Ross the Fidller

Ross the Fidller

Lives in Australia NSW, Australia, Australia
Works as a Violin Maker
Joined on Oct 31, 2010

Comments

Total: 144, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: Mirrorless shooters don't need no stinkin' AF adjustment.
Yea!

As a matter of fact, if it has PD-AF & with PD-AF only lenses, then yes you might need to make some adjustment, not because the camera isn't accurate but because the lens may not be as accurately calibrated as perhaps it could be. My ZD50-200SWD lens on my E-M1 benefits from being set to -3 at 200mm.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 11:23 UTC
In reply to:

WastingTime: "with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same"

Subject isolation won't be the same but I don't see why noise performance would be affected. The aperture equivalence on APS-C or MFTonly affects Depth Of Field, an f4-6.3 will remain a f4-6.3 on any sensor size, giving you the same exposures values, So you won't need to increase ISO, therefore noise performance remains the same.

OK. Thanks for taking the time & patience to reply with that helpful comment. In using my Stylus 1 with a 1/1.7" sensor I know there is no headroom for recovering blown highlights like I can on my OM-D models & of course the ISO Auto level is cut back too. I appreciate there are limits within any format & should be used accordingly.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 13:23 UTC
In reply to:

azjsb: I'm strongly considering this PL 100-400mm for my Oly E-M1 (vs Oly 300mm F/4) but have some concerns that I won't get the image stabilization I would get out of the Oly combo.

Anyone have any thoughts on the "penalty" I pay in IS by going this route vs the Oly 30mm f/4. I know the spec +/- of speed and range - I am very concerned about IS, as well. Thoughts???

I'm hoping it will perform well on the E-M1 as well with thoughts (maybe wishful thinking) of perhaps getting it. Zooms are certainly useful when wildlife moves in close as well as being at a distance.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 13:07 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: @Rishi
Why the put down of a smaller system when reviewing a lovely lens.

"Naturally, the small size and weight do come at a cost: with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same as what you might get with a full-frame 800mm F5.6 lens."

You sound like a 'FF fanboy' with that sort of "equivalence" talk & it is unwarranted. Sure larger sensors have less noise because they typically use larger pixel cells in their array. Whoop-de-doo! This lens is a 100-400mm lens that has to be specified with an equivalent 35mm format focal length for reference so FF fanboys might understand the reach or angle of view it has on the MFT format system. For exposure purposes it is an F4-F6.3 lens that equates to F8-F12.6 for DoF of that for 35mm system. Please leave the rest of the unnecessary BS out of it because it only shows your bias.

OK. I was over reacting & I also value my smaller format camera as well, the Stylus 1.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 13:02 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Schroeder: Now I'd like to know how good it is at 400mm f/6.3. Ok – for me, $1799 is just not so heavily overpriced that I'd simply say no thanks, it'll be a Metabones smart adapter and a Canon lens instead. If it's really good, I might prefer the Panasonic/Leica for the smaller size and lower weight compared to the existing crop of 400mm Canon primes and zooms, even if it's slightly slower...

My first reply to you was made without me reading your comment properly & I agree that the price for this lens looks about right. I hope it can be added to my kit if all things work out well on the E-M1 (reviews & feedback from other users) & my finances.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 12:43 UTC
In reply to:

TN Args: This will out-sell the Olympus at least 5 to 1, maybe even 20 to 1.

I'll just get this Pana-Leica 100-400 lens & use it on my E-M1 (that now uses a good work-around for any shutter shock) if results for that combination are favourable (if my better half can be persuaded).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

WastingTime: "with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same"

Subject isolation won't be the same but I don't see why noise performance would be affected. The aperture equivalence on APS-C or MFTonly affects Depth Of Field, an f4-6.3 will remain a f4-6.3 on any sensor size, giving you the same exposures values, So you won't need to increase ISO, therefore noise performance remains the same.

OK, Maybe I was being a little touchy & hasty in comment, but the constant doubling of the aperture for all aspects just wears a little thin at times. For exposure purposes it is f4-f6.3 & don't pixel peep so much & all is just fine.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

WastingTime: "with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same"

Subject isolation won't be the same but I don't see why noise performance would be affected. The aperture equivalence on APS-C or MFTonly affects Depth Of Field, an f4-6.3 will remain a f4-6.3 on any sensor size, giving you the same exposures values, So you won't need to increase ISO, therefore noise performance remains the same.

And your point is?

BTW. My first comment was not in reply to you but this one is. I thought it was clear that the point I was making was that the larger the sensor (generally) the less noise it produced compared to smaller sensors. The reviewer uses language that appears to be biased against MFT, which in my view was unnecessary.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 12:02 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: nice looking lens.
i do quite like Panasonic's 'Leica' offerings so I am eager to see IQ results from this one too.
I wonder how well OIS plus IBIS will work on an Olympus body though.

I need to correct my comment above statement as Olympus's application for Dual IS (http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-08-19) is maybe what Sync IS (http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-06-10) is already in the E-M1 & E-M5 Mk II (with latest FW updates), but on the other hand, maybe there are future plans for further FW updates from Olympus in this regard.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 02:00 UTC
In reply to:

WastingTime: "with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same"

Subject isolation won't be the same but I don't see why noise performance would be affected. The aperture equivalence on APS-C or MFTonly affects Depth Of Field, an f4-6.3 will remain a f4-6.3 on any sensor size, giving you the same exposures values, So you won't need to increase ISO, therefore noise performance remains the same.

Larger sensors generally have larger pixels cells & therefore produce less noise or equivalent noise at a higher ISO setting. It's just another case where this reviewer appears to be a FF fanboy with this attitude to include that sort of comment in this lens review. It just shows his (or her?) bias to mention it like that.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 00:49 UTC

@Rishi
Why the put down of a smaller system when reviewing a lovely lens.

"Naturally, the small size and weight do come at a cost: with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same as what you might get with a full-frame 800mm F5.6 lens."

You sound like a 'FF fanboy' with that sort of "equivalence" talk & it is unwarranted. Sure larger sensors have less noise because they typically use larger pixel cells in their array. Whoop-de-doo! This lens is a 100-400mm lens that has to be specified with an equivalent 35mm format focal length for reference so FF fanboys might understand the reach or angle of view it has on the MFT format system. For exposure purposes it is an F4-F6.3 lens that equates to F8-F12.6 for DoF of that for 35mm system. Please leave the rest of the unnecessary BS out of it because it only shows your bias.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 00:42 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

TN Args: This will out-sell the Olympus at least 5 to 1, maybe even 20 to 1.

This would be a useful lens for me over the Olympus option on my E-M1 as well as it being a possibility to be able to persuade my better half in me getting it (with a still expensive price but hopefully within my limits).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: "The lens IS offers correction of pitch and yaw movement (tipping up / down or panning left / right), and this combines with the in-camera systems on the E-M1 and E-M5 II to offer six stops of stabilization, according to CIPA standard testing. The company explains that the gyroscopic sensors in the lens and those camera bodies calibrate one when the lens in connected to the camera, to ensure they work in sync with each other.

Sadly this full capability is not realized when the lens is mounted on the E-M10 II or older Olympus cameras, nor is it compatible with Panasonic's Dual IS system on the GX8 that works in a similar manner."

The OIS & IBIS according to details released in a patent for this is that the body only corrects for rotational movement that the lens can't correct for such as what can happen when pressing the shutter button.

Let's hope Panasonic & Olympus do make lens FW & body FW more compatible in this area in (near) future FW updates.

To add to my above comment, the latest FW updates 4.0 E-M1 & 2.1 for E-M5 II will take care of this lens but I hope further co-operative measures are taken to include each others (Pansonic/Olympus) lenses in this regard.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 09:05 UTC
In reply to:

Pete_CSCS: One might think that the discussion here would be on the merits of this new Olympus lens that fills a niche in the m4/3rds world, rather than another old, tired equivalency war. One would be thinking wrong.

What I don't understand is the same people that complain about the teeny, tiny 4/3rds sensor are the same people who are praising the new wave of cameras with an even SMALLER 1" sensor and feel that the light gathering, noise and DOF are perfectly fine with these cameras (??!?!!).

As for the initial price of the 300/4 PRO, I was guessing it would go for $2200 USD so I came in a little low but didn't expect the the 6 stops of IS and the lens to be considered sharper than the ED 300mm F/2.8!! If true that's quite an accomplishment. Especially considering the cost is less than 1/3 the initial price of the 300/2.8 new and the 300/2.8 is still 2 1/2 times as much at current prices. That and with added bulk and weight and no in lens IS.

Time marches on.

@nerd2 That was a 'lightweight' comment to make.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 03:09 UTC
In reply to:

richshep: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)"
So let me get this straight: I can shoot at say 400ISO at f4 and 1/500 second on the Olympus 300mm and at the same time I can shoot at 400ISO at f8 and 1/500 second on the 600mm and get the same exposure... Cool!

@Richard
"Because it's a useful way of understanding the situation and it's demonstrably true."

It (light gathering) was unnecessary to have mentioned it with regards to this lens because it is just an inflammatory point to raise. It keeps the FF fanbois gloating & offends the others, because it is a pointless point to bring to the discussion on the values of what should be a really nice prime lens for the Olympus M4/3's system & has diverted true discussion into an argument.

Everybody already knows small sensors with small pixels produce more noise than larger sensors with large pixels. Whoop-de-doo! It's the whole system that matters & not everyone wants to lug a great heavy system around & with a heavy tripod to go with it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 02:35 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms),"

To mention "light gathering" at all & in that context is typical FF fanboism BS. Why did you even mention it?

I'll correct that whole statement for you!
"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, its still impressively small and light for 600mm equivalent lens. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."

Please, stay credible by not looking like a FF fanboi.

Of course, being 300mm it is going to be smaller & lighter than a 600mm lens!

I have already read them before, but to mention it here, I still think that comment was unnecessary & still think that it is typically of what a FF fanboi would say. In other words, I guess he could have said it for the the benefit of any of those that might be reading this article.

It wasn't needed in his statement.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:25 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: Looks like a nice & interesting compact, with a 1"sensor, but why do North Americans have to have their own naming that's different to the rest of the world? Canon Rebel comes to mind too.

They have their own 'take' on the rest of the world as I still remember when we had the Sydney Olympics & because they (US media) didn't understand parts of the opening ceremony that reflected our past history & the typical Aussie home owners dream etc., they just cut sections of that opening ceremony, "because Americans wouldn't understand it". OK, that's in the past & I'll try to let it go. ;) :D

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:18 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Schroeder: Now I'd like to know how good it is at 400mm f/6.3. Ok – for me, $1799 is just not so heavily overpriced that I'd simply say no thanks, it'll be a Metabones smart adapter and a Canon lens instead. If it's really good, I might prefer the Panasonic/Leica for the smaller size and lower weight compared to the existing crop of 400mm Canon primes and zooms, even if it's slightly slower...

I also tried this lens on my E30 too & if I hadn't gone M4/3's with the OM-D's (E-M5 & E-M1) then I would have liked what I could get with this lens on the E-30. However, the lens is going back to the owner.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms),"

To mention "light gathering" at all & in that context is typical FF fanboism BS. Why did you even mention it?

I'll correct that whole statement for you!
"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, its still impressively small and light for 600mm equivalent lens. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."

Please, stay credible by not looking like a FF fanboi.

Of course, being 300mm it is going to be smaller & lighter than a 600mm lens!

Yes, 'whyamihere'. He's banging on the same tune the whole time. Yes, I know smaller sensors with smaller pixel sizes produce more noise (but also lets stick to similar generation sensors too).
But, why was it necessary to even mention that now? To help the FF fanbois to cope with the possibility that this M4/3's lens might be better than their FF similar or equivalent lens?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:03 UTC

"The lens IS offers correction of pitch and yaw movement (tipping up / down or panning left / right), and this combines with the in-camera systems on the E-M1 and E-M5 II to offer six stops of stabilization, according to CIPA standard testing. The company explains that the gyroscopic sensors in the lens and those camera bodies calibrate one when the lens in connected to the camera, to ensure they work in sync with each other.

Sadly this full capability is not realized when the lens is mounted on the E-M10 II or older Olympus cameras, nor is it compatible with Panasonic's Dual IS system on the GX8 that works in a similar manner."

The OIS & IBIS according to details released in a patent for this is that the body only corrects for rotational movement that the lens can't correct for such as what can happen when pressing the shutter button.

Let's hope Panasonic & Olympus do make lens FW & body FW more compatible in this area in (near) future FW updates.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 23:46 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
Total: 144, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »