Erik Magnuson

Lives in United States Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Has a website at http://www.pbase.com/maderik
Joined on Dec 29, 2000
About me:

This is what I'd like to appear on my public 'posters (sic)
profile.'

Comments

Total: 266, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

NilsBV: Prices for those orphaned Sigma-mount lenses on eBay might suddenly go up, now that they are being given a new lease on life.

Sorry, it says right on the adapter "Designated lenses only". So unless the orphan is an Art, Sport or Contemporary it's not gonna be supported.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Only two important questions.... 1 will it work on the original A7.... and 2 will it work with non Sigma glass? If the answer to either question is no, kinda useless....

Correction: 15 lenses including the new 50-100. The other 4 lenses in the "Global Vision" count are already E mount.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

Roman Korcek: Say I would like to have the 50-100 mm in Alpha mount. Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma Mount Conversion Service?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/mount-conversion-service

You cannot get a mount conversion until that lens & mount are already a product option.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

Mark K: Is this adapter functions as both ways, to adapt both EF mount lenses and SA mount lenses to Sony E/FE mount cameras?

There are two different versions: one for SA mount lenses and one for EF mount Sigma lenses. The metal flange is different between EF and SA (but the registration distance and electronics are compatible)

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:08 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Only two important questions.... 1 will it work on the original A7.... and 2 will it work with non Sigma glass? If the answer to either question is no, kinda useless....

No, it won't work with *any* SA mount lens, only the latest 19 (And counting) Global vision lenses. Says "Designated Sigma Lenses Only" right on the side. So my old SA 50mm macro or 18-125mm will not be supported.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:02 UTC
In reply to:

Eigenmeat: hey there DPR, do you know if this will work with Tamron EF mount and Canon EF mount lenses?

The article says it only works with the Sigma Global Vision line of lenses (currently 19 lenses and will be updateable for future lenses.) So it won't even support many older Sigma lenses much less Tamron or Canon. That's the point of the LED display - to tell you if a lens is supported. Sigma is not in the adapter business; they want you to buy Sigma lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: With these types of lenses the need for full frame bodies will diminish.........

The announcement price of the Sigma 70-200mm EX DG OS HSM was $1699. But even at the current $1399-$250 "savings" price, how much does that (unofficial estimated US price difference) $350 get you towards an FF body? If you need the longer reach and this lens omits OIS then the comparison is irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: With these types of lenses the need for full frame bodies will diminish.........

Think about the price difference between a D500 or 7D2 plus this lens vs the FF equiv body & lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

Bob A L: Is sigma lying about the f1.8 - article says it performs like a f2.8 - one whole stop off?

At low ISO, the primary reason to use f/1.8 is depth of field - which exactly matches equivalence theory for f/2.5 for the same framing and shooting distance for an FF sensor. And if you are shooting in low light 50mm, f/1.8, 1/100 @ ISO 3200 on APSC looks essentially identical to 75mm, f/2.5, 1/100 @ ISO 6400 on FF. Funny how that works out.

So the lens is always a 50-100mm F/1.8. It will produce images that look similar to a 75-150mm F/2.5 on FF.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 05:26 UTC
In reply to:

2eyesee: It's not the focal length that creates the unflattering perspective wide angle lenses gives to faces, but the distance to subject, and the only shots in this video that really work for me are the half/full body portraits where photographer is not so close to the subject. Exceptions are the ones of children, who have flatter faces, and if the subject has their face turned to the side somewhat.

The 85-135mm focal lengths for 'standard' portraits only applies to your classic head-and-shoulders portrait, and I don't see anything here to suggest that this type of portraiture can work at such wide focal lengths.

It's the protruding noses I find really unpleasant. Maybe 50mm would be a better compromise? The photographer a bit further back to reduce the unflattering perspective, but still wide enough to capture some background.

Interesting video though and does get me thinking more about what makes a good portrait. I appreciate Rishi's 'perspective' :)

Whether the "output is pleasing" depends on who you wish to please. Obviously you are satisfied and just as obviously others are not. What you are battling is decades of portrait style with more compressed perspective and centuries of (western) characterization of big nose=bad, petite turned up nose=good. Since you know the models, you are easily able to mentally adjust for the perspective but other viewers may not. I can imagine one or two of this style in a session or portfolio but without seeing other perspectives the disadvantages are reinforced.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Nice job pointing out and being mindful of the distortion between 24mm and 35mm, but way too many shots here where the horizon cuts through the models head and/or where the model is smack bang in the center of the shot.

@N135F2DC Alex did not miss the point - he's pointing out why he thinks the point was not made. It's called opinion. You like this style or you don't or perhaps you think it was not appropriate to this session. Notice how there are fewer comments on the other examples of Rishi's wedding work in the video that don't have a single centered person or a horizon.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 01:27 UTC
In reply to:

2eyesee: It's not the focal length that creates the unflattering perspective wide angle lenses gives to faces, but the distance to subject, and the only shots in this video that really work for me are the half/full body portraits where photographer is not so close to the subject. Exceptions are the ones of children, who have flatter faces, and if the subject has their face turned to the side somewhat.

The 85-135mm focal lengths for 'standard' portraits only applies to your classic head-and-shoulders portrait, and I don't see anything here to suggest that this type of portraiture can work at such wide focal lengths.

It's the protruding noses I find really unpleasant. Maybe 50mm would be a better compromise? The photographer a bit further back to reduce the unflattering perspective, but still wide enough to capture some background.

Interesting video though and does get me thinking more about what makes a good portrait. I appreciate Rishi's 'perspective' :)

Journalism is rarely about flattery and shooting pretty young women in a field is not often journalism. Whether a "big nose" is going to be remarkable is very different between the two. The intamacy argument is more compelling for this situation but would these models choose any of these images - particularly the 24mm - for their portfolio?

Yes, you can do portraiture even with 35mm, 24mm, 12mm or a fisheye. Sometimes you need to break "the rules" to stand out or stretch your creative limits; other times it's to remind yourself why the rules have come into existence in the first place.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 01:13 UTC

What's missing from the video is a comparison to the look using a similar framing & style with 50-70mm. While a perspective comparison was not relevant to producing the 24-35mm lens samples, it would have made the video better.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 16:56 UTC as 112th comment
On article Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

zakk9: These statistics are misleading. USA represents only 17.58% of the mirrorless market (April 2015). Worldwide, that market has changed very little the last 12 months and is still just around a third of the DSLR market. This is marketing from Sony's side. Nothing wrong with mirrorless cameras (unless one needs a DSLR), but showing the whole picture sometimes gives another impression.

It's still rather small: MILC was 15% of ILCs by units, 14% by value in Americas for Jan-Apr 2015. 15% by units, 17% by value for Jan-Dec 2014.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 18:59 UTC
On article Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

zakk9: These statistics are misleading. USA represents only 17.58% of the mirrorless market (April 2015). Worldwide, that market has changed very little the last 12 months and is still just around a third of the DSLR market. This is marketing from Sony's side. Nothing wrong with mirrorless cameras (unless one needs a DSLR), but showing the whole picture sometimes gives another impression.

Only if it continues. Was this merely an expression of pent-up demand for premium MILC vs. lack of compelling new DLSRs in parts of 2014? We'll know in early 2016.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 18:35 UTC
On article Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

zakk9: These statistics are misleading. USA represents only 17.58% of the mirrorless market (April 2015). Worldwide, that market has changed very little the last 12 months and is still just around a third of the DSLR market. This is marketing from Sony's side. Nothing wrong with mirrorless cameras (unless one needs a DSLR), but showing the whole picture sometimes gives another impression.

It simply means the mirrorless product introductions of the last 12 months contained cameras that had more appeal to Americans (hemispherically speaking) than the 12 months from May 2013 to Apr 2014. They are only misleading if you have a predilection towards being mislead or that past performance is always a sure-fire predictor of future performance.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 17:26 UTC
On article Field Test: Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 DN lenses (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

LarryLatchkey: Btw., are these technically idenical to the ones on the Sigma cameras? That would allow for some conclusions about those...

Different formulas as the DP lenses protrude into the body and have in-lens shutters.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2015 at 15:41 UTC
On article Lytro plans to shed jobs as it shifts focus to video (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: I think that PP focus point change is useful but I can't imagine average shooter is going to bother with post-processing who actually make up the bulk of camera sales also considering the ever increasing use of phonecameras. But for the enthusiast and pro video shooter it can be a valuable facility in hand. But again producing a video system which includes movie quality lenses will be very expensive operation that has to compete with established brands and systems. Good luck to them. They have a very steep hill to climb.

The current 4MP output has lower sharpness and resolution than a conventional 4MP camera. How much less? The previous version was less than 1/3 the output frame height in actual resolution. Extrapolated to the Ilium sensor, there would not be 1080 lines of detail.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:14 UTC
On article Lytro plans to shed jobs as it shifts focus to video (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: I guess in video surveillance there is a bit more demand / use for lytro's tec.
Well my best guess is that the "additional 50m$ funding" and the shift to video is coming from that distinct market by investors from security / defense stuff..
To a big investor / group 50mio$ isn't that much.

For photography, hate to say it - but the product was doomed from day one.
interesting proof of concept maybe - maybe a nice niche product for artists to play with - but certainly nothing "productive". (or at least I have not heard of a single Pro who went and bought any Lytro to use professionally, maybe to play around with in their spare time...)

And how many casual sports photographers are using 4K video for stills? 4K video is highly compressed compared to Lytro raw and can be reviewed at 30 FPS.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 21:56 UTC
On article Lytro plans to shed jobs as it shifts focus to video (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: I think that PP focus point change is useful but I can't imagine average shooter is going to bother with post-processing who actually make up the bulk of camera sales also considering the ever increasing use of phonecameras. But for the enthusiast and pro video shooter it can be a valuable facility in hand. But again producing a video system which includes movie quality lenses will be very expensive operation that has to compete with established brands and systems. Good luck to them. They have a very steep hill to climb.

I'm assuming 1920x1080 with sharpness in the ballpark of current cameras. Say 720 lines actual. The only Lytro resolution numbers i've found published was just over 300 lines for the 1080x1080 camera. The current Illium frame size is actually a bit too small even if redistributed to 16:9 format.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 21:45 UTC
Total: 266, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »