Michael Reichmann's initial look at the Canon 5D with a few pics

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by deryck lant, Sep 3, 2005.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    deryck lant, Sep 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. deryck  lant

    wavelength Guest

    You may not think he's the expert, but you can't really argue with the
    pictures now can you?

    And he wasn't reporting on the lens, he was reporting on dynamic range
    and noise levels mostly.

    That aside, I usually find Reichmans articles thought-provoking, if
    lacking some minor details (which one can find elsewhere) He seems to
    feel it his job to present an alternative view of most camera
    equipment. I'm okay with that.
    On the just plain wrong part, I'm not sure what you're referring to,
    but I haven't read all of his past articles. Care to inform further?

    I'm not sure why you posted the Castleman page. It has nothing about
    the 5d on it.

    Is this a lens post or a 5d post? Make up your mind please.
     
    wavelength, Sep 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. deryck  lant

    adrian Guest

    Sigma Lens & Canon

    SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
    Hi List,

    Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300 digital,
    or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK, and
    roughly how much will it cost.

    Hope you can help
    Best Wishes
    Adrian
     
    adrian, Sep 3, 2005
    #3
  4. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    from "wavelength" <> contains these words:

    > You may not think he's the expert, but you can't really argue with the
    > pictures now can you?


    > And he wasn't reporting on the lens, he was reporting on dynamic range
    > and noise levels mostly.


    I was not finding fault with the current article. I was just stating
    I had reservations about some of the info on his site.

    > That aside, I usually find Reichmans articles thought-provoking, if
    > lacking some minor details (which one can find elsewhere) He seems to
    > feel it his job to present an alternative view of most camera
    > equipment. I'm okay with that.
    > On the just plain wrong part, I'm not sure what you're referring to,
    > but I haven't read all of his past articles. Care to inform further?


    His report on the then new D2X was flawed. He withdrew the report. There
    have been several reports on equipment which have been at variance with
    the rest of the world.

    > I'm not sure why you posted the Castleman page. It has nothing about
    > the 5d on it.


    Castleman's methods and findings I have confidence in.

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Sep 3, 2005
    #4
  5. deryck  lant

    wavelength Guest

    I assume you have never made a mistake before?

    Reichman apologised and explained profusely about the situation.
    Another reviewer he noted, made the same basic mistake that he did, and
    had to pull their review also.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise.shtml

    Stating that "alot" of his past articles have been plain wrong is a
    little suspect. You only site one example of "plain wrong", should I
    assume that you just disagree with the rest of his articles?
     
    wavelength, Sep 3, 2005
    #5
  6. deryck  lant

    PanHandler Guest

    "wavelength" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Stating that "alot" of his past articles have been plain wrong is a
    > little suspect. You only site one example of "plain wrong", should I
    > assume that you just disagree with the rest of his articles?



    "alot" - what is alot?
     
    PanHandler, Sep 4, 2005
    #6
  7. deryck  lant

    Charles Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:38 GMT, "adrian" <>
    wrote:

    >SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
    >Hi List,
    >
    >Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300 digital,
    >or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK, and
    >roughly how much will it cost.
    >
    >Hope you can help
    >Best Wishes
    >Adrian
    >
    >

    is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens. It
    worked quite well, until I dropped the whole kit and broke the lens.
    If it's a new lens it should be fine, if it's an older one there may
    be problems.
     
    Charles, Sep 4, 2005
    #7
  8. deryck  lant

    Mike Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    "Charles" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    ...
    > On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:38 GMT, "adrian" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
    >>Hi List,
    >>
    >>Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300 digital,
    >>or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK, and
    >>roughly how much will it cost.
    >>
    >>Hope you can help
    >>Best Wishes
    >>Adrian
    >>
    >>

    > is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens. It
    > worked quite well, until I dropped the whole kit and broke the lens.
    > If it's a new lens it should be fine, if it's an older one there may
    > be problems.


    Here are some results with an "old" 70-300 Sigma.
    http://dhost.info/photocanon/animaux/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=1
    --
    Mike
     
    Mike, Sep 4, 2005
    #8
  9. deryck  lant

    Confused Guest

    "PanHandler" <> wrote:

    > "alot" - what is alot?


    On usenet, that means 1+ incidents of someone making
    a mistake, admitting the mistake, then correcting it. :)

    ô¿ô
     
    Confused, Sep 4, 2005
    #9
  10. deryck  lant

    PanHandler Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.


    Huh?
     
    PanHandler, Sep 4, 2005
    #10
  11. deryck  lant

    Charles Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Charles" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.

    >
    >Huh?
    >

    Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
    the zoom ratio.

    I've been having trouble reading things today, must be getting old.
     
    Charles, Sep 4, 2005
    #11
  12. deryck  lant

    PanHandler Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Charles" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.

    >>
    >>Huh?
    >>

    > Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
    > the zoom ratio.
    >
    > I've been having trouble reading things today, must be getting old.


    It means that the max aperture varies from f4 at 28mm, and to f5.6 at 105mm.
    The zoom ratio is determined by dividing 28 into 105 (3.75). Zoom ratio has
    nothing to do with aperture.
     
    PanHandler, Sep 4, 2005
    #12
  13. deryck  lant

    Charles Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:26:01 -0500, "PanHandler"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Charles" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Charles" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.
    >>>
    >>>Huh?
    >>>

    >> Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
    >> the zoom ratio.
    >>
    >> I've been having trouble reading things today, must be getting old.

    >
    >It means that the max aperture varies from f4 at 28mm, and to f5.6 at 105mm.
    >The zoom ratio is determined by dividing 28 into 105 (3.75). Zoom ratio has
    >nothing to do with aperture.
    >



    I wouod have guessed that I would divide 70 into 300. Shows what I
    know.

    The connection between zoom ratio and aperture comes from the way
    Sigma wrote it on the lens.
     
    Charles, Sep 4, 2005
    #13
  14. deryck  lant

    Bill Funk Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:33:45 GMT, Charles <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:26:01 -0500, "PanHandler"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Charles" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Charles" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens.
    >>>>
    >>>>Huh?
    >>>>
    >>> Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
    >>> the zoom ratio.
    >>>
    >>> I've been having trouble reading things today, must be getting old.

    >>
    >>It means that the max aperture varies from f4 at 28mm, and to f5.6 at 105mm.
    >>The zoom ratio is determined by dividing 28 into 105 (3.75). Zoom ratio has
    >>nothing to do with aperture.
    >>

    >
    >
    >I wouod have guessed that I would divide 70 into 300. Shows what I
    >know.
    >
    >The connection between zoom ratio and aperture comes from the way
    >Sigma wrote it on the lens.


    The "1:4 5.6" is written that way because the F/ number is a ratio of
    the focal lens to the aperture opening. It's a very common way of
    putting the aperture on a lens.
    F/4 means the aperture opening is 1/4 the lens' focal length, while
    F/5.6 means the aperture opening is 1/5.6 the lens' focal length.
    Thus: 1:4 5.6 describes the F/ numbers for the lens at its widest and
    longest focal lengths.
    It follows, then, that on a prime lens (for example, a 50mm lens) only
    one F/ number would be shown, and that would be the smallest F/
    number, or the widest aperture opening. So, a 50mm 1:1.8 lens would be
    a 50mm lens with a widest aperture of F/1.8.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Sep 4, 2005
    #14
  15. Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    "Mike" <> wrote in message
    news:8nqSe.28664$...
    >
    > "Charles" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    > ...
    >> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:38 GMT, "adrian" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
    >>>Hi List,
    >>>
    >>>Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300
    >>>digital,
    >>>or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK,
    >>>and
    >>>roughly how much will it cost.
    >>>
    >>>Hope you can help
    >>>Best Wishes
    >>>Adrian
    >>>
    >>>

    >> is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens. It
    >> worked quite well, until I dropped the whole kit and broke the lens.
    >> If it's a new lens it should be fine, if it's an older one there may
    >> be problems.

    >
    > Here are some results with an "old" 70-300 Sigma.
    > http://dhost.info/photocanon/animaux/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=1
    > --
    > Mike


    Lovely results :)
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Sep 4, 2005
    #15
  16. deryck  lant

    PanHandler Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon


    >>>>"Charles" <> wrote in message

    > I wouod have guessed that I would divide 70 into 300. Shows what I
    > know.


    My bad. Got my NG threads mixed up. You're correct - it would be 70 into 300
    (4.29)
     
    PanHandler, Sep 4, 2005
    #16
  17. deryck  lant

    jean Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    "Mike" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:8nqSe.28664$...
    >
    > "Charles" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    > ...
    > > On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:13:38 GMT, "adrian" <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
    > >>Hi List,
    > >>
    > >>Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300

    digital,
    > >>or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK,

    and
    > >>roughly how much will it cost.
    > >>
    > >>Hope you can help
    > >>Best Wishes
    > >>Adrian
    > >>
    > >>

    > > is that F4-5.6 or 1.4-5.6? If the latter, it sounds like my lens. It
    > > worked quite well, until I dropped the whole kit and broke the lens.
    > > If it's a new lens it should be fine, if it's an older one there may
    > > be problems.

    >
    > Here are some results with an "old" 70-300 Sigma.
    > http://dhost.info/photocanon/animaux/index.htm?size=1&exif=Y&page=1
    > --
    > Mike
    >

    Excellentes photos.

    Jean
     
    jean, Sep 4, 2005
    #17
  18. deryck  lant

    adrian Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    I Take it this means yes then ! and I should buy it

    Thanks For Your Help



    "adrian" <> wrote in message
    news:StnSe.2374$...
    > SIGMA AF/MF ZOOM LENS 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO MACRO SUPER
    > Hi List,
    >
    > Can anybody advise me, Can I use the above lens with a Canon 300 digital,
    > or do I need to have it chipped, where can I have this done in the UK, and
    > roughly how much will it cost.
    >
    > Hope you can help
    > Best Wishes
    > Adrian
    >
    >
    >
     
    adrian, Sep 4, 2005
    #18
  19. deryck  lant

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    Re: Sigma Lens & Canon

    On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:00:39 +0000, Charles wrote:

    > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:39:04 -0500, "PanHandler"
    > <> wrote:


    > Never mind, I can't read. the lens says 1:4 5.6. The 1:4 must mean
    > the zoom ratio.

    The 1:4 5.6 is the aperture ratio (that which most of us just shorten to
    aperture) i.e. f4 at the wide end to f5.6 at the telephote end.
    --
    Neil
    Delete delete to reply by email
     
    Neil Ellwood, Sep 4, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Mcdonald
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    505
    Michael J. Moline
    Jan 19, 2004
  2. deryck  lant

    Canon 5D: First Impressions with a few pics

    deryck lant, Aug 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    843
    David J. Littleboy
    Sep 5, 2005
  3. Annika1980

    Reichmann vs. Rockwell: "It's the equipment, Stupid!"

    Annika1980, Dec 20, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    308
    Kinon O'Cann
    Dec 21, 2006
  4. W

    Michael Reichmann reasoning for AA filters?

    W, Oct 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    826
    Martin Brown
    Oct 22, 2007
  5. Cody
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,549
    John Wunderlich
    Jun 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page