bradleyg5

Lives in Canada Selkirk, MB Canada, Canada
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Jul 18, 2007

Comments

Total: 91, showing: 81 – 91
« First‹ Previous2345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

bradleyg5: Yawn, wake me up with they hit F/0.8. f0.95 is not terribly impressive when you only have to produce an image circle 1/4th the size of fullframe. sure the intensity of light is high, but the total amount of light passed through the lens is not worthy of that price tag.

@digifan

Make it look like a Leica lens and you guys just swoon. I'm just saying, you put a magnifying glass on the back of 35mm 1.4 and you'd have a brighter aperture than this. How's that for "technical"

It's not an impressive lens. Lets say you have a viewfinder, lets pretend this is a 4/3 lens and not a micro 4/3. So you have a mirror and a viewfinder. If the viewfinder displayed an image the same size as a Canon 5d viewfinder, this lens on a 4/3 would produce a substantially dimmer image in the viewfinder than a 35mm f/1.4 on a 5d.

Do you understand how that matters? You get how that works? how it doesn't actually gather that much light in comparison to a full 35mm lens? I know you guys can't see past the numbers you are presented, but seriously, use your brain.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 12:00 UTC

These cameras are SO expensive, the high ISO is terrible and the lens are slow. I mean what are you going to do with it? it's purely an outdoor camera. Like a good tropical vacation camera I guess. I'm not debating the IQ will be amazing, but only at base ISO so you gotta use it in bright light.

I feel like indoors, a Panasonic GX1 with a 20mm F1.8 would be way more capable.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 08:28 UTC as 64th comment | 4 replies

Yawn, wake me up with they hit F/0.8. f0.95 is not terribly impressive when you only have to produce an image circle 1/4th the size of fullframe. sure the intensity of light is high, but the total amount of light passed through the lens is not worthy of that price tag.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 08:18 UTC as 14th comment | 16 replies

that's an ENORMOUS price drop. I'd be so angry if I bought that camera already.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 08:12 UTC as 81st comment
On article Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom (190 comments in total)

Pretty sad Tamron beats the major manufactures to the punch on this one. I have a sigma 24-70mm so this would be a logical step. If it comes in under or close to a grand I'm sold.

Canon and Nikon really should have developed one of these by now. Their large aperture primes is where you need the IS the most. shooting indoors at events.

To be able to confidently lock the shutter at 1/60th and the aperture at max then just put it on auto ISO, that sounds like a dream of a workflow, but my hands are just not quite stable enough to know I won't wreck any shots myself.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 18:24 UTC as 62nd comment

That makes no sense, why would a 12-24mm need IS? motion blur from people moving would be a problem before hand shake would be at that focal length. If they make that, it's going to be like 2 grand, I mean what, it's going to have to come with a view finder as well. These ultra zooms manufactures are releasing are too expensive, you gotta keep it under a thousand dollars. It's not a luxury lens it's a necessary part of the kit.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 12:52 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

R Thornton: I paid that for my Canon 5D MkII, 50/1.4 and 580 flash (+other lenses I had from before) and am pretty sure it can smoke Fuji any time in any type of photography. What is it exactly that you get with this gorgeously looking (but not that small, either) camera over a proven weapon of choice like MkII?

Better low light, no AA filter. People won't act like your pointing a shotgun at them like they do when you point a 5dII. This camera is way less intimidating than a 5dII. Fugi would easily reign supreme for indoor events or photo journalism.

Very much considering dumping my 5dII and lenses for this. I was honestly expecting it to be closer to 3 grand. All depends on the auto focusing.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 08:34 UTC

I don't understand why people think the price is high? that's an extremely competitive price. This camera will absolutely destroy Leica system. Lets face it, everybody loves the Leica style an form factor, but they simply aren't working mans cameras, they are a pure luxury item.

This has the form AND has fuction. Why anybody would spend money on a Leica digital camera with a cropped sensor is beyond my comprehension. NONE of the Leica lens work properly on crop sensors. Here is Leica like system, BUT the lens are actually appropriate to the format.

I'd rather shoot an event with one of these cameras than a canon camera. How people react when you point a camera at them is worth a high premium.

Blows my mind, this is an extremly low price, if the auto focus can exceed a Sony N7 it's a no brainer.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 08:03 UTC as 126th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bradleyg5: I don't understand how Ricoh is even still in business. Who is buying into this system. How are they even making back their investment?! All of there cameras are ungodly expensive, have brutal image quality, and the worst headline features.

It's like they make cameras for people who don't want a good camera, they just want a camera nobody else will have. They make cameras for people who keep them on a shelf.

It's like they come out with this retarded system and they don't even push the boundaries, it's like none of the lens/sensor combinations do anything unique. So you go, oh it's flexibility you can just buy one system and it can do all these different things. BUT the cost is so high you could just buy a whole bunch of other dedicated systems that each would be better suited.

Like how could they possibly sell over a hundred of these? of the almost 7 billion human beings on this planet, I cannot imagine more than 100 would actually pay for such a thing as this.

Well brutal with the tiny sensor module at least.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2012 at 10:01 UTC

I don't understand how Ricoh is even still in business. Who is buying into this system. How are they even making back their investment?! All of there cameras are ungodly expensive, have brutal image quality, and the worst headline features.

It's like they make cameras for people who don't want a good camera, they just want a camera nobody else will have. They make cameras for people who keep them on a shelf.

It's like they come out with this retarded system and they don't even push the boundaries, it's like none of the lens/sensor combinations do anything unique. So you go, oh it's flexibility you can just buy one system and it can do all these different things. BUT the cost is so high you could just buy a whole bunch of other dedicated systems that each would be better suited.

Like how could they possibly sell over a hundred of these? of the almost 7 billion human beings on this planet, I cannot imagine more than 100 would actually pay for such a thing as this.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2012 at 09:32 UTC as 24th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: That 1000mm reach is really tempting for paparazzi style candids... But photographer-friendly without RAW? I'd happily sacrifice the GPS for RAW.

nude beaches with nearby cliffs here I come!

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2012 at 08:36 UTC
Total: 91, showing: 81 – 91
« First‹ Previous2345Next ›Last »