forpetessake

forpetessake

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.

Comments

Total: 541, showing: 361 – 380
« First‹ Previous1718192021Next ›Last »
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Very bad idea. Well, maybe it will work in the UK. I was involved in some Leitz/Leica tryouts. People who were inclined to buy found reasons not to and the people who didn't want to spend the money, still didn't.

This was also tried with a "refurb" selling price, since after the trial, the items were no longer new. Still didn't work. But it did create a lot of used inventory.

True, but it would work if they were renting them out at say $5/day rate, that would cover depreciation, and cut off those who aren't really interested.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 17:43 UTC

Try-before-you-buy is a great tool for consumers, but it also, whether it's GM or Panasonic, reveals weak interest in the marketplace, which isn't surprising at all.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 01:07 UTC as 28th comment | 3 replies
On CP+ 2013: Panasonic interview article (202 comments in total)

>"Uematsu explains the company's options: 'There are three solutions, I think: we can make a camera with a small sensor and a bright lens - like the LX7 or we could use a bigger sensor but with a slower zoom lens."
----
Whoa, somebody stop that guy, he's telling the company's secrets. If people with small sensors start understanding equivalense they will stop paying 10x for those 24-70 f/5.6 and 70-200 f/5.6 in FF world -- ignorance of the users translates into healthy margins, so let's keep it that way.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2013 at 05:14 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies

People with small sensors seem to suffer from inferiority complex, otherwise how can one explain inability to understanding the simple laws of physics behind the equivalence (http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#1)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 07:03 UTC as 28th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

slncezgsi: Way to go, Olympus.

I believe that both of these lenses will be much appreciated by the users. And no - none of these are sub $500 lenses.

I guess it is going to be a LOT easier to carry around a 150/2.8 than 300/2.8 (for FX). And probably cheaper too. Also much lighter tripod will be needed to hold the combo (should it be needed).

Releasing these lenses tells me that Olympus is confident that m4/3 will keep growing and attracting pro shooters - these are not lenses an average mirrorless shooter (no offense to anybody) would need/buy. There must be enough of those who would consider m4/3 over DSRL (APSc or FX) for serious work.

m4/3 is on the right track and in my opinion a very welcomed alternative to FX DSLRs (please notice: I am saying alternative, not a replacement)

What's the point of comparing apples and oranges? The 150/2.8 should be compared to equivalent 300/5.6, and no such FF is neither heavy nor expensive and probably achieves better optical quality, at least it's easier to achieve a better optical quality in FF lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2013 at 21:52 UTC

Has Metabones set some fire to Panasonic feet? Finally, they are starting to get that people want faster lenses. The 85mm f/2.4 and 300mm f/5.6 equivalent lenses are getting closer to FF standards, provided they didn't sacrifice image quality.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2013 at 06:56 UTC as 52nd comment | 4 replies
On First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster article (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

jlabate: Since the autofocus is so poor, how about offering a simpler less expensive one without autofocus.

They have Leica-NEX SB, which doesn't have any electronics and is $200 cheaper.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 03:19 UTC
On First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster article (359 comments in total)

Why nobody screwed EF 24-70/2.8L lens and reviewed how the resulting 17-50 f/2 measured up? This is the most interesting case, because NEX is lacking good quality fast standard zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 03:09 UTC as 105th comment | 1 reply
On First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster article (359 comments in total)

Those who were skeptical about the Metabones claims turned out to be right. The resolution, CA, vignetting, contrast do get worse, some may say unacceptable. The AF isn't really working, but manual focusing on EF lenses is poor, because the lenses were designed for AF and focusing rings are crude. It still remains an option between now and the time when FF NEX will be released. When the latter comes out, nobody will care about this adapter.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 01:07 UTC as 115th comment | 3 replies

f/6.7 -- shameful, simply shameful.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 00:35 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
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: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2

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 ?

rd

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.

Cheers

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
Total: 541, showing: 361 – 380
« First‹ Previous1718192021Next ›Last »