PIX 2015


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: 249, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2132 comments in total)

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 .. http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Eurobeat-by-Supa/

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 08:02 UTC as 54th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Michael_13: To all the 'equivalence guys':
Go and buy your equivalent lens and keep quiet here in the forum.

Same with the "cost of materials" idiots.
This system can be used to make fine pictures in MORE ways than any other compact systems and in most respects it equals the bricks 'n' bazookas brigade.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

Poweruser: I expect a price drop for Panasonics 35-100/2.8...

I've used the panny 35-200
It is nice but not stellar and it certainly IS overpriced.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: We have an 80-300mm F5.6 (35mm equiv.) at 880gr at $1500 (yes, yes, it still has the brightness of F2.8 but *not* that DoF)

I'm not sure that the point made here is very strong. The FF Tamron VC USD 70-300 F4-5.6, 765g, for instance, costs $450. Not WR but at 1/3 of the price one can afford to water damage at least couple before equating the cost. Different system, yes, but exactly because m4/3 is compact, the lens should reflect that.

The typical hotch potch of "illogic"
Full MARKETING Frame one line re: a TWO stops slower lens, Tamrons that WILL be way less sharp on the next.
It's a puerile argument pair, Here's why:
A: It is not the COST OF MATERIALS, it is the design and construction.
B: Would YOU pay more for a pickup truck than a Bugatti Veyron?
Why not? After all the truck has more metal and glass.
By your "COMPACT SHOULD BE CHEAPER" illogical "argument", the truck MUST be worth more. No?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

letsgofishing: According to the Get Olympus site, the lens hood is another $60???
Get real Olympus!

ACTUALLY your LINK (above) states:
"The LH-76 ships with the m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens.
This is for those that need a replacement of the item."
What? You could not even read a WHOLE paragraph??

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:36 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Man it´s huge: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E-M1_SLV_leftside_M4015F28_BLK_LH76_BLK_HLD7.jpg
But I guess it is not possible to make a 300mm eq. lens with f2,8 any smaller and it is perfectly within the competition of fast CSC telezooms:
Fuji 50-140/2,8: 995g 72mm filter thread
Oly 40-150/2,8: 880g, 72 mm filter
Samsung 50-150/2,8: 920g, 72mm filtee.

The fuji is 2.8x zoom and is vapourware, heavier, no clutch either.
The zuiko is 3.75x zoom, and is nearly here ...
Samsung are trying really hard. OIS is ancient technology.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:03 UTC
In reply to:

aandeg: Wow what a price for a lens without stabilization. Looks like Olympus put the stabilizer in the body and left the cost in the lenses.

No they put extra QUALITY o the lenses ..
Watch and learn

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:02 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I only came here to see how many people would write this is actually an f/5.6 lens. There are so many... oh well.

A little extra DOF is an advantage with teles as there's almost never enough ...
Or a 4x shutter speed advantage ..
Equivalent my *^&*(

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:01 UTC
In reply to:

BelePhotography: Only thing I don't like is still having to wait for this lens. It's been rumored and tested and displayed for over a year now. I would have liked to have it this week :( Oh well.... "he who waits..."

Best they get it as close to perfect as possible.
. Hood is included
. It has the mechanical clutch focus ring
. A good TC is available for it.
. TWO independent focussing groups and 2 motors to do it.

Pretty advanced :)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:57 UTC
In reply to:

Gabriel Chan: The reason of getting the M4/3 system is because people wants a light weigh system which gives decent image quality...
I will rather stick with the Panasonic m4/3 lens, the weigh of 7-14 + 12-35+ 35-100 are about 960g......this olympus lens alone is 880g already....

REACH, it is about REACH
The Original Olympus version of the 35-100 lens is f2.0 - 100% faster

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:56 UTC
In reply to:

letsgofishing: According to the Get Olympus site, the lens hood is another $60???
Get real Olympus!

The video I just watched said it is INCLUDED ... that price is if you run over the original with the car ...

Watch the video here http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/pen-omd/m-zuiko-ed-40-150mm-f2-8-pro.html

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:54 UTC
In reply to:

Treeshade: E-M1+40-150mm F2.8 Pro
Total cost: $2800
Total weight: 1377g

6D+EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L
Total cost: $3350
Total weight: 1820g

E-M1@150mm F2.8 ISO400 would have the same DoF, FoV and SS as 6D@300mm F5.6 ISO100. It is just trade-off between IQ and cost/weight (or other features that you like). Nothing wrong with choosing either lens (and system).

One quarter the shutter speed with the same DOF as a full MARKETING frame camera. That is not "equivalent" except in a hyper pedantic and perverse quasi-scientific sense (Quasi because you take into account only ONE aspect)

IQ trade off?- what trade off?
That canon lens is a bit of a DOG ... this zuiko will likely absolutely trounce it.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:52 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2132 comments in total)

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.


Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 12:38 UTC as 73rd comment | 3 replies
On Behind the Shot: Shredded article (80 comments in total)

Very informative, and I like the processing choices you made.
Great result ... brrrr!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 09:14 UTC as 7th comment
On SmugMug Films: Master of illusions article (39 comments in total)

Inspiring work, good to hear you paraphrasing Einstein, too :)

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 12:33 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
On 1939: England in Color (part 2) article (175 comments in total)

A true privilege to see. Thank you for this fantastic journey back in time!

Thank you also for the work you put into locating appropriate street views.

Thanks Google too .. going to look a t the first set now ...

Oh, any idea what colour film was used for any of these? (apologies if it says elsewhere)

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 05:22 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
On Ohh so Sweet in the 1:1 aspect ratio: Macro shots challenge (6 comments in total)

Great ant photo ... congrats!

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2014 at 06:21 UTC as 1st comment
On Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R real-world samples gallery article (270 comments in total)

Reasonably sharp, nothing stellar.
Disappearing ears are idiotic and virtually unsaleable as portraits.
There's better glass out there.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2014 at 06:19 UTC as 4th comment
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2251 comments in total)
In reply to:

pacom: This has Jony Ive written all over it....

Dieter Rams you mean, the one who ives worshids .. nothing that new from ives.


Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2014 at 07:41 UTC
On Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art Lab Test Review preview (575 comments in total)

Looks good . but, reality check!

Nearly 2 stops is "vignetting well under control"?
Effectively f 2.5 in the corner, wide open
... Massive too - a 77mm filter thread???!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2014 at 05:07 UTC as 125th comment | 1 reply
Total: 249, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »