slimandy
Lives in
surrey, United Kingdom
Works as a
stockbroker
Has a website at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34270522@N04/
Joined on
Jul 7, 2004
About me:
Fuji X-T1 A serious amature, with a lot to learn. |
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |
| scrum break away by al booth from Sport competition | Chinese Acrobat by lim yau tong from Flexible | Parking Deck by Olaf R from Your City - Parking Garage | Communication Tech by alberto_b from Technology | With & without by OBellini from Empty - Full |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
2457FeatureWhat is equivalence?
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
mike emerson: Before people carp on about autofocus performance they should check out Don Morley's motor racing pictures. He took all the photographs for the yearly Motorcourse books. They were all taken on 35mm Nikons with manual lenses. That's when photography was a real skill and not like it is today.
I've met Don and seen his work. He had to be quite creative and clever to get the shot he needed. He'd much rather have modern AF and high ISO. His big issue was having to use slow film, not the lack of AF.
Terry Breedlove: Going to be very handy for images that post online in my blog and youtube when i am traveling.
How do you post them? I am trying to send a collection to Flickr, which is easy from Lightroom but I can't work it out on Lightroom Mobile. Also, my gallery I made public won't show the images and I am assuming it is because they are still RAW files. Why aren't they converting to jpeg to post to the net? User error? What am I missing?
Good. I'll be able to close my Yahoo account without losing my Flick'r log-in
I hope it's not hideously expensive because if it is I'll probably buy one!
Shocked and saddened in equal measure. I hope the UK stores don't suffer. They were doing a roaring trade at the Photography show at the NEC last week. There aren't many camera stores of their calibre left.
Only 4m pixels? At last a camera phone I might actually want!!
whyamihere: I must admit, that's a lot of zoom to fit into a single lens. Combined with the smaller physical size and weight, it makes the smaller aperture understandable I suppose. The next-closest in Micro 4/3 is the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, and that thing is pretty bulky & heavy (though it also features OIS, which is handy). The tradeoff here is more reach and a smaller, lighter package in the Olympus, versus a big, heavy Panasonic lens with a wider aperture and OIS.
As we prattle along in the comments section talking [complaining] about specs, people who want such a lens will make the decision that's right for their needs and likely find themselves happy with their decision.
If you are going to apply the crop factor to get the focal length equivalent based on the FOV you should apply the same to the aperture to get the equivalent based on DOF. I just put the figures into DOF master and based on that the 600mm equivlent gives the same FOV, perspective, framing, DOF etc at an aperture of f14.3
whyamihere: I must admit, that's a lot of zoom to fit into a single lens. Combined with the smaller physical size and weight, it makes the smaller aperture understandable I suppose. The next-closest in Micro 4/3 is the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, and that thing is pretty bulky & heavy (though it also features OIS, which is handy). The tradeoff here is more reach and a smaller, lighter package in the Olympus, versus a big, heavy Panasonic lens with a wider aperture and OIS.
As we prattle along in the comments section talking [complaining] about specs, people who want such a lens will make the decision that's right for their needs and likely find themselves happy with their decision.
More like a 190~540mm f10 in terms of equivalent focal length and DOF. You're right though. It's actually a 70~200mm f4 regardless of which body you put it on.
SirSeth: Looks good to me. Slow due to small size. Most people are really unrealistic about what it takes to make fast 600mm equiv. zoom lenses small and cheap. Yes, if you live in a technological fairy tale, this lens should be f2.8 and cost $399.
Happy with f5.6 but f6.7 is too much? It's half a stop. And that's a tiny lens to give you 600mm equivalent.
I just closed my account. What a shame they sold out to Facebook.
If I hadn't already ordered this a few hours ago I would definately order it now! Can't wait!
Looks very promising. I often wish I had a lightweight alternative to my SLR but I'm not prepared to compromise as much as I'd need to at the moment. I'm hoping this is the answer. It may at least lead to the answer in the near future. Let's hope.
I'm suprised you chose the Sigma 105 rather than the 150.