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.


Total: 222, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
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 . . .
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 ...

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.

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

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 ....

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 (2065 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 ..

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 (2065 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 ..

.. 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)

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. - the FIRST 35mm SLR

Some samples shot with it, 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 (2065 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.

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 (2065 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:

... t b c

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 10:20 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2065 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.


Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 09:34 UTC
Total: 222, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »