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: 196, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 (2143 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
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 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.

Even the EVF in the EM-5 which I still have is quite usable.

One had to "learn" that the VF dims when testing DOF with a preview.
No more.

One had to "learn' to guess focus in really dim light or accept some camera guess.
No more.

The EM-5 (and especially the EM-1) finder gives you pretty well the look of the file it will create (with the current settings!) and they are good files indeed.
.
The EM1- has no noticeable graininess is and very sharp indeed (when actually using the camera to TAKE PICTURES, that is) . It gives nothing important away to OVFs and in fast action you turn the image preview off and it's pretty smooth and fast too. OVF had a slight edge there.

The EVFs absolutely leaves OVFs in the Dust when you are shooting scenes like this ..

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts

.. cont

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2014 at 08:11 UTC
In reply to:

Nathan Cowlishaw: I'm really excited for the 7-14mm F2.8 lens. I just hope it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. lol I will buy it if it is under a grand. :)

I see the troll who thinks metal and glass cost is the main reason lenses are expensive, still lurks away from his SONY site.

Consider this: The C.O.C. required for sharpness is not 1/30mm, it is 1/60mm ...

MFT glass has to be higher quality and is.

Most of the lenses produced in the last 2.5 years are superb. The 45 is an out and out bargain!
116g, sharp, unobtrusive, pocket a couple of the smaller primes easily. Samples: (more soon)

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests/Zuiko-45mm-f18/

Try that with FMF (oh while you're at it .. compare FMF (full Marketing Frame) sharpness vs. Zuikos over at slrgear . com

I spend ZERO time on other makers sites and forums (well maybe GoPRo ..) That's because I'm too busy USING my gear to make a nuisance of my self over at their fora, making pseudo-relevant technical quips.

Sorry had to correct a few typos.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 14:11 UTC
In reply to:

DeFinitive: I might consider the 7-14 and absolutely loving my 12-40 f2.8, so much so that I'm selling all my Canon gear.

Yep, I unloaded all the big stuff ...
This gear is excellent, and prints to poster size still looking good.

When I think of what poster prints looked like in the '80s ...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

Fri13: I am going to picck that 8.5mm if quality is better than Panasoniic 7-14mm. Now I have Samyang 7.5mm fiisheye lens and while its drawn and sharpness is amazing, I hate how it is hard to get de-fishing profiles work in LR and so on.

Please Kowa, add pins to lens so camera can write to EXIF/IPTC metadata what aperture and focus distance was used (and what lens focal lenght is).

I have that glass too.

It is surprisingly sharp and nicely made, too. Icing on cake the OMDs let you easily magnify the spot you want sharp to check focus ... try that with that 1936 glass finder technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_single-lens_reflex_camera#Exakta - the FIRST 35mm SLR

Some samples shot with it, here.
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Manmade-environment/Something-fisheye-here-/

Quick poll:
How much time do YOU spend trolling through the CaNikSon forums to make irrelevant "observations"?

I'll answer first : ZERO

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2014 at 14:03 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just Ed: There are a lot of small APS-C cameras out there. Even some compact lenses to go with them.

Personally, I would not buy into 4/3'rds at this point in time. jmo

3:2 was made popular by good hardware, NOT by having usable ideal proportions!
... it was rarely useful without cropping. You had to "learn the proportions" and try to shoot according to its non intuitive nature.

The proportions were NOT chosen to make good pictures!
They came about by adding 2 movie frames together, and also explains WHY the 6x9 format had VERY few users.

The VAST majority of roll film users (pretty well the only film where you had any choice in negative proportions) prefered 6x4.5 (4:3) and 6x7 (about 5:4, actually) or Hasselblad's SQUARE format (and its nice portable cameras) -NOT- the 3:2 of 6x9 format.

I saw the boxes leave the store.

FEW film formats had such weird elongation, all used a more ART-like aspect.

Pity it wasn't a much better 25x35mm format. (1.4:1)

I'm starting an informal 4:3 lens sample gallery.

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

I plan to do an EM-1 and EM-5 comparisons of near identical shots soon.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 10:31 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just Ed: There are a lot of small APS-C cameras out there. Even some compact lenses to go with them.

Personally, I would not buy into 4/3'rds at this point in time. jmo

And mostly BAZOOKA lenses ...
I carry and EM-1, 8 lenses, FL50 flash, filters, plenty batteries, PL-200 QR, and a few other bits in a LowePro 180 Nova AW bag.

There is NO apsc or FMF (Full Marketing Frame) camera that you could even remotely do that with.
I sometimes don't know the situation so I take ALL the glass with me. Sometimes an EM-5 too.

Both OMDs leave my RB-67 in the DUST.
It had an actual picture area of 56 x 69.5mm, or about - about 4.5 times the 35mm format

Both OMDs leave it in the dust for quality. When there's time, I'll dig out some 4x5 inch negs - about 14.2 TIMES as big as FMF.
I would comfortably expect the OMDs comfortably beating 4x5 IQ. With Zuiko pro or prime lenses I'd expect better sharpness and less grain "noise" - except maybe for unprocessed night shots.

A few samples:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/6x7-early-80s/

... t b c

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 10:20 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: BTW where is the section on compressed RAW that Olypus are using and analysis of the effects of this compresison? or this is only for high profile cameras? and M1 is a.. ..not so high profile?

Lossless compression saves space and like a ZIP file or FLAC file ALL the original is recovered when opening the file.

Lossless compression WORKS that way.

READ:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/crm/oneoffpages/crm_raw.asp

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 09:34 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

wilkes888: C-MOUNT LENSES

Question for EM-1 users: Has anyone tried using old C-Mount lenses? Also is there a list of 'lenses which work well' with the MFT mount cameras? I hear that some produce much better quality circles on the MFT sensor than others.

Note: I did try to search at the top of the page but it I didn't seem to bring up anything on the forums. Is there a dedicated forum search which I've missed?

Lossless compression - saves space.

Lossless means like a ZIP file or FLAC ..

ALL of the original data is recovered when opening the file and it therefore we have PRECISELY the original data with no loss at all. It has to work that way.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/crm/oneoffpages/crm_raw.asp

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 09:31 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: ...and what battery life did you get? Is 350 frames ok for M1 since ..it is not a high profile camera as another one which too does 350 frames on a battery charge, but is evidently higher class and so is judged differently?

Batteries are compact, easily three in a pocket.

If you are bracketing it is easy to get 500+ shots on one charge. Presumably the VF to shutter ratio alters the effective consumption.
Aftermarket batteries on eBay are cheap and there are even ones called full "process" or something like that - it means the original charger can be used.

They are $9 and work perfectly.

In the dark that VF dusts glass finders!

My competition could not even SEE some of the things I shot. Without the EVF, in some cases, I could not see THE ACTION either ..

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Footloose-Supa/i-FcghWZ6/A

OMDs are brilliant in the dark.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 03:44 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

srados: 2-3 years ago I was trying Oly's(many of them) in a camera show, with not so challenging lighting situation.All Olympus cameras did struggle to focus...Pentax too.I do not know did this did improved lately. I know 3 years are like 1000 years in technology terms, passed.

Canon/Nikon did not had issues in focusing...My impression from Olympus that they struggle in that(focusing) department.

Party last night - took the OMD as instead of my SONY or Panny P&S cams ...

Nothing critical.
I set the TOUCH screen up to SHOOT when pressed, press on display at the subject's head, WHAM!
Even in quite dim light, it nailed focus instantly (like the EM-5 does)!

Much faster than fiddling with the focus point adjustment.
It trounced the CaNikon users there and they WERE surprised.

I must use this feature more ...
Low light AF issues are NOT present with this camera OR the OMD.

Of course like EVERY cam I've ever tried, if there's strong enough backlight to cause FLARE, or there simply isn't any detail, it will hunt. If that's an "issue", learn how to use a camera!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 03:41 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ty Slothrop: Oly mentions uploading to a PC in their specs for the EM-1. Is there anything in the firmware/hardware/flatware that precludes interfacing with a Mac, or requires something that I'm overlooking? (It shouldn't matter but for complete disclosure I'm using Aperture for PP.)
2. I'm not clear if a tethered off-camera flash is fully auto TTL?
3. Is it necessary that the cable be a dedicated Oly product to an Oly flash unit?
If my questions reflect some confusion and don't make sense please feel free to reframe them as needed.
Many thanks, Ty

AND off-camera flash can also be wireless :) No tether needed.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 11:34 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

sunberries: Just had this yesterday with the 12-40 2.8 Still trying out everything but only one thing has really been bothering me, the EVF is so sensitive that it keeps activating and thereby shutting down the screen. This even happens when viewing the pictures in Play mode, a slight pass of anything (shadow, finger, hand) over the EVF turns the screen off and goes to shooting mode. I measured the distance from which the EVF activates and it is 41mm (1.6 inches) from the rubber cup. Anybody got a fix to this?

Or keep your fingers away from the eyepiece - it is seeing them and 'thinks' you've lifted the cam to your face!

I cured myself after half a dozen times. No problem now.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 11:29 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I can't help but wonder if the MFT consortium (Panasonic, Olympus) will be offering a larger sensor at these prices! (aps or larger)

By that 'reasoning', an F-150 is a "better car" than a BMW ... must be .. more materials.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 11:24 UTC
Total: 196, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »