Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: Duck shots!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    arent half bad is about right. look, if you guys want to sugarcoat everything cos you are in bed with a certain system then thats fine, your choice. the fact is that the glass Elisha has is not fantastic. for 2 reasons:

    1. they arent the best at aquiring focus
    2. fully extended they are weak performers.
    and you know all this from your extensive testing and evaluation, I suppose, or could it just be your prejudices and preconceptions surfacing?
    I wasn't aware of promoting "older, cheap" glass, maybe "older, good" glass and maybe well priced glass, but not cheap.
    Neither am I guilty of sugarcoating anything, I am well aware of the limitations of the system but when set against the advantages I am satisfied that I made a good choice. Had I been starting from scratch, would I have made a different choice, I don't know, but that's water under the bridge in any case.
    Do I rubbish Canikon or their Users, No! There are legitimate reasons for choosing the brand and I respect that decision.

    I'd like it if you went here > http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=...id=9&Itemid=43 < and read the article paying particular attention to what the tester says about the 28-135mm. This was a test of all the six classical professional zooms from the Sony / Minolta system (3.5/17-35mm G, 2.8/24-70mm Zeiss, 2.8/28-70mm G, 4-4.5/28-135mm, 2.8/80-200mm APO, and 2.8/70-200mm SSM on a Sony A900 over a ten day period. I can point you to other reviews of the lens which draw similarly good opinions.

    I'll be very interested if you can find any evidence to the contrary, otherwise I expect a retraction of your uninformed opinion.

    The rest of Elisha's lenses are a sound middle of the road choice considering the expenditure, could she have got better glass? Yes but not for the money, we don't all have unlimited budgets.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    you can umm and ahhh and complain and piss and moan all you like Peek but thats just reality. if peoples expectations of older, cheap glass is that they will perform really well unsharpened then they need a reality check. there is a pretty good reason why some glass is cheap. there are VERY few optical bargains out there, VERY few indeed.
    Well, you pretentious, antipodean, troglodytic *****. There's no way I can be accused of complaining or moaning although I will own up to the other.
    "Sharpening" is a requirement of the digital process due to inadequacies of the sensor, it has absolutely nothing to do with any difference between "older" and "newer" glass, try sharpening a piece of film, if you will. I think you'd agree that not all "New" lenses are good ones; well, maybe you'd have the grace to admit that some "old" lenses aren't bad ones.

    edit. I wish I hadn't resorted to name calling (no matter the provocation). Not good for a reasoned discussion. Apologies!
    Last edited by Peekayoh; 03-16-2009 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Secon thoughts

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    if it doesnt have micro adjust then thats unfortunate cos its very useful with older glass thats out.
    The mico adjust feature is just as relevent for New Glass as it is for "Old Glass". What you are doing is aligning a misaligned sensor.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    whats my technical explanation of the fact that its probably the lens rather than the body ? well i dont have one except to say that if some lens' apper to be accurate in their focusing and others do not then the only variable in performance is the lens cos the focus system is constant. so it doesnt take a genius to figure out that the lens would be the one out. if elisha said every one of her lens' was BF then i would say the body may be a more likly culprit.

    and needless to say that in the vast number of cases i have personally had or seen from others, it is the lens that is slightly out, not the AF system. add to this that all of my lens', every single one, has a differing degree of micro adjust. some are ever so slight, other older lens' like the 300/4 are significantly more.
    OK, set the camera to manual focus, stick a fast lens on and focus on something convenient. You probably went past the focus point in one direction, did the same in the other and gradually zeroed in on the best focus. You made all the decisions on focus and the lens merely echoed your manipulation of the focus ring. You could easily have chosen to stop at a point of back/front focus but you didn't, you took the shot but, on examination, it's not in focus, are you going to blame the lens or yourself? Well, it could be you or it could be that the camera sensor is not quite on the plane of focus, meaning that the image seen in the viewfinder is not the same as that seen by the sensor. In any case it is not the lens with an issue.

    Anyway, forget that for the minute, let's assume the shot was actually in focus. OK, switch the AF on, repeat the process and guess what, it's OOF, so what's the problem now? There's more going on so the answer is more complex. Worst case scenario is that the AF sensor is misaligned, the AF system stopped the lens too soon or too late, or it simply didn't find anything satisfactory to lock on to. In any case it is not the lens with an issue.

    That's not to say that a lens can't be misaligned, I've seen a lens with tilted focus plane and that's pretty bad and could easily confuse an AF system in "wide area" mode. In which case it's not a B/F focus issue but still back to base for adjustment. The new phase detection systems need more positional information from the lens to be effective, but again it's all part of the AF system.

    You should also be aware that the AF system is not all that accurate. The camera makers woo punters with AF systems that snap quickly into focus, no one wants to wait while the lens hunts for that pin sharp focus point, so it's a compromise between speed and accuracy. So long as the focus point lands reasonably within the DOF the AF has done it's job but many proponents of Manual Focussing don't agree.

    DOF is another issue and the narrow field distance associated with Fast lenses and close focus will really point up AF problems.

    You can always manually find a point of focus unless the lens is so seriously misaligned that it's defunct for all practical purposes. So how is B/F focus anything other than an AF System failure?.
    Last edited by Peekayoh; 03-16-2009 at 12:26 PM. Reason: poor wording

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    if you think all i'm doing here is picking on your system then you have misunderstood my intent. i'm just as critical, if not much more so, of my OWN work then anyone elses. if i see something wrong i will point it out. if all you want is a bunch of cheerleading to say everythings fantastic, then so be it, God knows how any of you will learn or improve with that attitude though.
    The point is you are not being critical of your "work" or anybody else's work. What you are doing is rubbishing equipment based on your own flawed opinions rather than sound technical facts.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,415
    of course you're adjusting the sensor. did you think magical gnomes jumped out of the camera with their toolkits and started adjusting the lens itself ? you are adjusting the sensor becasue you CANT adjust the lens at home, to do that you need to send it in. that doesnt mean the AF system is faulty or backfocussed at all. it means that you are changing the one variable you can to compensate.

    which is all moot. all i can do is tell you what i can do. i stick a lens on, grab an test chart, AF on a point and adjust if required. simple. really really simple and easy.

    the rest of your post(s) are just irrational emotional babble and dont require any sort of response.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    So this Canon user visits the Sony Forum. He makes statements that are clearly incorrect and trashes the Sony/Minolta equipment; no hard facts, just opinions based upon what, he cannot say.
    When challenged he resorts to personal abuse.
    Children throw their toys out, thugs resort to violence, abuse is a resort of the ignorant.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    the 28-135mm is a pretty badass lens like Peek said.
    When tested indoors with my a300, it proved to be super sharp wide open and it focusses lightning quick as well.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    So this Canon user visits the Sony Forum. He makes statements that are clearly incorrect and trashes the Sony/Minolta equipment; no hard facts, just opinions based upon what, he cannot say.
    i'm not trashing the sony product, nor am i incorrect. i am just stating the facts as i see them. thats what an opinion board is, a place where people get together and voice their opinions. in these cases however, unfortnatley for you, i'm right and you're hysterical. these have been the debates over the past month or so.

    1. the benefits of shooting at 1/5th of a second with a moving object; as witnessed with a post of a bird which is compeltly OOF due to shake.
    2. the cost of canikon glass compared to sony, especially stabilised options. as witnessed by teh 200-500 stabnilised lens option.
    3. iso performance, sony isnt very good.
    4. auto-iso; sony havent implemented it as well as it should be
    5. micro adjustment; sony dont have it

    all of those things above i am not incorrect about at all. the latest disagreement has been over something as ridiculous as what is causing a BF issue, the body or the lens. and again, you are wrong on that one aswell for the reasons i pointed out in my last couple of posts.

    we now talk about the performance of a 20 year old lens that sells used for around the $300 mark and you;re trying to tell me that this lens is on par with top quality glass. i put to you that eitehr sony's new lens' are NOT up to scratch or this minolta lens is the best kept, most amazing photographic bargain miracle on the face of the planet. there are a bunch of older nikon lens' of similar ilk in that price range, of that speed. all represent great value, all perform pretty well but NONE are particualrly good in comparison with the latest sort of lens' in production.

    am i saying all old lens' are bad ? no. am i saying none of them are worth having ? no. am i saying that the difference in performance is needed by everyone ? no. am i saying that the ONLY way to get great photos is by using top end glass ? no. these are all straw men arguements you put forward. all i'm saying is that if you want top quality shots and get the most out of them, then put top quality glass in front of it. otherwise, be happy you didnt spend alot of money but dont complain and wonder why they arent turnign out as sharp or as good as you hoped.

    as i have said about tamron glass numerous times. it is what it is. a cheap budget alternative. you said yourself its "not half bad", i said, "its not particualry good". we can argue semantics all day but thats not the point. the poitn is the glass is not fantastic so dont expect fantastic resutls, ESPECIALLY at the long end where the lens is at its weakest. that isnt an opinion at all, thats just reality.

    wait and see, as the sony system matures and the sony users on this forum mature and grow and learn about the huge benefits of great glass, (the same way ALL of us have), and they start aquiring real top notch glass...if their budget permits, they will dump the older budget stuff like a hot potato. put a 70-200/2.8 sony lens in seans hands and i bet you anything that he will see a 300% improvement in focus aquisition, sharpeness and general quality of his indoor basketball shots.

    i dont recall any time i've bashed the sony system just BECAUSE its a sony system, please, if i have done so, point it out. you are quite new to this place so you would not have known that apart from Don, i have been an enthusiastic supporter of sony entering the market cos it keeps the big boys honest. most notable, i have clearly stated that the only reason imo that Canikon have introduced cheap stabilised glass is cos of the sony market presense.

    what i've done is criticise some of the elements of the system based on real evidence. not to mention that the vast majority of this criticism has been in response to incorrect information that has been put forward in this forum. as i have said to numerous people who have IM'd me on this, there is a long histoy of these thigns being put out there with no response which are obviously untrue and this time i just had enuf and called Don out on it. (the 200-500mm thread is an example).

    thats not bashing for bashings sake. thats debating based on evidence, practicality and reality. so please, dont combine my ability to articualte an argument and be honest and up front with your rabid, hysterical incomprehension to form an opinion that i'm somehoe bashing sony for no other reason than its sony.

    When challenged he resorts to personal abuse.
    Children throw their toys out, thugs resort to violence, abuse is a resort of the ignorant.
    i have been totally rational and have not been personally abusive. you on tha other hand are being hysterical and personal. this is you're "modified" post. yes, i saw the original.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Well, you pretentious, antipodean, troglodytic *****. There's no way I can be accused of complaining or moaning although I will own up to the other.

    edit. I wish I hadn't resorted to name calling (no matter the provocation). Not good for a reasoned discussion. Apologies!
    pot...kettle...black.

    no need to respond. this forum has too many good people in it to bog down with this sort of nonsense. the people here who i enjoy seeing their work are on flickr and i can comment there. but i couldnt let your post go unanswered cos, as per usual with any rabid fanboyism, its baseless and is either mildly irritating or pitifully amusing...depending on my mood.

    class dismissed peek.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    It gets better! Now I'm apparently an hysterical, rabid, fanboy with hysterical incomprehension. ??
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i'm not trashing the sony product, nor am i incorrect. i am just stating the facts as i see them. thats what an opinion board is, a place where people get together and voice their opinions. in these cases however, unfortnatley for you, i'm right and you're hysterical.
    But you were doing exactly that, trashing the Sony/Minolta product, you are incorrect, you are not stating facts just your own opinion, you're not right and I'm not hysterical.
    This what you said about Elisha's equipment
    "the glass isnt very good" "nothing in your sig is particularly good"
    "1. they arent the best at aquiring focus 2. fully extended they are weak performers."

    which are pretty sweeping statements and a long way from the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    these have been the debates over the past month or so.

    1. the benefits of shooting at 1/5th of a second with a moving object; as witnessed with a post of a bird which is compeltly OOF due to shake.
    2. the cost of canikon glass compared to sony, especially stabilised options. as witnessed by teh 200-500 stabnilised lens option.
    3. iso performance, sony isnt very good.
    4. auto-iso; sony havent implemented it as well as it should be
    5. micro adjustment; sony dont have it
    Red Herring. These issues were not part of this thread nor did they form any part of my response to your post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    all of those things above i am not incorrect about at all. the latest disagreement has been over something as ridiculous as what is causing a BF issue, the body or the lens. and again, you are wrong on that one aswell for the reasons i pointed out in my last couple of posts.
    Well, I may be wrong, but I'll repeat that in my opinion the AF system and camera body is more likely to be the cause of back/front focus issues than the lens. You may be right that it's the fault of the lens but offer no facts to back it up, or opinions for that matter, simply that you are "right".

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    we now talk about the performance of a 20 year old lens that sells used for around the $300 mark and you;re trying to tell me that this lens is on par with top quality glass. i put to you that eitehr sony's new lens' are NOT up to scratch or this minolta lens is the best kept, most amazing photographic bargain miracle on the face of the planet. there are a bunch of older nikon lens' of similar ilk in that price range, of that speed. all represent great value, all perform pretty well but NONE are particualrly good in comparison with the latest sort of lens' in production.

    am i saying all old lens' are bad ? no. am i saying none of them are worth having ? no. am i saying that the difference in performance is needed by everyone ? no. am i saying that the ONLY way to get great photos is by using top end glass ? no. these are all straw men arguements you put forward. all i'm saying is that if you want top quality shots and get the most out of them, then put top quality glass in front of it. otherwise, be happy you didnt spend alot of money but dont complain and wonder why they arent turnign out as sharp or as good as you hoped.
    Yes, I'd definitely say the Minolta 28-135mm "is on a par with top quality glass".
    I can't comment about the Nikon leses you mention, I've never tried one.
    When did I "complain and wonder why they arent turnign out as sharp or as good as you hoped". The answer is NEVER and I've no idea why you should imply that I have, other than that you seem to have a proclivity for plastering me with adjectives and attributes previously not in evidence.
    I've attached an image for comparison with those taken with your much superior and much more expensive glass.
    The image is a simple candid shot, nothing fancy. I chose it because it was taken with the Minolta 28-135mm at full stretch (135mm) and wide open (f4.5) ISO800, just the conditions where you claim the lens is a "weak performer" and not "the best at aquiring focus".
    Well it looks good to me, maybe you'll have a different opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    as i have said about tamron glass numerous times. it is what it is. a cheap budget alternative. you said yourself its "not half bad", i said, "its not particualry good". we can argue semantics all day but thats not the point. the poitn is the glass is not fantastic so dont expect fantastic resutls, ESPECIALLY at the long end where the lens is at its weakest. that isnt an opinion at all, thats just reality.
    Hold up, Tiger. When did I mention Tamron, when did I espouse it's use? I didn't, I don't; I have no Tamron glass and don't expect to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    wait and see, as the sony system matures and the sony users on this forum mature and grow and learn about the huge benefits of great glass, (the same way ALL of us have), and they start aquiring real top notch glass...if their budget permits, they will dump the older budget stuff like a hot potato. put a 70-200/2.8 sony lens in seans hands and i bet you anything that he will see a 300% improvement in focus aquisition, sharpeness and general quality of his indoor basketball shots.

    i dont recall any time i've bashed the sony system just BECAUSE its a sony system, please, if i have done so, point it out. you are quite new to this place so you would not have known that apart from Don, i have been an enthusiastic supporter of sony entering the market cos it keeps the big boys honest. most notable, i have clearly stated that the only reason imo that Canikon have introduced cheap stabilised glass is cos of the sony market presense.

    what i've done is criticise some of the elements of the system based on real evidence. not to mention that the vast majority of this criticism has been in response to incorrect information that has been put forward in this forum. as i have said to numerous people who have IM'd me on this, there is a long histoy of these thigns being put out there with no response which are obviously untrue and this time i just had enuf and called Don out on it. (the 200-500mm thread is an example).

    thats not bashing for bashings sake. thats debating based on evidence, practicality and reality. so please, dont combine my ability to articualte an argument and be honest and up front with your rabid, hysterical incomprehension to form an opinion that i'm somehoe bashing sony for no other reason than its sony.
    Red Herrings, again. My response was to your comments in this thread and has nothing to do with what other people have said earlier in other threads, as you pointed out I am new here and am unfamiliar with what has gone before. What I said was "makes statements that are clearly incorrect and trashes the Sony/Minolta equipment; no hard facts" and I stand by that in relation to this thread and in particular the 28-135mm lens. I have provided facts and third party opinions (here's another http://www.alphamountworld.com/revie...f4-lens-review) about the quality of the lens which you conveniently ignore in favour of you entrenched opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i have been totally rational and have not been personally abusive. you on tha other hand are being hysterical and personal. this is you're "modified" post. yes, i saw the original.

    pot...kettle...black.
    "i have been totally rational" [Definition: Consistent with or based on reason; logica] Not in my book you haven't.

    "I have not been personally abusive"
    Really? In my post I said ....
    "You gotta love that Rooz, nothing if not predictable"
    your response ........
    "you can umm and ahhh and complain and piss and moan all you like Peek but thats just reality"

    Your perception of a non-abusive and rational response is a long way from mine!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    no need to respond. this forum has too many good people in it to bog down with this sort of nonsense. the people here who i enjoy seeing their work are on flickr and i can comment there. but i couldnt let your post go unanswered cos, as per usual with any rabid fanboyism, its baseless and is either mildly irritating or pitifully amusing...depending on my mood.

    class dismissed peek.
    Yet more abuse and unbridled, patronising platitudes. There is certainly some nonsense being talked, I wonder from whom it emanates?
    One truth you almost voiced; Buy the best glass you can afford, it will be a good tool in your quest for better images.
    _________________
    Camera: Sony DSLR-A700
    Lens: Minolta 28-135mm
    Exposure: 1/250th at f4.5
    Focal Length: 135mm
    ISO Speed: 800
    Date: 11th February 2009
    Attached Images Attached Images  

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •