Lives in Australia ACT, Australia
Works as a z/OS IT, freelance
Joined on Jun 28, 2009
About me:

Someone gave me a second hand Minolta range-finder at age 11. No manual, no Google, no money. I learned DOF, shutter speed, motion, flare, sharpness and film speeds by myself at a time when you had to WAIT a week for your photos. Colour was expensive!
Since then, I've always had trouble putting a camera down and have had well over a hundred cameras including a much-loved FULL frame Mamiya RB-67 outfit :)
I have been semi-pro for decades and see micro four thirds as a great compromise. Pro results without much bulk and weight means rarely I leave my cameras behind.
Years ago, I recovered from "Equivalence Phobia" that so many suffer from, and find that people react better to a smaller setup and love the results.
Customers want results, not "format psychobabble".
Enjoy your photography instead of making silly format arguments!


Total: 253, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

RB-67 was close to cube-shaped too, and apple patented the rounded corner rectangle (almost).

Somehow, for a while people swallowed their "we were the first with such a shape" waffle as if no other pocketable electronics ever looked like that before ... :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 13:36 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

NZ Scott: If the Panasonic 42.5/1.7's optical quality matches the Olympus 45/1.8, then it will offer a compelling alternative because of its image stabilisation, slightly brighter aperture and (most importantly of all) its closer focusing distance.

However, there is one key question: How much does the Panasonic weigh?

I haven't seen specs anywhere.

UPDATE: It's 130g and 50mm long versus the Oly's 116g and 46mm, so only a slight size/weight penalty.

Cheaper panny and sony lenses (so far) are rarely stellar. We'll see soon enough .. this could be the one that breaks the mould.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 12:22 UTC
In reply to:

duckling: A bit of conspiracy theory:
The 42.5/1.7 was obviously designed to kill the Olympus 45/1.8, one of the few M4/3 classics. Perhaps a revenge for Oly's 40-150/2.8 which buried Pana's 150/2.8 project.

It won't kill off anything, it will probably stop panny users buying the Oly gem - IF it delivers the goods.
Consider: cheaper panny and sony lenses are rarely stellar, the 14's so/so.
That 20 is good in the centre, has no mf, vignettes ONE FULL STOP wide open and has much CA for a fixed lens.
It WAS quite pricey at first.
We'll see.
Oly could retaliate with a 1,4 with 46mm filters :) I'd buy if it were as sharp and vignetting/distortion/ca free as the current lens (or better).

I want a 125mm/1.8!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 12:20 UTC
On article Olympus 8mm F1.8 'pro' fisheye in development (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

A bright viewfinder is, always good for night work, fast, accurate AF.
Water/dust sealing is always good.
Faster aperture makes for easy hand holding in gloomy conditions and a a larger range of DOF rendering. - - (Waits for the captains of pointless equivalence to kick down the door with their dung-coated jackboots, brandishing their popguns ).
It looks faster than ANY other fisheye I have heard of.

Rhetorical Q: and retort:
Is there any point to f1.4 wide angles, then?
For you apparently not, I like it, but not enough to buy (probably).
Don't like it? Simple - don't buy it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 13:16 UTC
On article Olympus 8mm F1.8 'pro' fisheye in development (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"...)

There's more CA with the Samyang than the reader above tells us lenstip found.
You can see it in a few examples here.
It isn't terrible BUT the lens is NOT that sharp in the corners. For the price it is great. Like that odd Sigma 60 which I also own ... pics here:

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 13:09 UTC
On article Olympus 8mm F1.8 'pro' fisheye in development (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: I have to wonder what this lens brings to the table over the excellent Samyang 7.5mm?

Other than speed and likely high price.

Sharpness. The Samyang is pretty good in the center and better than the Panasonic in that respect. One reason I bought it.
If this new 1.8 lens is of the standard the two pro lenses are it may be a LOT sharper corner to corner ... not sure If I'll lust after it too much.
Some will have a lot of use and I believe there's none faster in this AOV.
As I said pretty sharp, and to the wag who said you don't focus a fisheye ... that would be sloppy work.
The MF with Samyang/Rokinon is mildly annoying as CA can be occasionally, too.
For my limited fisyy needs I'm happy and bought other glass..

Not too bad into the light ...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 12:59 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1491 comments in total)
In reply to:

Simon97: Most important to me is the loss of telephoto reach you incur going to full frame. My largest lens was a 300mm f/4 which has the same reach of a 450mm on FF.

The later APS-C sensors shows that the cropped format has adequate image quality for most work.

Great amateur moon shots!

I have found myself thinking along thee lines myself at times in the past.

Interesting to see others travelling that path and see that Micro Four thirds could be very well placed here.

With that announced 300mm lens and the 1.4x TC, the pixel to sharpness ratio will be very good, maybe even fantastic!

Just wait for all the fools who say it is "too big".

To them, ... Have a look at the Zeiss OTIS lenses some time.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 03:50 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1491 comments in total)

A step on the way to cameras that people leave at home and don't USE.

All formats are a compromise. MFT is the sweet spot for me OUT RESOLVES my mamiya RB-67 shots by miles.

I see some interesting APS cameras too.

Without a couple of OTIS lenses and a 6 kilo tripod, FMF (full MARKETING frame) holds little interest for this little black duck.

If you are "upgrading" do it for the right reasons. A large camera outfit left at home is fine
..... IF that's WHERE you intended to use it all along.

I can carry 9 lenses flash, a tripod and a few accessories quite easily and DO.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 00:57 UTC as 47th comment
On Olympus PEN E-PL7 First Impressions Review (504 comments in total)
In reply to:

fx3000se: ignoring video capabilities, can the e pl7 compete in any way with the
a) sony rx100m3
b) pana lx100

Change lenses, radio control flash, EVF option, better IS.

A much more adaptable class of camera than up-market fixed lens cameras are.

Download the manual while you wait for delivery.
Mark the features you want to set as 'presets'
In 15 minutes when you unpack it, set it with your 4 favourite different feature sets just as you want.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 3, 2015 at 17:14 UTC
On Olympus PEN E-PL7 First Impressions Review (504 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnClif: I bought one as an alternative to a digicam (insufficient image quality) or one of my dSLRs (not portable enough when on a business trip where photography is secondary... but I do want to take photos of the places I go), body only, plus a 14-40/2.8 m.Zuiko Pro lens.

The camera comes with a detachable flash, so it's just as practical as my Nikon FE2 was back in the day... and honestly I very seldom use flash nowadays. Digital cameras with decent-sized sensors and high ISO capability, along with image stabilization, are revolutionizing available light photography.

I'm very pleased with my purchase, and have also picked up the Gen 3 40-150/4-5.3 lens, figuring that I'll only use it in the daytime when light won't be as much of an issue. And, I'm waiting to see the 40-150/2.8 and compare it to the Pany 35-100/2.8... the latter is assuredly a better travel lens for the E-PL7, and with a 1.4x TC still gives a 35mm equivalent of 100-300/4.

The E-PL7 seems the perfect travel camera.

The zuiko 40-150/2.8 is not really that big and the extra speed :)
If you need compact and light and can forsake the speed, there's always the bargain-priced polycarbonate-cased 40-150.
It actually works well with a bit of care. Watch the bokeh, though.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 3, 2015 at 17:04 UTC
On photo Cormorant taking off in the It flies!!! challenge (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

InTheMist: Who gave this a 1 star and why?

A bricks 'n' Bazookas legacy camera adherent?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 12:43 UTC
On photo Cormorant taking off in the It flies!!! challenge (31 comments in total)

Love it ... a shag but not on a rock ...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 12:42 UTC as 15th comment
On photo Sea Mirror in the Done With Reflective Surface challenge (9 comments in total)

It's gorgeous work!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 09:19 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

jhinkey: We'll see how well it matches up to the PL 42.5/1.2 - it will be tough I'm sure as mine is an excellent lens. Remember you do get AF and OIS for that $1.5K PL though.

You can get the zuiko for 300 here and there... it is sharp at all apertures wider than f/16 ... and AF

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 11:03 UTC
On photo Li'l Mama Spider in the Reverse Lens Macro: Close Up Photography challenge (12 comments in total)

I love this ..

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 09:11 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kjeld Olesen: Just a word of warning :-)

People got banned from the forums in the past for teaching the true words of equivalence :-)


Nah, probably were banned more for being crazed zealots who just "have to educate everybody" and make them conform.

MFT gives high quality results without lugging an extra 6kg of junk. It is an EXCELLENT compromise (as are all formats). The MFT compromise works well for a great many "light artists" who prefer to take pictures rather than obsess over technical minutiae.

The "my camera format is better than yours becasue it is HUGE" chant is pure idiocy, and frequently shouted by insecure "bull artists" sometimes do.

FMF (full Marketing frame) is nothing more than: "we must do it this way because that's the way it has always been done".

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 04:06 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2137 comments in total)
In reply to:

cm71td: Micro 4/3rds Users: "We demand that our cameras are treated as equal to full frame in every way!"

Manufacturers: "We've been price gouging the full frame users for years. We'll be happy to oblige."

The ultimate camera is one that is good enough to serve your needs, but is priced lower because the market is obsessed with something newer or bigger.

Yes .. smaller "Stuff" of equal quality is often harder to cast/machine/grind whatever.
Possible exception: completely electronic items.

Therefore such gear is sometimes MORE expensive. That flaccid "more materials = more value" thinking, pushed by some is a joke.
It is simplistic Neanderthal "logic" that implies an F150 is a "better car" than a Porsche.

I certainly don't want my MFT gear to be just equal. I want/get performance AND portability.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 13:13 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2137 comments in total)
In reply to:

photohounds: Fast lenses became needed because film was rubbish if it was fast.

Also MANY (not all) "full" frame fast lenses are soft wide open - especially the affordable ones. Corner sharpness? Pay a mozza!

Canon's 85/1,2 is really a 2.8 if you want a sharp result. Let's not even talk about how UNsalable pictures of people with disappearing ears are...

For many of these wafer thin DOF crackpots the aperture of the lens is THE point of the photo.

Some lovely soft pics thre...
I call: sharp wide open, inexpensive, featherweight, tiny. (enough left over for the 75/1.8 AS WELL)
None of the above, but good 2+ stops down

"Crackpots" means those who insist you MUST have wafer thin DOF to have good images - NOT the strawman you have tried to extrapolate from what I wrote.

One can get good OOF areas with the Olympous fast glass

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 13:05 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2137 comments in total)
In reply to:

photohounds: This discussion obsesses on the fact that you get more (but not excessive) depth of field. Yes it IS an obsession that neatly avoids some facts.
Using the 50mm/f2 vs 100mm/f4 example above ..
You ALSO get TWO STOPS BETTER shutter speed (4 times as fast).
(better sharpness)
You get QUADRUPLE the flash range (faster recycle or More range)
I once shot a Canon FF PRO user with the 50mm f2. She remarked: "I've never SEEN so much detail".
Further - you also get (mostly) MUCH smaller, lighter lenses and faster zooms.
You also get typically 1/2 to 1/3 the VIGNETTING that full Marketing Frame (FMF) lenses can manage. This is excellent if you like to shoot images with the main subject OUTSIDE the centre third of the image but still want it sharp. Generally (with few exceptions) APS-C lenses fall halfway between for good vignetting resistance.
Examples ..

Ah, a strawman ... Yes the restricted DOF effect can be fun. Over use of the "look I've got a fast lens" can get old pretty fast.
The most hilarious shot I ever saw was taken with that soft C.85/1,2 - NO EARS! In portraits a little environmental information is more often than not desirable.
What I object to is the constant insinuation that you cannot have shallow enough DOF unless you are using FMF. Bollox.
Here, The portability of my gear meant that I was able to get just the right DOF - AND a good range of angles. Shot during ONE performance and I only had one body at that stage: 45, 75 and 12mm. The local photo society was also present as I shot handheld in the murky light. Their large, cumbersome gear, tripod bound, my keepers outnumbered their total sum tenfold.
Less BG? Easily be done in a studio or "gasp" choosing one's shooting position carefully. What is it they say about a bad workman?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 17:07 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Charlie boots: The only people who this is really relevant to are those that used 35mm film when the only interchangeable lens cameras were 35mm and we all knew what a 50mm or other focal length lens was.

Most of the new SLR and other smaller sensor camera users have no idea of the relationship between 35mm lenses and their sensors, and why should they care. A wide angle is a wide andgle and a tele is just that. Most people use zooms anyway.

Yes it is good to refer to a common standard for an apples to apples comparison and for those that want to dig deeper all this info is useful in making better photos. The huge majority however simply want to take snap shots for viewing in electronic media and it should be a fun activity without having to bother about focal lengths etc.

Not quite ..
There were half frame and even smaller 110 interchangeable lens cameras at one end.
At the other, larger formats 6x4.5 6x6 6x7 6x9 and that's before we get to CUT FILM.
All had interchangeable.lenses - 35mm was the CONSUMER camera and good for (relatively) compact sports use

35mm was UNACCEPTABLE until the sensor (film) was good enough, I used a Mamiya BB67 for wedding formals into the nineties
... It completely outclassed 35mm, which I used for the rest of the shoot.
That was then.
Fact is: The OMD out-resolves the RB67 (with about 20 TIMES the negative area) by a VERY LARGE margin.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 10:42 UTC
Total: 253, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »