DtEW

Joined on Feb 17, 2012
About me:

Amateur photographer primarily shooting in adventure and urban exploration contexts.

Comments

Total: 87, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (658 comments in total)
In reply to:

sneakyracer: 4/3 sensor is dated imho. They date back to when larger sensors were really expensive. Enthusiasts demand better performance nowadays at the $1000+ pricepoint. All TV/Monitors today are 16:9 as well so the 4/3 format is a bit awkward except for more traditional applications like print (magazines). In very small form factors the 4/3" format is nice but on larger cameras it makes little sense except maybe for the smaller lenses and increased affordability (if any). That does not mean that the OM-D cameras are bad cameras. On the contrary they are excellent just that there are better options for most folks available today.

IMHO (and only that), being that sensor cost isn't driving the market anymore... the m43 consortium should put out a spec for an oversized, multi-aspect sensor. Or better yet, just utilize an existing APS-C sensor behind the same m43-spec light circle glass.

Yeah, it'll waste the corners, but it will enable maximum, un-cropped (relative to the lens light circle) coverage in a number of aspects, including 1:1, 3:4, 2:3, 16:9, etc.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 23:45 UTC

It seems like all the good things (eg. respect, humility, consideration, reserve, etc.) are all falling apart so quickly these days.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 23:31 UTC as 70th comment
In reply to:

DtEW: As much as I appreciate what Sigma has been doing for the marketplace, it seems like for me these days, I default to OEM unless they don't have a high-quality option for the application in question.

The simple reasons are 1) OEM lenses tend to keep their resale value much better than 3rd-party lenses, and 2) when you start getting up there in price... the 3rd-party resale "discount" gets more concerning.

That said, my Sigma 35mm Art was easy to sell at a good price. But I suspect this will not be the case with the more esoteric FLs.

I think you mean well, but you're going out on a thin limb to submit a judgement of the Sigma 24-35mm f/2's utility for anybody without knowing what the application of the user actually is. Suffice it to say that the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM worked out for me because I had (then) a good collection of lenses with which I was able to juggle my kit-outs, and condensed accordingly.

Buying multiple copies of lenses *at once* to keep the sharpest is an ethically problematic thing to do, as you are guaranteeing that either the retailer or distributor takes a loss on all the other lenses that are no longer able to be sold as new.

Even though buying lenses well-known as variable in its QC singly might end up doing the same thing in the end... the fact remains that you are allowing for the possibility that all/most of them are good, and you are not ensuring a loss to anybody unnecessarily. It is more inconvenient and might cost you more in return shipping, but it is ethically justifiable.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

DtEW: As much as I appreciate what Sigma has been doing for the marketplace, it seems like for me these days, I default to OEM unless they don't have a high-quality option for the application in question.

The simple reasons are 1) OEM lenses tend to keep their resale value much better than 3rd-party lenses, and 2) when you start getting up there in price... the 3rd-party resale "discount" gets more concerning.

That said, my Sigma 35mm Art was easy to sell at a good price. But I suspect this will not be the case with the more esoteric FLs.

matthew saville, you mean buy and return multiple times? Because that's why I don't have a Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art (anymore). Two returns, 4 rounds of shipping. Decided that I could do without the f/2, and settled on an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. Best decision ever. (And high praise to the retailer who was a good guy and allowed this with grace.)

I guess this might be okay if you had a customer-service-oriented brick-and-mortar Sigma dealer near you?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

John C Tharp: Gonna want to wait for reviews on the 85 Art- Sigma's other Art primes have had a fairly 'sterile' look to them, while Sony's new 1.4/85 FE lens and Nikon's new 105/1.4E manage to be sharp but smooth with great rendering, and I think that that's the benchmark for updated portrait primes.

This. I've never been able to describe Sigma's bokeh as being "nice", much less "luxuriant". ("Busy", sometimes "nervous" would be more like it.)

Unless Sigma is able to pull a new trick out of the bag for the 85mm Art, it's going to be a hard sell, esp. at these prices.

Not saying they are overpriced... but if you're spending at this level, people are generally aware and willing to stretch for a desired look, more than just numbers.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: 500mm, who dont want a lens like that?

Is the 12-24 for just APs-C? or is it for FF? the ultrawide lenses like the 10-20 or the 8-16mm are great but they are not ART. If sigma make a high quality wa Art lens for Aps-c would be wonderful.... this one is great but starts at 12mm.

"500mm, who dont want a lens like that?"

Um, people who shoot landscape/architecture/portraiture/street/social-events?

500mm is for sport, wildlife, and maybe the occasional moonshot.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 19:37 UTC

As much as I appreciate what Sigma has been doing for the marketplace, it seems like for me these days, I default to OEM unless they don't have a high-quality option for the application in question.

The simple reasons are 1) OEM lenses tend to keep their resale value much better than 3rd-party lenses, and 2) when you start getting up there in price... the 3rd-party resale "discount" gets more concerning.

That said, my Sigma 35mm Art was easy to sell at a good price. But I suspect this will not be the case with the more esoteric FLs.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 19:29 UTC as 49th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

DtEW: I think this is the point where DPR reveals that its soul lies in spec and gadgetry appreciation, rather than photography and the equipment that facilitates it.

Not shocked at this reality (I think we always kinda knew), but just that the mask is off.

OrdinarilyInordinate, and that is a valid qualifier. As long as people actually understand their slant and it's attendant limitations.

And people write car analogies here (a technologically focused forum, as you pointed out) so they are understood by most in this audience. Making an understandable (a prerequisite to actually achieving "convincing") -if-cliched analogy for the given audience comes before trying to impress said audience with your refreshing, left-field analogies that might have them scratching their heads... or worse, distract from the point you are trying to make.

Interestingly, this kind of also encapsulates the differing approaches between Canon and spec/gadget-chasing competitors.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 05:37 UTC
In reply to:

DtEW: I think this is the point where DPR reveals that its soul lies in spec and gadgetry appreciation, rather than photography and the equipment that facilitates it.

Not shocked at this reality (I think we always kinda knew), but just that the mask is off.

Tonkotsu Ramen, that's like Motor Trend calling out all Lotuses as "disappointments" for failing to engage in horsepower or gadget wars. It shows a particular fetish of perspective that calls their authority to fairly judge into question. Even more so if Lotuses are actually competitive at the place that matters: the track.

Last I heard, Canon is still the choice of more than half of all working professional photographers.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 03:59 UTC

I think this is the point where DPR reveals that its soul lies in spec and gadgetry appreciation, rather than photography and the equipment that facilitates it.

Not shocked at this reality (I think we always kinda knew), but just that the mask is off.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2016 at 23:10 UTC as 167th comment | 4 replies
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1919 comments in total)
In reply to:

George Zip: The level of trolling on DPR is breathtaking. I have all Canon Cameras and they are great. I would never badmouth Nikon or Sony Cameras. Why?? Because they are excellent cameras as well. Different strokes for different folks.

Mel P, there's a fine line between constructive criticism when it is appropriate (i.e. when it is asked for), versus being inflicted unwanted opinions from unqualified strangers.

The difference is like the assessment a woman might seek from a beauty professional in the course of a makeover (analogous to seeking and reading a professional, balanced review) , versus walking down the street and being catcalled by random jerks, or being outright called a dog (analogous to posters, possibly invested in competing systems, passing un-requested criticism/judgement in threads for a product they have little to no actual experience with).

One can pretend that it's all constructive criticism. But almost everyone knows better, and the only one being fooled is the rationalizing jerk thinking he has convinced anybody that his rudeness (the he would not dare to engage in real life, making him a coward as well) is anything but malicious.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2016 at 04:38 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1919 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hibiscusbloom: I have this weird suspicion that Canon is willing to sacrifice the 5D4. They might want to replace it early with a new FF series line with the newly developed CMOS chip. That would put an end to the 5D series and enables them to start anew.

rrccad, I lumped the cost of upgrading their fabs into what was needed to bring about on-sensor ADC and DPAF.

Aside: do you know what process was used in the 5DS/SR sensor?

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1919 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hibiscusbloom: I have this weird suspicion that Canon is willing to sacrifice the 5D4. They might want to replace it early with a new FF series line with the newly developed CMOS chip. That would put an end to the 5D series and enables them to start anew.

TSN, that would be insane given the hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D (or IP licensing) and investment in the fab that is required to bring something like that into existence.

I mean, do people here even understand why Canon was *not* doing on-sensor ADCs for awhile?

That's like saying I'll work for 10 years to buy a nice house, then burn it down right after I pay it off just so I can say I did it and go onto... what?

None of this makes any sense. What is wrong with you people?

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 21:12 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1919 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hibiscusbloom: I have this weird suspicion that Canon is willing to sacrifice the 5D4. They might want to replace it early with a new FF series line with the newly developed CMOS chip. That would put an end to the 5D series and enables them to start anew.

That makes no sense whatsoever except as a desperate dissemination of FUD in the absence of even a semi-valid point of criticism to seize on to.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 19:14 UTC
On article Getty Images asks court to throw out $1B lawsuit (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: "We could not have done this, because it's illegal".

Wow, just wow... The arrogance is unbelievable.

That's gotta be new legal precedent right there.

"Because to do so would've been blatantly illegal, we couldn't have possibly had the intent to be guilty of the very thing we actually did. It must've been an earnest mistake."

Let's apply that to murder:

"Because intending to kill somebody is so very illegal, we couldn't possibly be guilty of having the intent to do the thing we actually did. It must've been an earnest mistake."

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 06:55 UTC
In reply to:

DtEW: Why is the image in the "Real world dynamic range image comparison tool" in the "Editor's Note" shot with totally different settings? Download the JPEGs and look at the EXIFs:

5DSR: shot at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO100
D810: shot at f/5.6, 1/15s, ISO64

Twice as much light, and exposed brighter to boot (ISO 50 would have been exactly as much exposure assuming both camera makers were ISO-accurate).

WTF, DPR?

How is that real-world? If exposure time didn't matter, we might as well just do multi-exposure.

(cont.) If they felt it was absolutely necessary to show the single-shot capability of the D810... they should have just included an 1/20s ISO64 exposure as an additional point of comparison in their drop-down menu. It would not have been hard and it would have allowed for a fully-fair comparison.

What you have instead is something that falls short of a fully comparable situation, through which they got to work in a 1/3-stop extra light for the D810, while leaving a more-relaxed 0.80-stop of highlight-clipping headroom in the 5DSR and a more-optimal 0.43-stop of highlight clipping headroom in the D810. Both can be seen using their RAW samples in LR6.5. Download both and see for yourself; the unprocessed exposure difference is fairly dramatic.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

DtEW: Why is the image in the "Real world dynamic range image comparison tool" in the "Editor's Note" shot with totally different settings? Download the JPEGs and look at the EXIFs:

5DSR: shot at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO100
D810: shot at f/5.6, 1/15s, ISO64

Twice as much light, and exposed brighter to boot (ISO 50 would have been exactly as much exposure assuming both camera makers were ISO-accurate).

WTF, DPR?

How is that real-world? If exposure time didn't matter, we might as well just do multi-exposure.

etto72, that's the whole part I don't get. I think everybody and their mother has been hammered with the point that Exmor-type on-chip ADC sensors can record a greater dynamic range at base and low ISOs. I think most everyone accepts that as fact. Of course, whether this matters greatly to the type of photography one does is up to subjective debate.

But to know exactly how much that would matter on equal footing would be a nice service to the photography public. All you have to do is expose all the cameras at identical manual settings (or at least not use two disparate metering modes to produce significantly different settings and exposures). Given that DXOMark has tested both the D810 and 5DSR to be almost identical in measured ISO100 (75 and 77, respectively), I don't know what can be going through their head to justify this.

And if a scene is static enough to take a 1/15s exposure, it can probably be bracketed. At these shutter speeds, single shot is an artificial constraint.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 18:51 UTC

Why is the image in the "Real world dynamic range image comparison tool" in the "Editor's Note" shot with totally different settings? Download the JPEGs and look at the EXIFs:

5DSR: shot at f/5.6, 1/30s, ISO100
D810: shot at f/5.6, 1/15s, ISO64

Twice as much light, and exposed brighter to boot (ISO 50 would have been exactly as much exposure assuming both camera makers were ISO-accurate).

WTF, DPR?

How is that real-world? If exposure time didn't matter, we might as well just do multi-exposure.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 21:04 UTC as 8th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

osan: Blimey!!! This forum sounds like 80D has sent fanboys in to denial stage. So funny.

BarnET, it's funny that that you think Canon users, by choosing different from you, must be ignorant to the (limited) advantages of Exmor-levels of base-ISO DR.

Have you ever considered that there are many Canon users who have more than one system? Or came to Canon from another system?

Perhaps it is you that is ignorant to the advantages of the Canon system, and instead fixate on the specs you can point at and conflate that to all the difference in the world.

Trust me, it isn't.

Sincerely, Dual System User.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."

M Jesper: "Are you kidding me? It is as calculated as IKEA calling a cabinet BILLY .. it doesn't friggn matter it just does its job."

Uh, badly-drawn simile if you suppose people could actually mistake IKEA's obviously whimsical names as a technical description.

Also, as of right now the "Neutrino" coating does no job anybody is aware of, since nobody has a lens nor is the function of the coating defined in any marketing material so far. It could even be pure fantasy (i.e. not there), since you are obviously willing to accept whatever bullspit marketers toss at you.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 21:37 UTC
Total: 87, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »