T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 5192, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article DPReview TV: the Sony 400mm F2.8 is a pretty sweet lens (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: With this lens Sony has officially surpassed the dinosaurs Canon & Nikon in my opinion 😀

@Kandid - It's not a "me too lens". There's a lot under the hood you aren't considering. Sony's 400/2.8 uses linear focus actuators rather than conventional rotational focus like in Canon or Nikon lenses. This means the Sony lens is able to focus much faster, allowing Sony to maintain active focus at full 20fps, whereas Canon/Nikon telephotos max out at about 10-11 fps because they take longer to move the focusing element.

https://briansmith.com/lens-review-sony-fe-400mm-f2-8-gm-oss/
"Why is linear focus faster than conventional rotational focus? To picture how rotational focus works, imagine unscrewing a jar lid. The distance you must turn the cap is 5X the linear distance of travel to simply pull the cap off."

The difference in focusing speed of this lens is discussed here as well (2:00 into the video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkh00IOqhkg&t=151s

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 20:22 UTC
On article DPReview TV: the Sony 400mm F2.8 is a pretty sweet lens (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

riknash: I disagree with suggestion of a permanent Arca-swiss plate foot.. Rather prefer a 3rd party replacement foot with the builtin Arca-swiss plate allowing options for other types of mounts.

Although the lens is lighter than Canon/Nikon, those already in possession of them would be used to the muscle requirements to heft the lens about.
Sony has indeed made a very fine lens but still require other focal lengths to really round out their stable of long lenses. The 400mm can be too short in many situations.

I found the Sony lens to be really good at sun-flare situations, allowing decent contrast when direct sunlight would fill the lens barrel. That's important when photographing low light, back-lit subjects and wanting some detail instead ofa washed out haze. Not all long telephoto lens do that well.

Nice review by the twins! :)

@SmoothOperator - Telephoto lenses have image stabilization that will have a FAR greater impact on reducing motion blur caused by camera shake than any differences in weight. Plus, most of the time these telephotos will be used on a monopod, which also has FAR greater impact on motion blur than adding weight. And if you STILL want to add weight, it's a lot easier to add weight to a lens using sand, rocks, or dirt from wherever you are shooting at with a fillable bag like these: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Sandbags-Weight-Bags/ci/1373 than it is to take weight off of a lens that is already of a certain weight.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 19:15 UTC
On article DPReview TV: the Sony 400mm F2.8 is a pretty sweet lens (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

riknash: I disagree with suggestion of a permanent Arca-swiss plate foot.. Rather prefer a 3rd party replacement foot with the builtin Arca-swiss plate allowing options for other types of mounts.

Although the lens is lighter than Canon/Nikon, those already in possession of them would be used to the muscle requirements to heft the lens about.
Sony has indeed made a very fine lens but still require other focal lengths to really round out their stable of long lenses. The 400mm can be too short in many situations.

I found the Sony lens to be really good at sun-flare situations, allowing decent contrast when direct sunlight would fill the lens barrel. That's important when photographing low light, back-lit subjects and wanting some detail instead ofa washed out haze. Not all long telephoto lens do that well.

Nice review by the twins! :)

"Although the lens is lighter than Canon/Nikon, those already in possession of them would be used to the muscle requirements to heft the lens about."

People are always looking for better, lighter, faster, etc. As for weight and size, when you get older and you have the means, people definitely are willing to spend more for things that add convenience and comfort to one's life.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 18:25 UTC
On article DPReview TV: the Sony 400mm F2.8 is a pretty sweet lens (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosmicnode: Whilst this lens is 1kg lighter than the Canon and Nikon lenses it is not smaller than those lenses. Diameter and length of the Nikon is within 1.5mm, the Canon is slightly shorter amd 5mm bigger dia. Hardly a smaller package, lighter yes.

@cosmicnode - "All three lenses are almost identical it still takes up the same space for travel in a bag."

Don't forget that you also need to carry camera bodies. That's where a considerable space savings comes in. Even with the battery grip attached, Sony bodies take up less space for travel, not to mention saving weight as well.

https://www.photoxels.com/photography/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/canon1dxmarkii-nikond5-sonya9-feature-1140x355.jpg

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/03e690_c23d85b3afcf4aec960485e10411178f~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1260,h_630,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/03e690_c23d85b3afcf4aec960485e10411178f~mv2.jpg

This becomes even more significant if you travel with multiple bodies.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 17:43 UTC
On article DPReview TV: the Sony 400mm F2.8 is a pretty sweet lens (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosmicnode: Whilst this lens is 1kg lighter than the Canon and Nikon lenses it is not smaller than those lenses. Diameter and length of the Nikon is within 1.5mm, the Canon is slightly shorter amd 5mm bigger dia. Hardly a smaller package, lighter yes.

@cosmicnode - It's not just that the lens is lighter, but also where the weight is located. When the weight is farther forward, it will definitely feel heavier. That's not necessarily "imagination." It's normal perception as well as physics. For example, pick up a hammer and hold it out at arms length versus holding it closer to your body. Your arm will fatigue faster with the hammer held out from your body.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 17:14 UTC
On article DPReview TV: the Sony 400mm F2.8 is a pretty sweet lens (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

1Dx4me: unfortunately, 400mm FL is the starting FL for wild life! i am sure sony is working on longer FL but it'll take a LONGGGG time for sony to introduce longer FL primes for consumers! of course, one can use a TC with the existing sony 400 f2.8 and get an instant f5.6 800mm prime, which is not too bad but nothing like native 800 f 5.6 ;-) so, i am just repeating myself, it is not to blaming sony but it takes time to produce big time primes, such as canon and nikon's big primes!

Sony FE 500/4 and 600/4 are coming.

https://sonycamerarumors.net/sony-fe-500mm-f4-600mm-f4-gm-lenses-on-the-way/

https://www.sonyrumors.co/sony-fe-500mm-f4-fe-600mm-f4-lens-patents-spotted/

Chances are high that Sony will have it ready well before the 2020 Olympics. That is not "a LONGGGG time."

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 17:09 UTC
On article DPReview TV: the Sony 400mm F2.8 is a pretty sweet lens (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosmicnode: Whilst this lens is 1kg lighter than the Canon and Nikon lenses it is not smaller than those lenses. Diameter and length of the Nikon is within 1.5mm, the Canon is slightly shorter amd 5mm bigger dia. Hardly a smaller package, lighter yes.

It's lighter and less front heavy. As a result, I think it will feel a lot smaller in real life than it really is.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

miric: Canon 200/2L = 2600g/$5700
Fujifilm 200/2 = 2200g/$6000

There's "noticeable" MILC advantage 🤮

@io_bg -

Sony 12-24/4 vs Canon 11-24/4:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#192.449,713.662,ha,t

Sony 16-35/2.8 vs Canon 16-35/2.8:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#192.594,713.663,ha,t

Sony 24-70/2.8 vs Canon 24-70/2.8:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#192.286,713.515,ha,t

Sony 70-200/2.8 vs Canon 70-200/2.8 IS:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#192.753,713.514,ha,t

These lenses are standard kit for most pros. In each case, the Sony body+lens combo is smaller and lighter than the comparable Canon combo. Also keep in mind, each of the Sony lenses benefits from image stabilization (thanks to Sony's IBIS), whereas with Canon only the 70-200/2.8 is stabilized.

Mirrorless lenses aren't always going to be smaller and lighter, but when combined with mirrorless bodies, you generally do get a smaller/lighter combination. After all, you can't use a lens without a camera body, so they need to be considered in combination with one another.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

miric: Canon 200/2L = 2600g/$5700
Fujifilm 200/2 = 2200g/$6000

There's "noticeable" MILC advantage 🤮

Price differential mainly comes down to production volume. The Canon lens will have a much larger production volume than the Fuji because there are a heck of a lot more Canon users out there than Fuji. As for the weight differential, that speaks for itself. It's definitely a lighter lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Herp Photos: What I really dont understand is how this lens from fuji is almost twice as much as their medium format GF250 F4 which is pretty equivalent. https://m.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_gf_250_4_r_lm_ois_wr

I am so disapointed that Fuji opted for this mid length lens instead of something that wasnt already covered adequately by existing lenses. A 500mm F4 would have been a much better expansion to the system for wildlife shooters. The fact their new roadmap shows no hope of such a long lens but more duplicates of existing lenses or ranges is crazy.

@BlueBomberTurbo - Aperture size makes a huge difference to lens size. For example, consider that the Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/3.2 is basically the same size as the Fujinon XF 90mm f/2 for APS-C. Apparently, the image circle size that a lens has to project does not impact the size of the lens as much as we might think.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#678.744,772.472,ha,t

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2018 at 01:01 UTC
In reply to:

Herp Photos: What I really dont understand is how this lens from fuji is almost twice as much as their medium format GF250 F4 which is pretty equivalent. https://m.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_gf_250_4_r_lm_ois_wr

I am so disapointed that Fuji opted for this mid length lens instead of something that wasnt already covered adequately by existing lenses. A 500mm F4 would have been a much better expansion to the system for wildlife shooters. The fact their new roadmap shows no hope of such a long lens but more duplicates of existing lenses or ranges is crazy.

Doesn't matter what the "equivalent" is, based on what format you put behind the lens. You're still comparing what is physically a 200mm f/2 to what is physically a 250mm f/4. An f/2 lens is obviously going to be a lot more expensive than an f/4 lens. An f/2 lens will be more expensive than an f/2.8, which will be more expensive than an f/4 lens. For example, consider that the Canon 200/2.8L II has a list price of $799, while the Canon 200/2.0L IS has a list price of $5699. Even without IS, that's still a massive jump in price. And that's going from f/2.8 to f/2. You are comparing an f/4 lens to an f/2 lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2018 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

NOWHITELENS: I think if you can afford to spend $ 6000 on one lens, you will shoot FF !

@NOWHITELENS - Fuji has never limited itself to products "most people" would buy. That's why they are able to produce the X and GFX systems (both of which are quite extensive now) even though they sell at much smaller volumes compared to other brands. Fuji has been making cameras such as GX690 medium format fixed lens rangefinder series, GX617 panorama, GF670 medium format cameras, none of which are products that "most people" would buy. And yet, Fuji has had no problem making them. They have long produced niche products catering to a certain segment of specialized users. They aren't all about making products that "most people" would buy. And they certainly have the resources to do it. Fuji can support the GFX medium format mirrorless system (which "most people" will never buy), but Nikon can't even support the consumer-friendly Nikon 1 or Nikon DL.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

Greg OH: A serious play for the professional market, or a ploy to separate wealthy amateurs from their money?

Both. There's nothing wrong with going after either one. The reality is that this is not that much money to someone who has money. I was in a major international airport earlier this week, and I walked by many high-end luxury stores that were selling many items that cost the same or more than this lens. People have money. These people think nothing of spending $3,000 for a pair of shoes or $10,000 for a wrist watch.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

NOWHITELENS: I think if you can afford to spend $ 6000 on one lens, you will shoot FF !

There are plenty of serious, high-end Fuji X shooters who have no need or desire for FF. Obviously, Fuji knows their market and their users enough to feel justified in producing this lens. Furthermore, Fuji has the money to produce and sell this lens, even without it being a huge seller.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

Elonlukatski: Nikon is preparing to lay the smack down on the FF mirrorless market.

@Karroly - "But when a company makes a first mistake by releasing a camera that does not sell well, IMHO, it is a second mistake to not kill it..."

Well, that doesn't instill a lot of confidence: "If our system doesn't sell well, we'll kill it. So please have total confidence in investing in our system."

It can make people a bit apprehensive. What if their next system doesn't sell well? What then?

Consider Sony's Betamax video system. Sony introduced Betamax in 1975. It lost the video wars to VHS. But Sony didn't end Betamax video player/recorder production until 2002, and didn't end Betamax tape production until March 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/10/betamax-dead-long-live-vhs-sony-end-prodution

It certainly wasn't popularity that kept Betamax in production. But it did have a pool of users who wanted it, so Sony kept it in production for 28 years after losing format war to VHS.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Nikon is regrouping. Rid themselves of J1 and now Keymission. Both a drain of their resources. The money Nikon saved off J1 and Keymission is development money for FF.

WAY TO GO NIKON !!! There will be a big surprise soon in the near future the best FF that would make those who did not wait regret.

"WAY TO GO NIKON !!! There will be a big surprise soon in the near future the best FF that would make those who did not wait regret."

Keep in mind, Nikon management and many Nikon fans thought the same thing about Nikon 1, Nikon DL, and Nikon KeyMission.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 06:14 UTC
In reply to:

HaroldC3: Nikon trimming the fat to stay lean and hopefully profitable.

@cosinaphile - The market has spoken. m4/3 and APS-C mirrorless systems are still chugging along in the market. But it's Nikon's 1" format mirrorless system that is dead. I don't see much going on with Pentax's 1" format mirrorless system either (the Pentax Q system). It seems pretty clear to me that the market has little to no interest in any ILC system with a format that is smaller than m4/3.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 05:44 UTC
On article Fujifilm's XF10 is a small, wide-angle APS-C compact (787 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Suicide: Looks like this camera wants to compete with smartphones. But it has no chance from the very start.

No, of course it's not trying to compete with smartphones. It caters to a very specific niche of users. The same niche that cameras like the Ricoh GR-D catered to. Back in the film days, cameras like the Olympus Stylus Epic and Ricoh GR1 filled this niche too. All these cameras were pocketable fixed focal length f/2.8 cameras.

People have to remember that Fuji has always targeted niche markets in photography-- even dating back to the film days. Look at the Fuji GW690 fixed lens medium format rangefinder or the Fuji GX617 panorama camera. All these cameras are narrowly targeting specific kinds of shooters with very specific kinds of cameras. Fuji is a big enough company that they don't need mass market success.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

HaroldC3: Nikon trimming the fat to stay lean and hopefully profitable.

@cosinaphile - "you keep saying money or size the reasons it failed"

Yep. For the money and size, most people apparently preferred to have m4/3 or APS-C format for their an ILC system.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 05:06 UTC
In reply to:

Elonlukatski: Nikon is preparing to lay the smack down on the FF mirrorless market.

@Elonlukatski - "FF cameras have a much higher profit margin"

Not if you are trying to make entry-level FF cameras that can sell at or near the price point of entry-level APS-C cameras! If you try to do that, you can kiss your profits good-bye! The cheapest FF camera in the market is the A7 at $798 (body only). That's twice the price of an entry-level APS-C kit! Wake me when Nikon is selling FF DSLRs (or FF mirrorless) for $399-- and still making a profit on it! With APS-C, you can make cameras that cheap and still make a profit.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2018 at 14:06 UTC
Total: 5192, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »