the real 645 is way better than both FF and 44x33. So, please don't spread nonsense and hatred.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

IEBA1: I'm missing the "lapse" part of it.

Drone. Yes.
Orbit. Yes.
Nauseating. Yes.
Lapse? Very, very little.

Now if they did a very scenic area and orbited it every day for a year, morning noon and night, capturing trees leafing up as the sun rises (over the course of weeks) or changing colors and leaves falling as the sun sets (over the course of weeks) and combined these shots, matched the tracking, to have a single orbit have time change dramatically within, then, THAT would have been an orbiting drone lapse.

Maybe it was in there. I couldn't watch more than a minute or so.

Lapse, because the video is made of pictures.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 18:33 UTC

It's a mess.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 17:25 UTC as 6th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 first impressions (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

zakaria: Sad this great camera is not APS/C.

And it doesn't pretend to be smaller than it actually is. Unlike m4/3 with their expensive slow primes and fancy F-numbers. Equivalent optics are always similar in size and weight. That's all.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 09:58 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 first impressions (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

zakaria: Sad this great camera is not APS/C.

@Lars101x
The problem is that your "enough" is much smaller than my "enough".

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 01:12 UTC
In reply to:

garyknrd: As soon as 4/3 makes a good 400 F/4 i am in. Hopefully in the next year or two we will see a serious wildlife lens hit.

No. Oly 300F4 gives you 600F8 FF equivalent.
This m4/3 200F2.8 = FF 400F5.6
And m4/3 200F2.8 + 1.4x = FF 560F8
So, Gary should say "no thanks" to all of them really.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 01:05 UTC
In reply to:

Herp Photos: Regarding equivalency and all the comparisons being made here.
The light gathering capability of this 400mm field of view equivalent lens is F2.8 not F4. It might have the bokeh of an F4 lens but people aren't typically shooting a 400mm lens for its bokeh qualities at F2.8 but rather for increased light gathering in low light shooting. The use cases for this lens are completely different than the use cases for shooting a 200mm lens on Full frame. Just try to frame the same subject with this lens from the same distance. You need much more working room to get the same framing on this 400mm equivalent field of view lens as you would on a Full frame camera with a 200mm lens. This lens couldn't be used in the same scenarios because the field of view would be too narrow for working within the same working distances and framing the same subjects.

Actually, English is not my language at all. I don't really speak English.
However, sometimes it seems like native English speakers cannot understand their own language when it comes to technology and stuff. I'm really trying to avoid any confusing terminology here, to make it as simple as possible. But even common logic is beyond your comprehension.
Like it or not, but the truth is that FF is superior. And it doesn't really matter what lens is made for what camera. The amount of light and light intensity are different things. Tiny little window cannot provide as much light as a huge wall-sized window, if you don't change the conditions. Regardless of the context. Your only argument is that crop is an overkill for you, so FF must be even more excessive. But you fail to understand that you don't have to use giant "bazooka-lenses" on FF. And a twice cheaper (just as "small") 400F5.6 on FF can produce images very similar to your overpriced m4/3 with meaninglessly fancy numbers on it.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 02:43 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 first impressions (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: I still believe that stitching images is a better way than all the "high-res modes". Prove me wrong. Anyone?

No no no ... I don't care about in-camera panoramas, or anything that isn't RAW.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 23:04 UTC
Total: 954, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »