• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Sigma ART lenses soon in Sony FE mount


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 December 2017 - 07:29 PM

I remember that weird post about how Trump was the best of the choices.... So, just down the garbage chute with the silly Tesla remarks.


  • dave's clichés likes this

#22 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,014 posts

Posted 15 December 2017 - 08:20 PM

Get a clue.

 

I have studied the Tesla case, and I repeat that there are arguments to say it's a fake. They can't even manufact the number of cars they promise; they are really expensive, in spite of the fact that they get tons of fiscal contributions. The space project of Musk is precisely the next step of the Ponzi scheme.

 

Just saying that we must resolve pollution doesn't mean that anything that proclaims to solve it works. Furthermore, electric cars doesn't reduce pollution. They just move pollution elsewhere, because you have to produce that electricity. That it can be produced with solar and eolic in sufficient quantities must be demonstrated. And Tesla didn't compute how many pollutants are required for the creation and disposal of batteries (which, BTW, have a life cycle of just a few years). BTW batteries are extremely pollutant when they catch fire, arguably more than gasoline or such, in fact fire brigates have been provided special instructions to deal with them (it's also much harder to extinguish their fire).

 

Buses aren't cars, as far as I know. :rolleyes:


  • dave's clichés likes this

#23 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 15 December 2017 - 09:47 PM

Trump

 

Congrats for the dumbest argument on this discussion! :lol: Reductio ad Trumpum is the new Reductio at Hitlerum.

 

Buses vs cars.

 

Of course, the terminology thing is a nonsense argument. Cars are cars, buses are buses, trucks are trucks. In any case, I've clearly distinguished "general purpose cars". In the urban cycle performance requirements are more regular and limited (e.g. no high speed, no need for high autonomy, feasible recharge at fixed moments of the day, etc...) and this context can be more easily fit by electric cars.

 

So, if you say, Tesla didn't calculate this or that, I just ask, did Ford, Peugeot, Fiat, VW or BMW do better in the past?

 

They don't need to change so frequently a component so relevant and full of sensitive materials as the battery pack. In any case, I can also take your point, and conclude that nobody does a complete calculation on the true ecologic footprint, hence it's difficult to prove anything in this sector, both pro and against an electric car. Also because fake measurations such as the "dieselgate" suggest that we can't blindly trust anything we read.

 

In any case, we have some models, in the China case, somebody tried to do some math:

 

https://www.bloomber...e-still-cleaner

 

Now, the good point is that if you have a polluting energy plant that distributes energy to car chargers, this is much better than having thousands of engines burning carbon fuel, because you can centralize and scale solutions for mitigating the pollution. I don't deny that. Still, you have coal to produce all that energy in some way, and doesn't solve the pollution problem (this paper is a year old, but the situation hasn't changed):

 

https://www.scientif...essarily-clean/

 

If we drop the Tesla and think of hybrid, I am less pessimistic (the deal here is to reduce consumption by recovering energy e.g. during braking, etc...). Still, these cars are really expensive and they have to prove to be able to stay on the market. This field, in any case, is even more complex to predict: first because in the past decades we've seen - generally speaking - lost of wrong predictions about markets growing, usually too optimistic; and because this goes beyond the EV industry scope, I mean a new financial crisis (that could be still after the corner) could mean less money for a state budget for incentives, and less money in the family budgets for buying an expensive car.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#24 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 15 December 2017 - 10:50 PM

Mobility IS expensive and currently at the cost of fossile resources, as long as we're not able to gain a lot of energy of the already available sources like sun, wind, and waves. We're just used to be mobile all the time. Heck, we even import lenses for far away :huh:  (that would now be the more or less elegant loop back to topic).

 

I don't think we'll solve the traffic problems this night. A last word to the buses of Shenzhen: It was a sample of how quickly China is progressing one they put a goal on their agenda. While in our regions politicians are trying to keep their seats in parliament or "afterwards" a well paid job in industry, we have to admit this system comes with weaknesses based on human nature.



#25 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 16 December 2017 - 12:01 AM

Yeah, it is a problem that electric cars only run on electricity made from burning coal. Too bad no other electricity can be used, like solar/wind/renewable sources/nuclear.

 

Any more bogus arguments/propaganda points?


  • dave's clichés likes this

#26 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 16 December 2017 - 09:32 AM

It's not only about the energy required to run the car (where the owner has influence), but also the kind of energy used to built it. Especially the battery (where the owner or potential buyer has no influence on).

Stoppingdown has a point, and I think this is a valid discussion. The total ecological footprint of current (!) electric cars is something to question. I don't have enough expertise to prove either side right or wrong, but personally I am very sceptic the Tesla way (or generally the electric car way) is the solution of all problems, at least not with the current infrastructure.
  • obican likes this
Editor
photozone.de

#27 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 December 2017 - 09:57 AM

I also see this points, but we can remain to be skeptical or do something about it. Mobility and "needs" to be mobile is growing, traditional car's exhausts are polluting (and with the diesel-gate every "pro diesel or petrol" person was kicked against the head by a cynical car industry.

 

I don't say, electric cars are THE or the ONLY answer to growing mobility demand. Currently cars are cheap like mad because the market here is saturated (the first word was "stausurated", the German speakers know all about...) but I invested some money in a custom built bicycle - no electric one, no car. In fact I could have got a car or a Sony FF mirrorless with some lenses. (anyone noticed: again I tried to bring us back to Sony, lenses, maybe even Sigma? ^_^ ) I like being mobile. That's why I don't buy a car. Traffic is collapsing by too many of them. Do we find solutions? Well except for stopping the engines a couple of times - no. For immobile cars you can use any power source... And we even didn't start to talk about hydrogen engines (another ghost, like liquefied petroleum gas) 



#28 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 10:37 AM

Congrats for the dumbest argument on this discussion! :lol: Reductio ad Trumpum is the new Reductio at Hitlerum.

 

 

Of course, the terminology thing is a nonsense argument. Cars are cars, buses are buses, trucks are trucks. In any case, I've clearly distinguished "general purpose cars". In the urban cycle performance requirements are more regular and limited (e.g. no high speed, no need for high autonomy, feasible recharge at fixed moments of the day, etc...) and this context can be more easily fit by electric cars.

 

 

They don't need to change so frequently a component so relevant and full of sensitive materials as the battery pack. In any case, I can also take your point, and conclude that nobody does a complete calculation on the true ecologic footprint, hence it's difficult to prove anything in this sector, both pro and against an electric car. Also because fake measurations such as the "dieselgate" suggest that we can't blindly trust anything we read.

 

In any case, we have some models, in the China case, somebody tried to do some math:

 

https://www.bloomber...e-still-cleaner

 

Now, the good point is that if you have a polluting energy plant that distributes energy to car chargers, this is much better than having thousands of engines burning carbon fuel, because you can centralize and scale solutions for mitigating the pollution. I don't deny that. Still, you have coal to produce all that energy in some way, and doesn't solve the pollution problem (this paper is a year old, but the situation hasn't changed):

 

https://www.scientif...essarily-clean/

 

If we drop the Tesla and think of hybrid, I am less pessimistic (the deal here is to reduce consumption by recovering energy e.g. during braking, etc...). Still, these cars are really expensive and they have to prove to be able to stay on the market. This field, in any case, is even more complex to predict: first because in the past decades we've seen - generally speaking - lost of wrong predictions about markets growing, usually too optimistic; and because this goes beyond the EV industry scope, I mean a new financial crisis (that could be still after the corner) could mean less money for a state budget for incentives, and less money in the family budgets for buying an expensive car.

 

   I'm sorry to say stopping down that your post reads like it was written five years ago!

 

    There is no longer the argument that the production of LI batteries is highly polluting, in fact the level of lithium is around two percent and they will be recycled strictly by law.

   

 Not once was solar, hydro-electric, wind, tidal, wave or other renewable energy mentioned.



#29 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 11:12 AM

It's not only about the energy required to run the car (where the owner has influence), but also the kind of energy used to built it. Especially the battery (where the owner or potential buyer has no influence on).

Stoppingdown has a point, and I think this is a valid discussion. The total ecological footprint of current (!) electric cars is something to question. I don't have enough expertise to prove either side right or wrong, but personally I am very sceptic the Tesla way (or generally the electric car way) is the solution of all problems, at least not with the current infrastructure.

 

    With all the plastics, wiring gadgets and the like, the difference between electric and petrol vehicles in terms of pollution from production, can't be good from either.

  I'm sorry all arguments against electric vehicles are " now over".........it's just a question of being able to produce enough of them.....and that's happening slowly........simply Tesla showed the world that it could be done......so kudos to Elon.....if he achieved nothing further than just that...we owe him one!

 

   When an industry as huge as the car corporations decide to produce electric cars.......it isn't for nothing!

 

 

 

   BTW. France produces 83% of electricity from nuclear power, the rest is hydro-electric , solar and wind power, so the "coal" word here is non applicable!   France's electrical generating  emissions are as near as dammit   zero!    Any one remember acid rain and smog in England before the smokeless coal era...I do!   

 

 Coal has to go!


  • Brightcolours and JoJu like this

#30 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 11:30 AM

         Here's my contribution to the reduction of CO2 and global warming, my recently acquired electric mountain bike!

  Bought S/H.

  With a 48V 10.4 Ah lithium battery and a motor of 250 watts it makes a speed of 28-30kph and gives a range of 50-70 kms when adding some pedal power.

  Charging is from my solar panels  (4 panels= 200 Watts)..through a sine-wave converter and is done in under four hours.  

 

   In the last few days I made a mould and laid up the box in polyester/fibre glass, it carries 20Kgs easily.

 

  The technical specs are:  the beers go at the bottom of each side, (keeping the bike stable with a low center of gravity)  then if there's any room for a bag of crisps.......so be it!  :P

 

   Almost silent ride, no smoke, no pollution.......and charging from the solar panel is free!

 

    I love my all electric shopping/BIF bike................... very deeply!  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:

Attached Files


  • JoJu likes this

#31 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 December 2017 - 12:52 PM

Super cool! So, when one beer bottle breaks you still can filter the shards out of it and enjoy a drink? Just don't forget above all the necessary foods like beer & crisps to get some vitamins from a cherry pie  :lol:

 

That box clearly states "come on, front wind, is that all you got?"

 

BIF bike? One side bird seed or vulture bait, the other a cute Tammy? Beyond cool, it's almost freakin' frosty freezy!  ^_^


  • dave's clichés likes this

#32 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 16 December 2017 - 03:00 PM

Great, leave the folks alone for a day and they'll bring Tesla and Desertec into the discussion of Sigma lenses. :)



#33 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 16 December 2017 - 06:27 PM

Great, leave the folks alone for a day and they'll bring Tesla and Desertec into the discussion of Sigma lenses. :)

Then they complain if you discuss pictures here claiming it's a lenses forum 😀😀😀😀😀

#34 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 16 December 2017 - 07:47 PM

http://www.ivl.se/do...143435/C243.pdf
Editor
photozone.de

#35 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 07:13 AM

     I read the relevant parts of the paper........the industry in it's current state has not sufficient statistics to form a real conclusion on current or future types of batteries......interesting though! 

 

  But it's based as always, on coal burning!

 

 

 

  Is anybody doing the count for coal mining and oil drilling, extraction and the tanker transportation, the refining and then the  redistribution by road to our gas stations?  Of course this should include the building of the platforms and machinery, the building of the huge tankers, not to mention the oil burnt and CO2 produced to move it all.

   Not to mention the lives lost in mining or other disasters!

  Add to that a typical car over it's life cycle of say, 200,000 Kms will need  to burn 14,000 liters of fuel to get it there and all the CO2 produced!

   Then throw in the pollution from oil spillages the risks of collision and groundings etc. and you have a rather ugly picture.

 

 

  The resulting CO2 emissions from car production are of course reflected in the overall CF of the electric car......and makes their case considerably less attractive.

 

   What we have at the moment is a situation where producing an electric vehicle is, "pre-burdened", by a significant CF.......  take out fossil fuel burning.....and there's a massive turn round in the figures........it can then do what it does best........driving down the road cleanly!

 

    

   If every time mankind needs to produce a planet friendly invention eg. the electric car (or whatever).........and we have to shovel ten tons tons of coal on the fire to do it............seriously, what chance have we got?

 

  

 

 

 

   CF...carbon footprint.              

 

        

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 



#36 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 17 December 2017 - 10:54 AM

If you mention "mining disasters", "oil pollution" as risks, and are talking at the same time about the massive amount of nuclear energy used in France, I'm afraid you're forgetting Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three-Mile Island, Sellafield and Fessenheim as well as the endless small "incidents" happening and don't make it to the headlines. It was once said, that one nuclear major incident would happen maybe each 100.000 years. It already made it in the book "lies the industry told us", plus the book "and we wanted to believe them".

 

Do you know there's already a need for pre-nuclear steel to make chirurgical instruments? So much, that it pays to retrieve shipwrecks from WW I and II. Funny, they're using the steely graves of thousands of sailors to heal patients. I had no clue that we already have too much pollution to produce these things without shipwrecks.

 

Not to mention the need of "rare earths" for billions of single cars. But these mountains are in China and don't bother us much...  :rolleyes: as long as we get enough from them already put in boxes.

 

No matter how you look at it, transport not only costs money but due to more profits, we're exhausting the Earth in various ways.



#37 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 11:11 AM

If you mention "mining disasters", "oil pollution" as risks, and are talking at the same time about the massive amount of nuclear energy used in France, I'm afraid you're forgetting Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three-Mile Island, Sellafield and Fessenheim as well as the endless small "incidents" happening and don't make it to the headlines. It was once said, that one nuclear major incident would happen maybe each 100.000 years. It already made it in the book "lies the industry told us", plus the book "and we wanted to believe them".

 

Do you know there's already a need for pre-nuclear steel to make chirurgical instruments? So much, that it pays to retrieve shipwrecks from WW I and II. Funny, they're using the steely graves of thousands of sailors to heal patients. I had no clue that we already have too much pollution to produce these things without shipwrecks.

 

Not to mention the need of "rare earths" for billions of single cars. But these mountains are in China and don't bother us much...  :rolleyes: as long as we get enough from them already put in boxes.

 

No matter how you look at it, transport not only costs money but due to more profits, we're exhausting the Earth in various ways.

I did say "not to mention mining disasters"!   :P  

 

   I'm not advocating nuclear power but, it clearly has an advantage over coal in terms of CF!    

 

 

    In the end the public roads will be clogged to death and public transport will become obligatory,.......just electric bikes will remain!  :D     

 

    No, I have never heard of using pre-nuclear steel......I will google it!

 

     Done that, OK, it's used for measuring instruments...Geiger counters, whole body counting etc. Interesting!



#38 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 17 December 2017 - 11:39 AM

I read a report about disappearing shipwrecks. First it was strange why HNLMS De Ruyter, Java and Kortenaer disappeared completely or almost from the seabed. It's not only the steel, but also copper, brass and bronce.

 

The term in question was "low background steel". But you already found it.



#39 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 17 December 2017 - 12:00 PM

Disappearing shipwrecks? This is getting weirder by the hour.  :lol:



#40 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 17 December 2017 - 01:34 PM

Everything is connected. Even Sigma lenses to this forum and this thread (third attempt...)  :P

 

One can also say, it's so obvious, that Sigma goes also Sony, helping them to increase their lens offerings, that we can stay at the conversation of less important things like electric cars. 

 

Why don't you join us, Rover, and throw in some weird bits, too?  ^_^






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de