PIX 2015
brumd

brumd

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Works as a Web developer
Joined on Feb 8, 2012

Comments

Total: 110, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!

I always think m43 is about portability.........

At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...

you don't understand the things you read, and instead of trying harder to understand them, you keep repeating the same nonsense.
Grow up.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 18:59 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!

I always think m43 is about portability.........

At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...

So you post some citations, and you don't have a clue what they mean.
Seriously: how old are you?

Me and others have given you plenty of examples, which you can test yourself to make clear to you that in terms of "brightness" and "darkness" all F2.8 lenses are the same; it is independent of sensor size.

-Do you have a lightmeter? Do you know how they work? Do you know there isn't a setting for sensor size on light meters? Do you know why?

-Do you know that when you put a full frame F1.8 lens on a mft camera, the max aperture is still F1.8?

-Do you know that when the correct lighting for a scene is ISO100, F2.8,1/100 that these same values are valid for ALL cameras?

Yes, sensor size is important to image quality. We ALL know this. This is NOT because lenses are "darker" or "brighter". This is because the total amount of light that a sensor can gather. That is something completely different.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 14:04 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!

I always think m43 is about portability.........

At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...

MFT aren't "inefficient", they just have a smaller image circle because.. the MFT-sensor is smaller. They have EXACTLY the same brightness as a FF sensor.

If you have a FF system and a MFT system, it is very easy to test. Just put a FF lens on your MFT camera (with an adapter), and you'll see: a F1.8 FF lens is the same F1.8 when you put it on a MFT camera, and not F0.9

It is basic understanding how photography works.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 13:43 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!

I always think m43 is about portability.........

At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...

f2.8 = f2.8
ALL f2.8 lenses are equally "dark" or "bright".

Did you check how a light meter works? No, you didn't.

You are just a broken record constantly repeating the same nonsense. Go out and take pictures.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 13:38 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!

I always think m43 is about portability.........

At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...

No, they "didn't forget to mention this"; it is simply wrong (and in 4 days of typing the same comments here you haven't learned a thing).
In terms of brightness f2.8 = f2.8, for ANY size of sensor. That's the principle of photography. Have you ever used a lightmeter? (I bet not). There is no possibility to set it for a certain sensor size.

If correct exposure for a certain scen e.g. is ISO200, 1/100, F2.8 then those same values are valid for ALL cameras: phone cameras. MFT camera, APS-C camera, FF-cameras, MF cameras.

You cannot express "yielding quality" in an F-stop number. That's simply wrong.

Go out, take some pictures, and learn how photography works, instead of writing the same nonsense for days on end.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 11:30 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maklike Tier: The burning question for me, is if I want to upgrade from my EP5, is this thing worth AUD400 (AUD1400 at launch) more than the EM5 MkII at AUD979? Panasonic sure are asking a premium for those extra 4mp.

"Let's take a look at dxo scores."

You would do yourself a big favour if you stop looking and dxo scores and get your basic concepts right first.
Myself I look at pictures, not "dxo scores", and I am able to take sharp pictures with both my Nikon Df and OM-D E-M5. Just like anyone else who has basic skills.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maklike Tier: The burning question for me, is if I want to upgrade from my EP5, is this thing worth AUD400 (AUD1400 at launch) more than the EM5 MkII at AUD979? Panasonic sure are asking a premium for those extra 4mp.

"You must recalculate parameters in order to be able to compare lenses from different systems."

You must know WHICH parameters you must calculate and HOW you should calculate them. You simply don't know. And instead of learning when others try to teach you, you choose to endlessly repeat the same nonsense.

"You admit that if you put Olympus and Canon next to each other Canon is brighter because it has image circle larger.."
Now, read my previous comment again. and again. and again. Until you understand it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 09:55 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maklike Tier: The burning question for me, is if I want to upgrade from my EP5, is this thing worth AUD400 (AUD1400 at launch) more than the EM5 MkII at AUD979? Panasonic sure are asking a premium for those extra 4mp.

"Oly 45 f1.8 which is equivalent to 90 f3.2 is dark and soft lens."

In terms of "darkness" f1.8 == f1.8.
If you fail to understand that then you need to read, not write.

"if you look through lenses, that Canon is much brighter because if gathers more light."
O really? What a surprise. Because it is a full frame lens, and it has an image circle twice as big. ANY lens, either a MFT, or a FF, or a Medium Format: if it has the same f-number, it has exactly the same light intensity per mm2. By definition.
BECAUSE mft sensors are 50% smaller than FF-sensors, lenses can be half the size and have the SAME brightness.

Shoot a scene with a FF camera at ISO400,1/100,f4 and you use EXACT those settings on a MFT camera, or on a medium format camera.
The difference is the total amount of light that is captured, because of the difference in sensor size. NOT because a lens is "darker" or "brighter".

You simply have it wrong. Stop writing. Start reading.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 09:37 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maklike Tier: The burning question for me, is if I want to upgrade from my EP5, is this thing worth AUD400 (AUD1400 at launch) more than the EM5 MkII at AUD979? Panasonic sure are asking a premium for those extra 4mp.

So you say for the 51st time, still without having any clue. Really.
If you are not able to take sharp and attractive pictures with lenses like the Oly45/1.8 and 75/1.8, even wide open in low light, there is obviously something wrong with you as a photographer. I can. And so can everyone else who actually puts his energy in taking pictures instead of writing comments without understanding the concepts.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 09:13 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maklike Tier: The burning question for me, is if I want to upgrade from my EP5, is this thing worth AUD400 (AUD1400 at launch) more than the EM5 MkII at AUD979? Panasonic sure are asking a premium for those extra 4mp.

Yes, so you say for the 50th time in the same thread.

It's tiring. You don't understand basic concepts of photography. That's fine. No problem, but please stop spoiling every conversation by constantly screaming exactly the same. It is not constructive to those who do understand how it works.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 08:50 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maklike Tier: The burning question for me, is if I want to upgrade from my EP5, is this thing worth AUD400 (AUD1400 at launch) more than the EM5 MkII at AUD979? Panasonic sure are asking a premium for those extra 4mp.

Please Trk, can you do a favour and just shut up if you are clueless about the concepts of "brighter" and "darker", and clueless what people's motivations are to buy into a MFT system.
It's really annoying and it spoils conversations.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 08:41 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maklike Tier: The burning question for me, is if I want to upgrade from my EP5, is this thing worth AUD400 (AUD1400 at launch) more than the EM5 MkII at AUD979? Panasonic sure are asking a premium for those extra 4mp.

In Europe the price difference between GX8 body and EM5II is €100.
I don't care about video, but the 8mp stills that you can get from a 4k vid might be interesting.
Owning an EM5mkI, I was slightly disappointed by the mkII and the lack of improvement in IQ (I do a lot of lowlight photography, so high ISO performance is key for me, the 40MP high-res mode is of very limited use for me).

If the sensor in the GX8 improves IQ significantly, then it justifies the higher price point. Looking forward to the review.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 08:38 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dimit: They've gone crazy over there ay Panasonic!!! Should be mentally retarded not to grab A7ii instead of this m43 monster.Stupidity reigns !!!

just answer the question:
you are shooting a scene with a FF camera, and in order to get correct exposure the settings are: ISO400, 1/100, F4.0
Now you shoot the same scene with a MFT camera. What settings do you use to get correct exposure?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 22:10 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dimit: They've gone crazy over there ay Panasonic!!! Should be mentally retarded not to grab A7ii instead of this m43 monster.Stupidity reigns !!!

Trk:"Just get real people. You really will pay thousands of usd for soft dark lenses?"

:rolleyes:
Maybe, if you're lucky, some day someone might come along and explain to you how photography actually works, so you can 'get real' yourself.
In every MFT thread there is at least one person that is totally in the dark on the subject of "equivalence", but this is really beyond pathetic.

Here's a question for you:
you are shooting a scene with a FF camera, and in order to get correct exposure the settings are: ISO400, 1/100, F4.0
Now you shoot the same scene with a MFT camera. What settings do you use to get correct exposure?

Think about it, or better: test it. Then think about the consequences whenever you start screaming about things like 'dark lenses'.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 21:50 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

brumd: OK, I am not in the market for this camera. After recently purchasing a Nikon Df, I don't have enough internal organs left to afford this one. But, I do understand why many people are so excited about it, and it is going to be very interesting to follow the next years how Sony's At system is going to mature.

But, am I the only one with this idea?

Just because camera developments in Canikons have steadied down a bit, it makes it a bit easier to spend a few thousand on a camera body, in the knowledge that at least for the next few years you'll be shooting with a device that delivers top IQ.

With these stormy developments of Sony, I am less likely to spend the sum of cash, just because I have the idea that in a year from now the model is seriously outclassed by the next 'achieving-the-impossible' camera.

Caerolle: and it doesn't occur to you that people might have more than one interest in photography, and therefore can be interested in more than one type of camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 06:48 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)

OK, I am not in the market for this camera. After recently purchasing a Nikon Df, I don't have enough internal organs left to afford this one. But, I do understand why many people are so excited about it, and it is going to be very interesting to follow the next years how Sony's At system is going to mature.

But, am I the only one with this idea?

Just because camera developments in Canikons have steadied down a bit, it makes it a bit easier to spend a few thousand on a camera body, in the knowledge that at least for the next few years you'll be shooting with a device that delivers top IQ.

With these stormy developments of Sony, I am less likely to spend the sum of cash, just because I have the idea that in a year from now the model is seriously outclassed by the next 'achieving-the-impossible' camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 21:04 UTC as 199th comment | 6 replies
On 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?

Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.

I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.

My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?

This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.

"If you can’t see it with your naked eye then you certainly won’t be able to follow it with one of these cameras."

You are obviously not a bird watcher. Even when I had a simple compact camera with an optical zoom of 15x and digital up to 60x, that last function was extremely useful. It so often enabled me to identify a bird that was to far away for the naked eye (and my vision is 20/20).
And even though those pictures where obviously very crappy, it still served a very important purpose.

Superzooms like these do that a lot better. Obviously, you won't take many award winning pics, but that is not the point of this camera.
Just because you personally don't have interest in a collection of mediocre bird pictures, doesn't mean that they can give an incredible amount of joy to others, like me. This is the type of camera that enables it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 20:18 UTC
On 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?

Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.

I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.

My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?

This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.

"Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?"

I just returned from a 2-weeks hiking trip on the Lofoten (Norway). If I would have had a 'ridiculous' zoom camera with me, I could have taken dozens of pictures of birds and other animals, not because a camera like this would take top quality pics, but mainly show my friends & family 'look what I saw' and/or take decent enough pictures to find out later which bird it exactly is.

Since wildlife always comes unexpected, and to have a camera that allows to quickly take at least a picture (without having to change lenses first) can be lots of fun. Half decent is better than nothing.

Now, I "only" carried my Nikon Df, and that means no pictures at all of the eagles, family of otters, a group of orcas, etc. etc. And I regret that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 20:01 UTC
On Sources of noise part two: Electronic Noise article (237 comments in total)

really really useful series of articles! Thanks so much DPR!
I might have to read both of them twice again for the info and the concepts really to sink in, but I think I am beginning to understand what this means practically.

Let's see if my thinking is correct: I shoot an OM-D E-M5 (usually with f1.8 primes). I looked at the Exposure Latitude & ISO Invariance test of the E-M5 II (and I am going to assume this will be very similar to my M5 I). And I see from the ISO Invarience test that I can easily pull up the shadows +3EV.

I am shooting in a theatre, lens wide open (f1.8), shutter speed at max. 1/125 to avoid subject blur. And "normally" to have "correct" exposure I would use ISO1600.
BUT.. I understand now, I would be better off, if I keep the values for A and S (same exposure), but reduce my ISO to 400, or even 200, because, that way I will retain more of the highlights (very useful in uneven lit stage events), and I won't have more noise in my shadows.

Is this correct?

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2015 at 21:31 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
On Field Test: Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 DN lenses article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

brumd: I own the first version of the 30mm/2.8. I used it on my E-M5 body. The peculiar thing is that when this lens is on my camera, it takes ~2-3 sec longer for the camera to start up. Since I have the habit of switching on/off my camera a lot between shots, this quickly becomes very annoying. And I quickly stopped using it.

Am I the only one who experiences this? Or, is this a known issue of the first version, and has it been addressed? Or, do they still have a noticably longer start-up time than other lenses?

thanks! It's confirmed then. I tested it again today, and maybe the delay is 1-2 seconds, but it's the only m4/3 lens (and I have used many) that does this. Strange.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2015 at 21:07 UTC
Total: 110, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »