MayaTlab0

Lives in France France
Joined on Feb 27, 2011

Comments

Total: 652, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Hands-on with the Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200mm F2.8 S (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michiel953: Criticism leveled at earlier S lenses was they weren't "professional" (they are good though). I guess this is a professional lens.

As I suspected, you seem to have a thing for the glitz and glamour of spec sheets - as it's basically the only thing you're talking about in your list. Not a single word about what the actual picture looks like beyond what the specs could suggest (and in the case of the 50mm 1.2 RF's aperture, it's not unlikely that it isn't much more than a suggestion in lots of situations - *cough* vignetting *cough* https://ibb.co/qR6SGYH ). I would suggest you to broaden quite a bit more your appreciation of lenses beyond their spec sheets. That would help you understand why some people find - certainly me - these Z lenses just as exciting, or boring (depends on whether you see the glass half full or half empty), as anything Canon has released on the RF mount.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2020 at 17:24 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200mm F2.8 S (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michiel953: Criticism leveled at earlier S lenses was they weren't "professional" (they are good though). I guess this is a professional lens.

However engineered it is, whether "under" or "over", and it's quite likely that you're improperly using that term (as "overengineered" would suggest that a thing is needlessly complex / costly to achieve its performance, and it's just as likely that neither you nor I are qualified to know), is none of our business.

What matters is the end result. And what if that's just what I want ? Well, Canon hasn't answered that want for years - if ever. The high quality EF 50mm f1.8 / f1.4 has been a running gag on Canon Rumors for nearly a whole decade.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2020 at 17:23 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200mm F2.8 S (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michiel953: Criticism leveled at earlier S lenses was they weren't "professional" (they are good though). I guess this is a professional lens.

I'm still looking for a 50mm f1.8 / f2 on a Canon mount with the level of performance the 50 1.8 S has. Weird, I just read that "everything the Z mount has put out has been done before in every system". Perhaps that's only true if one can't be bothered to go beyond spec sheets numbers ?

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2020 at 15:44 UTC
On article First look at the Nikon D6 (335 comments in total)
In reply to:

D7000ShooterUK: What is that switch to the left hand side of the pentaprism looking from the back?

Viewfinder curtain perhaps ?

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2020 at 17:08 UTC
On article Nikon's 70-200 F2.8 for Z-mount to ship in February (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arcimboldo: This 70-200/2.8 surely is going to be a nice lens, but the Canon RF equivalent with its incredible size looks much more interesting to me. The IQ of the Nikkor is probably state of the art - although I don't see how some people around here already 'know' that for sure. But in practice, you won't see much of a difference between the Nikon and the Canon because either your DoF is too small or your aperture.

@bernardlang "Actual tests with new and used lenses will be needed".

We already have some tests in regards to sample variation I already suggested you to read. Newsflash : the extending Canon 100-400mm II has tighter tolerances in terms of MTF variation than the non extending 70-200 2.8 II.

No need to believe in miracles, we already have some data for some lenses, at least enough to invalidate that there is a necessary positive correlation between extending designs and looser tolerances in terms of MTF variation.

Roger has also already commented several times on MTF variation over time in lenses. Newsflash n°2 : it might not be quite what you thought.

"all things being equal [...] an extending design will always be more prone to manufacturing tolerances issues"

If there is one thing Lensrentals has demonstrated over the years, it's precisely that "the reality" is that all things aren't equal and that often held presumptions don't stand a chance to actual scrutiny.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2020 at 13:50 UTC
On article Nikon's 70-200 F2.8 for Z-mount to ship in February (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arcimboldo: This 70-200/2.8 surely is going to be a nice lens, but the Canon RF equivalent with its incredible size looks much more interesting to me. The IQ of the Nikkor is probably state of the art - although I don't see how some people around here already 'know' that for sure. But in practice, you won't see much of a difference between the Nikon and the Canon because either your DoF is too small or your aperture.

@bernardlang : I was expecting that answer : "The amount of movement of internal glass elements with an extending design is a lot higher, introduce a risk in terms of accurate positioning that is likely to make manufacturing difficult (sample variation) and degrade image quality as the lens ages. This is simply a tolerance stack problem."
I can only encourage you to read Lensrentals' blog and Roger Cicala's comments. This should make you question your assumptions and the correlations you establish. This article for example : https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/canon-100-400-is-ii-mtf-and-variation-tests/
As difficult as it might be to fight against "tolerance stack", Canon has already proven that they can manufacture extending telezooms with tighter tolerances than a lot of other internal telezoom lenses - including their previous 70-200 f2.8.
So perhaps the reality is a little more complicated than you think you know.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2020 at 09:43 UTC
On article Nikon's 70-200 F2.8 for Z-mount to ship in February (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arcimboldo: This 70-200/2.8 surely is going to be a nice lens, but the Canon RF equivalent with its incredible size looks much more interesting to me. The IQ of the Nikkor is probably state of the art - although I don't see how some people around here already 'know' that for sure. But in practice, you won't see much of a difference between the Nikon and the Canon because either your DoF is too small or your aperture.

While the extending design of the Canon is quite novel for these specs, it isn't like they didn't make any effort in trying to minimise issues : https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/
I don't think that neither you nor I have the engineering background or competence to assert quite bluntly that an internal zooming lens will necessarily (ie at least correlation) be more robust than an extending one. I believe that Roger Cicala would have a thing or two to say about this and would mention the Sony 70-200 at some point :D.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2020 at 08:41 UTC
In reply to:

music4ever: Yes, its rendering is much better than Sigma. Very carved. But the camera is something completly unspecial. The colors are basic and not eye-catching. far from Nikon and further from Canon

"Consensus" and "color science" are two words that I wouldn't dare to juxtapose so daringly.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2019 at 11:26 UTC
In reply to:

music4ever: Yes, its rendering is much better than Sigma. Very carved. But the camera is something completly unspecial. The colors are basic and not eye-catching. far from Nikon and further from Canon

This and the following pages makes me doubt that you'd be able to reliably A/B them blind in most situations and that the term "much" is warranted as far as "rendering" is concerned : https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1588217/5

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2019 at 09:49 UTC
In reply to:

GinoSVK: This lens has maybe too much optical perfection to its purpose, Sigma just render human being more pleasing, none less, pure optical excellence.

I think that most people would consider the 24 GM sharp enough wide open for most applications, and yet it's nowhere near as sharp in the centre of the frame as the 135mm (and not even as sharp in the centre as the 35 1.8) : https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=1235&FLI=0&LensComp=1421&FLIComp=0
I find it a bit weird that Sony went for such a design approach for a lens that is not unlikely to be used for portraits or at least applications where it could have benefited from lower performance targets in the centre of the frame in exchange for a better modulation of on axis aberrations to enhance transitions from in focus to out of focus areas. IMO the 135mm's resolution in the centre of the frame is wasted to some degree and some of it could have been traded for a better lens overall.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2019 at 11:31 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: Looks worse than Batis 25/2 and GM 24/1.4.

Let's play a little game : which of the following is "sharper" than the other ? https://ibb.co/fDpscXw
Surely if one of these is "much" sharper than the other, it should be easy to pick them appart ?

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2019 at 15:18 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: Looks worse than Batis 25/2 and GM 24/1.4.

You didn't supply : what I'm asserting is that Ephotozine's bar charts are no evidence whatsoever for what you claim (BTW you can't turn off lateral CA correction on the Zs's internal jpeg files anyway...) - but I'm not surprised as I don't think that you've ever bothered to read their methodology page or even start to understand what they're actually measuring (that said I'm not sure Ephotozine does as well)...
There are much better nuggets of evidence laying around the web to support your claims, at least to some degree (one of which I actually don't disagree with) but you'd be a lot more credible if you limited yourself to a more precise terminology than "CA !" (what type of CA are we talking about ?) or "sharp" or "not sharp boo" (cf my link above : depending on exactly what you're looking at one lens can be both "sharper" or "less sharp" than another one, something Ephotozine's bar charts will never, ever be able to convey).

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2019 at 15:03 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: Looks worse than Batis 25/2 and GM 24/1.4.

*re-sigh*

Ephotozine's tests are conducted on two different cameras in that case, and presumably with the cameras' internal jpeg files (their methodology page is unclear on that most crucial detail but I quote : "All lens corrections in camera are switched off and the highest resolution possible chosen"). That's already enough to make any measurement incomparable between the two.
Ephotozine's CA test, provided its methodology is sound, only tells you something about lateral CA I believe.
Ephotozine's Imatest test, provided its methodology is sound, describes a lens' performance in a way that's totally useless for actual photographers. If you were to use Imatest as Ephotozine does it to describe the two lenses below, you'd get one single number for the FX corner while someone with a reasonably functioning pair of eyes would notice that things require quite a lot more nuance to be field relevant : https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/63404983/e6d9bb1849d243c994c2526781f05fd5

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2019 at 14:08 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: Looks worse than Batis 25/2 and GM 24/1.4.

Of course both of you will be able to point to us any shred of evidence to support both of these claims... *sigh*.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2019 at 07:42 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Looks just like a 24/1.8G except that it apparently has a higher risk of being de-centered thanks to its cheaper build quality. What a great reason to upgrade to Z! /s

Oh poor thing... he's not getting the likes he thinks he deserves... Here, I've just given you one. Happy ?

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 23:21 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Looks just like a 24/1.8G except that it apparently has a higher risk of being de-centered thanks to its cheaper build quality. What a great reason to upgrade to Z! /s

"Look through my comments and you see I call out BS wherever it hides".
Looking through your comments the only thing one can ever see is you manufacturing a sh*tload of it with entertaining persistence.
Nice grandiloquent claim imbued with ridiculous self-importance, I'm giving you 6/10 for that troll.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 23:09 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

Entropius: No samples for what a lot of people will use it for: night landscape.

It's hella expensive but if it delivers extraordinarily low coma in the corners with low vignetting...

In regards to point light source reproduction / night landscapes, you may want to read that :
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24mm-f1-8-s-review/2/
And look at that :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/49054661136/in/album-72157711750961742/

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2019 at 19:29 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Looks just like a 24/1.8G except that it apparently has a higher risk of being de-centered thanks to its cheaper build quality. What a great reason to upgrade to Z! /s

"done with a well-centered lens that Nikon cherry picked for him to review". So it's proven you have difficulties to read. Let me quote just one single line from Cameralabs' review to make it easier for you : "My copy of the lens was less well centered than I would have accepted for a keeper". So much for cherry picking. This is a moot point anyway as we don't have any statistical data available in regards to sample variation with Nikon's two 24mm 1.8 lenses.
"If it literally takes pixel-peeping images shot at a diagonal and at night to prove the 24/1.8S is better than the 24/1.8G" The differences you see in Cameralabs' long distance bokeh test scene linked above (which you probably didn't look at) are caused by the same aberrations that are causing the differences in point light source reproduction off centre. There are several samples in this gallery that would be good candidates to show these differences in OOF areas.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2019 at 19:17 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Looks just like a 24/1.8G except that it apparently has a higher risk of being de-centered thanks to its cheaper build quality. What a great reason to upgrade to Z! /s

Of course you did : "Looks just like a 24/1.8G except" the "except" part being solely dedicated to the claim that it's got higher sample variation. Don't try to squirm your way out of it.
You obviously didn't read the whole thread you refer to, which isn't surprising (we know you). If you want more demonstrable examples of a misaligned sample of that lens, there are more solid ones around :
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24mm-f1-8-s-review/4/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/49054663961/in/album-72157711750961742/
Add to that the easily debunkable claim that there is a necessary causal relationship between the use of plastic (what makes you think that the 24mm 1.8 G is any different BTW ? ) or the manufacturing locality and build quality and we're only short of any mention of 3D something to have your best combo of cretinous assertions. I'm giving you 8/10, this is a good trolling effort from you.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2019 at 18:27 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Looks just like a 24/1.8G except that it apparently has a higher risk of being de-centered thanks to its cheaper build quality. What a great reason to upgrade to Z! /s

One only needs to look at that :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/49054661136/in/album-72157711750961742/
vs
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38912116@N00/21497795668/in/album-72157658641657688/
Or that :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/49054665421/in/album-72157711750961742/
vs
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasrubach/21659693746/in/album-72157658641657688/
to quickly realise that, as usual, fPrime’s opinion is as well informed as your average Daily Mail reader.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2019 at 17:02 UTC
Total: 652, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »