Lives in United States Transylvania, United States
Works as a exorcist
Joined on Oct 3, 2011
About me:

I don't reply to private messages.


Total: 531, showing: 361 – 380
« First‹ Previous1718192021Next ›Last »
In reply to:

kewlguy: I thought one of the benefits of smaller sensor is smaller image circle thus lenses can be made compact while maintaining similar f/stops. If there are so many f/4-5.6 FF lenses with similar focal length, why does Oly have to make it f/4.8-6.7?? It's not cheap, too.

That's a myth spread by true believers that cropping sensor somehow automatically makes equivalent lenses smaller and lighter. Not really, in general case one can probably make m43 lenses shorter but all things being equal they will likely be heavier, the reason FF lenses are usually bigger is not because the sensor is bigger, but because they are a lot faster:

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I have an old, OM mount, manual focus, 75-300 by Vivitar, which I use with an Olympus micro 4/3 body. It is f/4.5-5.6 - and it is huge and heavy. So heavy, in fact, that I can't photograph vertically with it mounted on my tripod because the camera keeps sliding down, no matter how hard I tighten the camera to the tripod socket.
Perhaps the slow aperture is the price to pay to keep the lens compact and lightweight. I can't image how huge a 150-600mm EFL lens would be if they made it a constant aperture lens, say f/2.8.
That said the use of this new lens is limited to bright sunlit days, otherwise a tripod is mandatory. The focal length is quite useful, but it is a budget lens. If Olympus, with all their experience in optics, wanted to make a fast, high quality zoom lens for micro 4/3, they would. Only the price would make it unaffordable.

The lens isn't light. If you take Canon FD 100-300, which is a FF lens and was released about 30 years ago, it weighs 710g vs 423g for Olympus. But Canon is Full Frame and also F5.6 (weight grows faster than quadratically) and there were lot of improvement in materials for the 30 years, so lenses slimmed a lot. Unfortunately, the mirrorless market is in its infancy so there is little information what is and what is not possible, but by all indications this lens is very slow for no good reason. Even if Olympus made it heavier but at least f/5.6 it would have been better.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 00:10 UTC
In reply to:

Anfernee Cheang: I don't mind if you make it 50% thicker but with F2.0 aperture Sony. We need more fast lenses. The 35/1.8 and the upcoming 85/1.8 are definitely better idea.

And also we need more premium lenses like 16-50/2.8 and 50-150/2.8. I am still in the transition from single Alpha body to double E bodies, with the issue that my 16-50/2.8 SSM and 70300G do not have any nice replacement... That's really a painful long wait.

Especially, taking into account that one can take a 24-70 f/2.8 lens, add Metabones adapter and get 16-50 f/2.0 lens the same size as Sony's 16-50/2.8. All that talk about too large, too heavy, too expensive is a complete hogwash, not any larger, nor heavier, nor more expensive to manufacture than equivalent FF lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2013 at 06:43 UTC
In reply to:

RedDog Steve: Absolutely wonderful news !
I'm tickled pink.
This puts us just a bit closer to having a Universal Mount.

I don't care if these are lower tier companies or specialized products, next step is to add another "Major" player, PENTAX are you listening ?


What good is a mount if it won't work for bigger sensors?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2013 at 08:14 UTC
In reply to:

rocklobster: I remember the time when all the sceptics were saying the M4/3 would not last -an opinion based largely on the relatively poor noise performance of early cameras such as the G1 and E-P1. Early adoptees who bought a collection of lenses would be really celebrating now.


And it still goes nowhere, m43 has no future. The trend is toward bigger sensors, not smaller. Wait and see when Sony or Fuji release FF mirrorless, that will be a whole new game.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2013 at 08:10 UTC

Absolutely irrelevant. The camera world goes where Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Sony takes it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2013 at 08:03 UTC as 16th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Oery: so now they can sell their product under "Kodak" name, not "Kodax, Koddak or Kobak"
good job.....

Yes, it's much better than Sorny or Panaphonic :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2013 at 01:45 UTC

Kodak, ThinkPad, Jeep -- such wonderful Chinese names. Chinese Communist Party can be proud of such achievements, as their ideological teachers used to say: Capitalism will gladly sell the rope used to hang itself.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2013 at 04:25 UTC as 19th comment | 6 replies

In the final analysis what it means is that APS-C and m4/3 lens manufacturers have no excuse creating lenses same size as FF but faster proportionally to the crop size. If the typical f/3.5-5.6 zooms were ok on FF, the APS-C typical zooms should be f/2.3-3.7 and m4/3 should be f/1.7-2.8 to collect the same light on smaller surface. Why do Olympus/Panasonic/Sony produce those terribly slow APS-C/m43 lenses instead?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2013 at 19:41 UTC as 40th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

a1man: Does the increased sharpness mean need for more resolution? They will now justify 54mp nex7!

One more question, with another adapter, is it possible to get even more light and sharpness if used with a medium format lens? Medium format lens on a nex body would look very funny :)

The resolution only can be increased if the adapter were ideal. The FOV of lens is reduced, so lens contributes less, but the adapter glass more, and it's likely to be limited by the final elements. If you look at the FF lenses and the best m4/3 lenses, both have pretty much the same peak resolution 50-80 l/mm.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2013 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Caldwell: What planet is Canon on? They could have done the same thing on a new body with an evf and called it an "EOS-M". Maybe they are no longer clever enough?

If you think it's so easy to convert FF lens to APS-C neither loosing image quality nor speed, then it must be million times easier and cheaper to create a native APS-C lens with similar characteristics. The practice though shows it's not true.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2013 at 03:34 UTC

One more thing nobody mentioned. NEX sensors (esp NEX-7) don't like light falling at acute angles, it results in vignetting and color fringing already a problem with EF lenses. This adapter will contribute even more to this problem, so I wonder if anything but telephoto lenses will be usable at all.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2013 at 03:28 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

joepix: Hmm.. how many stops could be gained if they made one of these to convert medium format lenses to Micro 4/3s or even to use medium format on full frame? I'd love to use my old Hassy lenses again.

Exactly the same. It doens't matter what format lens was designed for, they shrink the FOV and by 0.71, while the aperture is the same, so that results in 1/0.71 = 1.4 (less due to losses in their adapter) increase in f/stop. The same amount of light will cover smaller area, nothing more. B.t.w. vignetting may become a serious problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2013 at 00:30 UTC

I'm quite skeptical that this gonna fly. One thing, I don't believe they will be able to preserve the image quality -- sometimes even simple protective filter significantly affects image quality, and here they added a lot of glass to lens' carefully crafted optical formula. Secondly, no fast autofocus means manual focus for all practical cases. But EF lenses have terrible manual focusing ring. Finally, EF lenses are too big and heavy to appeal to many people using NEX bodies. I have LA-EA2 adapter and A-mount lenses, and though there are no problems like here (focusing is fast and precise, image quality is not affected), yet I find even that setup to be too big and heavy and practically unusable with NEX body -- I would rather go with DSLR body if I wanted to use those lenses, it would be free from all the limitations and cost less too.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2013 at 00:24 UTC as 64th comment | 3 replies
On Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is... article (1412 comments in total)

Unlike boring predictable Canons and Nikons, Olympus OM-D created a cult following, that's for sure, the poll is yet another evidence.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 1, 2013 at 08:44 UTC as 412th comment | 4 replies
On Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? article (1511 comments in total)

This poll is meaningless. How do you compare apples and oranges? If this poll was called "which camera is the most hyped," then it would all make sense, and that's what seems people are voting for anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2012 at 05:59 UTC as 217th comment | 3 replies

I was trying to think what was that camera reminding me of, and finally I realized: Nanarchy!

Take a pit bull terrier, a real ugly son-of-a-b!tch. It loses it's leg, somehow, and the pit bull says to you "hey man, I've only got three legs, will lady pit bulls still like me?? I mean, you've got to stop from laughing, haven't you? He's ugly with *four* legs! He's ugly with three! Hell, he'd be ugly if you put him in a suit and gave him a carnation!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2012 at 04:37 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Alberto Tanikawa:

Much more coverage of the new V2 (more and better photos), including pictures of the V2 with FT1 adapter mounted, and some DX and FX lenses too. I still don't like the design, and Nikon's choice to use a smaller battery (10.6Wh vs 14Wh), but I want to see what this new camera has to offer in IQ and performance.

You meant to say 50mm F/5.6 FF equivalent
Yea, that's a super-duper lens, go Nikon!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2012 at 04:28 UTC

I have a feeling somebody's gonna get fired from Nikon pretty soon.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2012 at 04:19 UTC as 14th comment

In many posts people have difficulty understanding how crop factor works, somebody suggested that small sensors have inherent advantage when it comes to system size. That's a false belief. Here is an example, take a small FF lens, e.g. 35-70 F/3.5:
use 6x digital zoom on the long end to get an equivalent reach of superzoom on 6x crop P&S (e.g. Canon S5) of 35-420mm. Provided you have a sensor manufactured at the same technology node, you get the same image quality at the long end as the P&S camera but many times better quality on the short end. The FF camera system can be the same size as P&S.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 08:13 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
Total: 531, showing: 361 – 380
« First‹ Previous1718192021Next ›Last »