MAubrey

MAubrey

Lives in Canada Vancouver, Canada
Works as a Linguist
Joined on Dec 22, 2011

Comments

Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

CaPi: What on earth,.. Won't make any sense in terms of sensor usage but hey..
this might actually be fun!

Well, a 17mm TS has the image circle and will provide a nice 13mm equivalent ultra wide.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
In reply to:

Will Hikari: There are a lot of false arguments, like medium-format is about shallower depth of field. Depth of field is not an optical property of a system, but a perceptual quality of the viewing conditions. Anyone that has shot formats larger than 35mm probably knows than getting shallow depth of fields is not the reason for going to larger formats (opinion of the internet do not count ;) ). Anyone that has done large-format landscape photography with 4x5 or 8x10 did not do that for shallow depth of fields, not if you want to use the apertures the lenses are designed for (maximum apertures on large format are for focusing, not shooting).

BTW, I shoot with a Pentax 645D and Fuji X Pro2, so I am not going to argue one over the other, but they are not the same (I also shot a Nikon D800E and my 645D always gave better results, at east for me (just as the 645Z gives a nicer image that the D810 pushed a stop in your example above (cherry picking again?))).

Yeah. People convert aero-ektars to Speed Graphics for the lppm.

Over at largeformatphotography.info, we also continue to talk about bokeh and DoF pretty regularly. We care about it and we continue to shoot LF film because of it.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 13:46 UTC
In reply to:

Ab Latchin: This is the usual claptrap of comparisons... The fuji is compared to the A7R2 where it clearly has better noise performance and the EF mount is lens limited... It gets compared to the D810 for DR at base ISO and the Canon for detail...

Lets do it this way, compare it to the CANON for noise and DR... Oops doesn;t look to hot now does it?

Lets then compare it to the Nikon for detail... yup, eeks out a win there. And the Sony for lens selection...

Instead you take three companies and allow each on to win on its strength while ignoring their weaknesses vs one camera body 3 months old. Hardly a fair fight.

Look at the 5Dr, yup, poor noise and DR in comparison... Look at the D810 for detail, yup it loses out there too, look at the A7r2 lens selection... not the widest in the world.

Doesn't Sony beat it for lens selection?

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 13:44 UTC
In reply to:

Will Hikari: It is a pity that DPreview is going down the equivalency road. The only reason for those types of arguments is for the internet surfers to bash each other with my-camera-is-better-than-yours arguments.

And science. Don't forget science.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

Earthrise: As always capturing light is about the glass not the silicon :-)

What do you think glass is made out of? ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

Oleg Ivanovskiy: What about diffraction limit? The smaller your sensor, the smaller its pixels - the less F-numbers you can use before stumbling into detail loss due to diffraction, no?

Hitting diffraction at the pixel level isn't a particularly big problem since a pixel can only resolve a single line anyway. And with Bayer arrays, you're extrapolating from a 4x4 pixel grid anyway.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 13:28 UTC

Still enjoy my 150mm f/2 on the E-M1!

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 20:54 UTC as 124th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony FE 85mm F1.8 sample gallery and first impressions (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMCTakumar: Question is how much is this lens going to cost? I find the out of focus rendering to be rather poor, just look at the blackberry picture. Is that high amount of coma or astigmatism, or both?

When they are replaced, we can bet that they'll be priced more like the Sony.

Incidentally, if you drop the Canon's RSP of $369 into an inflation calculator and see how much that was in 1992 compared to today...you'll find that $369 in 1992 is equivalent to $638.69 today. So if we're comparing a brand new Canon from then to a brand new Sony from now, then Sony's trying to hit the same target Canon was 25 years ago--probably under. I'd bet that Canon originally went for at least $400 in 92'.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: He is still not satisfied and wants more wideangle lenses.
Well i think its time to consider an 10-20mm apsc Art lens.

I think sigma sold many many 10-20/8-16mm lenses and were very popular. Canon and nikon shooters like it a lot. Why not a top of the line Art lens in the 8-20mm range for crop sensors like 18-35? The canons and nikons 10-24s are great a well as the tokinas but none of them shines like it should be....
The level of optics of the sigma 18-35mm art in an wideangle apcs lens would be great.

The logical move would be the third in the trio beside the 18-35mm and 50-100mm f/1.8's.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 16:57 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Hands-on with new Voigtländer E-mount primes (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

dbm305: Barney (If I may) are you sure the 40mm f1.2 is based on an older lens?
AFAIK there is no older 40mm f.12; there was a 40mm f1.4 and there is a 35mm f1.2. I suppose (as some have suggested) that optimising for the sony filter stack might increase the FL of the 35 a bit so they called it a 40. But unless they specifically told you the 40 was based on an earlier one, seems more likely it's a new design (unlike the 35). Hope so anyway. Any clarification appreciated!

Even if it was based on the 35m f/1.2 and optimizing it increased the FL, they'd still need t do something else to keep it f/1.2, since that would turn it into an f/1.4 (or a ~f/1.37). They'd need to also increase the entrance pupil magnification, too. It's entirely possible that they did both these things, but...who knows...

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 15:18 UTC
In reply to:

AngularJS: Irix = upscale Samyang?

Except they're a Swiss company.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

FLruckas: Your dust removal tool is gonna be busy....
And if you use an IR cutoff filter....
Look out.
Are the markings radioactive?
Just kidding....
Well....
Sort of.....
:-)

That's where the neutrinos come in!

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

Mike99999: 100mm T/5.6 GM at $1,500 and 700 grams is outrageous. The 90/2.8 Macro is $900 and 600 grams and an optical marvel. I'm not sure why this lens was a priority.

The FE 85/1.8, on the other hand, comes at a good price, a good weight (370 grams), and supposedly an excellent dual-motor focusing system. I'm looking forward to see how the IQ compares to the Batis.

Wedding photographers carry a lot of things--redundancy is important in the context of potential gear failure. Having an 85mm and a 100mm wouldn't be unwise.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

Mike99999: 100mm T/5.6 GM at $1,500 and 700 grams is outrageous. The 90/2.8 Macro is $900 and 600 grams and an optical marvel. I'm not sure why this lens was a priority.

The FE 85/1.8, on the other hand, comes at a good price, a good weight (370 grams), and supposedly an excellent dual-motor focusing system. I'm looking forward to see how the IQ compares to the Batis.

For the same reason the Sony 135mm T/4.5 was a priority.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

StephanBG: Wow, love DP, same people who played up the difference between APSC and FF now downplay the difference between FF and MF.

Heh. Baby MF, 44x33 sensor, you could arguably call it "micro four thirds."

(that's a joke)

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

arbux: Small sensor, dark lenses. Medium format in name only. Any Ff camera with glass F2.0 or brighter captures more light and is cheaper + has much more functionality.

Everyone still jumped when Canon moved away from APS-H to FF. That was an even smaller step.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: It looks interesting but to me it seems there would be real problems with soft corners and vignetting with how close the corners are to the mount. The rear element would have to cover it mostly and I'm not sure how it would if the lens is built fairly heavy.

As long as the lenses are designed for it, it isn't a problem. Zeiss has done well with the Batis and Loxia lenses on Sony. I'm sure that the engineers at Fuji have already thought through this stuff.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 14:35 UTC

It only sticks half way out in the previous models because they made it like that. They never needed to do that.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 20:59 UTC as 325th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Sean65: I suspect this might be offered with the M1 ii body when released. Nice and compact for a 24-200mm f4

Mike99999, be polite.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

h2k: No word on the weight?

561g

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 16:11 UTC
Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »