photohounds

photohounds

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 shop nearby and no Google, I learned DOF, shutter speed, motion, flare, film speeds by myself at a time when you had to WAIT a week for your Black and White photos.

Since then, I've always had trouble putting a camera down and have had well over a hundred cameras:)

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.

I find that people react better to a smaller setup but love the results.

Comments

Total: 209, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 First Impressions Review preview (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

gnblondon: To correct the above (in the UK at least and in the kit I bought) the sprung-iris lens cap does not come with the m.Zuiko 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ MSC power zoom and instead is available separately: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus-LC-37C-M-ZUIKO-DIGITAL-14-42mm/dp/B00I1CP2MU/

Darn ...
mobile site does not support edit or even delete
I'll delete the other one later.
FMF = full marketing frame

http://photohounds.smugmug.com
Compare the Mamiya RB 67 4.5 TIMES as big as 35 mm (miniature format pics with the MFT ones.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 23:54 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 First Impressions Review preview (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

gnblondon: To correct the above (in the UK at least and in the kit I bought) the sprung-iris lens cap does not come with the m.Zuiko 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ MSC power zoom and instead is available separately: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus-LC-37C-M-ZUIKO-DIGITAL-14-42mm/dp/B00I1CP2MU/

Oops.. link
http:/photohounds.smugmug.com

Look for the RB 67 page, compare it to what MFT can do today....

There's no contest.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 23:31 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 First Impressions Review preview (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

lacikuss: I used to own Olympus in the film era. It was great to have a Japanese manufacturer caring about size and IQ at the same time.

Nowadays, I think of IQ and I ask myself why should we trade camera size for IQ? Why is Olympus is not pushing for FF and smaller size? Is Sony the old Olympus?

By the way, I don't own neither but do use FF.

Thank you

Why do we"need" FMF?

IQ is high these days and micro for third strikes a great balance between too much DOF and enough DOF. High IQ Portraits to macro to landscapes are all possible with the one format. And the lenses are small enough to carry a few of them.

printing is easy up to 900mm by 1200mm.
That's big!

FMF (full MARKETING frame) is not that useful any more unless using old less sharp lenses important.

35mm replaced my 6x7 fuller frame for most things and MFT kills the results the old Mamiya could achieve. Examples at the links below.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 23:28 UTC
On Manfrotto 190 Series Carbon Fiber Tripod Review article (72 comments in total)

One alternative might be the 458B
- it is quick to set up and the legs do smooth out after a bit of use.

It has most of the features of the 190 and looks quite similar to it. Upside down, wide legs, copy stand etc.

http://www.manfrotto.com/neotec-pro-photo-tripod

Well worth a look and many of my pics were taken with one :-
http://photohounds.smugmug.com

It is very easy to use and fast to set up.

You can hang your camera bag off the centre column, of course but a 4 degree AOV is probably the limit unless you get a cradle style head. (300mm MFT - or - 600mm in 35mm terms).

I also use a Nodal Ninja head for panoramas (in the panoramas section of course)

I wouldn't use it for REALLY long lenses - even with a cradle style head.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 06:57 UTC as 16th comment
On Sony Alpha 7R Review preview (805 comments in total)

Nice, but the lenses are BAZOOKAS ..

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 06:41 UTC as 66th comment | 3 replies

What a shame, CaNikon could swallow their pride and just license Olympus' sensor cleaning invention,

The ONE that works properly.
Oly have never to my knowledge, sold "dust-reducing software'

Cleaning sensors if for the birds!
In TEN YEARS of four thirds ownership (5 bodies) it is true that there HAVE been IQ challenges from time to time, particularly low light performance in the old days. The E1 was abysmal, but I still shot 100,000 mostly images with it in many conditions.

Even though I change lenses anywhere, and I am sure it is possible, I have NEVER had dust on a sensor - EVER.

I don't even KNOW how to clean a sensor.
I have seen kits for sale for other cams.

CaNikon ... Swallow your pride and save your customers some time/money.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 06:29 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Class Action Lawsuit.

A term that would make any camera manufacturer tremble in fear.

Lesson:
What was cheaper?

---To replace ALL defective D600's at NO COST

OR

---To delay, spin, ignore, and when finally caught... slug it out in a LAWSUIT costing tens times more?

That was a bad call NIKON.

Really bad call.

.

AND THEN replace the shutters ...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 06:23 UTC
In reply to:

rialcnis: All the new lens choices are making my head spin.

Yeh, WANT x2 After the 40-150/2.8!

hey could use a 1.4 converter too.
With these 2 lenses it would give:
* 420 at f/5.6 for an
AOV equivalent 840mm!
* 56 to 210 at F4.0 for an
AOV equivalent of 112 ro 420mm

That combination would cover 99% of long lens needs (except maybe for bragging that your FMF lenses are massively LARGER and HEAVIER)

** FMF = Full Marketing Frame

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 06:18 UTC
In reply to:

RedWingNut: "Both new lenses are scheduled to be released from 2015 onwards." What? Minimum 10 months from now? Seems interest in M4/3 will be dead by then unless they pop out something mid-2014... Lots of others making waves, Oly.

Interest in four thirds dead?
Time to try a new career - as a comedian.

BRICKS and BAZOOKAS is certainly losing sales.

Could it be that once people see MFT RESULTS, that the big sensor lie is exposed?

BTW I edit images for other 'togs some days. I see nothing that makes me yearn for huge heavy gear.

I liked my RB67
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/6x7-early-80s . . .
However, excessively large gear is no longer needed to make quality images.

Results have MORE credibility than FMF marketing and its brainwashed and NOT so merry adherents do.

Coming soon ... FMF marketed as a cure for cancer. Some twits will swallow it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 06:04 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: 300mm f/4.0 needs a front lens diameter of at least 75mm, almost 3" across. There is no way around it. Doesn't matter if the camera is FF or m4/3. Until they figure out how to do aspherics better and allow for elimination of more of the spherical elements, the multiple elements needed by these lenses will mean heavy weight.

Maybe they'll use 72mm , a little vignetting is an acceptable part of almost EVERY lens design.

Zuikos regularly are top class in vignetting and wide open sharpness, AND corner to corner sharpness.

Nothing to worry about here.

FMF (Full Marketing Frame) has to make heavy bazookas to compete.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 05:55 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: Wonderful. I waited a long time for such a lens to show up for 4/3. I think it could make m4/3 the go to system for a lot of nature photographers. A 300mm f4 on a crop sensor is probably the most versatile lens for a nature photographer. It is the sweet spot between portability, performance and reach. However, Olympus do really need to produce matching 1.4x and 2.0x converters to go with this, especially the 1.4x converter.

Four thirds was designed with this size, and does not adapt old glass and crop the image - unless you use a LEGACY lens from any 35mm maker.

So ... four thirds is not a 'crop sensor', nor are the lenses cropped by the sensor - ever.

This system DESIGN is one reason for the HIGHER four thirds edge to edge sharpness, and LOWER vignetting compared to FMF (full Marketing Frame) equipment (and their crop) systems.

Compare any "similar' AOV lenses from the systems at slrgear . com ...
The results appear to support my conclusion.

Also - for some examples ...
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests/

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 05:42 UTC
In reply to:

Digitall: The 7-14mm 2.8 begins to awaken some interest in me, depends on the price that will be.

Yeah, agree.

bigger than my Samyang 7.5 mm fisheye, though :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 05:28 UTC
In reply to:

Willy Chu: I'm afraid this new 7-14 is going to be a quite a large lens, which is not surprising due to its f/2.8 aperture.

Place a photo of the 12-40 f/2.8 zoom next to this new lens. If we can assume the "shoulder" next to the mount (where the red dot is) is the same diameter on both lenses, you can see that the new lens will be much larger than the 12-40. I'm sure the size of the "L-Fn" button is the same on both lenses, so this is another way of sizing up the new lens.

If you have a use for such a lens and it equals or surpasses the ZD 7-14, you'll be a very happy (if poorer) chappy :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 05:26 UTC
In reply to:

TomFid: The 7-14 seems kind of redundant, and the 2.8 aperture seems useful primarily for bragging rights. But the 300mm will be in my bag at any reasonable price.

True,
but indoor architecture nuts
LOVED the old 7-14

Ditto the 300/4. But first the 40-150 2.8

I'd 'go' a Zuiko quality 1.4 converter.
The ZD one was very good :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 05:25 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Okay, nice lenses. They are a really nice addition to m4/3.

Where is the 50-200 2.8? I really think the market would be much larger for this lens than either of those. The 50-200 is so versatile compared to either of these.
I have the Zuiko 50-200 and it's great. My only option is still the E-M1 to focus this large lens. I'd rather have another nice glass that is fully compatible with other OMD's and I can use with other m4/3 bodies than just buying an E-M1 so my older lenses work.

200 2.8 would make it large. 82mm filters, anyone?
That's a narrow market, meaning it WOULD be expensive.
A 90-250/F4.0, sharp WIDE OPEN in the Zuiko tradition, might sell though.

The CanNikSOn users would not be able to contain their intelligent carping comments.
This, despite the fact that a 400 2.8 on FMF (Full Marketing Frame) would be 3x the weight size and price.

To justify their pseudo-technical vitriol they will gabble on about image circles, photons, the "benefits" of that silly 3:2 format and suggest that more materials = better "value".

Just enjoy the great pictures you can make with this system :).

A 1.4x converter with the 40-150 and 300/4 will cover pretty well anything with high IQ

- in both senses of the expression "IQ".

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 05:08 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Carver: I just love these Micro 4/3rd form factor lenses with their amazing 2x and 3x zoom ranges. So handy in the field. [Sarcasm intended]

Hmm 40-150 at f2.8 - that's 3.75 times zoom ratio. Sure you can get used to that?

They do make a 10x zoom if you're prepared to sacrifice quality.

Fact is ... most of the lenses are small for their AOV, the primes are tiny and light and SHARP compared to ANY CaNikSon lenses

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 04:58 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: The 12-40 was shown to be all plastic inside with a thin metal casing... pretty sneaky if you ask me. The best built m43 lens so far is the Sigma made 75/1.8.. amazing internals.

Even some Canon L lenses and Nikkors do this. Nylon for instance slides more smoothly.

The 12-40 is very well made and operates well.

Is the n12-40s superior optical quality compared to CaNikSon zooms bothering you?

I spend ZERO time on CaNikSon forums to rubbish their products. I'm too busy using my gear, wet or dry.

I also share pics - I thought that is what a camera is SUPPOSED to be for. I'm even collecting lens-specific samples of images I've shot.

Adding more this weekend ....

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests

P.S.
I probably won't bother posting the 300/4.5 nikkor (on adapter) images. It wasn't worth the purchase and I'm selling the lens.

The 30/f4 Zuiko will be a LOT sharper.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 04:51 UTC
In reply to:

al_in_philly: The original 4/3 Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm f/4 was a spectacular lens offering near rectilinear image quality. My guess is that this version might be using similar optics. If so, this will be a very welcome addition to the m4/3 lineup--especially for those photographers who do a lot of architectural work and want the widest field of view without the obvious distortion.

And unequalled IQ in the 100 plus degree zoom range - in ANY format.
I saw enough tests proving the 7-14's lack of astigmatism compared to the others.

I want them both.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 04:43 UTC
In reply to:

Zoron: by 2015 there will be a Omd-em2

By 2018 there will be an OMD Em-4 so what?

Crikey my 2020, thay may have used all EM numbers 1-9 up...oh dear.

Other makers of course will not release any new cameras,. And especially they won't try to catch up. Right?

Planning to wait forever, using something you are not happy with until then are you?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 04:41 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2062 comments in total)
In reply to:

PGen: Can I have some advice/feedback on the quality/usefulness of electronic viewfinders? My reference is the optical viewfinder in a pre-digital SLR, which I liked very much.

.... cont

And in bright light? Well let's go straight to the brightest light in the soar system ..
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Nature/Gazing/i-vqv5hmh/A

You'd even CONSIDER looking through an OVF at this?

Real use is far more relevant (to me) than some technical discussion that hinges on nostalgia and on how well pentaprisms are ground and silvered.

If EVFs were available in 1936 do you really think the Germans would have bothered grinding a lump of glass?
Not likely ...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2014 at 08:12 UTC
Total: 209, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »