Martin Datzinger

Lives in Austria Vienna, Austria
Joined on Jun 7, 2005

Comments

Total: 144, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »

I could somehow live with the €12.29 monthly fee. Even if that makes it again 60% more expensive thant the $9.99 you get to pay overseas. Or 23% more expensive than updating every 2 years. Or 145% more expensive than updating every 2 generations.

But what makes me especially furious is that 1 year ago Adobe tricked users into an update to CS6 via the empty threat of losing future update-ability. Now of course you can get your membership plan from CS3 as well. Which is of course great news for those who could resist updates for the past 6 years, but plain swindle for those who fell for it 12 months ago.

Plus: Those cloud stuff is utter nonsense. If not even a threat for your intellectual property.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 07:28 UTC as 399th comment
In reply to:

5DMkIII Shooter: The only option is that no-one registers / sign up to make use of the service. All just stick to what they are using now. The creative "Genius" at Adobe who came up with this utterly brilliant "stab your users in the back" idea would then soon realise that photographers own their gear and that gear also includes their software. No Adobe, NO!

This is exactly what I'm going to do.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 06:19 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.

Then there is the question of pricing:
D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000
D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000

Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.

So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.

And what is a typical DX system anyway? Probably a not so new DX camera you'd need to mate with a new one to utilize the new lenses mojo, a cheap midrange zoom you'd like to replace (you wouldn't replace your massively expensive 17-55/2.8 brand lens with it, would you?) and one FX tele zoom. Maybe some old primes you'd always have wanted to shine on FX. Or an old DX UWA zoom that was cheap when it was new and/or not up to the task of today's 24 MP sensors anymore.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2013 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.

Then there is the question of pricing:
D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000
D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000

Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.

So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.

@Hubert.

a)+b) Hm, looking at the images I've got in my LR library that I've taken with the 24-70, I've got 104 images at 24mm, 131 at 70mm and 171 at all in-between FLs combined, which show a very clear trend towards higher FLs. Now I don't know what you or everyone else but judging from that data, I'd probably be fed up by the Sigma's FL range within a day or two since I'd need to switch around between standard and tele constantly.

c) As I said I think Sigma probably deserves the prices they're asking now. But resale is a different story and I've got the impression that people's perception of value of second hand goods is pretty inert.

d) Yep, but being faced with a 1500 to 2000€ pricetag for a sexy bright lens of a not so sexy FL range for a sensor size that isn't considered sexy anymore could make you rethink your commitment towards the DX system.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2013 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.

Then there is the question of pricing:
D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000
D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000

Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.

So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.

Time will tell - you're perfectly right! BTW, the Zuiko 14-35 is still priced at €2200. And "only" a constant f/2.0. Illuminating _only_ 4/3 sensors (up to an equivalent FL of 70mm though).

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2013 at 11:40 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.

Then there is the question of pricing:
D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000
D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000

Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.

So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.

Also, the right DX camera to compare the D600 with is the D7100. Same MP count, same build quality, same interface, same flash capabilities. What the D7100 gains in the AF and fps department, it looses with the viewfinder. Fantastic camera btw. The only thing unfair about my comparison is that the D600 is several months out and already had its price drops while the D7100 is still hard to get. I'll give you that. But the net result remains. With the same kind of money for the DX combo you'll get less possibilities with the FX combo. Unless of course the lense's IQ is heaps and bounds better than the Nikkor's. That might actually be the case.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2013 at 09:50 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.

Then there is the question of pricing:
D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000
D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000

Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.

So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.

Sorry people if you're going to believe this lens is anything like 1500 or less, you're fooling yourself. Sigma got very self-confident with their pricing in the new lens lineup (and I absolutely do not doubt their right to be it - I actually lust for the 35/1.4 and 120-300/2.8, the latter got almost twice as expansive as the previous lens of the same specs). And it is a f/1.8 zoom after all - with all the bragging rights that come with it (if you don't do the maths). So I really would be surprised by an initial street price in the region of 2000€.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2013 at 09:47 UTC

So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.

Then there is the question of pricing:
D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000
D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000

Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.

So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2013 at 08:04 UTC as 33rd comment | 15 replies
On article Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Fuji is doing something very smart here.

They realized that the CSC market is already overcrowded, and they would never get much shelf space at Best Buy or Costco, so they created their own niche at the high end.

They have become the "MILC Leica" with an outstanding set of beautifully styled well made cameras and nice extremely nice lenses to go with them. They also deliver outstanding image quality, so they have credibility with high end users. They are expensive... but not nearly as pricey as Leicas are.

Leica serves a different market. And they do so well since the M8, they actually can't keep up with demand (or don't want and need to).

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2013 at 05:37 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: So this needs an external computer to work? Samsung will eat them for lunch.

Yeah right, go on, install Lightroom on that Galaxy Tab of yours.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2013 at 08:40 UTC
On article Roger Cicala compares three 24-70mm F2.8 lenses (136 comments in total)

I never had any doubt about the superiority of the Canon lens in terms of optical performance. After all, it is 50% more expensive and 5 years younger than the Nikkor.

But then I could never get over the construction principle of the lens, that, at least for me, looks less durable than the Nikkors': On the Canon, the lens hood is mounted on the inner tube, so every single bump on the hood will affect the zoom and/or focussing mechanics. Whereas on the Nikon, the hood is mounted on the outer shell and the innards are completely shielded (better protected from flare as well).

And in the end, according to photozone, the Nikkor gives better resolution on the D3x (and thus on my D600) than the Canon on the 24-70/2.8 on the 5DIII anyway.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 21:42 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Roger Cicala compares three 24-70mm F2.8 lenses (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

PatrickP: the resolution of the said lenses seem to correlate with age more than anything. for premium lenses, the newer ones always resolve more.

Canon had a 24-70/2.8L for quite a while before the Nikon 24-70 shows up. Nikon 24-70 was crowed as the best out of the best for the past 5 years, until the Canon MkII shows up and claimed the throne.

I am sure once a Mark II from Nikon (hopefully with VR) shows up it would be the best again, so would be the Mark III from Canon. it's always a leap-frog between the two.

The Zeiss won't get you remotely sharp corners at 24 no matter what aperture.

That has been the reason why I once diregarded the Sony a900. (That and the inferior and white 70-200/2.8).

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 21:34 UTC
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X20 hands-on preview (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Combatmedic870: This is a rather exciting camera! A Mini X-trans 2/3" BSI PDAF sensor!! heck yea!!
If the AF is as fast as we should expect its going to be a killer camera!

Even if the AF wasn't any quicker, it would be much better, since now with the overlay, you know where you're actually focussing on. X10's display doesn't count.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 07:51 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: I thought retina displays were supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread? And now we need to modify software to make them "easier to read"?

Eventually turned out that I could never fully resolve banding issues, couldn't stand its weak blackpoint, hated its low resolution of 86dpi or whereabouts, almost never had an image that took advantage of the wider gamut and in the end used the SpectraView maybe 10 times a year.

So I quit the hunt for the wide gamut promise. And I now love my Retina screen. The way it renders details, texture and fonts is just fabulous. Colour is an absolutely reliable sRGB, contrast is great, I can't ask for more. Absolutely the right decision to wait for it for months.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2012 at 15:45 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: I thought retina displays were supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread? And now we need to modify software to make them "easier to read"?

I wasn't aware about the HP Notebook. Astonishing gamut coverage for a notebook, that's for sure. However, I have my fair share of wide gamut experience, on a NEC SpectraView Reference 2690 and a Samsung XL20 (which I had to return). My resume was that for using a wide gamut, you need: 1. The possibility for true hardware calibration, 3. A continuous 10bit/channel data path, 4. Time and nerves, 5. Photos to actually show the difference, 6. A different output medium that supports it, because showing off your images on just on your own display won't cut it.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2012 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: I thought retina displays were supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread? And now we need to modify software to make them "easier to read"?

@HowaboutRAW: Please show me tests where the MBP 15" Retina Display falls significantly short in colour gamut and accuracy as well as contrast range, uniformity and viewing angle stability, compared to the very best laptop screens out there. Because the tests that I've seen state that its IPS panel is easily among the very best. Plus it stomps every other one for resolution, of course.

I can only tell you that I'm absolutely happy with my rMBP's screen colour and that its resolution brought a whole new experience in photo editing. Screens below 200dpi are just not acceptable any longer for me.

Oh and I am happy that Adobe, after HiDPi development has been available in Xcode for 17 months or so, is finally supporting it.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2012 at 07:44 UTC
On article Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Preview (131 comments in total)

Hmm, how about MTF plots?

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2012 at 09:11 UTC as 57th comment
In reply to:

Stanislaw Sawczyn: OK, but where is Retina support?

In 4.3, at the earliest, as it seems.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 19:44 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scott Everett: We are going to continue covering what is happening at the center of photography, regardless of whether a subset of our users doesn't necessarily like it. That doesn't mean we dont care about our users, it just means we are realistic. If we pandered to every single outcropping of product love or hate, we'd probably not cover Canon or Nikon for years at a time, depending on how loudly the masses are yelling.

We strive to provide the most informative and objective information that we can. We have editorial meetings daily to this end. It's hard to get that as a reader coming to the site with understandably strong opinions about a range of topics. But trust that our goals remain unchanged. We are photographers through and through, and so do not feel alone in your disdain of various trends in the world of photography, as many of these same arguments happen with us over lunch, or a beer.

That's very sound approach, IMO, bravo! But would you then please cover medium format more as well, please? RAW studio samples, some handling impressions and in your hand shots, just to give people an idea what else there is (the Pentax 645D is barely just scratching the surface of MF IQ, I suppose).

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 07:08 UTC

Finally we get rid of those 90's style pseudo-3D borders :D

Seriously. I very much like the Q/A system.

User ranking? Don't know. Better implementation of the ignore facility would be nicer IMO. As soon as I flag someone to ignore, I don't want to see anything from him anymore. If a member's ignore flag exceed a certain number, his visibility should be lowered for everyone.

About the threaded vs flat view debate: It really is as old as internet forums themselfes. I guess a significant amout of internet bandwidth has been wasted on this topic ;) Personally, I use threaded view, even if hardly anyone writes sensible subject lines. But it really is an extinct concept. It is theoretically sound, but I guess there is a reason why it died out. Lazyness, probably. But the bigger problem is, that both completely incompatible modes are available for choice. Stick to one. If that mean's I'll have to adapt to flat view, so be it. I do hope though, that then people learn how to quote.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 07:48 UTC as 226th comment | 1 reply
Total: 144, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »