petrana_batik

January 18, 2012

This also spells doom to those proficient enough to service their own Nikon equipment.

So far, Nikon service has been sub-par. My local technician is far better skilled than the folks that man the South California service center, and IF he has a part in hand, his turn around time is measured in days, not weeks or months. To add insult to injury, Nikon Japan has been reluctant on selling parts as well.

My take? Nikon needs you to buy new hardware, not keep servicing your FM2. They will stop at nothing to force you to upgrade.

January 6, 2012

"... the results shown at the top of this post would be completely unacceptable to me."

</blockquote>

This has nothing to do with whether the lens can deliver, but everything to do with actual usage. It appears to me, that the only compositions that require a flat surface 4 feet way at a focal length of 11mm (for 35mm) are MTF resolution charts.

December 21, 2011

Do you normally shoot a flat surface 4 feet away with a super wide angle lens?

December 14, 2011

Get a fast lens, Olympus or third party before you jump ship. This <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Telephoto-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0000TU7I6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323906158&sr=8-2">one</a> stands up to any Nikon lens easily.

June 26, 2011

I don't have time for that anymore. I use Scan Cafe whenever I do shoot film, and order their highest resolution files. Works wonderfully for me, albeit turnaround time is so-so.

April 10, 2011

It's a brilliant lens but the 17-55 is a better match. That said, if you're a slave to marketing campaigns, then go ahead with the L :)

March 21, 2011

Get a used S90/S95 and enjoy a walk around camera you can take anywhere, with a fast lens and IS, for the same price.

March 7, 2011

"We are also introducing equipment ownership requirements for each level to help keep this program strictly for the pros. Our intent is to strengthen our dentist population over true working professional photographers which are the people the program was created to support."

</blockquote>

Fixed.

CPS dumped the support for my 40D as well, and it still brings home selling shots.

March 4, 2011

Re: Flash-

One of the first things I did on my new Nexus S was to disable Flash. I don't watch porn so I don't really need it running.

January 12, 2011

Perfect response. . . as previouly noted, frustrations.

</blockquote>

Come on William, hit me with your best shot. I'm pretty sure you can compose sentences better than images. Perhaps you could prove me otherwise? From what I gather, you (alike many others here) go to great measures to compare optics, shoot and reshoot static meaningless flat objects, ponder about godly bokeh qualifications, and reiterate resolution scores as if they are a religious chant of Zen-like proportions... and yet fail to show an image that actually PROVES the point of owning said piece of equipment you so deeply swear by.

The mere truth is, that for nearly all applications (and yes, I have a few real photographers here that SUPPORT this real world assertion), the print looks the SAME. EXACTLY the same.

Ask me why I like full-frame? I like and use it because of the viewfinder, critical manual focusing, and heavy cropping capabilities (yes, sometimes you don't have time to careful frame an image).. but most of all: the fact that Canon professional services and insurance policies cater to 1's and 5's differently than they do with 7's. Higher ISO performance? negligible in real life. Wide angle applications? Easily an over statement. lp/mm? you must be kidding me.

January 12, 2011

Crikey where did that vitriol come from? Seem some have bent up frustrations.

</blockquote>

Just the usual drivel and crap I get handed with, by online photographers who can read MTF curves but can't focus, meter, or compose.

Thanks for posting the images: they are really a good example of what I was asking for, to show what 8mm can do.

</blockquote>

What 8mm can do on a $500 body, mind you.

As for the personal attacks – well firstly they are against forum rules - and secondly you can stick them, three quarter ways, Honey. Have a nice life. And next time, take the trouble to get the name correct and perhaps even take the time to read what my portfolio is all about, before making comments about master classes and such.

</blockquote>

Save your "Honey"s for people who care, William W. And next time, when you take things to the limit, perhaps declare which limit it is: yours, or your gear's.

January 12, 2011

It is not a matter of believing you; nor the 8mm WA compass of the Sigma lens and its native effect - nor is it a matter of what you or I are prepared to sacrifice, or not. Nor is it a matter of if I want as a true wide angle - I still have a 5x4 View Camera, for example. I wouldn’t buy the Sigma Lens because it is too slow (aperture). And I am happier using a 16 35 . . . or a fast 24. But I am fine that you like 8mm on an APS-C. A careful re-read my commentary should make all those points obvious and none are points of argument, which you seem to want? Maybe I am mistaken. Rather my commentary was addressing the assertion that the Sigma lens "is the best" and etc, which is what I quoted. And "the best" is often guided by as mentioned, what “I was willing to sacrifice” and for some others that might not be: Aperture; 135 Format capacity; weather sealing – just as some examples of the sacrifices made. “Impact” also has a lot to do with behind the lens – though yes, 8mm on an APS-C can be visually impactful – I have seen some results. But please post some examples of yours in your portfolio here, or link to them, as I (and others I am sure) am interested to see some or some more at 8mm with the Impact of which you speak. WW

</blockquote>

Mr. Wu, judging from your very own portfolio, I suggest you tone down your elitist, chauvinistic views, and take a few master classes. You might choose to sell your fullframe body to pay for that. Take a close look at my replies first, and then perhaps study the Sigma lens a bit further. To satisfy Zvia's original interest (which all of us are guilty with hijacking her thread), I am including a few attachments of prior works... All shot on the Canon 40D (what she owns right now), and utilizing the 8-16 Sigma. Oh yes, they all sold.

January 12, 2011

As one stipulation of the OP was the need and use of Wide angle, these facts should be taken into consideration, whether or not the "best" WA lens for an APS-C camera is a Sigma or not - the BEST and most COMPREHENSIVE Wide Angle solutions arguably reside within a "Full Frame" system.

</blockquote>

There's no doubt a more comprehensive wide-angle line up exists for full frame. That does not mean that all of these lenses produce stunning images, make a huge impact on photography, or sell for a reasonable price either. If true wide angle is what you wish, then (D)SLRs are a far cry from what you should be really shooting: Large format, and rangefinders- to a certain extent.

I have the 16-35II and 17-40 L-lenses. They good for what they do at f/2.8. No, they're not as good as Nikon's offerings (14-24 and 16-35). But there's a little Sigma (8-16) that sells for half their price and provides for four times the impact, and it does so on APS-C. Naturally, you're losing light and you get questionable future upgrade paths... but that is a price I was willing to sacrifice to get 8mm FOV on APS-C.. with stunning color and sharpness. Don't believe me? Why don't you get a copy yourself and try it out.

January 11, 2011

You forgot that the crop factor not only affects field of view but also the other parameters. The 17-55/2.8 on a crop camera is equivalent to a 27.2-88/4.48 lens on full frame, i.e. the 24-105 on a FF camera gives you shallower DOF if that is what you want.

</blockquote>

I'll leave you alone with the "27.2-88/4.48 equivalent DOF" -- if you knew what DOF actually relates to, you'd be laughing at this false definition yourself.

I'm not contesting that the 24-105 is a wonderful lens. I own it myself, and shoot it myself, on both Mk2, Mk1, 1DsMk3's, 7D and 40D. I also own the 17-55/2.8 IS. All wonderful glass. What I am saying is-- that for nearly all applications, the 7D (or even 40D, for about 95% of still work), provides the same deliverables. Does it make sense to splurge 2x for a full frame? It's up to the OP to decide.

If you REALLY want a 5dMk2, you'll coax any excuse to own one. If you have the money-- why not? Is it REALLY that different? No it isn't. All my camera bodies sell their images- on the same RATE. my 5d images don't get downloaded more, or sell more often than my 7d's. Why? because there's much more than megapixel and ISO.

Oh yes, DOF only comes to play on actual printed size.. it's entire essence is based on magnification. That's photography to you, as it has been for a century and a half.

January 11, 2011

For nearly all applications, the 7D and 5dMk2 are indistinguishable. It might sound harsh, but so far, I have learned that

all of those who claim the 7D doesn't cut it- have no idea how to exploit their tool (pun intended) to full potential.

The 5dmk2 is an admirable camera. The 7D --- no less. What you WILL be losing is the 17-55/2.8 IS, which has no

equivalent in full frame. The 24-105 is a VERY nice lens, but it's an f/4.

Zvia, don't become a casualty of measure-bating. Get the 7D, a good wide angle lens (the best, btw, has no equivalent in

full frame land on Canon, and it's actually a Sigma!), and killer 300/4 IS. This trio will have a much greater impact on your

photography.

November 19, 2010

Petrana, the 8-16 is very sharp and controls CA extremely well. It is a bit prone to flare, but that is kind of normal for these ultra wides. And yes, it is much better than the 12-24 option on a FF body.

</blockquote>

All I'm saying that this lens makes extreme wide angle viable on a 7D; it outdoes any FF camera out there. It is of course much slower at f/4.5, but its top notch wide open. Flare? it is better than my 14-24/2.8 on my Nikon FF, and costs 1/2 as much.

November 19, 2010

If your subject involve extreme wide angle compositions, there's a small lens that tips the favor towards the 7D, and it's not even made by Canon. I've been using the Sigma 8-16 on my APS sized cameras for over half a year now, and it simply delivers-- _much_ better than the 10-22 Canon variant in its overlapping range, and MUCH wider, this lens is EF-S only and its FF counterpart (Sigma 12-24) isn't as good.

August 1, 2010

You were very smart to quit that relationship ;)

July 30, 2010

Leslie, the answer is quite straight forward.

Nikon recognizes that professionals need fast AF, a high megapixel count, smart fast exposure modes, high ISO performance and advance flash capabilities. They build cameras to serve this need.

Nikon also recognizes that most hobbyists love these professional spec'ed cameras- it makes the gear freak's skin prickle up, and sends shivers down his/her spine when he/she spend a fortune into these camera bodies.. almost every year. Nikon simply sells the illusion that better gear will make you a better photographer-- and Nikon does that very well.

The above two reasons account for over 99.99% of Nikon earnings. That is the Nikon roadmap, and that is why, for example, Shun would rather have them continue in what they're doing. In a sense, it's a reasonable, rational way to run a business-- prolonging the life of any investment made in Nikon.

And no, Nikon does not care about the retro/a'la'carte segment. The stopped that when they killed the Fm3a-- it's a shame, because they could introduce a Fm3(D?) to the Leica M8/9 crowd, and probably do well.

June 16, 2010

Trolls, grow up.

June 14, 2010

Get the 85/1.8, Experiment with cropping.

June 12, 2010

I know this forum is very much equipment biased-- but the greatest feature a full frame camera has is a full frame viewfinder. Trying to compare different formats (and different lenses) is completely pointless. In the end, it is up to you-- and you only, to decide which format you prefer to invest in.

THAT SAID-- the rule of talent holds water: bad photographs are still bad photographs in any format-- only the larger format costs more, and takes more space.

June 11, 2010

The 5dMk3 will cost the same as the 50D when the 7Dmk2 will cost the same as a Rebel XT.

As long as people are ready to spent $2400 on a body, Canon would sell at that price point.

June 9, 2010

"Please spare us the bull and "likely stories" trying to impress. I have a Nikon D200 (a 5 year old DSLR) and it powers up in 0.15 sec. Even if you had your compact glued to your right eye and your finger glued to the shutter button with the camera manually focused beforehand, there is no way in this UNIVERSE that you would be able to take your picture before my DSLR is on. You may have other arguments in favour of compacts or photographer "skills" but this is definitely not one of them."

</blockquote>

It is still up to the photographer to release the shutter at the right moment though... And yes, a G11, prefocused and ready to fire will release its shutter faster than a D200 like any other camera that does not involve a mirror: it has barely nothing to move. That said, its a very VERY specialized tool... and the viewfinder is crappy. The cool thing about the G's isn't about how they compare to DSLRs, because in many ways to don't. They compliment DSLRs wonderfully. My G11 even fires off my 580 and 430 Ex flashes, although both are larger than the camera itself. It also packs wonderfully. Regarding high ISO? well, I stay away from 800 and higher. There was also another comment about printing a 3.3mpixel image... I have a shot made a long while ago on my Fuji S2pro, a 6 mpixel camera. Cropped, the image was around the 3mpixel range. It sold more than $5000 in revenue so far, mostly printed at 11x14.

June 8, 2010

The most creative aspect of focal length is the perspective that various lengths provide. Perspective is actually dependent on viewpoint and different focal lengths allow for different viewpoints - dramatic receding with wide angles to compressed power with long lenses. There is no ideal - The best focal length is the one that realizes your vision best.

</blockquote>

Perspective has nothing to do with focal length. It is dictated by subject distance. Take your zoom, open it to its widest and focus at a nearby subject (say, 30' away). Take multiple shots as you constantly zoom in on your target but do not move. All your shots will share the same perspective because neither you nor the subject moved. Zooming is equivalent to cropping (in an ideal lens anyway).

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by petrana_batik