ginsbu

Lives in United States NYC, NY, United States
Joined on May 6, 2009

Comments

Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 (598 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: What a con job Canon did on us in North America. Offer nice little lenses, and withhold a decent camera to use them. I bought the lenses ONLY thinking there was a decent camera body coming some day. I'll never trust Canon like that again. Now I'm stuck with one of the worst camera bodies I have ever used if I want to make use of those lenses.
Bad Taste In mouth ... must reach for SONY

I really like the 22mm lens, but would like a body with better AF to mount it on. If Canon won't sell me one, I guess I'll have to buy a new body and lens from one of their competitors.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 19:40 UTC
On article Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 (598 comments in total)
In reply to:

WT21: Yes, disappointment here. I'd like a better body for the awesome 22mm lens to attach to.

My feelings exactly.The 22mm lens is superb and deserves a decent body to mount it on. The M3 could be it, but I guess I won't get to find out being in the US.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 19:24 UTC
On article Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 (598 comments in total)
In reply to:

Atsyn: I dont see the point of this EOS M compared to µ43, fuji or sony mirroless...

I have an EOS M and E-M5, and IMO the Olympus has better IQ. The Canon is visibly noisier in the shadows and has much higher chroma noise.

The Canon 22mm f/2 lens, OTOH, is a gem. And despite it's flaws, the touch screen interface on the EOS M is one of the best I've used.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 19:23 UTC

Too bad… The 22mm f/2 is a lovely lens—I'd sure love a decent body to mount it on!

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 06:18 UTC as 44th comment

Amazon has a note on supported raw formats:
"Supported RAW photo formats include: Adobe (dng), Canon (cr2, crw), Epson (erf), Fuji (raf), Kodak (dcr), Minolta (mrw), Nikon (nef, nrw), Panasonic (rw2), Pentax (pef), Sigma (x3f), and Sony (srf). Other RAW formats may be supported, but we cannot guarantee them fully."

So basically everyone but Olympus. Argh!

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2014 at 14:39 UTC as 12th comment | 5 replies

Nice to see more mirrorless designs from Samyang. I would really like to see them make a 9 or 10mm f/2.8 design for m4/3. (Their announced 10mm f/2.8 doesn't count: it's designed for DSLRs and accordingly it's huge.)

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 15:07 UTC as 27th comment
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review (351 comments in total)

Regarding he rear dial, if it's like my E-M5 it's easily turned by your index finger. When I'm using the camera one handed, I find it very comfortable to work both dials with my index finger, and still preferable to a single dial. Might be worth trying for folks who finds the rear dial awkward to work with their thumbs.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 18:13 UTC as 87th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ginsbu: I like the way the comparison images are presented, but it would be nice to see a more direct comparison without the DR expansion mode confounding the results.

It looks like Adobe's matched the camera Provia pretty well. Hopefully that impression holds up for other scenes and film emulations.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2014 at 03:19 UTC
In reply to:

ginsbu: I like the way the comparison images are presented, but it would be nice to see a more direct comparison without the DR expansion mode confounding the results.

Thanks, Richard!

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 21:00 UTC

I like the way the comparison images are presented, but it would be nice to see a more direct comparison without the DR expansion mode confounding the results.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 20:56 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies

Given that Panasonic already has the 7-14mm range covered with a fine lens (albeit at f/4), I was hoping Olympus would choose a different range for their ultrawide. 8-17mm is a very versatile range that could accommodate filter threads. I would have been particularly interested in a 9-20mm f/2.8 myself.

Hopefully at least a 1.4x TC will be coming to pair with the 300mm f/4 and 40-150mm f/2.8 zoom.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 13:37 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
On article Olympus releases OM-D E-M5 firmware version 2.0 (86 comments in total)

Happy to have this update and very glad to see Olympus adding new features/improvements in firmware updates! I hope further updates will be forthcoming. I'd like to see some of the other improvements made to more recent models, like "HDR Bracketing" and assigning MySets to the mode dial.

Of course Olympus still needs to enable exposure compensation when using Auto-ISO in M mode in all their cameras…

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2014 at 22:57 UTC as 20th comment

I'd like to see a 10mm f/2.8 designed specifically for mirrorless. I'd prefer specifically for m4/3 to allow smaller size and easier use of filters, but even covering APS-C with m4/3 mount would do. As it is, this lens looks much more appealing to DSLR shooters.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2013 at 18:22 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Canon updates firmware for EOS-1D X and EOS-1D C (33 comments in total)

M + Auto-ISO + Exposure Comp… Canon finally gets it — Olympus, you're next!

(And Canon, could we get this on the EOS M too?)

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2013 at 17:51 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply

Great job, Fuji!

(Other manufacturers take note: this is how it should be done.)

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2013 at 15:29 UTC as 81st comment
In reply to:

JBurnett: Another lens option is always good. Those who do indoor, low-light, or street work will likely welcome this lens. For me, the 14mm f/2.5 is just fine, because I'm typically shooting it at around f/5.6. Personally, I would welcome an extra-wide prime (say, 9 or 10mm) more than 15mm.

Yes, 9 or 10mm (f/2.8 or thereabouts) would be very welcome.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2013 at 02:06 UTC
On article Olympus PEN E-P5 Review (500 comments in total)

I'm glad to see this test updated to include results when using the anti-shock feature. I use is regularly to reduce risk of shutter shock with my E-M5. However testing with the 2 second delay is still needed in order to confirm DPR's claim that the E-P5's problem is IBIS failing to correct for motion introduced when pressing the shutter button, not shutter shock.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 02:53 UTC as 76th comment
On article Olympus PEN E-P5 Review (500 comments in total)
In reply to:

micksh6: There have been numerous reports about shutter shock (what you call camera/image shake) on E-M5 and other Pens at DPR m4/3 forum.
The shutter shock effect depends on camera body, lens and operator, you were just lucky that you didn't see it on E-M5 (and 17mm F1.8 wasn't available then).

You are wrong that it's caused by shutter button. It's easy to verify this - set up 2 second auto-timer and compare results. I don't see that you did this.
Most people use anti-shock setting - it's more effective than timer. But the shock is caused by shutter curtain movement and it may exist on tripod with timer or remote release.

@Raist3d: The shutter shock issues with the E-M5 isn't (primarily) an IBIS issue, but an issue of the impact of the shutter itself: how you support the camera alters how the impact of the shutter closing then opening before exposure translates into camera motion and hence blurring. DPReview is claiming the E-P5 has a different problem caused by IBIS failing to counteract camera body motion introduced by pressing the shutter button, but I don't think they've conclusively established that.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 15:55 UTC
On article Olympus PEN E-P5 Review (500 comments in total)
In reply to:

micksh6: There have been numerous reports about shutter shock (what you call camera/image shake) on E-M5 and other Pens at DPR m4/3 forum.
The shutter shock effect depends on camera body, lens and operator, you were just lucky that you didn't see it on E-M5 (and 17mm F1.8 wasn't available then).

You are wrong that it's caused by shutter button. It's easy to verify this - set up 2 second auto-timer and compare results. I don't see that you did this.
Most people use anti-shock setting - it's more effective than timer. But the shock is caused by shutter curtain movement and it may exist on tripod with timer or remote release.

From the description of your testing, I don't think you've established that. It all seems compatible with the shutter shock problem of the E-M5, where how the camera is held (including holding the camera differently when using the touch shutter release) can influence the appearance and degree of blurring. Testing using the self-timer (not anti-shock) while holding the camera in the same manner as has previously produced blurring should clarify the matter: if you still get blurring, it's the shutter itself — not pressing the shutter button — that's causing the problem (same as E-M5).

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 05:13 UTC
On article Just Posted: Ricoh GR Review (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Man, I want this with a 40mm (equiv.) f2.0 lens.

X100s is close enough, but I want a real compact where the lens folds flat. X100 is kind of a brick you wouldn't put in your pocket.

A retracting 35mm or 40mm equivalent f/2 would be great!

I'll note that the EOS M + 22mm f/2 is a good bit smaller than the X100, under $500, and will be getting faster AF with new firmware due shortly. Not as compact as a collapsing lens design, but perhaps worth considering.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 20:22 UTC
Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »