mausta

mausta

Joined on Jan 8, 2011

Comments

Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Timmbits: I'm not on MFT, but MFT sure gets a nice lens.

Bring out a 20mm f1.2 (40mm equivalent) and I might just take a look at the MFTs.

Yabokie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie. bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bookie bokie

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 01:24 UTC
In reply to:

Chanthis: $1600 for a m4/rds lens? LOL, there's one born every minute.

YO CHANTIS
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens costs $2100. This lens is of similar specs. and build quality. IT also includes image stabilization.
Obvious when people are envious. They need to needlessly attack.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 01:20 UTC
In reply to:

quangzizi: Again reading the comment section is the best way to lol. So many "experts" here claim that this is overpriced, yet none has seen the actual performance and comparison with the Fuji. If you look up on the web, there are some samples of the Pana and damn they are so sharp and so good even wide open. That bokeh and characteristics are of course "leica".

I was taken back a bit by the price, but looking through the specs. It is more complicated than the Fuji (14 e in 11 groups vs 11 e in 8 groups). It seems to be heavier because it is fully metal as other Leica lens should be (fuji is only barrel and mount metal). OIS is yeah first of its kind for this. Considering all that and the leica badge (it costs), it seems OK at the moment. If further test proves this a lemon then we will know - not now...

Ignore everything Yabookie says. For one his english is always incorrect, which emphasizes his ignorance.
It makes no sense to even read his comments.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 01:17 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: To put things into perspective. I bought 64" 3D plasma TV with all bells and whistles for less than that. I can buy a used car for less than that. I can buy a house in 3rd world country for less than that.

IGNORANCE.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Lens costs $2100. This is the type of lens that Panasonic and Leica have produced. The Canon lens does not include image stabilization.
This website seems plagued with ignorant haters that are either 1. jealous of the size advantage of m4/3. or 2. enjoy bashing m4/3 gear for no apparent good reason.
Again nobody from m4/3 is going over to Canon products and trolling to their heart's content with ignorant claims.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 01:12 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: All these complaints about expense, likely by people who've never used, let alone owned, a good Leica M lens.

As for why this lens costs more than the other PanaLeica m4/3 lenses, well f/1.2 instead of f/2.8. See the faster lens lets Panasonic close a bit of the high ISO gap between APSC mirrorless bodies and 4/3s bodies. In other words, lower ISOs can be used with this lens than would be needed with the m4/3s PanaLeica 45mm lens.

ALSO the image stabilization will allow for even better results. Oh yeah have fun with your tank sized DSLR. I borrowed my father's new Nikon d7100 and was horribly disappointed in the size, the lack of information provided on the Optical Viewfinder, the cumbersome menu layout and button layout, and the overall clumsiness and awkwardness of using such as beast. I guess I have grown accustomed to all of the advantages that m4/3 offers.
Don't criticize what you have not ever tried for yourself and honestly have no true understanding of.
The world will always be full of HATERS.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 01:08 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: All these complaints about expense, likely by people who've never used, let alone owned, a good Leica M lens.

As for why this lens costs more than the other PanaLeica m4/3 lenses, well f/1.2 instead of f/2.8. See the faster lens lets Panasonic close a bit of the high ISO gap between APSC mirrorless bodies and 4/3s bodies. In other words, lower ISOs can be used with this lens than would be needed with the m4/3s PanaLeica 45mm lens.

Yo TROLL Boy Nerd2,
one, get a life.
two: The Canon 85mm f1.2 L lens costs over $2,000. THis is the type of lens that Panasonic AND Leica have designed and built. It is all metal, has Image Stabilization, and produces wonderful images with beautiful bokeh.
The beautiful advantage this lens has over Full Frame and even APS-C equivalents is that the DOF is equivalent to f2.4 on full frame, so say your subject's entire face will be in focus. F1.2 on full frame would render the tip of the subject's nose in focus.
So you get all of the light gathering advantages of f1.2 (this equates to faster shutter speed, LESS BLURRING) but the DOF of f2.4 which should allow subject's entire face to be in focus.
This has been reviewed as the finest m4/3 lens produced to date. The optical performance is excellent and the rendering of images is sublime. IF YOU CANNOT afford such things, luxuries to most, then purchase the quite excellent and affordable Olympus 45mm f1.8 lens for under $400.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 01:02 UTC

Yabookie with his same INCORRECT nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2013 at 22:39 UTC as 6th comment
On DPReview Gear of the Year Part 3: Olympus OM-D E-M1 article (396 comments in total)

It was nice seeing all those Nikon Nikkor lenses listed earlier, keep in mind with the correct adapter ALL of those lenses can be used on the EM-1 or any outer m4/3 camera. Albeit without electronic controls, you have to manually focus and adjust the aperture manually (via the adapter) and shoot in A aperture priority mode.
I shoot Nikkor's legendary 55mm f2.8 Micro and Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on my Lumix GH2 with fabulous results.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2013 at 15:02 UTC as 76th comment | 2 replies
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (631 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThePhilips: That's just crazy, Panasonic.

OK, it had to be done at least once, I'll give you that. And you did it right too: the cam is very very sexy.

But otherwise, your own LX7 would own GM1 in all relevant - portability - aspects. RX100 even more so.

P.S. And funny thing is, the GM1 body is smaller than the LX5 which was too small, the reason why the LX7 was made larger.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#180,467,491.397,350,472.30,448.306,312.306,ha,f

LX7 image quality is inferior, I owned an LX5 and LX7 (tried them both and sold them due to noticeably inferior image quality compared to my GH1 and GH2. Much larger sensor in m4/3. Yes the portability is comparable, but put on the Oly 45mm f1.8 and you will certainly see a world of difference in ALL aspects of the image.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2013 at 02:54 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (631 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Tien: Back in those days when the IQ 0f a p&s is getting better, many people wish there's a camera small enough to put in their pocket w/ interchangeable lenses, well, now their wishes came true and people begin saying things like , OH, the camera is too small for people w/ big hand, the control knobs not well placed, ect.....
there's no ONE PERFECT CAMERA FOR EVERYONE ! you got big hand? get a EM1 or EM5 or even a hasselblad

There are no m4/3 cameras that are "the same size as larger formats". Even the GH3 is smaller than DSLRs. Most APSC cameras and certainly full frame cameras dwarf m4/3 cameras. Once you put a lens on an APSC or Full frame the contest is over! Native m4/3 lenses are MUCH SMALLER than Canon/Nikon equivalents. Oh yeah I can use those Canon/Nikon lenses and nearly ANY OTHER LENS EVER made on m4/3!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2013 at 02:51 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (631 comments in total)
In reply to:

millardmt: I can't wait to see how this thing will handle when fitted with a Metabones Speedbooster and a 400mm f/5.6 Nikkor ...

Speaking of handling, will someone please interpret for me what the DPR review team means when they say the GM1 lacks a "proper" command dial? And what do they mean when they say they can't help but think that Panasonic could've designed the camera to offer more direct control? I can't figure out where any more buttons could go!

I'm pretty new to m4/3rds so I'd appreciate some help!

Thanks, Marc

(PS: Can I use the GM1's built-in 802.11n Wi-Fi connectivity to transfer files to my wireless-capable laptop? All Panasonic says is that I can make instant transfers to my "smart device." Well, I own neither a smartphone nor a tablet -- Is that going to be a problem? And do I have to run some kind of "smart app"? Thanks very much in advance. M)

Your replies are ALWAYS nonsense.
I use a Canon FD 70-210 on my GH2, which gives me an effective focal length of 420mm. LOOKS AWESOME to me. a 420 mm lens for U$60!!!! micro four thirds rules!!!!!!!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2013 at 02:48 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (631 comments in total)
In reply to:

OneGuy: Now is a good time to put in a wish for dpr's full review of this cam. (Dear Santa. I was very good most of the time and) Could you tell me how big of a hi quality print I can make with F1.7/20mm lens? With GF1 I go to 30x40 cm and routinely get good comments. So, how about 40x60 with GM1? More? Less? (Hello to elfs.)

To Telefunk, the sensor size of 4/3s cameras are much larger than the LX5, image quality is VASTLY superior, and you will be able to print larger or better than the LX5.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2013 at 02:46 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (631 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joseph Mama: I wish they could expand some of their bizarre statements, such as "The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 offers more bells and whistles, but you're limited to its fixed zoom lens and much smaller sensor. "

What does that actually mean? How is a 1 sq inch sensor "much smaller" than a 1.66 sq inch sensor?
What exactly "bells and whistles" are on the RX100 that this thing lacks?

look at the sensor size diagram on INTRODUCTION page. 4/3 sensor is approximately TWICE the area of the RX100 sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2013 at 02:44 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (631 comments in total)
In reply to:

FrankS009: The first impressions review says there is only one lens that the camera will not tip over with. This seems knit picking, and in fact there is also the 14mm pancake and perhaps the 20mm pancake. How many DSLR have unbalanced lenses?

Interchangable lens cameras are inherently better buys than fixed lens cameras because while all cameras are basically obsolete when they hit the market, the lenses offer added value down the road. This lens also seems to be an interesting one.

F.

They are saying "tip over" because the diameter of the other m4/3 lens barrels are taller than the body of this camera. The camera won't actually tip over but it won't sit flat on a table with these other lenses attached. The kit lens was designed with a smaller diameter lens barrel to fit the height of this body. So I don't think it will actually tip over with any lens.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2013 at 22:50 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (631 comments in total)

Yeah you are right as always YaBOOKIE, we have had sensors on cameras for 100 years. LMFAO! Oh yeah you forgot to mention that it will never be as good as a full frame camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2013 at 22:42 UTC as 62nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Spectro: Sculptor shouldn't be paid for this. He was paid commissioned by the government for this work. If anybody get paid would be the government. Like architects don't get paid for pictures of building they work on. That rights belong to the owner.

If it is a direct and blatant copy of the architect's work, then yes probably should be compensated. It depends on who owns the copyright, and also what the copyright law dictates. Laws typically are written in an explicit manner, so as to clarify rights and infringements on said rights. It has nothing to do with opinion or what you think is fair. It has to do with the letter of the law and whether or not it conforms to the constitution.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 02:11 UTC

It is pretty clear.
IF the Government had purchased the copyright to this sculpture then the artist would not have any claim.
Likewise if someone commissioned an artist (you) to make a work of art, then printed millions of copies of it and made over 17 million dollars, WITHOUT PURCHASING the copyright from you, don't you think they would owe you some of that money?
The reason there is copyright protection is because of instances such as this!
The artist is not to blame, he is exercising his (copy) rights to his original creation. Again if the govt. had purchased these rights from the artist he would not have the copy"RIGHT" anymore!!!! Don't bash the artist, he apparently still holds the copyright.
All of this bitching and moaning about how we can't take pictures of anything because someone else made it is absurd. Copyright law defines what is and what is not protected. If you are profiting from your photography better consult the copyright law or better yet a copyright lawyer.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 02:07 UTC as 17th comment | 4 replies
On Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hobbit13: These (amazing) photos have been online for ages (Wikipedia uses them in many articles). So what's the "news"?

I'm still deeply impressed by the image quality of the "Turret lathe operator ", even for today's standards, that's a very high resolution picture.
see full image at:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/WomanFactory1940s.jpg (uploaded in 2005!)

If these are from the library of congress I strongly doubt there is any post processing. Do you think Ansel Adams photos need post processing to look good, of course not, so why would these color photos need post processing?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2013 at 21:34 UTC

Yabookie
This is the point of micro four thirds .
BTW I used the pane 45mm f2.8 in this comparison bc the new 42.5 was not available
http://j.mp/145vnZx

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 03:33 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Mescalamba: Wonder if it will be worse than previous, tho its hard challenge to beat such cr*p of lens. :D

Last time Panny did kit lens "right" was original 14-45 for G1/GH1. And even that had some serious reservations.. (distortion/sh*tload of CA).

They should ask Leica how to do proper kit lens (14-50mm f2.8 - 3.5 for 4/3 was their design).

The reason that all three of these lenses are upwards of $1000 is because of the constant 2.8 aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 23:30 UTC
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »