vadims

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Joined on Mar 10, 2006

Comments

Total: 747, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Rooru S: Proof that brand loyalty, general opinion, brand presence and concept association plays a key role in the photography business.

I don't consider Canon entry in mirrorless market as impressive, yet they're selling quite well.

I would like to see if DSLRs are still outselling mirrorless cameras...

> I would like to see if DSLRs are still outselling mirrorless cameras...

You'll find that info about half-way into the following article:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/cheap-cameras-more-shipment.html

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 00:57 UTC
In reply to:

vadims: In the comments to the recent "A letter from the Publisher" article by Scott Everett, the #1 request was "More lens reviews!"

I for one would be very interested in seeing these Leica lenses tested and, more importantly, compared to "ordinary" lenses; and not just with charts and numbers, but also using real-world scenes like this one (far from ideal for portrait lenses, but still capable of demonstrating resolving power etc.):

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-30mm-f-1-4-dc-dn-contemporary-lens-review/3

That would be fun...

@ecka84

50mm (or rather "normal" lenses, the ones with focal lengths close to frame diagonal) are the easiest to design... or maybe the hardest to screw up. :-) If one cannot get a good image with pretty much *any* 50mm [equivalent] lens, the problem is with him/her, not the lens.

About the only reason one would want shell out $1.3k for 50/2 MF Milvus is its built quality/finish... Years ago I bought Canon 50/1.8 for my daughter's SL1 and... well, there was very little pleasure in holding it. Optically though, it was every bit as good as my own Canon 50/1.4 (7 times more expensive), or pretty much any other normal lens.

Oh and BTW, this just in:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/5307945358/video-using-a-50-lens-on-a-12-500-5k-red-cinema-camera

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

vadims: In the comments to the recent "A letter from the Publisher" article by Scott Everett, the #1 request was "More lens reviews!"

I for one would be very interested in seeing these Leica lenses tested and, more importantly, compared to "ordinary" lenses; and not just with charts and numbers, but also using real-world scenes like this one (far from ideal for portrait lenses, but still capable of demonstrating resolving power etc.):

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-30mm-f-1-4-dc-dn-contemporary-lens-review/3

That would be fun...

@ecka84

One of the interesting tests that I've seen was $7,000 Leica 24/1.4 against $1,000 Sony/Zeiss 24/1.8 (not quite an "ordinary" lens, but still...) on NEX7.

Michael Reichmann of LuLa had to do the test twice, as first time Leica had been beaten to submission and MR concluded it just "did not work well on NEX7". But second test series showed that no, it did work, and quite well. But still not better than the Sony lens...

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 18:40 UTC
On article Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS sample gallery (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

G G: Apart from contrast and color are good, I cannot draw a conclusion from this gallery. In several pictures, it is hard to figure out what was intended to be in focus. However, photo 5 appeared to be in focus and DXO Photolab did a very good job fixing up everything.

> "In several pictures, it is hard to figure out
> what was intended to be in focus"

You're being generous... I'd say most pictures do very little (if anything at all) to help assess sharpness.

> "However, photo 5 appeared to be in focus and
> DXO Photolab did a very good job fixing up everything."

Yes, that (image #5), as well as ## 13 and 14, show that the lens is quite decent.

I like what I see there; it is better than I thought it would be.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 18:21 UTC
On article Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS sample gallery (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andrei C: Why so much hate ? I think the photos look great. What do you expect from a big zoom range, to shoot like a prime ? :)

> obviously there's MTF's and then there is reality

True -- in that reality check is always important.

But this Sony seems to be passing it with flying colors so far. Judging by these samples, I'd say that optically it sits between 18-200 LE and 16-70/4 (I have both).

And look how small and light it is: some 30mm shorter and almost twice as light as Olympus 12-100/4; 165g lighter and 10mm shorter than Fuji equivalent, etc.

I'll definitely buy this lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 17:59 UTC

In the comments to the recent "A letter from the Publisher" article by Scott Everett, the #1 request was "More lens reviews!"

I for one would be very interested in seeing these Leica lenses tested and, more importantly, compared to "ordinary" lenses; and not just with charts and numbers, but also using real-world scenes like this one (far from ideal for portrait lenses, but still capable of demonstrating resolving power etc.):

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-30mm-f-1-4-dc-dn-contemporary-lens-review/3

That would be fun...

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 03:35 UTC as 4th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

vFunct: Just say NO to mirrorless. They're terrible and only for casual amateur users due to their weaknesses and limitations compared to much more superior dSLRs with actual mirrors.

> Right, because mirrors are sooooo important. Hahaha.

It's not nice of you to laugh at that. Some people apparently cannot live without mirrors, you know. A form of disability.

You're a naughty, naughty person, T3...

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 at 07:44 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Just say NO to mirrorless. They're terrible and only for casual amateur users due to their weaknesses and limitations compared to much more superior dSLRs with actual mirrors.

> much more superior dSLRs with actual mirrors

Here is an idea: start callings MILCs "SLRs with fake mirrors". You know, like "fake bokeh" of those pesky mobile cameras that do not deserve to exist.

That will show'em who's the Boss, yeah!

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2018 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

silentstorm: Looking at the 55mm filter size & only 1 aspherical lens element, I'm going to do a KRW stunt saying this lens is poor optically. It's going to be another high distortion lens that relies heavily on software corrections, just like the 18-105mm.

What Sony needs is an upgrade lens E16-55mm/2.8 OSS. The longer range can be complimented with the FE70-300mm, & the FE90mm macro for closeup stuffs.

Fact check, just for the record...

> My 18-200 LE has 4 (!) aspherics and no LD elements

When I wrote that, I looked at DPR lens database, and it only listed, I quote, "4 aspheric surfaces" under "Optics / Special elements / coatings". And that is, apparently, wrong (* in that there are not only aspherics, but also LDs).

I just went to Sony site to compare MTFs and optical formulas of few lenses, and, surely enough, 18-200 LE does have two LD elements:

http://www.sony-asia.com/electronics/camera-lenses/sel18200le

See third chart to the right of "Refined optical performance" (one has to click on the third bullet below the picture to get to it) .

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2018 at 20:34 UTC
On article Huawei Mate 10 Pro camera review (163 comments in total)
In reply to:

daqk: I have iPhone8+ and Huaweis currently, I prefer Huawei.
Especially if you deal with indoor/low light or enjoy (fake) Bokeh which I do.

With MatePro10, I see myslef reach less to my DSLR or mirrorless - which is unfortunate to my investement$ LOL

Lots of the internet comments are just plain laughable maybe people need to try/operate the phone ...

By the way, Huawei literally killed Samsung and Lenovo phones in China and Mate line is not "cheap" especially Porsche design ones lol.

> Mate line is not "cheap" especially Porsche design ones

Mate line is excellent. One doesn't have to get Porsche version to enjoy premium quality.

I remember I liked packaging of my Mate 9, and thought included shell case was a nice touch... But the latter turned out to be much more than that -- it now lives on my phone (and BTW provides extra protection for the camera lens), even thought I never used cases before.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2018 at 18:58 UTC
On article Huawei Mate 10 Pro camera review (163 comments in total)

The following image was on the front page of Thom Hogan's site for several weeks up until few days ago:

http://www.bythom.com/_Media/bythom_int_ecuador_gal_11_med_hr-2.jpeg

It was taken using Nikon 70-300mm AF-P, and Thom challenged anyone to call it "not sharp"... Well, it does seem to be sharp, but that bokeh!!.. I'd take Gaussian blur over those mirror lens-style rings any day.

I wish the term "fake bokeh" is put to rest one day. Call it "simulated" or "computational" (or invent a new, shorter term other then "fake").

Bokeh quality of many shots taken with my Mate 9 matches or exceeds that of shots taken with conventional lenses. Yes, sometimes there are issues (sometimes even big issues), but look at the above-mentioned shot... It's time to do mobile phones' cameras some justice, esp. now that their quality improves with every iteration.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2018 at 17:39 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

PPierre: How could Canon have known ? Such a shame for the "photographer" on Unsplash, but it could have happened with any other brand... Btw, I'm not a huge fan of these composite pictures with sunset foreground (with streetlights on) and sunrise in the sky. When you go to the place and realise it can't ever happen and you won't ever have a similar view, since streetlights are off in the morning, you start hating those pictures. It's a bit of the same as those who make fake reflections : it can look awesome, but once you realise there's something amiss, you just start to find it disgusting.

It's an "honest mistake" (quote from the article), I would agree.

> How could Canon have known?

They would know if they took the picture themselves, or would otherwise more involved in the process.

To me, personally, this just illustrates how detached all those marketing people are from real photography. This mishap speaks more about marketing depts of pretty much all big companies in general than about Canon in particular.

For anyone who'd want to argue: explain to me how Sony could produce the horrible mess that is PlayMemories Mobile. My explanation: it was "designed" by their marketing ppl, with a list of checkboxes to tick on the spec sheet, and no understanding of how the app is going to be used WHATSOEVER.

When I think about today's marketing, the famous quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy (the one about the marketing dept of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation) invariably comes to mind....

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 19:37 UTC

> "But even if Kodak's numbers were correct,
> there's one other problem."

More than one other problem, actually: somebody have to pay for electricity, right?

It's like watching a train wreck. Good job, Kodak.

I guess all those "Nigerian princes" will be after personal info of the suckers who'll buy into this... Such a gold mine for them.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 18:06 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

silentstorm: Looking at the 55mm filter size & only 1 aspherical lens element, I'm going to do a KRW stunt saying this lens is poor optically. It's going to be another high distortion lens that relies heavily on software corrections, just like the 18-105mm.

What Sony needs is an upgrade lens E16-55mm/2.8 OSS. The longer range can be complimented with the FE70-300mm, & the FE90mm macro for closeup stuffs.

12-100/4 is nearly twice as heavy as 12-40/2.8. Yes, the former is twice as long, but the latter is twice as fast.

After seeing stellar (for such a zoom) reviews of 12-100/4, I was thinking about getting some compact MFT body and 12-100/4, just to use it as walk-around combo... But, after I noticed its weight, my enthusiasm vanished. And, now that Sony 18-135 is out, I think I'll be happier with it slapped to my a6000 or a6500 -- it's lighter than both Olympus lenses mentioned here!

> Why willing to compromise

Because everyone does it, everyone.

There are some stellar Leica and Zeiss lenses, but guess what, they are all hell of a compromise -- primes lacking both AF and OS. Often huge, too.

I wish Sigma would compromise more; I'm not a fan at all of their huge image circles that, yes, ensure better corners, but turn lenses into huge hunks of glass. I bought 30/1.4, but it's just about as big as I can tolerate... I'm afraid 16/1.4 is already not for me, alas.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 04:17 UTC
In reply to:

silentstorm: Looking at the 55mm filter size & only 1 aspherical lens element, I'm going to do a KRW stunt saying this lens is poor optically. It's going to be another high distortion lens that relies heavily on software corrections, just like the 18-105mm.

What Sony needs is an upgrade lens E16-55mm/2.8 OSS. The longer range can be complimented with the FE70-300mm, & the FE90mm macro for closeup stuffs.

@Everythingis1

I strongly believe "retarded" was totally uncalled for.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

silentstorm: Looking at the 55mm filter size & only 1 aspherical lens element, I'm going to do a KRW stunt saying this lens is poor optically. It's going to be another high distortion lens that relies heavily on software corrections, just like the 18-105mm.

What Sony needs is an upgrade lens E16-55mm/2.8 OSS. The longer range can be complimented with the FE70-300mm, & the FE90mm macro for closeup stuffs.

@silentstorm

I think I can see your point re: Olympus 12-40/2.8. Or rather I can understand you in your belief that the lens should be great, period. The lens itself, not just end result of the camera/lens combination.

I myself can get picky, at times. For instance, I recently bought Sigma 20/1.4 DN because... Well, it was shorter and faster than my Sony 35/1.8, but equally as important for me that I could not stand the look of the concave front element of the Sony lens. And it was somehow important for *me*.

That said, I'm not saying that 35/1.8 is "ugly", let alone "bad". In many respects, it's objectively better than 30/1.4, it's just not for me. I fully realize that it's just my personal taste is speaking; maybe even a quirk.

I'd suggest, if I may, that you refrain from far-reaching conclusions; please note that Photozone had to use unsupported RAW converter to "see" 8% distortion; regular users will never ever see it.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

silentstorm: Looking at the 55mm filter size & only 1 aspherical lens element, I'm going to do a KRW stunt saying this lens is poor optically. It's going to be another high distortion lens that relies heavily on software corrections, just like the 18-105mm.

What Sony needs is an upgrade lens E16-55mm/2.8 OSS. The longer range can be complimented with the FE70-300mm, & the FE90mm macro for closeup stuffs.

@Jefftan

He probably meant this:

http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240?start=1

12-40/2.8 has more than 8% of barrel distortion at 12mm. After auto-correction, it's less than 0.5%.

If I was using that lends, I would *not* be worried in the least.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 14:18 UTC
On article Have Your Say 2017: the winners (204 comments in total)
In reply to:

vadims: So, no Canon products in top-16, huh...

Since everybody here likes "look back" articles (right? right?..), I'm going to look back at the moment when *I* realized that it was time to move away from Canon.

First, two things acted like litmus paper for me: their stubborn denial to implement usable MLU, and that dreaded Print button on my 5Dmk2 that they did not allow users to re-program despite all the outcry. Those two things alone told me everything I needed to know: they wouldn't listen; they are a big corporate monster that would stick to their strategy to do just enough to keep users. I was getting quite some flack here at DPR for mentioning those things repeatedly; like, Canon was undisputed technological leader, what's the big freaking deal? Indeed, not that big a deal for many; though not for me: when you're using your camera with a telescope or a microscope (and I do both), MLU *is* a big deal.

(TBC)

@Goodmeme

I'd like to add a few things...

> "strap over my shoulder, and no bag or
> anything else getting in the way"

Well, that's me, too :-)

And when I'm walking like that, waiting for an opportunity, I learned to appreciate few things about ax000 ergonomics. It has become commonplace to slam Sony ergonomics, but it's in fact not bad at all -- at least, comparatively.

First thing you'd appreciate is position of the power switch. You grab your camera, and your index finger is on that switch, allowing you to turn the camera On immediately, not wasting any time.

Then there's that tilting screen. To me, it is way better than both fixed and fully articulated. I'm not into video (note I didn't mention 4k even once), so shooting from ground level or over the head is all I may need, occasionally; and tilting screen makes that faster and more convenient than anything else.

And I can go on and on. So not everything is "bad" as some may lead to believe; not at all.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 07:24 UTC
On article Have Your Say 2017: the winners (204 comments in total)
In reply to:

vadims: So, no Canon products in top-16, huh...

Since everybody here likes "look back" articles (right? right?..), I'm going to look back at the moment when *I* realized that it was time to move away from Canon.

First, two things acted like litmus paper for me: their stubborn denial to implement usable MLU, and that dreaded Print button on my 5Dmk2 that they did not allow users to re-program despite all the outcry. Those two things alone told me everything I needed to know: they wouldn't listen; they are a big corporate monster that would stick to their strategy to do just enough to keep users. I was getting quite some flack here at DPR for mentioning those things repeatedly; like, Canon was undisputed technological leader, what's the big freaking deal? Indeed, not that big a deal for many; though not for me: when you're using your camera with a telescope or a microscope (and I do both), MLU *is* a big deal.

(TBC)

@captura

I sort of answered your questions already: SL2 does not have VF and AF (in VF mode) even remotely comparable to those of a6x00 cameras.

Besides... I'm done with flapping mirrors. I'm done with Canon. I have zero brand loyalty, and if one day Sony starts playing Canon (today's Canon, the Canon that robs their users with Cinema line etc.), while Canon reinvents themselves and turns back into the Canon we knew during D30 and 1Ds days, I'll then have another look at what they'll have to offer.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 17:10 UTC
On article Have Your Say 2017: the winners (204 comments in total)
In reply to:

vadims: So, no Canon products in top-16, huh...

Since everybody here likes "look back" articles (right? right?..), I'm going to look back at the moment when *I* realized that it was time to move away from Canon.

First, two things acted like litmus paper for me: their stubborn denial to implement usable MLU, and that dreaded Print button on my 5Dmk2 that they did not allow users to re-program despite all the outcry. Those two things alone told me everything I needed to know: they wouldn't listen; they are a big corporate monster that would stick to their strategy to do just enough to keep users. I was getting quite some flack here at DPR for mentioning those things repeatedly; like, Canon was undisputed technological leader, what's the big freaking deal? Indeed, not that big a deal for many; though not for me: when you're using your camera with a telescope or a microscope (and I do both), MLU *is* a big deal.

(TBC)

> soo easy to use. Everything is logical.

I would agree.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 16:28 UTC
Total: 747, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »