brendon1000

brendon1000

Lives in India India
Has a website at www.brendonshootspeople.com
Joined on Feb 7, 2009

Comments

Total: 2056, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Akpinxit: I struggle to understand what is so good in such blurry F2.8 images ?

Lol I have been a bokeh fan for 7 years now. Don't see myself stopping anytime soon.

I love how some so called photographers feel just because they don't shoot in a particular way or don't like a particular look it automatically becomes something bad and unworthy. :p

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 04:44 UTC
In reply to:

MarioV: Here's what you do:
Take all 3 lenses, take the exact same photo, process them from raw and remove the exif.
I doubt there would be any real difference despite the usual proclamation for either brand.

It comes down to a lot of other factors like AF, build quality, service, long term compatibility, resale value etc.

Sigma is good VFM. But when the price is barely $400 away from the Canon 24-70mm then I think a lot of people would pay the difference since you get much higher resale value, better AF, guaranteed compatibility etc with the oem lens.

It becomes a lot tougher decision with the Nikon version since $1100 is a massive difference.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 04:41 UTC
In reply to:

Hasa: What`s all the fuss about a 65mm FF macro lens? For outdoors a 70-200mm F4 + fully electronic extension tube - is perfectly adequate, if the glass is good. Dreamy bokeh? I guess any long lens will probably be OK if used in macro. This was shot at nominal F13. And nothing wrong with the bokeh. "Nominal" because the F numbers really go up if you go close, but maybe the D800 shows the correct F, I am not sure and it doesn`t make any diff to me either.
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6268509557/photos/2661251/f01_7751_svirreflue_1
...and for portraits AF is nice if using F2.

I used to use my 70-200mm with a 25mm tube for good results. But if a large butterfly came along then I couldn't focus reliably on that. Hence I stopped using that combo altogether.

You obviously have different needs and since you don't see the usefulness of f2 then obviously you can't see the usefulness of this lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 08:10 UTC
In reply to:

melgross: Well, other than the company’s Marketing work, we don’t know anything about how good this will really be. It might be great, or it might be MeH.

It’s interesting that it’s just for the Sony. Why? Because both Canon and Nikon already have great macro lenses in this, or a similar length. So why bother to be compared directly with them?

So is this lens corrected primarily for macro? While manufacturers can do better these days with internal focus over the entire range, it still matters, or there would be no need for a specialized macro. They’re claiming it’s a great general purpose lens too. Can’t be optimized for both. And don’t almost all lenses these days have at least one aspheric element, and many two or three? And high index glasses?

And I question f2 for macro. We can’t get enough depth of field for that as it is. And truly, how useful is a prime 65mm lens on FF?

So while I suppose Sony users will be jumping up,and down about this, for the rest of us, it’s - big deal.

This lens is made only for Sony and not for canon or Nikon simply because it isn't designed to work on a DSLR system at all.

Its based on an old lens that was designed for rangefinder systems and it has been re designed for digital and for Sony E mount. It won't fit or work at all on Sony DSLR A mount system either.

You need very different design for DSLR lenses and mirrorless lenses.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 UTC
In reply to:

Hasa: What`s all the fuss about a 65mm FF macro lens? For outdoors a 70-200mm F4 + fully electronic extension tube - is perfectly adequate, if the glass is good. Dreamy bokeh? I guess any long lens will probably be OK if used in macro. This was shot at nominal F13. And nothing wrong with the bokeh. "Nominal" because the F numbers really go up if you go close, but maybe the D800 shows the correct F, I am not sure and it doesn`t make any diff to me either.
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6268509557/photos/2661251/f01_7751_svirreflue_1
...and for portraits AF is nice if using F2.

@Hasa I agree some people don't like blurry backgrounds but a lot of people do. This lens let's you do both. And if it is as sharp as the manufacturer claims then you don't need to stop down for sharpness but can shoot wide open. Great for when the lights are low like at twilight.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 10:19 UTC
In reply to:

TFD: I can't tell if recycling a 50 year old optical design is a good thing or a bad thing.

Part of me thinks that this is a short cut, dust off an old optical design, create a little marketing hype cache, and it is manual focus.

I don't have much opinion on the old optical design. If it's very sharp wide open I doubt that will matter much if it is a tweaked old design or something brand new.

However while I don't care for MF lenses, voightlander seems to be a company that is focusing purely on MF lenses only regardless of mount. So any future voightlander would most likely remain MF only

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13 UTC
In reply to:

GarysInSoCal: WOW... looks like that monster weights TEN POUNDS!... I'll take my much lighter and very sharp Nikon 85 F1.8 over that any day... ;)

Lol Gary decided to further show his ignorance !!!! Wow. Guess he forgot one was a macro lens and the other one well isn't :P

I guess he also figures that the Nikon 85mm f1.8 is an APO lens too ! :D

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 10:59 UTC
In reply to:

Hasa: What`s all the fuss about a 65mm FF macro lens? For outdoors a 70-200mm F4 + fully electronic extension tube - is perfectly adequate, if the glass is good. Dreamy bokeh? I guess any long lens will probably be OK if used in macro. This was shot at nominal F13. And nothing wrong with the bokeh. "Nominal" because the F numbers really go up if you go close, but maybe the D800 shows the correct F, I am not sure and it doesn`t make any diff to me either.
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6268509557/photos/2661251/f01_7751_svirreflue_1
...and for portraits AF is nice if using F2.

You know just because a lens is a macro lens doesn't mean you can't use it to take other types of photos like say portraits or landscapes.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 09:21 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: If I were a spider, I sure would not sit still when this monster lens is pointed at me.

A little bug spray can go a long way into making sure your subjects never move ever again ! :)

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 09:19 UTC
In reply to:

GarysInSoCal: WOW... looks like that monster weights TEN POUNDS!... I'll take my much lighter and very sharp Nikon 85 F1.8 over that any day... ;)

^^ Its cool some people like Gary really want the world to see these their ignorance on display.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 09:16 UTC
On article Confirmed: Bowens is going out of business (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hanoise: The issue here is clear.
We are all choosing low cost over quality. Not just lighting, but with everything.
Everyone blames china for the damages it causes to quality companies and to quality period. But then, like a dog following the ball, we all go fetch our Chinese equivalent product because we "think" we are saving a lot.
What we are actually doing is paying MORE. Because we have to replace that Chinese equivalent much much sooner than the long lasting quality option.

Then companies go bust and we throw our arms up in the air and say: whose going to service our stuff?!

Well, why not get a Chinese company to service it....

The problem is Bowens is a quality product that smaller studios can afford.

A $400 cheap pair of Elinchroms will probably last a decade or so easily and costs a fraction of the cost of a Bowens head. You can buy some 10 pairs of Elinchroms for the cost of a decent pair of Bowens heads.

So unless you are making decent money from your studio set up it is hardly cost effective to spend so much money.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 17:49 UTC
In reply to:

xsamie: These are five reason to become a sysadmin.
There is only one reason to use a Mac -> not to become a sysadmin

Geekbench, Ryzen, CPUs, Ram speeds, render times, SLI, builds, stats -> that is all PC users talk about.

Most mac user don't even know how much ram they have, much less the speed of their memory.

Please prove me wrong: any PC photographers that are not advanced windows users? Are you the guy that people come to for "fixing" issues.

I used to be, when I was in the pc world. No more

^^ Totally agree. I am a hardcore PC guy. My PC is where I game and work but I have a macbook for backup. Don't like the OS or anything much BUT it just works. Have it for 6 years and still runs very fast. When it dies I will pick up another macbook for backup. But my main working station will always be a PC

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 07:50 UTC
In reply to:

john Clinch: I've never used any of these cameras. I bet they are all great in their own way. I see no evidence that the conclusions here are wrong.

But I do think the term "cropped" seems wrong.

You can argue that the D500 is cropped in that its a smaller sensor than the mount allows. But the Fuji and Olympus aren't a crop of anything. They are just systems build round a certain size sensor.

Should the could be called "medium size sensors". "APs-c and mft" or just a linear dimension or area range

Its considered crop cameras simply because those sensors are smaller than 35mm which is merely a standard chosen decades ago.

You can easily use lenses designed for 35mm sensors on any of the above cameras and none of their sensors them will cover the coverage of the lens.

Its a term used for easier understanding.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 18:47 UTC
On article Review: Nikon D7500, speed and capability (537 comments in total)
In reply to:

rhurani: On the articulating display: I have a camera with such display; I glued it to prevent its articulation

So you don't use an articulating screen? Guess everyone doesn't use it either

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 12:20 UTC
On article Review: Nikon D7500, speed and capability (537 comments in total)
In reply to:

JoaoPedroAB: I do like your tests but I have a remark on them. I am a big fan of Jpeg files. Even though, in theory, raw files can allow better results, in a large number of cases that I tested, the differences are really negligeable. Then, when you present pictures in raw 'treated to taste' (and of course they are much better than Jpegs 'directly out of the camera') you induce that jpeg is much worse than raw. I proposed that you present the 'jpeg treated to taste' too. Readers would see that they may be even better than the raw one, in several cases.

While I do agree in some aspects JPEG are about as good as raw you can't do better JPEG than raw since JPEG is derived from the raw file itself.

So basically you can get 100% of raw or less. You can't really get better since raw!

And while you can get close to JPEG results you can also get much worse results if you have clipped highlights or shadows.

Landscape photographers in general will laugh at your suggestion to shoot JPEG since the dynamic range of landscapes are generally more than what the sensor can capture.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
On article Review: Nikon D7500, speed and capability (537 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruekon: The comparison table under Intro&body seems to ignore the display resolution: the D500 has outstanding 2.36M-dot, compared to about 1M-dot of all others. This is very valuable for checking focus directly in the camera and should qualify the D500 for a green entry.

Also the magnification of the view finder is missing in the table: 1.0x for D500 compared to 0.94x for D7500/D7200, 0.95x for 80D and only 0.7x for A6500! 1.0x makes you forget about the cropping, whereas 0.7x cropped places the photographer out of the scene onto a rear seat in the audience.

Specs aren't everything you know. The Sony magnification is given as per FF. In APS-C terms it is 1.07x which is much bigger than the d500 viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 04:37 UTC
In reply to:

plusalpha: I can't understand why someone should buy this camera. Its definition is "entry level ff dslr". It costs like a E-M1 Mark II and there is no comparison. It's our fault cause we are too tied to the idea of the full frame camera as the only system with enough quality to be professional. But today full frame means also full weight, full size and huge lenses. Last year I sold my D810 with all the lenses after something like 20 years with Nikon and with something like 3k€ I do weddings, events, nature and street photography with a light and indestructible camera with small lenses. In my humble opinion Nikon and Canon are years back and they have to rethink to the mirrorless offer because IT IS the future.

^^ if the em1 is the Ford then the Canon 6d is the Ferrarri after it collided with a truck and has just one wheel :p

Honestly the EM-1 has 100% more card slots than the Canon!

The Canon does come back very strongly and smashes the em1 in the size and weight department as the 6d looks like it ate the em1 for breakfast lunch and dinner!

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

hansip87: As an a6300 owner, i do wonder if going with A7ii will be considered as an upgrade or downgrade in spec/quality dept? Of course it's going to be a lot more expensive but i don't want to talk about price here, only the overall quality (i.e. AF speed, ISO speed). Anybody has an opinion on this matter?

Hi. You are most welcome ! :)

I am a small time pro and so I have three cameras with me - A7, A7 II and A7rII. The A7 gets hardly any usage though. I feel the A7 II is a significant enough upgrade to the A7.

Adapted lenses is not the best solution for Sony and there are quite a few that don't work too well.

However most of the newer ones work just fine. You get decent (but not great) focusing speed. However for the most part focusing is very usable. Just don't use tracking too much.

My usage of Canon lenses are very limited. I used a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II which worked beautifully with the A7rII, a Sigma 50mm f1.4 which also worked well but did freeze after a while and a Sigma 24-105mm f4 ART which also worked very well.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 16:49 UTC

Bad news for xqd card users if Lexar is discontinued.

That would leave just Sony as the sole manufacturer of xqd cards. Never a nice thing to have a sole manufacturer. Sony will not have any real incentive to price their subsequent cards at good prices in the absence of competition from Lexar.

And since Sandisk is supporting the competing CFast cards I don't think Sandisk will enter the xqd market

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 04:56 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
On article Finishing the line: Nikon 28mm F1.4E ED sample gallery (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: I wonder if Sigma will now make a 28mm f1.4 Art lens that offers better image quality and sells for $899.

;)

^^ For pros of course it makes perfect sense to go with Nikon lenses as the reliability is paramount.

However for an amateur its a very hard price to digest. The Nikon 28mm f1.8 is also available but its performance is nice but not great. Sigma art lenses are very good performers at almost half the price.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 16:19 UTC
Total: 2056, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »