MatijaK

MatijaK

Joined on Feb 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On CP+ 2013: Interview with Olympus' Toshi Terada article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

MatijaK: I did not buy my E-3 because it was compact - I bought it because it was just the right size and had many useful buttons available without being able to press any of them by accident.

Then I added a grip and realized I was sorely mistaken, because only with the grip is the E-3 the right size.

I don't want a compact DSLR. I want a big E-7 that can use my existing grip (or has one built-in), I want it to be heavy, sturdy, reliable and a confidence-inspiring workhorse that I can beat a wild bear with if it attacks me. I can buy an E-720 or an E-M5 if I want more compact.

I've been happily and patiently hanging onto 4/3 and my many lenses, and the only thing that can push me away is a small camera body. If they screw up by making the E-7 small, I'll have to switch systems, despite considering a 3:2 aspect ratio with a 1.5x crop factor to be the spawn of Satan (135 "full frame" being Satan itself).

I thought I made that pretty clear - I absolutely hate 3:2 and 1.5x crop. I'd be the happiest with a 6:6 (square) aspect ratio, but 4:3 is the closest that comes to that.

Also, since you can never have enough depth of field, a 2x crop factor also helps tremendously.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2013 at 09:59 UTC
On CP+ 2013: Interview with Olympus' Toshi Terada article (242 comments in total)

I did not buy my E-3 because it was compact - I bought it because it was just the right size and had many useful buttons available without being able to press any of them by accident.

Then I added a grip and realized I was sorely mistaken, because only with the grip is the E-3 the right size.

I don't want a compact DSLR. I want a big E-7 that can use my existing grip (or has one built-in), I want it to be heavy, sturdy, reliable and a confidence-inspiring workhorse that I can beat a wild bear with if it attacks me. I can buy an E-720 or an E-M5 if I want more compact.

I've been happily and patiently hanging onto 4/3 and my many lenses, and the only thing that can push me away is a small camera body. If they screw up by making the E-7 small, I'll have to switch systems, despite considering a 3:2 aspect ratio with a 1.5x crop factor to be the spawn of Satan (135 "full frame" being Satan itself).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2013 at 09:40 UTC as 55th comment | 6 replies
On Just deployed: New dpreview.com forums system article (699 comments in total)
In reply to:

tarnumf: Fire that designer and hire one with healthy eyes, so he or she won't use 100% contrast on text/background.

Old forum had better space vs. information ratio.

On my 30 inch display, the whole DPR site looks miserably squeezed into 1/3 of screen width.

And have I mentioned that 100% contrast is not easy on eyes? Ewww!

tamumf, try your browser set at something like 1200 pixels wide for a week and see how it goes. The whole point of having big monitors is that you can keep more windows open and visible at the same time.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2012 at 05:13 UTC
On Just deployed: New dpreview.com forums system article (699 comments in total)

I just tried quoting a post and had to delete everything because I couldn't make sense of anything there.

After I sent the post, I got moved back to threaded view - please don't. I hate that thing with a passion, it's entirely unusable.

Edit: and after I switched to flat view, I got dumped on the first page of a six-page thread. Uuuuughh...... :(

Edit: oh sweet jesus, the post looks horrible now. I seem to have written inside a quoted area. Edit: can't fix that, the post editor is borked.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 21:40 UTC as 401st comment

Post and user rankings are a disaster. They're a playground for bullies. I can already imagine 1022, the only forum I frequent - 4/3 threads and users are going to be downvoted by m4/3 fanboys, and m4/3 threads and users are going to be downvoted by 4/3 fanboys... There are many issues with votes and rankings, and I could write an essay on them. Just say "no" and don't implement that.

The two New Thread / Question buttons on the top are too big.

Black has never been a good background colour for text, but I see that's likely to be fixed by selecting an alternative theme, like in the final Nikon example.

The flat view probably still doesn't have a "show parent" option. The tree view probably still reloads the entire page. Both of those need work, including "go to first unread" for flat view.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 05:26 UTC as 71st comment
In reply to:

SUPERHOKIE: Whats the point? 4/3 lenses are NOT any smalller or cheaper than full frame lenses. Who in their right mind would get this supposed Pro body and a 12-35 vs a 5d3 and a 35-70? Yeah the 12-35 will give you one more stop in brightness but loses a stop in DOF. With FX sensors F2.8 on a fx sensor will destroy F2 on this new pro body in noise anyways. So what is the point again? Not every product that comes out of japan is gods gift to earth. Look at suzuki and mitsubishi, two brands that are dying in the US.

http://www.optyczne.pl/97.4-Test_obiektywu-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_USM_Rozdzielczość_obrazu.html

http://www.optyczne.pl/190.4-Test_obiektywu-Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_ED_14-35_mm_f_2.0_SWD_Rozdzielczość_obrazu.html

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2012 at 05:03 UTC
In reply to:

3a: i may sound naive,
why does Olympus lenses (say 300 F2.8), which just have to cover half the image circle of a Full frame counterpart be this heavy (i guess 400gm more than nikon) and this costly (almost 1000+$ more) ?
i guess if Olympus had invested in making smaller and lower cost lenses (with similar quality), once they stopped making Film cameras, they would have been a more popular brand now.
i guess i made the right choice of moving from E-30 to D300s, even-though i was not dissatisfied with E-30.

"smaller and lower cost lenses (with similar quality)" - Does not compute.

The SHG 4/3 lenses are big, heavy and expensive because they are close to being optically perfect. Also, it is much harder to create a quality lens for a small sensor; the larger the sensor, the more forgiving the glass needs to be.

If you go for small, light and inexpensive, you get m4/3 lenses, and those aren't exactly the best ever.

I'd also like to add that m4/3 only allows for smaller wides and wide normals. Everything else, to be optically on the same level as 4/3, needs to be of the same size and weight. A 50-200 in m4/3 mount can be smaller and optically compromised, or it can be the same as the version in 4/3 mount if equal IQ is wanted.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2012 at 19:30 UTC
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7