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: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 17 Jul 2010 04:32 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:15:41 -0700, NGBarfart <ngbarfart(a)ngflatulence.net> wrote: >In article <nd2246pdrtenfn030jf397tiad5bksa742(a)4ax.com>, > Schneider <schneider(a)none.net> wrote: > >> 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. > >Nice! >Fresh sock I see, and a change of Usenet provider. > >Was it getting too uncomfortable with giganews? or are they just getting >less tolerant of P&S trolls? Eh? What's that you said about cameras and photography? Oh, that's right. NOTHING As usual. Out yourself as an attention deprived resident-TROLL much? LOL!
From: Rich on 17 Jul 2010 09:46 On Jul 16, 7:23 pm, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote: > "Robert Coe" <b...(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 Problem is, most published images are still closer to 4:3 than 3:2 so any pro would benefit from a switch to 4:3 as a format.
From: Robert Coe on 17 Jul 2010 10:49 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:09:05 +1200, Me <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: : On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA 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). : > : > http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp : Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street price : will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP. : You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in every : performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base that : assumption. So perhaps it's you who is insane? Adorama doesn't have it, but says they'd sell it for $669 if they did. B&H and Hunt's don't appear to have heard of it yet. I once paid about $700 for a Sigma telephoto, and so far it's been worth it. But $670 for a 3rd-party walking-around lens does seem pretty steep. Sigma's previous walker, the 18-50mm f/2.8, goes for about $250 less. Maybe they're trying to hold the price up until they run out of the old one. Bob
From: Robert Coe on 17 Jul 2010 10:58 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:46:45 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: : Problem is, most published images are still closer to 4:3 than 3:2 so : any pro would benefit from a switch to 4:3 as a format. Without subscribing to that windy assertion, for which you provided no proof, I'd simply point out that it's better to have the camera format be too wide than too high, because cropping in the long dimension wastes fewer pixels than cropping the same amount in the short dimension does. Bob
From: N on 17 Jul 2010 19:24
"Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:1sg346ddg7cv2hnlq8cuf6mqjsspte36lr(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:46:45 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > : Problem is, most published images are still closer to 4:3 than 3:2 so > : any pro would benefit from a switch to 4:3 as a format. > > Without subscribing to that windy assertion, for which you provided no > proof, > I'd simply point out that it's better to have the camera format be too > wide > than too high, because cropping in the long dimension wastes fewer pixels > than > cropping the same amount in the short dimension does. > > Bob I've read a lot of nonsense in this group and that's up there with the best of it. Have you ever turned your camera through 90 degrees? -- N |