PeterTom

Lives in Slovak Republic Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Works as a programmer and part time university teacher
Joined on Apr 21, 2006
About me:

I used film SLRs since 1985.
I mainly photograph family and vacations.

Comments

Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

PeterTom: When I sum the weight and price of these 3 lenses:
Canon 50mm 1.8 STM
Canon 85mm 1.8 USM
Canon 100mm 2.0 USM
Then I get 1044 grams and 880.24 Euro (looking at cheapest prices in reliable on-line shops around me).
The Sigma is 1490 grams and 1249 Euro.
It is about 40% more in both numbers...
Can the lens have that much better IQ (compared to the above listed ones) that you will not mind carrying 400 more grams (another lens' weight, and I usually leave the 85mm at home, 50mm and 100mm are usually enough to carry) and pay 40% more?
For me the answer is "no", but if flexibility of a zoom is highest priority, then your opinion may differ.

noirdesir:
Thanks for the other comparison.

My three points:
1) I am curious whether the limits of physics are really that hard to beat that a zoom must be so much heavier and bigger than the individual lenses (that contain 3 times the mount, 3 times the circuits, 3 motors, ...) or it is partly some marketing which assumes (maybe correctly) that if somebody pays that lot of money then he/she wants something huge and heavy.
2) My example was APS-C (even if the primes had to be full frame ones because, unfortunately, nobody produces APS-C primes in those FLs and apertures), your example is an L zoom for pros. And many people here say "pros do not use APS-C". So the examples are from two different worlds, IMO.
3) I would prefer the primes in both cases for their weight, size and price. It is because I am not a pro, I do not shoot video and I cannot justify the price of the zooms for my hobby.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

PeterTom: When I sum the weight and price of these 3 lenses:
Canon 50mm 1.8 STM
Canon 85mm 1.8 USM
Canon 100mm 2.0 USM
Then I get 1044 grams and 880.24 Euro (looking at cheapest prices in reliable on-line shops around me).
The Sigma is 1490 grams and 1249 Euro.
It is about 40% more in both numbers...
Can the lens have that much better IQ (compared to the above listed ones) that you will not mind carrying 400 more grams (another lens' weight, and I usually leave the 85mm at home, 50mm and 100mm are usually enough to carry) and pay 40% more?
For me the answer is "no", but if flexibility of a zoom is highest priority, then your opinion may differ.

Marcelobtp:
So let's compute the "space saving". The lens lengths on DPReview are apparently given without the mount. So my computation is based on real measurement of my 85mm and 100mm including both caps (they add 21mm to the length) and assuming the same size of caps on the other two lenses. And I assume the lenses to be cylinders with their maximum diameter:
Total length of the three lenses (without hoods but with both caps): 60+93+95 = 248mm
Length of Sigma: 192mm
Total volume of the three lenses: 1.05 liters (cubic decimeters)
Volume of the Sigma: 1.33 liters
So There is no saving in space (if I interpret "space" as volume) - the Sigma is about 27% more voluminous.
There is some 30% saving in length, but usually you can better place three shorter lenses inside a bag than one longer lens...
You are right that I am not considering video. That was the meaning of my last sentence in the original post - others may give much higher priority to the flexibility of a zoom over primes.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 16:19 UTC
In reply to:

PeterTom: When I sum the weight and price of these 3 lenses:
Canon 50mm 1.8 STM
Canon 85mm 1.8 USM
Canon 100mm 2.0 USM
Then I get 1044 grams and 880.24 Euro (looking at cheapest prices in reliable on-line shops around me).
The Sigma is 1490 grams and 1249 Euro.
It is about 40% more in both numbers...
Can the lens have that much better IQ (compared to the above listed ones) that you will not mind carrying 400 more grams (another lens' weight, and I usually leave the 85mm at home, 50mm and 100mm are usually enough to carry) and pay 40% more?
For me the answer is "no", but if flexibility of a zoom is highest priority, then your opinion may differ.

tkbslc:
I see some value in not swapping lensens, but not 369 Euro value.
And the weight and volume disadvantage makes it even smaller. Of course, for me, that's my personal opinion.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 16:12 UTC

When I sum the weight and price of these 3 lenses:
Canon 50mm 1.8 STM
Canon 85mm 1.8 USM
Canon 100mm 2.0 USM
Then I get 1044 grams and 880.24 Euro (looking at cheapest prices in reliable on-line shops around me).
The Sigma is 1490 grams and 1249 Euro.
It is about 40% more in both numbers...
Can the lens have that much better IQ (compared to the above listed ones) that you will not mind carrying 400 more grams (another lens' weight, and I usually leave the 85mm at home, 50mm and 100mm are usually enough to carry) and pay 40% more?
For me the answer is "no", but if flexibility of a zoom is highest priority, then your opinion may differ.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 13:37 UTC as 32nd comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Boky: focus micro-adjustment?

That's my question, too.
But I do not think that Canon has put it there. In fact it is the only point that would distinguish this model from 70D...

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 10:22 UTC
On article New GF: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 flips for selfies (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

PeterTom: I do not shoot (many) selfies, but the flipping screen may be useful also for other purposes. It would be twice more useful (IMO) if it would not only flip but also rotate (swivel is the right word? the descriptions on DPReview name it "fully articulated").
I shot many pictures in portrait orientation and many times I would like to have them shot easily from waist level or ground level without the need of doing additional gymnastics (with my current Canon Rebel).

But many m4/3 cameras have only flip screen.
Actually, it seems that there the only m/4 cameras with "fully articulated" screen are the SLR-sized GH4 and G6 (and when I look for m4/3 I want to downsize my equipment).
Why m4/3 cameras tend ignore the portrait orientation (how many of the current)?
Would it be so much more complicated to make, for example, this screen fully articulated?

@Just Ed
My old Rebel (450D) has no tilt screen either.
So I must either use the optical viewfinder (from a squatting position) or just shoot "blindly" (from ground level) and hope for a usable result.

I am considering modernizing my gear already for a year or two.
I am considering both APS-C Canon DSLRs (700D or 70D at this moment - both have fully articulated screens) and m4/3 (Because I would like to have a smaller/lighter camera system that offers reasonably fast and reasonably priced wide angle primes).

The lack of fully articulated screens on virtually all m4/3 cameras (except the two that are not much smaller than an APS-C DSLR) is one point that keeps me from making the decision in favor of m4/3. And when looking at GF7 I find it ridiculous why they did not make the small extra step - allow the screen to rotate on its hinge.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 16:23 UTC
On article New GF: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 flips for selfies (398 comments in total)

I do not shoot (many) selfies, but the flipping screen may be useful also for other purposes. It would be twice more useful (IMO) if it would not only flip but also rotate (swivel is the right word? the descriptions on DPReview name it "fully articulated").
I shot many pictures in portrait orientation and many times I would like to have them shot easily from waist level or ground level without the need of doing additional gymnastics (with my current Canon Rebel).

But many m4/3 cameras have only flip screen.
Actually, it seems that there the only m/4 cameras with "fully articulated" screen are the SLR-sized GH4 and G6 (and when I look for m4/3 I want to downsize my equipment).
Why m4/3 cameras tend ignore the portrait orientation (how many of the current)?
Would it be so much more complicated to make, for example, this screen fully articulated?

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 14:40 UTC as 82nd comment | 5 replies

I have been waiting for reasonably fast wide angle prime EF-S lenses for about 5 years.

So now we have one. Do we?
1. It is just so-so inside the "wide" category. 24mm is a strange FL for aps-c. 22mm would be better (or 17 or 15).
2. Unfortunately it is also not "reasonably fast". For me "reasonably fast" starts at 2.0 in this FL.

I do not care about "pancakes". I really dreamed about a 22mm f/2 EF-S lens that would be smaller and lighter than the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 (the only other fast prime at this FL).
My Tamron is f/3.5 till 27mm, so why should I buy this lens?

I know that the flange focal distance is a technical problem for wideangles on DSLRs.
But wasn't it the idea behind EF-S that it can help to bring the rear element of the lens a few millimeters closer to the sensor?

I do not want to go fullframe. And it seems that Canon now says: "do not wait anymore, we will not make it". Any other options? Maybe the big and heavy Sigma 18-35/1.8, maybe switching to to Olympus MFT...

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 23:51 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

OldDigiman: Say what? Plug iPhone into charging cable, plug other end of charging cable into computer, on computer navigate to phone's DCIM folder, copy files. Free.

I do not own an iPhone, so I would like to ask: does it work with any other files than multimedia ones (pictures and videos)? Because DCIM is meant only for these kinds of files...

Link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

Kim Letkeman: Hmmm ... I dumped Apple for Android years ago and I simply use DropBox to get automated camera uploads that appear on my machine at home pretty much as soon as the images are shot. Does that really not work on Apple iPhones? Note the price, too: $0

The price just seems to be $0.
By using any cloud solution you expose your files potentially to many people for investigating and data mining of any kind. So you pay with your data.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 17:00 UTC
On article Rumors hint at pair of new Canon lenses (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

macjonny1: Canon, no one cares about these boring lenses. Maybe do something innovative instead of a MK II version of a lens that is just fine the way it is. Spend your resources getting out of the obsolescence that you seem to be heading at light speed.

@Richard
For me 4mm and 2/3 stop is quite a big difference.
IS is seldom needed for stills with an UWA (at 10mm I can regularly use 1/15 of second with no noticeable blur).
And if it will be the same price (which was crazily high for me when I bought the 10-22 in 2005) then I would opt for 10-22 without thinking.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2014 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: What a refreshing feeling to see a photography awards event devoid of war photos, conflict dramas, human atrocities, suffering and unhappiness.

Call it whatever you like, Sony has got it right.

.

SirSeth: Click the "See more images" link and you will see the whole series.
Maybe DPreview could rename it to "See the whole series"...

It is really needed to see the whole series before judging.
I looked at number 1 and I thought: "Well, it's not a bad family snapshot, but why is it the the winner?".

Then after seeing the whole series I am somewhat puzzled.
I do not like that series at all.
My photographic reason is that those seems to be arranged shots with models (I doubt that the author followed the couple for several years and that she was present at the very moment when the police was taking the man, or am I wrong?).
So why is it "contemporary issues" and not "campaign"?
From human point of view I do not like the series because it promotes too much the feminist point of view of the problem.

But for some other photos the complete series are better than than the single picture chosen by DPreview.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2014 at 15:37 UTC
On article Toshiba unveils UHS-II Class 3 microSD memory cards (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: This makes the size of CF cards look very obsolete.

Until you drop them on the grass :)

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2014 at 21:27 UTC
On article Prototype battery fully charges in under 30 seconds (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: A Samsung S4 has a 9.88 watt-hour battery. That's 35568 watt-seconds. To charge that in 26 seconds at 90% efficiency requires 1520W.

Just what everybody wants, a phone that has a 30-pound, $1000 charger that requires exclusive use of a domestic circuit, like a refrigerator does.

Oh, and the phone is a low voltage device. 1520W at 5V is just over 300A. Anyone know a 300A DC connector that's smaller than a cell phone?

Every year or two for the last 12 years, dpReview has ran a 30-second charging battery story. It's sort of the ultimate solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. Battery technology far outstrips charger technology. 5-10 watt chargers are a practical size, weight, and cost, and 1-2 hours is an acceptable charging time to get that size and weight of a charger.

And therefore you can read at the end of the article:
"...the smartphone could then be operated for two to three hours with that charge."
So it has not the same capacity as the original battery. And will probably never have it. Or it will need to charge (quite a bit) longer.
But until that becomes obvious to all the startup will have enough money from people who have no idea about physics.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 11:30 UTC
On article Exposing another side of Sochi (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank C.: Sochi is one of Russia's resort towns and we are shown pictures like this, not really the glit and glamour we are accustomed to in the west. But Russia barely has a national debt, not the nearly the 18 trillion of the US, so it's unfair to make comparisons. I wonder how things would look if they went on a spending spree and threw some money around. That picture of the cook with the fat electrical wire hanging on the wall behind has a lot of character, Russia's past can be seen right there. I enjoyed this series of pictures and honestly didn't expect anything different.

qartlo:
At first glance it seemed to me that you were confusing Sochi with Sukhumi (I liked Sukhumi when I was there in 1974 for a half day trip as a child, but I know that nowadays it is quite destroyed).
Then I tried to "learn the truth" and I found the information that Sochi has been taken by Russians - but not 20 years ago. It was in 1829 i.e. 185 years ago. So saying "Sochi is occupied by Russia" is approximately as true as saying "California is occupied by the USA".

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2014 at 21:18 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: So it has the size disadvantage of a DSLR, and the lack of fast PDAF for a mirrorless...
can't people just get a grip?

NowHearThis:

I think that 102 x 58 x 38 mm is incorrect in the specs.
If you look at the preview (here on DPReview) then there is 128mm width stated inside the top picture on the third page.
And the size comparison on the fourth page clearly shows that it is wider that the 100D. In fact it is the widest from the three cameras that you listed.

So I would say that it is too big for mirrorless.
On the other hand, for $400 it will surely find its customers...

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 17:01 UTC
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (622 comments in total)

There seems to be a mistake in the specifications.
It says:
Dimensions: 102 x 58 x 38 mm

But then the red numbers in the picture at the top of the third page shows width 128mm and height 91mm.
And the comparison picture on the fourth page, when compared with Canon 100D shows that it is wider than Canon (so 128mm seems to be the real value because Canon is 117mm), but a bit lower (so I am confused because according to dpreview Canon is 91mm tall, too, but the difference in the picture is not as big as 58 vs. 91, IMO).

DPreview, please try to measure once more :)

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 16:54 UTC as 125th comment | 1 reply
Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »