Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Aerospace Engineering Consultant
Has a website at www.hinkey.zenfolio.com
Joined on Dec 27, 2005


Total: 295, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

For more information visit the Tokina website . . . . and there is nothing there to be found on this. Nice.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:27 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Vobluda: I have give a try to Olympus 45/1.8 two times but evenutally sold it as I was not satisfied with its optical performance.
It is plain glass with no asph or ed and it is visible on the pictures (and that is the reason why it is so cheap). For now I have Panasonic 45/2.8 that is slightly more expensive than Olympus 45/1.8 but optically superior.
From what I can see googling new Panasonic 42.5/1.7 will have asph element (s) and that is the reason why I think that it will be much better then Olympus 45/1.8 though a bit more expensive.

I thought the Oly 45/1.8 had to ED-like elements and no aspherics while the new Pany will have no ED elements, but one aspheric.

The one sample of the 45/1.8 Oly I tried was fine in the center, but not quite sharp off-center - I went the 42.5/1.2 route instead, but it's pretty heavy.
If the new Pany is a bit better than the Oly I'm in.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 15:43 UTC
In reply to:

grasscatcher: I will echo others in saying that, while these are nice, Panasonic really needs to get on the ball and give us a nice 200-400 zoom, something that is sorely missing in u4/3.

Having been shooting a GX7 since October 2013, my dream camera would be a GX8 with everything the GX7 has, plus the FZ1000's 5-axis stabilization, DFD focusing, 4k video and better NFC range. That, paired with their 2.8 zooms and the 200-400 would cover 99% of my shooting needs.

That would be the GH5 most likely.
I too would swap out my GX7 for the mythical GX8 if it had 5 axis IBIS that worked in still image preview and video. Sure make it a bit thicker to accommodate better IBIS and I'll buy more batteries . . .

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

kahren: now they need 10mm 1.7-2.8, for a nice trio of 10,20 and this 42.5

+1, especially if that 20mm was f/1.2.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 00:12 UTC

Would be nice if Pana came out with a ~100mm/2 PL OIS to compete a bit with the 75/1.8 Oly (which is fantastic). Then one could have the 42.5/1.2 and 100/2 longer primes to go along with the existing 20/1.7. A 20 or 25mm f/1.2 normal prime would complete the set.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 00:11 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

Jorginho: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


There is plenty "wrong" with the 100-300 Pany. Not only is it not sharp wide open at the long end, but it gets way way less sharp off from the center of the frame. m43 is always going to be photon-challenged so f/5.6 lenses need to be sharp wide open or their usefulness greatly reduces if you have to stop them down to sharpen them up.
The 40-150/2.8 Oly is a great example of what m43 zooms need to be - sharp (mostly) across the frame wide open.

Someone give us m43 shooters:
- Reasonably fast wide angle primes sharp corner-to-corner
- Super-fast (i.e., f/1.2) "normal" primes - 20 to 25mm.
- Some longer fast primes - resurrect the 150/2 Oly for instance

It appears Olympus is somewhat answering that call with the 7-14/2.8 and 8/1.8 FE.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 00:08 UTC

It will all depend on how good this lens is compared to the Oly. If it's optically not as good, then for me OIS likely won't be worth it.
The Pany has one aspheric, but no ED-like glass while the Oly has no aspherics and two ED glass elements. I can handle CA, but lack of sharpness off-center is not attractive to me.

Though I own the 42.5/1.2 already (fantastic lens), this f/1.8 version is attractive due to the small size (like the Oly), but still having OIS (which the Oly does not).

Perhaps this means the GX7 will be the only Pany camera ever to have IBIS - shame . . .

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2015 at 19:13 UTC as 49th comment | 7 replies

The short answer to the article's title is: No.
If Canon had introduced this with an EVF, set of excellent lenses, a couple of different models some with advanced features, then yes I would take them seriously.
As it is they have to compete with Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus, etc. who have a distinct upper hand in both bodies and lenses.
Can they catch up - sure if they really want to.

And to answer the whole "don't want to cannibalize sales of their own products" question - if cannibalization of your products are going to happen, who better to cannibalize them other than yourself?

I have a Nikon D800 + lenses and I've stopped buying Nikon gear because the m43 gear is that good. I would have loved to buy a Nikon mirrorless system (APS-C, FX, etc.), but Nikon is sitting on the sidelines (The Nikon 1 system doesn't count as it's a half-hearted attempt at best).

Cannibalize your own products or someone else will.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 16:17 UTC as 228th comment | 3 replies
On Olympus 8mm F1.8 'pro' fisheye in development article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: The Samyang 7.5 2.8 is an excellent and relatively inexpensive lens. Other than the underwater potential why chose this almost certain to be far more expensive option? For AF? On a fisheye?
Edit. Gottit; it's a "PRO" lens (or should that be "lense"...)

The fisheye's available for m43 are not that great - they are very good for sure, but not that great. They have flare/ghosting issues, CA issues, sensor reflection issues, are kind of slow at f/3.5, and they don't make very nice sun stars. Plus I don't think they will stand up to future 16MP+ sensors that will demand even better lens sharpness.
Though this f/1.8 is certainly welcome, it appears to be on the large side. The tradeoff of this is weather-resistant construction, f/1.8, and hopefully excellent IQ.

More and more Pany and Oly are convincing me to relegate my FX gear to being specialist tools and m43 to my workhorse kit.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 16:02 UTC
On Olympus 8mm F1.8 'pro' fisheye in development article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogl: Is there any sense to make f1.8 for fish-eye?

You bet there is. Even on my D800 I routinely use my fisheye wide open and I wish I could shorten my exposure time or lower my ISO.
Fisheye lenses are not a gimmicky lens - in the right hands they produce excellent non-gimmicky results.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 15:56 UTC
On Manfrotto launches Off Road camera gear article (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

Expat Nomad: Oh, bags have to carry other items.. glad someone figured that out. +1, Manfrotto.

+1 Yep, looks like my LowePro 200

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 03:07 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Just make a dedicated fisheye please Sony . . . .

The only hyperfocal shooting I've found reliable with my Nikon 16/3.5 is to find the location on the focus distance scale that gives best infinity focus. I personally find hyperfocal distance calculations to be in-accurate for high MP FX sensors.
Anything closer than infinity I find that I really need to get the focus right or it can be really off. Thus accurate AF (as in what a mirrorless camera can do) or manual focusing is best.
On my m43 system I find AF valuable with the 8/3.5 Pany as I can assure that at least whatever the AF box is on will be in focus. Unfortunately it has not focus scale and I've found that just about all other fishey lenses have very different locations on the scale where infinity focus is best - hence being pretty far off in hyperfocal distances.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Just make a dedicated fisheye please Sony . . . .

I do mount my superb 16/3.5 AI Nikkor, but that's with a ~1inch thick adapter. I'd rather have a native solution that is made for the FE mount. I use AF with my fisheyes all the time, but I get better accuracy with manual focusing - let's not bring up the myth of not needing to focus a fisheye . . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 22:06 UTC

Just make a dedicated fisheye please Sony . . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 21:40 UTC as 103rd comment | 7 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1406 comments in total)

If you need very low DOF, high ISO quality, or use of lenses that just don't exist in smaller formats then FX is potentially for you. If not, APS-C or m43 can be all you will ever need. People just need to be realistic about what they want to do and what the appropriate equipment is to achieve that.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 00:10 UTC as 264th comment | 2 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1406 comments in total)

The fact of the matter is that there are quite intelligent and competent photographers out there that just do not need the things that FX format has to offer. Formats like m43 and APS-C do them just fine.

Others, like me, choose to use multiple camera formats (FX and m43 in my specific case) to take advantage of each formats strengths in certain situations that apply to me.

Troubles happen when people limit their thinking and decision processes to simplistic rules and opinions spread across the net.

Pretty decent article.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 19:28 UTC as 354th comment
In reply to:

quiquae: The million dollar question is, will this 300/4 Fresnel lens be more like Canon's 400/4DO Mk I or Mk II? Mk I suffered all sorts of optical issues from the Fresnel element; Mk II seems to have solved most of them. Did Nikon get Fresnel right on the first try? If so, I'd be very jealous--I'm a Canon shooter and Canon's 300/4 is getting rather long in the tooth.

Well, look for yourself here:

and that's after fixing in NX-D.

This could be a problem for us night time photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 03:37 UTC
On Canon announces five PowerShot compacts article (150 comments in total)

Will I buy a compact camera like these from any company - nope, will my wife now that she has a decent smartphone - nope, will my two 11 yo daughters ever by a compact camera - nope. Not sure of the business case for these anymore, but I suppose someone is buying them still . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2015 at 21:04 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply

Well, I hope there are more advantages to this than just getting increased resolution. There are only a handful of native m43 lenses that can handle 40MP of true resolution. Hopefully there are some dynamic range advantages that come along with this.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 20:50 UTC as 19th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: The (blatant lack of) quality of those images is extremely detrimental for the backing solicitation.

...and it just adds to the perplexity on why this would be needed in supplement to very fast shutter-speeds + standard flashes + advanced triggering.

Matt Kane should have stayed with Triggerrap.

As soon as my ADA triggers arrive I can show him, with glorious image quality, why this is a very probable "fail".

"By PhotoKhan (8 hours ago)

The (blatant lack of) quality of those images is extremely detrimental for the backing solicitation."

Really? Anyone who does very high speed flash (where you need ~1 microsec flash durations) sees this as very exciting - the image quality is just fine. I've used systems that had one small Xenon flash lamp that then needed a condenser lens to spread the light out that had a the shortest duration being 1 microsecond and cost several thousand $$.

This has many uses in its current form and with some tweaking could have even more.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 17:17 UTC
Total: 295, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »