ogl

ogl

Joined on Jan 28, 2010

Comments

Total: 505, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

CosminMunteanu: Well, as expected. Excellent ISO performance. Seems a stop better than the GR.
An A2 with the 18mm f:2.0 pancake would also be interesting choice.

Stop better? You can't understand it without DXO tests. Real and marked ISO could be rather different. Remember X100's ISO situation. ISO400 is real ISO254. ISO800 is ISO504, And...Attention!!! ISO1600 is ISO1000. ISO3200 is 1012. 6400 is 1076. Great trick with ISO.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 11:02 UTC
In reply to:

ogl: Ricoh GR has MUCH better lens.

I've checked samples and studio comparison and found GR's lens is very sharp. X70 has rather bad edges.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 10:56 UTC

Ricoh GR has MUCH better lens.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 08:07 UTC as 25th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

ogl: The work of AF is not impressive although too many AF points...

compare with AF-C in Nikon

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 11:13 UTC

The work of AF is not impressive although too many AF points...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 09:10 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ogl: FE24-70mm F2.8 - is it Tamron?

Sony is one of the owner of Tamron. And several Tamron zooms were made under name Minolta, by the way.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 18:08 UTC

FE24-70mm F2.8 - is it Tamron?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 17:36 UTC as 112th comment | 6 replies
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)

It's was much cheaper in my childhood

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 19:20 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

ogl: Wrong specs of GRII at http://www.dpreview.com/products/ricoh/compacts/ricoh_grii

117*63*34.7 mm vs 112.5*64.4*44.4 mm
251 g vs 340 g

already changed by your friend from DPREVIEW :) after my posts

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 20:08 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X70 (248 comments in total)

Wrong specs of GRII at http://www.dpreview.com/products/ricoh/compacts/ricoh_grii

117*63*34.7 mm vs 112.5*64.4*44.4 mm
251 g vs 340 g

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 20:40 UTC as 40th comment | 1 reply

Wrong specs of GRII at http://www.dpreview.com/products/ricoh/compacts/ricoh_grii

117*63*34.7 mm vs 112.5*64.4*44.4 mm
251 g vs 340 g

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 20:40 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

SphericalAberration: Not enough to tempt Ricoh GR users to jump.
Do like the shutter speed dial and EV comp dial.
If it had a 40mm view or distance scale on the lens ring then it would have resulted in an instant order.

GRIII will have more MP and more features

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 20:35 UTC

http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/ricoh_gr_ii/ricoh_gr_ii_18.jpg
jonasraskphotography.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/xt123641.jpg

I don't undestand how X70 could be smaller than Ricoh GR

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 20:34 UTC as 15th comment

B&W photos made in DXO or Photoshop from RAW colours photos from cameras without AA filter are much better. Better tonality, better shades of gray and black. DXO has very good simulation of B&W films. The result is outstanding. If you add some PP, it would be sweet spot.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 18:47 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies

I see very soft pictures in JPEG and RAW from Leica M246 in studio and much sharper from K-3 and Leica Q.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 06:31 UTC as 32nd comment
On article Nikon fills in the blanks on professional grade D5 DSLR (554 comments in total)

ISO 3 280 000 is pure marketing move and pure SOFT ISO.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 13:15 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon fills in the blanks on professional grade D5 DSLR (554 comments in total)

6500 USD....Hmmm....

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 07:06 UTC as 49th comment
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Ultra wide? More like kinda sorta wide. I was hoping this would be for FX... that would have been something worth talking about

This lens covers from ultra-wide till wide-angle range. 14-16 mm are ultra-wide in 35 mm equiv. and 17-20 are wide angle.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2016 at 06:45 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Ultra wide? More like kinda sorta wide. I was hoping this would be for FX... that would have been something worth talking about

Film lenses were called ultra-wide from 8 till 24 mm. Wide-angle - 25-35 mm.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 31, 2015 at 20:10 UTC
On article Inching forward? Canon PowerShot G5 X review posted (387 comments in total)

Really bad lens.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2015 at 18:26 UTC as 103rd comment | 1 reply
Total: 505, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »