babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 326, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Daspletosaurus: Adorama's listing it for $2600. For comparison, the Canon 70-200 is currently selling for $1950 - 4% credit, so about $1875. The Nikon 70-200 is going for $2100 - 2% credit, so let's call it $2050. I'd love to know what is it about the Sony that justifies a 30% price premium.

@Daspletosaurus: it's true that modern zooms can be as sharp as primes....a very nice turn of events. One can buy a Sigma 85/1.4 for $1100 and use Sigma's adapter for Canon to Sony mount. One can also find a mint Zeiss Contax 85/1.4 for $1000 and use a $25 adapter. Or a not quite mint copy of that lens for $600. If the 1.4 is anything like my C/Y 85/2.8, it would be a killer lens, certainly up to providing great images on modern sensors. And when shooting portraits, manual focusing lenses are OK.

I see your point, but one is not restricted to Sony lenses. I don't have any Sony lenses, because frankly they are too expensive for my budget. Cheers, BAB

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

Daspletosaurus: Adorama's listing it for $2600. For comparison, the Canon 70-200 is currently selling for $1950 - 4% credit, so about $1875. The Nikon 70-200 is going for $2100 - 2% credit, so let's call it $2050. I'd love to know what is it about the Sony that justifies a 30% price premium.

Portrait shooters use f/1.4 primes that cost a lot less than $2600, are a whole lot lighter, and a whole lot sharper.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 01:51 UTC
In reply to:

Daspletosaurus: Adorama's listing it for $2600. For comparison, the Canon 70-200 is currently selling for $1950 - 4% credit, so about $1875. The Nikon 70-200 is going for $2100 - 2% credit, so let's call it $2050. I'd love to know what is it about the Sony that justifies a 30% price premium.

I'd certainly head in that direction. I love f/4 zooms....lighter for one thing and less expensive for another.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Oh good, another Sony lens I can't afford. :)

Good idea! I can't imagine who buys these $2000 lenses. There can't be that many pros in the world hungering over yet another two-pound lens to carry around. Of course, I'm retired and priced out of most things already, so some of this might sound like sour grapes.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 23:37 UTC

Oh good, another Sony lens I can't afford. :)

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 23:21 UTC as 47th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

babart: Interesting, but I sure wish Sigma would make lenses for Sony a series of camera bodies.

You're right. I have adapters for Pentax and Contax C/Y lenses, as well as a Rokinon 14/2.8 in Sony mount for use on the a7. I use the a7 for architecture, which requires full-frame for shift lenses. To date I have no Sony lenses, which may sound strange to some, but I already have too many lenses, why not just use those?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 11:52 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Interesting, but I sure wish Sigma would make lenses for Sony a series of camera bodies.

Crazy, but somehow very modern. Old rules don't apply anymore. :)

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Interesting, but I sure wish Sigma would make lenses for Sony a series of camera bodies.

Oh, you're right! I remember reading about this adapter some time ago. Thanks.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 00:18 UTC

Interesting, but I sure wish Sigma would make lenses for Sony a series of camera bodies.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:20 UTC as 26th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

babart: I'm assuming that Sony's FE mount is just the E-mount on a full-frame sensor? E and FE are physically the same mount.....and actually lens adapters still refer to that mount as NEX. I wish Sony would clarify this for everyone, as these are physically all the same mounts, just with confusing names. A lens that provides full-frame field of view doesn't change when mounted on an APS-C camera.....it's the sensor that is different, providing a cropped view. It's the same mount, so why refer to each as being different? Not trying to be a pain in the neck, as I encountered this confusion when first buying adapters/lenses for the a7, and wish the distinction were more clear. The only other mount Sony uses is their A mount, and I believe that mount is APS-C only, although I could be wrong there. Cheers, bab.

Thanks for the update on the A mount. When I bought my first lens adapter for the a7 I had to Google the NEX mount to see if that would fit the E. Jees.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 21:32 UTC

I'm assuming that Sony's FE mount is just the E-mount on a full-frame sensor? E and FE are physically the same mount.....and actually lens adapters still refer to that mount as NEX. I wish Sony would clarify this for everyone, as these are physically all the same mounts, just with confusing names. A lens that provides full-frame field of view doesn't change when mounted on an APS-C camera.....it's the sensor that is different, providing a cropped view. It's the same mount, so why refer to each as being different? Not trying to be a pain in the neck, as I encountered this confusion when first buying adapters/lenses for the a7, and wish the distinction were more clear. The only other mount Sony uses is their A mount, and I believe that mount is APS-C only, although I could be wrong there. Cheers, bab.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies

Sigma rocks......and a welcome alternative to Sony lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 12:40 UTC as 26th comment

Nice addition to Sony's lens lineup. Moderate price, too. On full-frame, though, I wouldn't want a macro lens shorter than 90 or 100mm. 135 or even longer would be preferred, as the farther one can stay away from a macro subject the better.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 13:51 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

babart: Nice video, I must admit, and I can only imagine how nice it must be to afford $8000 worth of camera equipment.

OK, call it envy, but just once I'd very much enjoy seeing photos/videos of some spectacular place or event made with equipment most of us could afford to own.

Because most people couldn't afford this equipment. No offense, but you're missing the point.

Your comments, however, do ring true. I don't know this photographer.....maybe he worked his ass off to buy this equipment. How do I know? So the coincidence of this lovely video with my mini-tirade may not have been appropriate.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Nice video, I must admit, and I can only imagine how nice it must be to afford $8000 worth of camera equipment.

OK, call it envy, but just once I'd very much enjoy seeing photos/videos of some spectacular place or event made with equipment most of us could afford to own.

@Moon0326: I thought the video awesome, and never said anything different. My comments concern the continual promotion of artists that use expensive equipment and go to the extremes of the earth. Not that I don't enjoy seeing these, but when was the last time you saw beautiful photos of the Hudson Valley by someone that lives in New York and uses an inexpensive APS-C camera? I think that type of work is also valid and deserving of being shown. That said, I suspect my basic frustration is with the sour grapes of reduced income during retirement and being priced out of the market. Maybe I should keep that to myself. Thanks for the comment.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Nice video, I must admit, and I can only imagine how nice it must be to afford $8000 worth of camera equipment.

OK, call it envy, but just once I'd very much enjoy seeing photos/videos of some spectacular place or event made with equipment most of us could afford to own.

@Impulses: You have a good point. And I come here to see the gear.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Nice video, I must admit, and I can only imagine how nice it must be to afford $8000 worth of camera equipment.

OK, call it envy, but just once I'd very much enjoy seeing photos/videos of some spectacular place or event made with equipment most of us could afford to own.

@Poul Jensen: You've hit my weakness. I have a friend who is great at self-promotion, but when I watch the time and effort she spends on that I know I couldn't do the same. Necessary though it is. There are quieter ways.

A couple years ago, I stopped taking photos I thought others might want to buy, and opted for photos I wanted to show. To me It's the mind frame that produces work that might cause emotion in others, as it does in me. I know. Just another way to insure obscurity. But to me art comes from the heart, and it seems dishonest not to acknowledge that.

I trundle along, selling art pieces through small local galleries and aim photography at books and historical articles for local venues. I do, however, keep an eye out for tight sequences appropriate for Behance and others. I keep in touch with the Guild of Natural History Illustrators.

Very much enjoyed the trailer for Beneath the Aurora. Beautiful work.

Thanks for your comments,
BAB

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 14:21 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Nice video, I must admit, and I can only imagine how nice it must be to afford $8000 worth of camera equipment.

OK, call it envy, but just once I'd very much enjoy seeing photos/videos of some spectacular place or event made with equipment most of us could afford to own.

Thanks to both Poui Jensen and Yak 27. Jensen stated precisely what I intended, and would have if I had not allowed bitterness to color same. I've been a photographer since I was 13....that was 61 years ago. Today it seems that one must have lots of cash to get noticed, which was not always the case. There was a time when good photos and some personal drive were enough. Too, although most who visit here, including myself, love to see great work, much of that is done with the latest $$ and greatest $$ equipment, and how does that inspire someone with average camera gear?

Yak27 is absolutely right.....self-pity and envy do nothing to promote creative work.

Maybe my work just isn't good enough. Judge for yourself.....and note I do illustrations and fine art as well: http://www.brucebartrug.com/new-pagephotography/

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 02:50 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Nice video, I must admit, and I can only imagine how nice it must be to afford $8000 worth of camera equipment.

OK, call it envy, but just once I'd very much enjoy seeing photos/videos of some spectacular place or event made with equipment most of us could afford to own.

Many amateurs could not (should not?) afford such gear. I do real estate photography and I'm a stringer for a local newspaper and I'm currently photographing 18th and 19th century buildings in New England for a book I hope to publish.....I don't know if that qualifies me as a pro or not, and I don't care. Because I'm also retired.....wait til you stop working and see if you can afford 8kilobucks worth of hardware every couple years.

Too, I did NOT criticize his work. My criticism is aimed at DPR. Where are the great shots of amateur enthusiasts who, although they may not be able to afford equipment such as this, are still capable of producing interesting work. Very few DPR readers are pros.

As for comparing $8000 to Hollywood movies, you're in the same class with Justme above, who also wants to compare $8000 to the Hubble telescope and trips to the moon which both cost millions of dollars more than the most expensive Hollywood movie.

Sorry. Nothing personal.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 00:23 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Nice video, I must admit, and I can only imagine how nice it must be to afford $8000 worth of camera equipment.

OK, call it envy, but just once I'd very much enjoy seeing photos/videos of some spectacular place or event made with equipment most of us could afford to own.

@Justme: Everything you mentioned cost a lot more than $8000. You are correct, of course, but I don't see much of that every day greatness from reasonably priced equipment paraded on DPR, or anywhere, with glorious headlines. Nothing personal but I can't stand YouTube and never go there.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 20:08 UTC
Total: 326, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »