Mike99999

Joined on Feb 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 550, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Bambi24: .
Sony is a tech company.
Canon is a photography company.

Sony wants to sell sensors.
Canon wants to sell cameras.

Sony users love specs.
Canon users love photography.

Sony is an insurance company and Canon is a printer company. Both are Japanese consumer electronics companies, of which one had a better marketing campaign to fool you otherwise.

If you are going to come with this "pure photography" spiel, then you should be using Leica and Zeiss exclusively.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 05:45 UTC
On article Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM sample gallery (101 comments in total)

The bokeh on this lens is outstanding. I'll be trading in my 70-400 G2 for this one.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 15:05 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM sample gallery (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: At just $1,800, PanLeica's 100-400 is starting to look like a bargain. It's slower at the long end, but brighter at the wide end.

That PanaLeica lens is extremely soft. You get what you pay for.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

gbvalli: Will they offer for free a trolley to carry it ? Why cameras even more light and small, and lenses instead even more large and heavy ?

@gbvalli: Same reason why there exist ultra-thin 15" MacBooks: people want the 15" screen but they still want to shave off as much bulk as possible.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: I 'd like this hands-on to give me a hint on how they managed the weight reduction.

@oriomenoni: then why is the Loxia 21 so much smaller than the Milvus 21? Same story for the Batis 18 and Milvus 18. The FE 28/2 also walks circles around the Nikon 28/1.8 while being significantly smaller.

No, mirrorless lenses don't need to be retrofocal, they just need the appropriate optical corrections. Just have a look at the Zeiss Loxia 35/2 vs. 35/2 ZM to get the idea.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 15:47 UTC

The obvious choice is missing: A7 + 35/2.8

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 20:48 UTC as 101st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: The rusted on gear heads in here are are still dissecting mirrorless sales from DSLR figures. If you're going to look at it that way, smartphones also qualify as mirrorless cameras. That probably shrinks DSLR sales figures to less than 1% of the camera pie.

Mirrorless is not the only future. Very soon the big camera makers will release full frame cameras with hybrid viewfinders. I personally still want to be able to frame a picture before I have to switch the camera on.

Yes and no.

The future is the removal of any mechanical parts... mirrors... shutters...

"I personally still want to be able to frame a picture before I have to switch the camera on."

???

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 12:37 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (557 comments in total)
In reply to:

eno2: The image quality is disappointing, probably around 1/3-1/2 stops better than A6500.
I was expecting, much more out of the latest and most expensive Sony camera to date. :(

Image samples on other sites look a lot more impressive.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 21:02 UTC

If people would correctly use F-stop for aperture (and its equivalence) and T-stop for light gathering, then there wouldn't be a need for the equivalency police.

The Olympus 25/1.2 has a max. T-stop of T/1.8.
The Sony 100/2.8 STF has a max. T-stop of T/5.6

There's no point in using aperture equivalences for light gathering. It is just senseless. The aperture equivelences (as posted by DPR) are useful for the resulting image one can achieve - just like the equivalent focal length.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 07:20 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

ramonjsantiago: "85mm F1.2 is equivalent to 67mm F0.95"
How is that? Maybe its equivalent to to a 67mm F1.2.

Stop using F-stop for light gathering! You must use T-stop.

The aperture equivalence is correct.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 07:15 UTC
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: 85mm F/1.2 equivalent to 67mm f/0.9 for DOF, but F/1.2 = F/1.2 for exposure regardless of focal length. Of course, the actual T stop may vary between lenses of the same F-stop.
Sorry to state the obvious, but it does seem to be an on-going confusion. I wish stories would explicitly say 'DOF equivalence'. Would save a lot of posting. <g>

False. Only T-stop (transmission) is relevant for exposure. The total light exposed is T-stop integrated over sensor surface and over exposure time. Everything else is nonsense. This is why larger sensors have better noise performance at the same T-stop.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 07:12 UTC
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (767 comments in total)

For all of us wildlife photographers who have been flying around in small planes, lugging backpacks up mountains: yes, this camera will be enough.

Stuffing two bodies and various lenses in a hand luggage-accepted backpack is always a challenge.

Sony A7 bodies made a huge difference, this A9 packs even more performance. 1.4 kg for a 100-400 is great. Add a lightweight 300mm and/or 400mm and Sony is in business.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 09:51 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

AstroStan: "without it, the overall market would have experienced a 2% decrease year"

That statement is unsupported by the actual data presented and almost certainly incorrect. Absent Sony, most of those sales likely would have gone to Canon, Nikon, etc.

@Eugene232: False. Zero full frame camera sales would have gone to Olympus, Panasonic, or Fuji as these brands do not have any full frame cameras for sale.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 21:07 UTC
In reply to:

OhWeh: In two years Nikon will be number 4 behind Sony and Olympus. At all formats.

Olympus? Micro four thirds is dead...

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 21:04 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Free Jazz: We'd better call the theory "equivalent total exposure", not "equivalent aperture".

even "len aperture diameter" or “pupil entrance” might be a way better name than "equivalent aperture".

"equivalent relative aperture" is correct: f-stops are relative aperture, relative to the focal length, so they should scale with the equivalence.

However, we'd better stop equating "aperture" to "light transmission", because they are not the same thing. Many fast M43 lenses transmit only a fraction of what they promise with their f-stop.

Olympus 25mm F1.2 --> T/1.8
PanaLeica 42.5mm F1.2 --> T/1.7

A lens has a light transmission (T-stop) projected onto a surface area. To get the total amount of light, one needs to integrate this transmission over the surface area.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 15:24 UTC
On article Zeiss formally announces Batis 135mm F2.8 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: So many moronic comments on this page - too big, too slow, overpriced, paying for the blue badge etc..

If only the lens designers at Zeiss knew as much as you guys eh? They could have made it smaller and a lot faster!

Why don't you try emailing them your lens schematics? Maybe chuck in some suggestions for where to use aspheres or air spaces and what kind of substrates they could go with. Ways they could polish the elements to cut down on light scatter...

I'm sure the guys at Zeiss/Tamron/Cosina or whoever throws this Zeiss junk together would be pleased to get your designs. They haven't got a clue, right?

Early indications are that the optical quality of this lens is astounding, but I'm sure you guys could do better.

Batis 18, 25, and 85 are all patented by Tamron. Google it.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 10:03 UTC
On article Zeiss formally announces Batis 135mm F2.8 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: So many moronic comments on this page - too big, too slow, overpriced, paying for the blue badge etc..

If only the lens designers at Zeiss knew as much as you guys eh? They could have made it smaller and a lot faster!

Why don't you try emailing them your lens schematics? Maybe chuck in some suggestions for where to use aspheres or air spaces and what kind of substrates they could go with. Ways they could polish the elements to cut down on light scatter...

I'm sure the guys at Zeiss/Tamron/Cosina or whoever throws this Zeiss junk together would be pleased to get your designs. They haven't got a clue, right?

Early indications are that the optical quality of this lens is astounding, but I'm sure you guys could do better.

" I prefer what Zeiss can produce, be it with the Loxia or Batis range."

So far all the Batis have been designed and produced by Tamron.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 06:43 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Hands-on with new Voigtländer E-mount primes (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dimijis: Can someone enlighten me as to why a manual lens that communicates EXIF data is such a big advantage ?
Will it make me better pictures ? will it get me more clients ? or make my life overall more fulfilled ?
Coz I would argue that a lens void of any electronics that can fail is more of an advantage.

https://dominik-photography.com/
DOMINIK

Automatic magnification when focusing is a big plus. Communicating the focal length and focus distance also makes IBIS less tedious to configure.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2017 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: Its a great pity Cosina don't offer them in other mirror-less mounts too. Why not Fuji, MFT and Canon M? Those of us who would like to use them will have to adapt the old Leica M mount lenses they already have out. For me personally the Apo Lanthar 65/2 is the most interesting of the three. I'm not sure if that will even be available in Leica M mount either.

These are full frame lenses. Canon, Fuji, MFT don't have full frame mirrorless. If anything, they could release them for the PanaLeica SL.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 07:15 UTC
In reply to:

panchorancho: Why bother making these in E mount? I'd rather have them in Leica M mount that way you can adapt them to different cameras. Buying MF glass solely for a Sony body seems like a waste of money.

@villagranvicent: so then according to your logic why would anyone want to buy dedicated M-mount glass? Because if you buy Canon EF-mount lenses, then you can use it on your Canon DSLR, on your Sony A7, and on your Leica. Yeah, who is crazy enough to buy dedicated M-mount glass... makes no sense whatsoever.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 07:07 UTC
Total: 550, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »