Boomanbb

Boomanbb

Lives in United States Richmond, VA, United States
Works as a Software Trainer, law firm
Joined on Feb 11, 2003
About me:

My main photography interests are Allstar cheering, modeling and portraits.

Comments

Total: 49, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Bitbuster42: Canon managed to present a "new" sensor which has still lower DR than Sony sensors which are more than 1 or 2 years old? Very disappointing. One would expect a better sensor for 3500$. How long Do I have to wait for a competitive sensor? Its a shame for their brilliant lens lineup.

When looking at a camera on only a singular strength it is easy to find cheaper better options. Much more fair to compare the entire camera, like the fact you can take thousands of photos with just two batteries.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 20:05 UTC
On article DxOMark confirms Canon EOS 1D X II sensor advances (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

miggylicious: Didn't think that my 4 year old A99 would still perform better (in good light) than Canon's latest beast.

My only point is that there is more to performance than DR. I'm sure the Sony is a fine camera at what it does but it's no 1D series camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 01:49 UTC
On article DxOMark confirms Canon EOS 1D X II sensor advances (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

miggylicious: Didn't think that my 4 year old A99 would still perform better (in good light) than Canon's latest beast.

Performance (ie: actually taking a photo) is more than DR. No way that A99 would outperform the IDXII in any light, situation, weather, etc.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 21:30 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (816 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sam Santana: Did they have to make it so ugly???

Funny, its the 1st reasonably designed mirrorless camera I have seen. It would take a body at least as big as this to move me away from my DSLR. It even has a real battery unlike the joke-of-a-battery included with today's mirrorless options.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

Photo_AK: I know it's a fast lens, but I can see problems with using a 150mm (equiv.) lens on a modern high-res camera. It's going to be a chalenge getting perfectly sharp images with 24+ mpix sensors with shutter speeds bellow at least 1/250s ...

What I don't get is I have two of those non-IS lens and have ZERO problem getting sharp images from them on my 7D MK II. Maybe you don't get it.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

Photo_AK: I know it's a fast lens, but I can see problems with using a 150mm (equiv.) lens on a modern high-res camera. It's going to be a chalenge getting perfectly sharp images with 24+ mpix sensors with shutter speeds bellow at least 1/250s ...

And that's a problem for the majority of people who don't use those two cameras? Not to mention, this is an APS-C lens so think 7D MK II.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 13:44 UTC

The first reasonably designed grip I have ever seen on a mirrorless camera that allows someone with normal sized hands to hold firmly by the grip with a large lens attached. Bravo!

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 00:08 UTC as 110th comment
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The 50-100/1.8 would be a ton more interesting and useful if it had OS. It's not as important in the 18-35/1.8 because of the shorter focal length, but the longer one really needs it which is why most of the 70-200/2.8's for full-frame have IS or are attached to a body with IBIS.

I'll keep my 18-35/1.8 but I won't buy the 50-100/1.8.

I don't doubt that there are exceptions however when capturing the human body in motion and minimizing motion blur requires speeds above 1/500sec. I try for at least 1/800sec.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

Photo_AK: I know it's a fast lens, but I can see problems with using a 150mm (equiv.) lens on a modern high-res camera. It's going to be a chalenge getting perfectly sharp images with 24+ mpix sensors with shutter speeds bellow at least 1/250s ...

When did Canon's 135mm F2, 70-200mm F2.8 Non-IS and 400mm F5.6 become problems with modern high-res cameras unless you purposely tried to shoot at shutter speeds unsuitable for them?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

shademaster: I don't see why one would put a 1.5kg 50-100 1.8 on an APS-C camera when they could put a 1.5kg 70-200 2.8 (more reach, same effective aperture) on a FF camera. The FF sensor will have better noise/DR at Base ISO all things being equal.

Why doesn't sigma bring back the 50-150 2.8 APS-C lens? I'd rather have a reasonable size/weight option rather than f/1.8. For event-type stuff, f/1.8 on is too narrow even on APS-C (only one face in focus). For non-event stuff, just go with a prime.

Because they may have selected APS-C for the reach they get with their other lens? Because it is F1.8? Forget that equivalence crap. Often you cannot change your distance to subject to make equivalence math work.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 17:49 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The 50-100/1.8 would be a ton more interesting and useful if it had OS. It's not as important in the 18-35/1.8 because of the shorter focal length, but the longer one really needs it which is why most of the 70-200/2.8's for full-frame have IS or are attached to a body with IBIS.

I'll keep my 18-35/1.8 but I won't buy the 50-100/1.8.

Those who shoot indoor sports (could be popular with them) won't miss the lack of IS.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 17:48 UTC
In reply to:

photomedium: Great lens!
Don't get the weight criticism. Great glass is heavy take it or leave it.
Otherwise just stick to your 3.5-5.6 kit lens.

It's a F1.8 APSC lens so it behaves like a F1.8 lens on a crop body. How it performs on a FF is irrelevant since it's a crop body lens. It's NOT made for FF.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59 UTC
In reply to:

Boomanbb: Nice feature, works on my Note 5. You don't need to subscribe to use Lightroom mobile on your phone. Only the sync requires subscription but I too would love to sync via USB.
If you don't like CC just use one of the many other just as capable apps out there. What is the point in complaining about something you are not planning on using?

Which is just as likely to happen as me winning the lottery so again, why complain about something that is never gonna happen? Lightroom mobile works fine without a subscription, you just can't sync to your desktop.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49 UTC
In reply to:

photomedium: Great lens!
Don't get the weight criticism. Great glass is heavy take it or leave it.
Otherwise just stick to your 3.5-5.6 kit lens.

The big difference is its MUCH FASTER than a F2.8 lens. You can shoot in lower light than that 70-200mm F2.8 which makes a difference for a lot of people assuming it can focus just as fast as the larger zoom.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 17:50 UTC

Nice feature, works on my Note 5. You don't need to subscribe to use Lightroom mobile on your phone. Only the sync requires subscription but I too would love to sync via USB.
If you don't like CC just use one of the many other just as capable apps out there. What is the point in complaining about something you are not planning on using?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 17:35 UTC as 3rd comment | 4 replies

Wait, no one has calculated "equivalence" for APSC? I imagine the "total light gathering" of this beast must be F1.2 or better! We can really get those extreme low light shots now! Equilavence works both ways right? LOL

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 13:19 UTC as 32nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Boomanbb: This statement is just for Dpreview diehards: "giving the same angle-of-view, depth-of-field and total light gathering capability as a ~75-150mm F2.8 lens on full-frame".

In the real world where people are concerned with proper exposure, total light gathering means nothing. F1.8 exposes the same on a crop as it does on a FF. My 70-200mm F2.8 exposed the same on my 5D as it does my 7D MK II. Who is out there concerned with total light gathering?

Its got to be confusing as crap for newbies.

Chris said so much better exactly what I meant. One could infer from the author's statement that putting a FF F2.8 lens on a crop body would give them the light gathering advantage of a F1.8. "Total light gathering" to a wall shooting, camera testing, DXO chart studying expert is not "total light gathering" to someone shooting in a dark gym. F1.8 is F1.8 when it comes to exposure.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 23:10 UTC

This statement is just for Dpreview diehards: "giving the same angle-of-view, depth-of-field and total light gathering capability as a ~75-150mm F2.8 lens on full-frame".

In the real world where people are concerned with proper exposure, total light gathering means nothing. F1.8 exposes the same on a crop as it does on a FF. My 70-200mm F2.8 exposed the same on my 5D as it does my 7D MK II. Who is out there concerned with total light gathering?

Its got to be confusing as crap for newbies.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 22:25 UTC as 76th comment | 10 replies
Total: 49, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »