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: 195, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: DPR where is the "Camera hangs when multiple live view effects are turned on" Cons? Did you even try switching on the Art filters and peaking together?

ohh or you just love the camera and did not bother go that deep in the review process?

Hasn't happened to me - ever.

I just retried it, latest firmware now, but I did not see this before, either.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 11:18 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2142 comments in total)
In reply to:

laughingor: now the Fuji X-T1 is out. I feel that it will top EM-1 for IQ, and yet cheaper by $100. what do you all guy comment?

EM-1 usability looks superior - fewer needs for menus.
Depends if you ever need to shoot fast and not everyone does.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 11:16 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2142 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.

EM-5 slow to focus in low light?
NOT my experience

I got ten times as many keepers these evenings as The CaN IkSon bricks and bazooka brigade got (and a MUCH greater variety of shooting angles..

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

...
and HERE:

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

Other galleries under
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/
.. shot mostly with the OMD-EM5

The thing focussed instantly and accurately almost all the time.
Often, I could not even see the subjects without the EFV.

The 5-axis IS also helped drive the keeper rate' up.
Sounds like "the low light issue" is user error...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 11:14 UTC
In reply to:

RaZZ3R Death: Just asking here but does this little lens have very good macro capabilities because I see written on the lens 1:1.8 between 17mm and MSC logo and the only thing that comes to my mind the obvious magnification numbers.

Neither this, or the 1:2.8 Zuiko, nor the panny 20mm have any useful macro capability. Some of the zooms go quite close though.

This Zuiko 17/1.8 IS a good walkabout and low light companion, though

These were shot the morning I opened the box.

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Behind-the-scenes-with-ABC-loc/

The listeners liked the results (apparently quite a lot as the station mentioned the pics a few times).

The National Film and Sound Archive folk appreciated them too.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 01:49 UTC
On Olympus m.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 first impressions and samples article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

Camp Freddy: Very underwhelmed with the examples apart from the bored bloke with the beard shots, which show a use for this focal legnth at least.

faster than zooms, for those who must change lenses IMHO. 12mm a better bet .

Easy:
In time, get both - I did and no regrets.
Might get the new 25/f1.8 too

As they are not bazookas, and the cameras are not bricks, you could even take them all with you AND use them.

These were shot the morning I pulled it out of the box.

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Behind-the-scenes-with-ABC-loc/

The listeners I shot them for were very happy.

The fact the samples appear to reflect disinterest on the part of the tester is irrelevant to the lens itself.

I LIKE the instant AF/MF via the slide 'n' click focus ring. Reminiscent of the shutter speed dial being on the THROAT of the OM lens mount instead of a dial to twiddle on top.

Oly were always pretty good with ergonomics - more shooting, less fiddling.

This new gear appears to be no exception.

I'm glad I ditched Canon early on, they are OK, but less suitable to fast, accurate shooting, to me.

And oh the DUST PROBLEMS!
On my 4th Oly digital camera, change lenses anywhere I want, never noticed ANY dust spots.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 01:16 UTC
On Olympus m.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 first impressions and samples article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

Random Royalty: Having done photography for a very long time and as a onetime photo technician, I find the misunderstanding regarding F, focal length, sensor size, light gathering and bokeh quite amusing.

Basically there is a huge advantage going to a smaller sensor size, and we make a mistake when we equate that with film sizes. I loved shooting medium format because of the added resolution but this is a non issue with digital.

There is no practical reason why we need full-frame as it is a marketing gimmick. Yes we get 1:1 crop but who cares?

As many have pointed out quite correctly, F is the function of lens opening vs. focal length and will let in a constant amount of light. Adjustments are made, however for the light gathering capabilities of lens and other factors (number of lens elements) but it is meant to be a constant like shutter speed so that light metering will produce the same results for the same value. A light meter reading of 1/125 at f8 for ISO 200 is the same for any camera.

.. continued
Plenty of DOF when you DO want DOF. That's WAY more often when you are not playing and the customers are paying.

Hint to measurebators ..
('disappearing ear' portraits don't PAY)

With razor sharp lenses, micro four thirds is also an advantage with macro where DOF is wafer thin. I generally don't kill what I am shooting, just so I can focus stack.

I'll do a review of this lens with of pics I shot the morning I pulled it out of the box. It enabled candid, hand held shots, much liked by the listeners of the radio statio I shot them for.

The 17 works very well, on an OMD 1 or 5 (I have both).

It is a great walkabout, pocketable in colder weather and giver the OMDs a cool retro look while keeping the size down.

You can get immediate, natural pics as people are more comfortable.

We DO get a 1:1 'crop'(as did the Mamiya RB-67)
Four thirds is not a subset of any format, let alone legacy FMF.

FWIW, I BOUGHT reversible the hood and shot rather than whine "it isn't free".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 00:59 UTC
On Olympus m.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 first impressions and samples article (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

Random Royalty: Having done photography for a very long time and as a onetime photo technician, I find the misunderstanding regarding F, focal length, sensor size, light gathering and bokeh quite amusing.

Basically there is a huge advantage going to a smaller sensor size, and we make a mistake when we equate that with film sizes. I loved shooting medium format because of the added resolution but this is a non issue with digital.

There is no practical reason why we need full-frame as it is a marketing gimmick. Yes we get 1:1 crop but who cares?

As many have pointed out quite correctly, F is the function of lens opening vs. focal length and will let in a constant amount of light. Adjustments are made, however for the light gathering capabilities of lens and other factors (number of lens elements) but it is meant to be a constant like shutter speed so that light metering will produce the same results for the same value. A light meter reading of 1/125 at f8 for ISO 200 is the same for any camera.

I agree that bricks and bazookas with FMF (Full Marketing Frame) are only required in extreme cases.

The technobabble used to "justify" the "must have" myth for dinosaurs as more than a nice collector's item falls flat.

Many users actually prefer to take pictures and have their camera gear WITH THEM.

I know that I do!

I had a Mamiya RB-67 outfit for when I needed extra resolution (wedding formals etc.) and DOF was rarely 'enough'. Macro? Forget it.

As for quality, the EM-5 with about 16th the sensor area absolutely DUSTS the RB-67 for image quality.

I was astonished by how MUCH it beat the RB-7.
35mm (FMF) is a 2x crop of THAT.

As for Micro Four thirds, It seems close to ideal (often the subject of heated quasi religious discussion).

FACT: shallow DOF when you want it, and adequate DOF, when you want THAT.

Plenty shallow DOF here:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Music/
and here
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Eurobeat-by-Supa/
|
.. tbc ...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 00:54 UTC
On Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8 review preview (8 comments in total)

Lomography, anyone? Easy, click this on.
Of course you can upsample a phone pic.

These are gadgets just for fun like phone cameras, only withr a vastly better sensor (which is a bit wasted on it) .. but hey! Pixels are cheap.

If I find one at the right price, I might snap it up for its novelty.
I'd bet at postcard size you'll have no idea the pic was taken with "almost a lens: ...
:)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 23:56 UTC as 1st comment

No question that it's an excellent lens. I like sharp. I use the Zuiko 45 and 75/1.8 lenses and these too need a great deal of soft focus post processing if you'm shoot the occasional model - eg:

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/People/Models-ink-/

For low light performing art it is too short as are all standard lenses unless you're in the front row.

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

Great in the studio or when you want to carry only say, 2 lenses as it's oversize and very heavy for a standard lens.

Balance on the little bodies Sony makes would be odd to say the least.

Are you planning to convert all your old reviews for a little pre-purchase comparison?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 23:48 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
On Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview preview (212 comments in total)

Snapped the 3rd to 8th of these yesterday.
straight out of the camera. E-M1 + 75/1.8

No lighting control, pure candids.
I'll edit them later, but work shots are calling ...

The first is with the 60 macro, the second with the 12/2.0.

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/People/Kids/

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 23:14 UTC as 3rd comment
On P6270101 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)
In reply to:

JosephScha: Why does a LENS review picture need to be shot at ISO 6400? What does that prove about the lens?

Looks like a hand-held night shot to me ...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: since its a m43 lens, even without looking at any sample pictures, i know i will be blown away by the price.

Jabberwockie who posts no pics is here again ...

I reckon 2.3k or so, The PRICE will be commensurate with the sharpness and associated image QUALITY.

Compare the 85 CaNikon lenses to the Z 75/1.8. Z's quality blows theirs out of the water.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1521/cat/14

Even the 135/2.0s lose, ESPECIALLY wide open.
To match sharpness, you're forced to f4 or 5.6. Not really a fast lens any more!
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/10

Just waiting for some WAG to say how MUCH material you use determines the value of a product.
By such kindergarten reckoning, an F-150 MUST be "better" than a Porsche.

IF the performance is the same, the miniature version of ANYTHING almost always costs more, simple as that.
These lenses surpass the ZD lenses at every turn.
EG: The "expensive" Z 300/2.8 .. unmatched razor sharpness edge to edge.
Barrel machined to ten microns (etc). $$ = quality manufacture.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 14:34 UTC
In reply to:

webber15: 300 mm f4 for me!! Idiots,shut up bout it being slow,,,2.8 would be too big ffs...300mm 2.8 all ready exists..wakey,,wakey thickos...

I reckon they'll sell a few of them.

Not to me, probably ... I have little work for such a lens right now.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 14:14 UTC
In reply to:

NZ Scott: NO!

No filter thread on the new 7-14 ...

That means I can't buy it. I'll have to get a 9-18 instead, which doesn't go wide enough for me.

Sony's NEX system has an ultrawide starting at 15mm (ff equivalent) that takes filters and only weighs a couple of hundred grams.

Why can't Oly/Panny do the same?

They've made a design decision without asking EVERY photographer out there?

Oh no!

For the record, they didn't ask ME either (I actually agree with your preference FWIW)

A 8-14/2.8 would be good enough for me. I have the 12-40, and it's very nice.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 14:12 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: "Both new lenses are scheduled to be released from 2015 onwards."

I am a little concerned that we may not see one or both of these lenses until 2016.

There's no shortage of fine glass for the OMD bodies and they are wise to have a rapidly expanding lens range.

The FF purveyors will feel the pinch in a year or two as the roll-film camera makers did in the 1950s.

Sure FMF produces slightly better results, but the weight/size is a problem outside the studio.

I'm keenly awaiting the 40-150/2.8!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 14:09 UTC
In reply to:

kimchiflower: The 300mm lens won't have OIS, so it will be of less use for Panny owners although this lens will likely spend more time on a tripod than handheld as I assume it will be heavy.

The 4/3 300mm 2.8 is $6000 and 3.3kg, but this has to be significantly lighter and cheaper.

I wonder what the price/cost/size advantage is to building a lens without OIS is?

OIS will most likely go the way of the dodo.

Shaking bits of glass around inside lenses EGADS!
It adds fragility, cost, size and a bit of weight :(

Doesn't panny now have one body with IS?

One by one they are moving to IBIS because it is very effective. I'll leave the measurebators to make their "case" that OIS is better.

I've seen nothing conclusive that can't be explained by the fact that heavier bodies/lenses have more inertia.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 14:04 UTC
In reply to:

ginsbu: Given that Panasonic already has the 7-14mm range covered with a fine lens (albeit at f/4), I was hoping Olympus would choose a different range for their ultrawide. 8-17mm is a very versatile range that could accommodate filter threads. I would have been particularly interested in a 9-20mm f/2.8 myself.

Hopefully at least a 1.4x TC will be coming to pair with the 300mm f/4 and 40-150mm f/2.8 zoom.

The Macro is also splash proof.
8-14 would have been fine...
Still it's 2.8!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 14:00 UTC
On Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview preview (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: Sorry, but for me the colour of the thing is a serious point. I haven't bought any of the Oly lenses that are mentioned in this preview, because of the colour of the things. All my camera bodies are black (except a white G3 that I bought by mistake) and to me, a silver lens on a black body is not discrete enough.

Looks like Oly have lost me as a potential customer!

Brick and BAZOOKA cameras jump out at timid peoiple and inexperienced models more than silver.

They usually see the front lens element and NONE of the lens.

THe IQ is fantastic. Leaves the Canon 85s that people like to worship in the dust.
It even bests the (better) Nikkor 85/1.4.

Canon's 135 f2.0 nearly competes though, costs a bit more, and is huge and heavy by comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 12:44 UTC
On Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview preview (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

Texwiller55: I'm old 57 years italian photographer. I have used any analogic cameras. I remeber Hasselblad with lens "silver" like the Olympus, in this case, 75 mm. I dont' think problem when attached on "black" body Oly. No sure. Because is tres chic.
And at time the lens is more more "accattivante". I reading that one user not buy "silver" lens because his body camera, is black...too crazy excuse moi mon ami. I repeat, silver is beautiful and very nice...

Agree, and it is MUCh less conspicuous than a brick and bazooka camera outfit.

Ask any timid person or starting-out model instead of a fan boy camera gear owner.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 12:41 UTC
On Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview preview (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cax: Just to clear things up for some people: The focal length of a lens has no impact whatsoever regarding "flattening" of a photo or anything related to that. What makes a portrait "flat" is the distance to the subject. People equate focal length to subject distance, and that's the source of this common misconception.

So yes, 75mm on 4/3 IS THE SAME AS 150mm on a 36x24mm camera in terms of anything relating to the photographic result. Focal length in itself means nothing. Please stop saying "75mm is 75mm" like we are all morons. 75mm is not an angle of view.

I for one, actually wish they'd stop talking millimeters, and start talking degrees!

Degrees tell you about the LOOK of a photo, millimeters means nothing without know the format and there are many.

Millimetres is as useless as pixel count is these days.

For my RB-67 (6x7 FULL frame), 180mm was short portrait lens, and the 250 was the head and shoulders one :)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 12:39 UTC
Total: 195, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »