(03-06-2023, 09:37 AM)Rover Wrote: Well, dropping gear is not a good thing whatever it is (cue the lamentations for the Canon 100-400 I've smashed up just over a month ago, and it's gone into servicing...)
Speaking of servicing, a funny story, my car had a tiny bumper accident, however the dead spot detection sensor stopped working. Renault and Nissan are same dealership here in Qatar and have only one body garage for both car brand at Nissan , they repainted the bumper however it has been 3 weeks I am between Nissan and Renault to have the sensor repaired, Nissan say electronic part we can't do anything, Renault say it's from accident we can't do anything.
Till I decided to pay for the repairs at Renault and forget about insurance and accident they sent me a quotation 2900 QAR=750 EUR stating both sensors need repair, logically it is impossible to have an electronic problem on 2 sensors at the same time, I knew something was wrong, so I called the manager who is a friend of mine, and we checked the car together: connection cable damaged by accident, new qotation 20QAR=5 EUR plus labor...… after a while I receive a call saying the manager apologizes for the inconvenience, he ordered not to charge for labor nor for cable.... I am picking my car tomorrow morning repaired for free
Yeah, this is life. "You need to prove you're not a camel", as the local saying goes. 
BTW the Nikon 16-50 looks good, it's just a tiny bit thicker than the EF-Z adapter alone when collapsed. I've not yet sorted the first photos made with it though...
Alright... the Sigma 14mm is good for nothing on FF. Sharp in the center but the sides (nevermind the corners) remain horribly soft even when it's stopped down to f/9 or thereabouts. I don't know if this is field curvature or not, but... eh.
(04-13-2023, 02:29 PM)Rover Wrote: Alright... the Sigma 14mm is good for nothing on FF. Sharp in the center but the sides (nevermind the corners) remain horribly soft even when it's stopped down to f/9 or thereabouts. I don't know if this is field curvature or not, but... eh.
Almost all old lenses struggle on modern High resolution sensors.... remember this lens was designed for film, without getting into discussion about the resolution of film but at the time "high resolution scans" were around 5 megapixel.....
Downsize to around 8-10 megapixel which is enough for most printing and most screens and you will see it's still usable.
If you are after the ultimate per pixel sharpness you should look elsewhere obviously
Well, the 14mm edge sharpness wasn't very good even on the older 1D bodies.
Speaking of which, I'm travelling with the 1D4 again because I've been warned against using big fancy cameras and lenses where I am (Bahrain). So it's the good old 1D4, 16-35 and Tamron 70-300 for me now (more so since my 100-400 is still in repairs).
(04-17-2023, 01:00 PM)Rover Wrote: Well, the 14mm edge sharpness wasn't very good even on the older 1D bodies.
Speaking of which, I'm travelling with the 1D4 again because I've been warned against using big fancy cameras and lenses where I am (Bahrain). So it's the good old 1D4, 16-35 and Tamron 70-300 for me now (more so since my 100-400 is still in repairs).
You are in Bahrain now !!! our neighbors... drop by to Qatar
in the gulf area they are obsessed with permits, just take care of having photography permits everywhere before you go, they are free and easy to have just check online for every place you plan to visit, in general you send an email a few days before, they send you a form to fill, scan and and email back or you simply fill the form online.
For cultural sites and museums here's the page
https://culture.gov.bh/en/mediacenter/photo-permit/
for others you have to check for each place. Once you have the permit they are extremely friendly and helpful.
I took out the Tamron 70-300 VC (the Canon EF mount version) to shoot on Saturday, and it appears I've been a bit unfair towards it. It yielded razor sharp landscape shots on the Z9 (admittedly the day was exceptional with no haze or heat shimmer). Kind of unexpected for a $250 lens on a $5500 body. But then again, the Canon 24-85 also did punch above its weight (though I've not made formal tests, of course).
03-10-2024, 10:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2024, 09:12 AM by Rover.)
The 16-50 Z is da bomb on the Z9. I've finally, after precisely half a year, sorted one shoot I did with it (for fun, not work... A really big exhibit of African art). It was in a big spacious museum, very "mixed" lighting, and hardly a misfocused shot in all the heap of 450+ frames. Razor sharp too, even though as you might've guessed from my description of the venue, it was dark so I hardly would've stopped down. Almost disgustingly perfect images (technically, not artistically, of course) that I had great difficulty culling.
Guess the lens would smoke the feeble Sony counterpart in a formal test, too. :-) A keeper for sure and again, 24MP is plenty for me.
|
