Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 1201, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Marty4650: In typical fashion, Olympus refuses to be greedy.

Leica would have doubled their price for a special edition camera, but Olympus only charges $250 more. Then, out of guilt, throws in a more expensive kit lens lowering the effective price increase to only $150,

This is why Olympus can never be Leica. They just aren't greedy enough!

And by the way, the brown leather really does look nice...

That brown was designed to match a Billingham canvas bag. For the hipsters!

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 23:29 UTC

In typical fashion, Olympus refuses to be greedy.

Leica would have doubled their price for a special edition camera, but Olympus only charges $250 more. Then, out of guilt, throws in a more expensive kit lens lowering the effective price increase to only $150,

This is why Olympus can never be Leica. They just aren't greedy enough!

And by the way, the brown leather really does look nice...

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 22:11 UTC as 75th comment | 8 replies
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a "1 inch" sensor? I know it is anything _but_ 25.4mm diagonal.

PLEASE can we start coming up with a STANDARD way of measuring sensor sizes that does NOT keep harking back to ancient vacuum tubes?

Brian

Richard, you can fix both problems by simply using surface area in square millimeters. Bigger numbers will always mean bigger sensors, and there is absolutely no reference to full frame, or any other size, as a "standard."

If you do that, then it becomes.....

1977 sensor = kodak medium format
0864 sensor = full frame
0519 sensor = APS-H
0368 sensor = APS-C (Sony, Nikon, Pentax)
0329 sensor = APS-C (Canon)
0225 sensor = four thirds
0123 sensor = 1"
0058 sensor = 2/3"
0043 sensor = 1/1.7"
0028 sensor = 1/2.3"
0016 sensor = 1/3.2"

You know, we have been classifying engines this way for over a century. Everyone knows instantly that a 1600cc engine is smaller than 3000cc engine.

Personally, I like using crop factor because it also does. It tells you what to expect when adapting a full frame lens. And there are plenty of full frame lenses floating around.

That might not be a big problem for many people, but it certainly does provide more information.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 21:48 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a "1 inch" sensor? I know it is anything _but_ 25.4mm diagonal.

PLEASE can we start coming up with a STANDARD way of measuring sensor sizes that does NOT keep harking back to ancient vacuum tubes?

Brian

One thing for certain.... the current method of combining proprietary names, vacuum tube sizes, and commonly used terms just causes too much confusion.

We need a system based on some standard, and size seems to be a good choice. We need to be able to look at a name and know instantly what it means. Without consulting Wikepedia!

Here's my absolute favorite size classification chart.

http://www.agrogreen-olives.com/images/gr.jpg

Greek black olives are classified in seven categories, based on how many it takes to make a pound. The smallest ones are called "Jumbo" and the largest ones are called "Super Mammoth."

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 21:33 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a "1 inch" sensor? I know it is anything _but_ 25.4mm diagonal.

PLEASE can we start coming up with a STANDARD way of measuring sensor sizes that does NOT keep harking back to ancient vacuum tubes?

Brian

Edgar, I agree.

The one big problem I see with using percentages is that an APS-C sensor becomes a "43%" which might cause confusion with the old 4/3 sensor.

And the goal here is to avoid confusion and create clarity.

The simplest and easiest method seems to be using the crop factor and then moving the decimal point, as Richard suggested.

Sometimes smaller numbers do mean bigger things. Isn't a Canon 1D a lot bigger than a Canon 5D?

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 11:36 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a "1 inch" sensor? I know it is anything _but_ 25.4mm diagonal.

PLEASE can we start coming up with a STANDARD way of measuring sensor sizes that does NOT keep harking back to ancient vacuum tubes?

Brian

We could also use crop factors to identify sensors, but that would create the reverse situation, where bigger numbers meant smaller sensors.

If we did that, then:

0.4X sensor = kodak medium format
0.8X sensor = Pentax 645D
1.0X sensor = full frame
1.3X sensor = APS-H
1.5X sensor = APS-C (Sony, Nikon, Pentax)
1.6X sensor = APS-C (Canon)
2.0X sensor = four thirds
2.7X sensor = 1"
3.9X sensor = 2/3"
4.5X sensor = 1/1.7"
5.6X sensor = 1/2.3"
7.6X sensor = 1/3.2"

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 00:27 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a "1 inch" sensor? I know it is anything _but_ 25.4mm diagonal.

PLEASE can we start coming up with a STANDARD way of measuring sensor sizes that does NOT keep harking back to ancient vacuum tubes?

Brian

Edgar, sorry, there are several medium format sensors.

The example I used was for the Kodak 51x39 sensor, which is 1,977 square millimeters, or 229% of the a full frame sensor.

I didn't list every medium format sensor, because there is a character limit for these posts.

The Pentax 645D has a 170 sensor, and the Leica S has a 160 sensor as you pointed out. But the 229 number is correct for the Kodak 51x39 sensor.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 00:11 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a "1 inch" sensor? I know it is anything _but_ 25.4mm diagonal.

PLEASE can we start coming up with a STANDARD way of measuring sensor sizes that does NOT keep harking back to ancient vacuum tubes?

Brian

Here's an idea.

Since sensor size has a lot to do with image quality, and people seem to like the concept of calling 36x24 sensors "full frame," then we express every sensor size in terms of the "percentage of full frame" the sensor area covers.

This method is easy to understand. Bigger number means bigger sensor. Full frame would be called "a 100 sensor," since it covers 100% of the standard we call full frame.

So we end up with something like this:

229 sensor = kodak medium format
100 sensor = full frame
60 sensor = APS-H
43 sensor = APS-C (Sony, Nikon, Pentax)
38 sensor = APS-C (Canon)
26 sensor = four thirds
14 sensor = 1"
7 sensor = 2/3"
5 sensor = 1/1.7"
3 sensor = 1/2.3"
2 sensor = 1/3.2"

Now, I do realize that diagonal measurements, height and aspect ratio count too, but if you want a simple system that makes sense, then using "percentage of full frame surface area" might be the best way to go.

Leica would probably call the sensor in their Leica T a "Typ 43."

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 23:35 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (494 comments in total)

Another well written piece by Jeff Keller.

Simon knew what he was doing when he brought him on board a few years ago.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 15:29 UTC as 123rd comment

Olympus had the right idea with the weather sealed 12-50mm EZ lens. But they just didn't execute it right. Even though it had a macro setting, and a powerzoom, it lacked sufficient speed, contrast and sharpness.

Perhaps Panasonic has provided a much better version of the same concept? I suppose the professional tests will tell us more, but so far this looks like a nice affordable, weather sealed kit lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 12:19 UTC as 11th comment
On article History Repeating: Olympus PEN-F Review (1092 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: It's stunning in looks. A+. However, what about the camera's purpose?

No built-in flash. If it did then would it be powerful?

Limited battery life; even with a separate flash (requiring more batteries).

No mic port.

Stupid priced and 3 times higher than the competition.

Less image quality than better choices.

Hardly smaller than a small DSLR and strong competitor. Maybe D5500.

Lens cost about 3 times more, comparatively; each.

Body and just two prime lenses cost $1800+ minimum; to start.

Adapting lenses is costly, unbalanced, troublesome and unmatched. Both technically and with image qualities.

@ Neodp....

Exaggerate much?

"priced three times higher than the competition"

Can you name a competitive camera selling for $400?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 21:29 UTC
On article History Repeating: Olympus PEN-F Review (1092 comments in total)
In reply to:

makofoto: If the FujiFilm X-M1 can have a APS sized sensor, why not this Olympus?

Jake.... yes, size does matter.

But it just depends on how much low light shooting you do. My four year old EM5 delivers good results at ISO 3200, which is higher than I really need to go. In fact, it delivers better files than contemporary APSC cameras did four years ago.

You can always get better ISO performance if you are willing to pay the price in size, weight and cost. But the difference between 4/3 and APSC just isn't that big.

If you really need to shoot in total darkness, then the full frame Sony A7s might be the camera for you.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 21:26 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: YES!!!!! Finally. This is what I've been looking for. I prefer Panny lenses (well, kit and normal zoom lenses that is) over the Oly ones. I keep Panny lenses on all of my Olympus cameras - just a habit (and preference)

I've long since sold off the Olympus 12-50 (had two of 'em) because I didn't like the lack sharpness and contrast levels in that lens - hoping that either Olympus or Panny heard the call and came up with a suitable replacement. It looks like Panny responded first.

If this new Panny 12-60 (harkening back to the gold ole' Zuiko 12-60 of regular Four Thirds day which I still have) is as at least as sharp (or sharper) than some of the other Panny normal zooms (i.e. the older 14-45, 14-42 II, and of recent...the awesome little 12-32), then I'll be one happy camper. Will be first in line to try out this baby. Oh yeah baby!!!!!!

Ben, think about this.

Once you factor in the improvements in sensors and IBIS, this lens might out perform the legendary 12-60mm Olympus.... and be a lot smaller and lighter too.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 14:56 UTC

OK, since we are running out of lenses to make, I vote for a weather sealed 11-22mm f/2.8 lens.

That was my favorite four thirds lens. Build a smaller version in M4/3 and you have created the perfect normal zoom for street shooting.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 13:39 UTC as 30th comment | 6 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review (972 comments in total)
In reply to:

DDWD10: Can you just tilt the LCD up and down on the intermediate cradle without pulling the thing out on the 4 twisty legs?

Yes, this is a very intriguing design. But it sure looks like something overly complex, with too many parts, that could easily break. Simple designs with fewer parts seem to be more reliable.

Every time you add another part to something, you increase the odds of a breakdown of some kind.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 01:04 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review (972 comments in total)

"The LCD has all the elegance of two deck chairs mating, but it provides a useful range of articulation"...... great line, and very descriptive. I give Richard Butler a lot of credit for using that phrase.

This sure looks like a great camera for anyone who is deep into the Pentax lens system. I doubt it will get any converts from Nikon, Canon or Sony, but it was smart to create a full frame DSLR for the Pentax faithful. I hope they sell a lot of them.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 22:35 UTC as 266th comment | 5 replies
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (516 comments in total)

You might think that for $249 the thumb grip could include pass through connections for a flash. But it doesn't. It just has a cold shoe on top.

I suppose the upcoming $449 grip model will have that feature...

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 16:17 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

tedolf: No hot shoe? Again?

They would be better off reintroducing the GF2.

TEdolph

@ Caerolle..... I'd say you are right. This is aimed squarely at a very specific customer. Which explains the limited release. Panasonic thinks this will have huge potential in Asia.

@ tedolf..... I'd also guess you are right. I think Panasonic might be seriously overestimating the demand for better image quality among those people obsessed with taking selfies. This would just be a second device for millenials to carry around with them, that they probably won't want.

I suppose time will tell. I just don't think the selfie/social media/wifi web posting folks are THAT concerned about making huge prints....

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

tedolf: No hot shoe? Again?

They would be better off reintroducing the GF2.

TEdolph

Teldolph...

You know what this is for. It is expressly designed for those selfie obsessed people who want better image quality than their cell phone camera can provide.

In other words, all four of those people.

For the rest of us, the GM1 at $100 (or even more) less is a much better camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Is this any more than a GF7 with a firmware upgrade?

Hey.... that would be really great. If it had that feature, then I might be seriously tempted.

It would a lot cheaper and less painful than hair transplants!

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 20:13 UTC
Total: 1201, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »