DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Image Upload

2 end

httivals
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #1 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Just thought I'd pass the word along. I don't especially like paying subscriptions, but this site's content is well worth the fee. I bought the 1 year subscription to DAP ($24) plus the Zeiss lens review (another $35). The tests are extremely well done. For me, I learn a lot and save hours of time. I am not connected to Diglloyd in any way. I've been reading his blog for about 6 mos to 1 year now, and have found that most things he says I agree with based on my own experience, but that there are some things he says I strongly disagree with. But his reviews, and especially the Zeiss ZF reviews, are especially well done.

Oct 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Cableaddict
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #2 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

URL ?

Oct 11, 2008 at 05:32 PM

httivals
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #3 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

Oct 11, 2008 at 07:33 PM

forestmage
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Lloyd's site is fantastic.

Oct 12, 2008 at 12:36 AM

httivals
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #5 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Yes. One thing he does in his lens tests, which I've not seen anyone do much of at all and certainly not in the controlled manner he does, is he identifies curvature of the focal plane on a lens by lens basis.

Oct 12, 2008 at 01:05 AM

genji
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Another vote for Lloyd's site. I'd already purchased the Zeiss lens guide so I received a discount on DAP but I would have had no hesitation in paying the full price. His lens and camera reviews are thorough with a strong emphasis on actual picture making. Sean Reid's site (http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/) is also well worth the $32.95 yearly subscription.

Oct 12, 2008 at 04:35 AM

Kit Laughlin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #7 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

I have bought a number of Lloyd's reviews as well. Definitely worth the money.

Two thumbs up from me.

Oct 12, 2008 at 04:50 AM

Conner999
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #8 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

+1 and for Sean Reid's site as well

Oct 12, 2008 at 11:10 AM

httivals
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #9 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

I also subscribe to Sean Reid's site, though he is adding content much more slowly than Lloyd, and also Sean Reid's site is probably about 50% focused on the Leica M8 and lenses, which doesn't interest me. Lloyd's site is 100% focused on the kinds of topics that this forum is about -- which lenses to use and how to use them to get the most out of a DSLR.

Oct 12, 2008 at 02:18 PM

Kit Laughlin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

I was Sean's very first subscriber, and am still subscribed, but because he uses some Flash variant to present the material, none of the standard navigation (like Page Down) works, which irritates the $%^ out of me. (Only moving the location indicator, or clicking above or below it work.) Good content, some typos, and some interesting images, too.

Thumbs up from me, too.

Oct 12, 2008 at 02:32 PM

Conner999
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #11 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

The flash part at SR's site is a PITA. I find his tests well done, I like the side-by-side resolution, contrast and CA tests. Some of the M-mount lens performance characteristics mimic those of the R, ZF and CV SL units, so that can be helpful sometimes.

Lloyd Chamber's site is well worth the $$$ - especially considering the cost of some of the lenses/bodies in question a buyer may be contemplating. He speaks his mind, does comparison tests and isn't married to a lens/camera line and is thus open to admitting he may have rushed to praise/tear apart a lens/body in prior tests if further use gives him a change of heart. My only critique is he makes conclusions on sample variation form only 2-3 samples, which is of little merit (unless you're using Canon glass...;>

Oct 12, 2008 at 02:47 PM

Kit Laughlin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #12 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Conner, I get that last part, but IF it's the case that sample variation can be found in such low numbers, that tells you that QC is a problem. I agree, though, that you can't say too much if you *don't* find variation in a sample of three; the sample size is just too small.

Oct 13, 2008 at 12:20 AM

Conner999
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #13 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Exactly - IF you find it in 2-3 samples, look out. My point really was that If you DON'T find it in 2-3 samples - you can't draw any conclusion other than sample variation isn't utterly abysmal ;>

Oct 13, 2008 at 01:18 PM

Kit Laughlin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #14 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Precisely. I guess that's the best he can do, as an individual. If I lived closer, I'd lend him my copy of whatever he was testing—that's would be a 33% bigger sample size! cheers, kl

Oct 13, 2008 at 06:42 PM

httivals
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #15 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

On Diglloyd's site today, he posted an interesting comparison of the resolution of the 1DsIII vs. Nikon D3. The tone of his posts has shown a general preference for the Nikon D3, until today that is. When he compared them using top flight lenses, the difference in detail from the 1DsIII (and presumably the Canon 5D) is astonishing. . . . During the week that I've been subscribed to the site, I've saved probably hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours of time that I would have probably otherwise spent trying/testing lenses that I now know aren't worth the effort. Also, by reading some of his detailed reviews of lenses I've tested and used quite a bit -- like the Oly 35mm shift and Nikon 35mm shift -- I can confirm that his tests and subjective evaluations confirm my own. . . .

Although I have no connection at all to Lloyd, I would like as many others as possible to also subscribe -- that way I expect he'll be motivated to undertake more and more extensive testing. His site is by far the best site I've found for in-depth testing of the lenses I'm interested in. Until now, it was the 16:9 site. But Digglloyd's tests appear more rigorous and repeatable than Hubsand's, and also Digglloyd has tested more of the lenses I'm especially interested, including all of the new ZE/ZF line. This isn't intended as a knock on Hubsand's 16:9 site, which is, after all free.

Oct 13, 2008 at 07:44 PM

llcFM
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Thank you everyone for the compliments.

I am going to keep working hard to keep providing good value.

Regarding sample variation, I agree that one cannot come to a statistical conclusion with only a few samples.

Grouping a fairly large number of new lenses of each brand (Canon, Nikon, Zeiss), I do have a pretty strong opinion on the quality variation, which is to say that Canon and Nikon have had frequent problems for me, but Zeiss is significantly better. I've now seen 20 or so Zeiss ZF lenses, which is a reasonably large group, even if they aren't all the same focal length, and I've seen more than that of Canon/Nikon. The occasional variation I've seen with Zeiss has required very precise testing, whereas it has been fairly obvious in the Canon/Nikon cases. Of course, the ZF lenses are not zooms, and thus less complex, and therefore easier to build consistently.

My Brand-new Blur article covers a few of the bad samples I've run into. I’ve had trouble with quite a few others, including the Nikon 17-35/2.8 (so blurry on one side it could be seen through the viewfinder), and the Canon 24-70/2.8L and 16-35/2.8L.

I don't think Canon is any worse than Nikon, but I've had too many problems to trust any brand. When I get a new lens, I test it with field shots for a quick check (certain revealing subjects), then I do something more rigorous. It's a tedious and annoying task, but better than the alternative of shooting a bunch of frames that are soft on one side.

Both Canon and Nikon are selling full-frame digital cameras that show any optical problems clearly. I suspect that quality (less sample variation) might be getting better, but then again it might not. It's just way too costly to make sure 100,000 lenses are within 0.1% variance.

Oct 14, 2008 at 06:11 AM

Kit Laughlin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #17 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Lloyd, I have said this before, but it may be worth mentioning again:

Presently, QC consists of an assessment of number of lenses that are returned by disgruntled customers, over the number of the production run. If this is under x (arbitrary number decided by bean counters) then, QC-wise, all is OK (think "Class Action").

If higher, action taken. IOW, we are all beta testers (you are an alpha tester!).

Cheers, KL

Oct 14, 2008 at 06:45 AM

llcFM
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Kit Laughlin wrote:
Lloyd, I have said this before, but it may be worth mentioning again:

Presently, QC consists of an assessment of number of lenses that are returned by disgruntled customers, over the number of the production run. If this is under x (arbitrary number decided by bean counters) then, QC-wise, all is OK (think "Class Action").

If higher, action taken. IOW, we are all beta testers (you are an alpha tester!).

Well, I'm not quite that cynical, but it might not be too far from the truth! At this point, I just buy from places where I can return a dud. That means a 4-5 hour commitment to shoot the lens in a variety of ways, assess the results and make a decision to keep or return it. Another good way is to buy used from a place that has a 30-day return policy, then shoot the lens carefully.

Either way, one loses (time and effort). That's life I guess.

Oct 18, 2008 at 02:09 AM

llcFM
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

httivals wrote:
I also subscribe to Sean Reid's site, though he is adding content much more slowly than Lloyd, and also Sean Reid's site is probably about 50% focused on the Leica M8 and lenses, which doesn't interest me. Lloyd's site is 100% focused on the kinds of topics that this forum is about -- which lenses to use and how to use them to get the most out of a DSLR.

Sean's insights are valuable. I think we don't have much cross-over, offering different takes on mostly different topics. Subscribe to both of our sites, we both offer a great deal!

I'll be adding topics like how to set up the Mac Pro optimally with memory, RAID, backup, etc, software evaluations of various kinds, because photography today is about an end-to-end system.

But as soon as I can get my hands on the Canon 5D Mark II, I'm going to put it through the ringer...

Oct 18, 2008 at 02:13 AM

Lotusm50
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

llcFM wrote
But as soon as I can get my hands on the Canon 5D Mark II, I'm going to put it through the ringer...

Perhaps a comparison with the Sony a900 might be worthwhile addition to that review. I'll definitely subscribe if you do that.

Oct 18, 2008 at 02:28 AM

llcFM
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Lotusm50 wrote:
llcFM wrote
But as soon as I can get my hands on the Canon 5D Mark II, I'm going to put it through the ringer...

Perhaps a comparison with the Sony a900 might be worthwhile addition to that review. I'll definitely subscribe if you do that.

If I can obtain the Sony without buying one, I certainly would like to do so. It's hard to work with large corporations, but I have several other avenues that sometimes work out.

DAP will over the next year contain a great variety of material, and I won't rule out the Sony.

Oct 18, 2008 at 02:46 AM

Tariq Gibran
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Lloyd, I was very impressed upon reading your reviews of the Hasselblad 500 CWD and H3D-39 a while back. I would also be very interested in seeing a comparison of the 5DII and the Sony a900. Such a comparison and review would certainly result in my paid subscription. It's so nice to see someone reviewing such a variety of equipment in an in-depth and objective way.

Oct 18, 2008 at 01:00 PM

Tariq Gibran
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

By the way Lloyd, I just read your blog criticism of Adobe and their update policy. Here is another one for you. The last update to ACR for Photoshop CS3 (4.6) does not support the Canon 5DII. One will have to update to CS4 or use the additional step of converting via the DNG converter to use ACR in CS3. I thought one of the main reasons for offering a separate, upgradeable ACR was to allow an easy upgrade of Photoshop for newer cameras. Instead, Adobe appears to put the $ before the customer. Just one more reason to use DPP, Raw Developer, Bibble or Capture One instead of ACR.

Oct 18, 2008 at 01:32 PM

Kit Laughlin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #24 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

Tariq and Lloyd,

This is a repeat of the scenario when CS2 was current, and CS3 was mooted (and I had one of hte cameras that was not going to be supported in the ACR revision, which would only work in CS3).

I don't like it, but it is standard Abobe operating policy. I am waiting for Bibble Pro 5 (but it will not support the LX3 eitehr, for some time, apparently)

Oct 18, 2008 at 02:33 PM

Tariq Gibran
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · DigLLoyd's Subscription Site

And I guess it should be said that Adobe is not alone in this practice but this type of policy does reek of exploitation.

Oct 18, 2008 at 02:52 PM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end