 |
Rick Knepper
Lives in
Fort Worth, TX, United States
Works as a
Computer Consultant
Joined on
Oct 8, 2003
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Unfortunately, I do not see the most glaring defect of the website addressed - the seartch engine.
Full Frame Olympus?
Dear Hasselblad,
I could care less what you are doing in the Sony venture.
You are selling digital cameras. Electronics. A computer essentially. Your prices ought to be coming down year after year. You want some of this? You need a sub-$10K MF camera with more MPs than the D800. Sub-8k if you can manage it.
Rick Knepper: Not familiar with Olympus so after seeing this article, I researched these "Top Pro" lenses. Are you kidding me? $11045 USD (best prices on Amazon) for all 4 zooms plus whatever this new body will cost. Sure, I could probably ditch the 90-250 since I am mostly a WA user anyway and that would take the bill to $6546 for the lenses. Price for Canon's L series FF zooms covering a similar range sans the 90-250mm is $5907 (Amazon best price),
Lesson here: top lenses (assuming these Olympus zooms are as amazing) cost $$$$ no matter what format. Since pricing advantage isn't really there for the lenses, and assuming the user does not need a mature line of primes, the decision goes back again to a comaprison of bodies: format, resolutiion and the quality of the sensor including high ISO performance and DR, AF performance and ancillary functions. Sure I am stating the obvious but the allure of 4/3s just got less alluring after seeing the price of those lenses and the lack of choice in primes.
Dear DPR, it is ridiculous to limit the number of characters in a post since I can reply to myself and continuing typing. Word!!
I am replying to this news article while on a current photo trip and the last few days of hiking with serious elevation gains has piqued my interest in lighter equipment. I met up with a hiker on the trail who was shooting 4/3s and according to him, had moved from Canon due to weight. I wouldn't necessarily stick my nose into a topic I am unfamiliar with but I am truly interested in the brand and format. At least, Olympus has a line of quality lenses (trying to avoid the term "professional" because it is fraught with BS in the photography biz.) Can I assume Zeiss meakes lenses for this mount?
Not familiar with Olympus so after seeing this article, I researched these "Top Pro" lenses. Are you kidding me? $11045 USD (best prices on Amazon) for all 4 zooms plus whatever this new body will cost. Sure, I could probably ditch the 90-250 since I am mostly a WA user anyway and that would take the bill to $6546 for the lenses. Price for Canon's L series FF zooms covering a similar range sans the 90-250mm is $5907 (Amazon best price),
Lesson here: top lenses (assuming these Olympus zooms are as amazing) cost $$$$ no matter what format. Since pricing advantage isn't really there for the lenses, and assuming the user does not need a mature line of primes, the decision goes back again to a comaprison of bodies: format, resolutiion and the quality of the sensor including high ISO performance and DR, AF performance and ancillary functions. Sure I am stating the obvious but the allure of 4/3s just got less alluring after seeing the price of those lenses and the lack of choice in primes.
Steve Davey: Reading some of these comments, there seems to be some confusion over editing and post-production. I am not advocating RAW processing on the road on a laptop - unless you really have to. I am just talking about editing: throwing away the dross and working out which pictures to keep.
Here is another tip that some might disagree with. If you are shooting RAW always turn sharpening ON in-camera. Many will tell you not to, but the in camera settings on a RAW will only affect the JPEG preview, and not the actual image. Settings like contrast, saturation and crucially sharpening are just tagged as serving suggestions that will be over-ruled by your RAW software defaults.
Having a sharpened preview will make editing easier in simple software that doesn't create it's own preview, and will allow you to zoom in closer further camera to check focus.
To Mr Mojo
I can allow 800-1000 for my budget on a laptop. Actually, I use my laptop on the 4-5 photo trips I take per year plus whatever business trips I have to take. The usage does not represent anything close to everyday. If I used the laptop every day, and a lot of it for photo trips, the Macbook would be a no-brainer. I own an NEC 26" S-IPS based monitor and I am kind of spoiled when it comes viewing my images. I was in the Apple store the other day and the wonk I spoke to said Apple isn't making laptops with the Retina display in 17" versions. What's up with that?
Steve Davey: Reading some of these comments, there seems to be some confusion over editing and post-production. I am not advocating RAW processing on the road on a laptop - unless you really have to. I am just talking about editing: throwing away the dross and working out which pictures to keep.
Here is another tip that some might disagree with. If you are shooting RAW always turn sharpening ON in-camera. Many will tell you not to, but the in camera settings on a RAW will only affect the JPEG preview, and not the actual image. Settings like contrast, saturation and crucially sharpening are just tagged as serving suggestions that will be over-ruled by your RAW software defaults.
Having a sharpened preview will make editing easier in simple software that doesn't create it's own preview, and will allow you to zoom in closer further camera to check focus.
To Markin SF, thanks for your response.
Yes, my laptop screen sucks big time. I originally bought the laptop for storage and Internet access but it got to where I was carrying home so many files, it seemed like a good idea to dump some of them while still on the trip. The color shift when I move my head even one inch is horrendous. So, I do what you do, I don't make any decisions until I get back to the hacienda. I buy new lenses often and though I use the lens before going on a trip requiring critical usage, it would be nice to evaluate the lens further on the trip and make corrections to my methodolgy, if needed, during the trip.
Steve Davey: Reading some of these comments, there seems to be some confusion over editing and post-production. I am not advocating RAW processing on the road on a laptop - unless you really have to. I am just talking about editing: throwing away the dross and working out which pictures to keep.
Here is another tip that some might disagree with. If you are shooting RAW always turn sharpening ON in-camera. Many will tell you not to, but the in camera settings on a RAW will only affect the JPEG preview, and not the actual image. Settings like contrast, saturation and crucially sharpening are just tagged as serving suggestions that will be over-ruled by your RAW software defaults.
Having a sharpened preview will make editing easier in simple software that doesn't create it's own preview, and will allow you to zoom in closer further camera to check focus.
I have given up on reviewing my images on the road due to the poor quality of my laptop's monitor. I can't really see anything even for checking gross focusing and expsoure mistakes. I was hoping for some insight on laptop monitors and who was making the best but that was out of the scope of your article. It looks like Apple is still the only option for a great monitor in a laptop but I refuse to purchase one at the prices only Apple cult members can swallow or professionals forced to buy for their work.
What bothers me about Mr. Cicala's article being posted on DPR is that he can't be held out as an objective reviewer. My first question: why wasn't this testing done during the 5D II heyday? Answer: because Mr. Cicala is human and it wouldn't make sense business-wise to "expose" the poor AF performance of the 5D2 and hurt rental sales (it's not like most of us didn't already know this anyway). Now that Canon has released some whizbang replacement cameras, Mr. Cicala obv iously feels safe in discussing the 5D2's rather significant limitations
Mr. Cicala certainly has the right to post a review on his own website and is appropriate there but DPR should pull their head out and recognize the rather significant conflict of interest inherent here.
Leave it alone. Let the whiners go elsewhere.
Nikon can run off 20 copies and that should cover everyone on earth who could afford one of these things.
I downloaded ISO 100, 800, 1600, 3200 & 6400 for comparison in PS. The results are impressive. I would seldom need ISO6400 in my landscape photography but it's better to have the capability than not.
Not sure what the value is of the opinions of persons who haven't used the systems in question. I am not even sure I care what a professional does with the equipment. He/she is trying to sell images/videos and will try to sell them regardless of IQ. Once they are sold, he can wash his hands and go on to the next project. I'm trying to produce images I want to look at for years.
"Using HDR software and processing tools is the only method a photographer has to deliver precisely what he or she witnessed at the time of an image capture"
No camera/lens/human post rpocessor combination can deliver a precise representation of what was seen at a given location. No two sets of eyes see the same thing for that matter. Add in curved glass, circuits and the faulty memory of the human doing the processing and all you've got really is an approximation of what was seen. No big deal. I would think the healing tool a bigger evil.
Rick Knepper: Dear Mr, Yamamoto, enough about toy cameras, where in the heck is the D800? And, people interested in this camera who "want a DSLR without the weight" are confused puppies because the J1 and V1 are not DSLRs. Most people willing to deal with interchangeable lenses can deal with a few more grams of weight. Once the "new" has worn off tiny IL systems, folks will refocus on DSLRs (unless you can stick an APS-C or FF chip in these things ie the flight back to quality). Oh and by the way, if you are concerned about weight, do something about the ridiculous weight of your Pro DSLRs and lenses.
Are you just running your mouth because you can? Who said anything about a specific lens but if you would like to produce your your lens making credentials, I'd love to see them. You obviously have limited experience with other brands, companies who manage to produce FF f2.8 lenses that are much lighter.
Dear Mr, Yamamoto, enough about toy cameras, where in the heck is the D800? And, people interested in this camera who "want a DSLR without the weight" are confused puppies because the J1 and V1 are not DSLRs. Most people willing to deal with interchangeable lenses can deal with a few more grams of weight. Once the "new" has worn off tiny IL systems, folks will refocus on DSLRs (unless you can stick an APS-C or FF chip in these things ie the flight back to quality). Oh and by the way, if you are concerned about weight, do something about the ridiculous weight of your Pro DSLRs and lenses.
She can't understand $3000 for Photogs, I don't understand the spectacle of weddings in general. At least the photos will outlast many (her) marriages. :)
If anyone ever wants to know the definition of Slippery Slope, show them this case.
Imatation is the sincerest form of flattery except in this case, the imitation was way better and I think that bugged Mr. Fielder.
Dear DPR, "large sensor" means APS-C or larger, not nearly a 2x crop.
Corpy2: I give up. I've been looking for a telephoto shot, and have gone through 15 random images. Still have not found one.
Is ther any telephoto shot in these pictures? If not, why not? If yes, why can't they be organized in some fashion so that I can find the one that is?
60.4 =112mm equivalent
I would say the majority of the shots are telephoto. I would like to see DPR do samples in bonafide landscape settings in order to judge infinity performance - not just on this camera but on all lenses reviewed.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1679534/img_0130?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1673114/img_0140?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1673116/img_0169?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1679539/img_0224?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1679540/img_0255?inalbum=canon-powershot-g1-x-preview-samples
etc etc
Edit: sadly DPR doesn't allow links in these comments.