DuxX

DuxX

Lives in Serbia Serbia, Serbia
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Jun 5, 2005

Comments

Total: 522, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

supersargas: @DPR Is there a sample gallery coming for the 16mm?

Not yet but we are waiting for some housewife to make cookies so that she can take photos with her new exciting lens. Why housewife? Well, lens like this is mostly designed for them. Small, light, plastic, optically crappy but seriously cheap. So, will not be a problem if accidentally dropped into the kitchen sink :)

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 15:51 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: Give the people what they want! Awesome to see affordable alternatives for people who don’t have unlimited budgets. Interesting product strategy.

People want an open system to be able to choose lenses of other manufacturers if brand they choose can provide them appropriate ones according to their needs. ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: So basically Canon keep pushing their RF system philosophy. Current Canon user can choose between enormous huge and heavy professional lens and light and cheap plastic crap.
Optically great but also fairly small and light lens is reserved for another system. :/

@onlyfreeman, I don't need experiment. I've worked with both lens. :)

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 10:01 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: So basically Canon keep pushing their RF system philosophy. Current Canon user can choose between enormous huge and heavy professional lens and light and cheap plastic crap.
Optically great but also fairly small and light lens is reserved for another system. :/

@diness maybe we are looking and value different image aspects. If you look in my portfolio most of photos there are taken with Sigma Art 35mm and Canon DSLR body. Only reason why I decide to keep RF 35mm instead of Sigma when I have switched to RF system is lack of adapter (which I hate) and unreliable exposure issues with Sigma on R body.
There must be said that all that issues are because Canon don't support third party lenses.
Regarding image quality (bokeh quality, fine detail resolving, gradations) there are not comparable at all. Sigma Art is professional quality lens and this RF's f1.8 are consumer grade lens.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 09:58 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: So basically Canon keep pushing their RF system philosophy. Current Canon user can choose between enormous huge and heavy professional lens and light and cheap plastic crap.
Optically great but also fairly small and light lens is reserved for another system. :/

Well... This mine RF 35mm f1.8 is nowhere near Sigma 35mm f1.4. Nothing is same. Its not just about sharpness... Its more than that.
That theory about 90% of pro glass for 10% of price is nonsence guys.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 17:22 UTC
In reply to:

Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: The 100-400 mm lens looks nice and compact. Now waiting for aps-c body! Hope Canon introduces one soon

I'm just want to say that I dont like lens like this.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: So basically Canon keep pushing their RF system philosophy. Current Canon user can choose between enormous huge and heavy professional lens and light and cheap plastic crap.
Optically great but also fairly small and light lens is reserved for another system. :/

True. All 85 f1.8 lens is amateur consumer class and that one from Canon isn't even on the same aperture level with amateur class. You can call that "product" how ever you want. I call it plastic crap. ;)

Cheap lens will never offer 90% quality of expensive glass for a 10% price. Never. That's a marketing illusion for naive people without any serious photography experience.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: So basically Canon keep pushing their RF system philosophy. Current Canon user can choose between enormous huge and heavy professional lens and light and cheap plastic crap.
Optically great but also fairly small and light lens is reserved for another system. :/

@Jim Lipton, Yes, obsolete lenses that are no longer produced is for Canon users option because current RF lens line up sucks a lot. ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 12:47 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: So basically Canon keep pushing their RF system philosophy. Current Canon user can choose between enormous huge and heavy professional lens and light and cheap plastic crap.
Optically great but also fairly small and light lens is reserved for another system. :/

Sure, you naïve little boy. Canon will give you 90% of pro lens for a 10% price... sure :D AND every other person who thinks differently is troll. Okay :D

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 12:42 UTC
In reply to:

Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: The 100-400 mm lens looks nice and compact. Now waiting for aps-c body! Hope Canon introduces one soon

Nice and compact until you push it out and suck all dirt and dust in. ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 12:21 UTC
In reply to:

azinheira: Before I moved from Fuji to Sony I was thinking to go to Canon again but what is Canon thinking on the RF mount?

Now all long lens f8 and F11 f16 soon??

They lost the game on the mirrorless system and all lens very expensive and glass they put on the lens not impressive for the prices they charge

You chose wisely which I can't say for myself. Waiting for a7IV or a7RV and switching to Sony form RF system. All this RF Canon system is huge failure. Worst lens lineup ever 8/

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 12:20 UTC

So basically Canon keep pushing their RF system philosophy. Current Canon user can choose between enormous huge and heavy professional lens and light and cheap plastic crap.
Optically great but also fairly small and light lens is reserved for another system. :/

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 12:16 UTC as 60th comment | 14 replies

Good lens but f2 is not too versatile aperture. That's why I think that lens is overpriced.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2021 at 16:12 UTC as 16th comment

Okay... that's enough :| now we need levitating phones

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2021 at 20:41 UTC as 55th comment
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm GFX 50S II review (49 comments in total)

It's nice to see that MF going down with prices and this can be breaking point for all those folks oriented strictly to photography. For people like me who are looking for best hybrid solution MF is not way to go. At least not yet. Also there is still significant size and weight difference.
So, for me, FF is sweet spot between image quality, photo/video capabilities and size and weight. I really like to see some Fuji FF system in short future but yeah, I know, that probably won't happen :|

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2021 at 08:18 UTC as 6th comment
On article Fujifilm XF 33mm F1.4 pre-production sample gallery (33 comments in total)

Beautiful and sharp lens... this is sharp lens. Not that smudgy thing called 50mm f1.0

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2021 at 08:05 UTC as 10th comment
On article Fujifilm XF 50mm F1.0 R WR field review (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leviafish: You guys definitely had a faulty lens. I tested this lens myself and just like any other review it's tack sharp at F1. You even used the same test results from 2020.

@Leviafish, sorry for this but I must say that I've looked provided samples and for me, for what I see, those samples demonstrate the same level of softness. Looking on samples with a girl is basically the same what we can see on DPR. Even at f1.4 girl's skin is way too soft. https://pliki.optyczne.pl/fuj50X/fuj50_fot32.JPG
I like Fuji system, I really like what they did so far but this 50mm f1.0 is complete miss. I hope that they will do something better with next f1.0 lens but this isn't way to go. Happy shooting to all.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2021 at 10:49 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 50mm F1.0 R WR field review (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leviafish: You guys definitely had a faulty lens. I tested this lens myself and just like any other review it's tack sharp at F1. You even used the same test results from 2020.

Can you provide links to your test samples because I can't find neither one sharp sample at f1.0 with this lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2021 at 23:47 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 50mm F1.0 R WR field review (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

DuxX: Wide open sharpness below my expectations :(

@Video-vs-photo, you obviously can't make difference between trolling and giving personal opinion. Good luck with your holy war against enemy of your brand :)

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2021 at 23:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 50mm F1.0 R WR field review (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

toomix: hm, it looks like bad copy of this lens, I have seen sharper (actually quite sharp) images from it on the f1.0. QC is something fuji needs to work on

Manufacturer sending all lenses to reviewers. I just can't beleive that Fuji sent bad copy to DPR. It is really impossible.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2021 at 06:29 UTC
Total: 522, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »