brumd

brumd

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

Comments

Total: 105, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 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 (1229 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 (1229 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 (1229 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 (1229 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 (1229 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 (1229 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 (1229 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 (1229 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 (1073 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 (1073 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 (166 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 (166 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 (234 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 54th 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
On Field Test: Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 DN lenses article (161 comments in total)

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?

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 19:44 UTC as 69th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

zsedcft: Where is the image on the lightroom 6 box taken? I have that same kind of picture a few times but haven't figured out where it is yet.

Beautiful place, and not very easy to reach. It's a 10 hour round trip hike, with 1000 meter ascend.
You might want to check Kjeragbolten too. It also requires a hike with some scrambling, but still easier to reach. Especially when lugging your D800.. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 18:50 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5 offers 20.8MP BSI sensor and revamped look article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

Homam: What good is 4k at 15 fps?

I'm not a video shooter, and I admit, I haven't read the full thread, but wouldn't this be useful to generate 8MP still pictures at a continuous 15fps rate?
At least, that's whould I could see myself using it for.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 09:58 UTC
In reply to:

Nikolausz: I've been making such things for couple of years and document many things on my blog:

http://fiberstrobe.blogspot.de/2012/06/flexible-hoses.html

http://fiberstrobe.blogspot.de/2012/07/twin-flash-adapter-step-by-step.html

http://strobist.blogspot.de/2011/03/if-you-cut-one-light-off-three-more.html

What I can conclude from my experience is that this LED based system will be OK only for tripod home-studio photography. For real macro (hand-held), you need a short duration but huge amount of light (flash). The optical fibers "eat" the light big time. Adding diffusers, modifiers as well.

Yes, but they are also quite pricy, and they have to transfer light, not fluids.

Of course, you don't *need* a FabLab, but it makes a lot easier once you have working prototypes to share it with others. I happen to have set up a local fablab, and the wonderful thing about them is they are accessible to anyone, either for free, or for a nominal fee.
Projects like these are exactly the kind of thing they are intended for: experiment to improve your design, and share those designs with others.
But, of course, this isn't the *only* way.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2015 at 11:30 UTC
In reply to:

Nikolausz: I've been making such things for couple of years and document many things on my blog:

http://fiberstrobe.blogspot.de/2012/06/flexible-hoses.html

http://fiberstrobe.blogspot.de/2012/07/twin-flash-adapter-step-by-step.html

http://strobist.blogspot.de/2011/03/if-you-cut-one-light-off-three-more.html

What I can conclude from my experience is that this LED based system will be OK only for tripod home-studio photography. For real macro (hand-held), you need a short duration but huge amount of light (flash). The optical fibers "eat" the light big time. Adding diffusers, modifiers as well.

Thanks for those links! My first thought was that most of the parts of this system can be easily made, especially if you have access to a soldering iron, 3D printer and laser cutter (e.g. in your local FabLab ;) ).

To me, it looks like the main bottleneck is the quality of the bending tubes: how sturdy they are, and their ability to transport light.
On Thingiverse there are a number of designs to print your own modular parts of these tubes, but I wouldn't think their quality is anywhere good enough for this purpose.

So, the most interesting parts of this Adaptalux project are the bendable tubes, which they may sell separately.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2015 at 10:30 UTC
Total: 105, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »