Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Film and Motrin
Next: Are there any programs that can convert color infra-red photos to actual color?
From: N on 16 Jul 2010 19:23 "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:f0k1469ljalrrmn43npfkb9qjijqinjlg9(a)4ax.com... > > How can you say that with a straight face? You must know that the trand is > towards wider, not higher, formats. Even TV sets and laptop computers no > longer use the 4:3 aspect ratio. The 1280x1024 flat-screen monitor is > pretty > much the last non-wide holdout, and that may be mainly because its 5:4 > aspect > ratio is moderately convenient when it's used in pairs. > > Bob Computer screens are, to put it mildly, used a lot in business, where squarish screens are usually more convenient than landscape. In the office, I use 2 x 5:4 as you correctly point out, for convenience. (I'm a computer programmer.) At home I use 2 landscape monitors. -- N
From: Peter on 16 Jul 2010 21:03 "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:8aba58FthmU2(a)mid.individual.net... > In rec.photo.digital Mr. Strat <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> wrote: >> In article >> <49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, >> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus >>> 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). > >> If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off. > > Not in my case. My Sigma lens isn't my most expensive or > optically best lens, but as it happens it's the lens whose > photographs have earned me the most money :-) > Wrong. The lens was just a tool that you apparently use well. You earned yourself the money by understanding the lens, its capabilities and applying them to the right situation. -- Peter
From: Peter on 16 Jul 2010 21:06 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a7f146hm2d33bq9avb7v8uaatvkj0n4abv(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >>On Jul 16, 2:40 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus >>> Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled >>> Four Thirds sensors. >> >>Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise > > > Not on my D700, it isn't! ;-) Considering your questionable rediaility on other issues, I wonder if you really own one. OTPH I really don't care. > -- Peter
From: Peter on 16 Jul 2010 21:09 "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:fik146l055tvtokiq1drpod63tnpghahem(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat" <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> > wrote: > : In article > : <49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > : RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : > : > $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus > : > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). > : > : If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off. > > And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because > I'm > one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or > because > Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors > and > their fanboys? Tomorrow I will have the chance to play with any Sigma lenses I want to. From what I saw today, they seem very well made. But, I will try a few. -- Peter
From: Schneider on 16 Jul 2010 21:42
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:03:45 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message >news:8aba58FthmU2(a)mid.individual.net... >> In rec.photo.digital Mr. Strat <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> wrote: >>> In article >>> <49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, >>> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus >>>> 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). >> >>> If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off. >> >> Not in my case. My Sigma lens isn't my most expensive or >> optically best lens, but as it happens it's the lens whose >> photographs have earned me the most money :-) >> > > >Wrong. >The lens was just a tool that you apparently use well. You earned yourself >the money by understanding the lens, its capabilities and applying them to >the right situation. Proving yet again that it's NOT about the pixels, or the elusive and nebulous "image quality" that you all go on about but can never define. IT'S THE CONTENT. Content wins, every time. |