AndyGM

AndyGM

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 27, 2010

Comments

Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 article (231 comments in total)

Damn, this camera has given me GAS!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:51 UTC as 66th comment
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cipher: Any word on IBIS?

Unlikely, the GM1 didn't have it either. The mechanism of the GM1 shutter was also a bit odd to fit in, so if there wasn't even room for a normal shutter then I really doubt there's room for IBIS too.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:50 UTC
On Am I missing something here? article (637 comments in total)

One part of the Nikon 1 system design that is pretty much guaranteed to put enthusiasts off? Not having a focus ring on the lenses. Although it looks like the 32mm prime and the supertelephoto zooms have rectified this, but really most of the other existing lenses need a redesign to add a focus ring, especially the other primes. It always gave the impression that Nikon expected the 1 system to be used by "auto everything" types.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 20:50 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
On Am I missing something here? article (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

joeyv: Good companies plan for the future. Maybe it is hard to see what CX is all about right now. but as sensors improve the CX format advantages will be more obvious. For sure, Nikon will also come out with FF mirrorless someday. I suppose Nikon hopes that having FF + CX will effectively bracket the other formats in-between.
I use Nikon Dslrs and I sure am glad CX is there. I can can put my 85/1.4 in the V3 and have effectively a 230 mm/1.4. Or the 200/2.0 and effectively have a 540 mm/2.0. How cool is that!

@T3 - at the moment, the reason the Nikon 1 sensors have such fast burst rate is because of heat dissipation. The smaller sensor generates less heat when being driven at rates as high as 15fps. Heat dissipation is a big problem in the small bodies of Mirrorless cameras. And if the makers of 4/3 or APS-C sensors come up with a solution, that same solution can be applied to a CX format sensor to drive it even faster (it's a good candidate for 4K video for example).

Plus at the moment, 1" sensor is the largest that can be built using Backside Illumination, which ameliorates some of the downsides of being the smallest sensor on the ILC block.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: 4k is not enough! I wait for 16k.
Until then I I am happy with HD.
With me not resolution is lacking but the skil and the crew and additional gear. For me as an Amateur the Nikon V1 is just fine.
This modular camera is for the pros with crew.

NHK have already stated that they see 8K as "the final standard", with no need to go to any higher resolution beyond that. This is the reason why they aren't really looking at 4K which they see as a short term thing.

What they will do (and are already working on) for after 8K is High Frame Rate 8K (120 fps!)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 14:28 UTC
In reply to:

Plastek: " We have done some studies where we presented consumers with a DSLR and a mirrorless camera and ask them if the image quality was the same, which one they would chose, and generally they chose the DSLR." - I would answer in exactly the same way. Simply because DSLRs offer by far wider choice of lenses many of which are superior to mirrorless glass. And then there are whole systems of accessories, flashes, and well: everything else that in the end creates a photograph.

So: Yes, DSLRs DO offer better final image quality, but reasons for that go beyond body itself.

A far wider choice of lenses is not the rationale that these Joe Public types are giving when they tell the Nikon Market Researcher they prefer the DSLR.

And why should it be? The lens attach rate for APS-C DSLRs is less than 2! How often do you see people toting a DSLR at some tourist destination? All the time, right? How often do you see someone toting a DSLR at some tourist destination that hasn't got the kit lens mounted? Hardly ever!

These Nikon guys told Barney what their customers told them, in the US it's the "bigger is better" belief, in Europe it is a prestige thing. Which suits Nikon just fine, they've got loads of DLSRs on the market already, loads of market share, so there is no need for them to do any expensive work inventing or perfecting a new camera system, they can keep churning out what they've always done with little R&D and therefore lots of profit margin, and Americans and Europeans will keep buying them.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2014 at 09:38 UTC
In reply to:

rich889: The sense that I came away with in this interview that Nikon is extremely complacent. For instance, Nikon does NOT want to create a high quality mirror-less camera because it might detract from their DSLR revenue so instead they blame the American public. Denial to cover mediocrity. They ignore the fact that the move towards mirror-less is a growing market, and that the picture quality of Nikon 1 v1 and v2 is indeed INFERIOR to APS-C and even Micro Four Thirds. Nikon has not been an pioneer in the digital age for over 15 years, but the recent falling-off of quality (as shown by problems with the D600) is troubling, and is a shame for those of us who have used Nikon equipment for decades.

@Donnie G

It is my opinion that the sweet spot for mirrorless is shorter focal lengths, medium tele downwards. The key strength of mirrorless is small size, less weight, more portable, once you start making a super tele lens for a mirrorless camera, it will still be pretty large, so you need a larger body with a larger grip to balance it well, and then you've removed the one major advantage of mirrorless. For this use case, super telephoto, DSLR still makes the most sense.

For this same reason, using existing DSLR lenses with mirrorless cameras is pretty pointless. To get the advantages of mirrorless, the whole system, body and lenses, needs to be small.

I personally don't have any need for focal lengths longer than 200mm equiv, so mirrorless cameras suit me much better than a DSLR.

@rich889 Being truthful about US customers, their beliefs and preconceptions isn't "blaming them" for anything. Perhaps Nikon should have done the research first before designing a mirrorless camera!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2014 at 09:17 UTC
In reply to:

Matthewson: I really don't understand the push for mirrorless cameras. The latest installments from Olympus look like SLR's from the outside, with a "pentaprism" of sorts sitting on top. I'd vote down anything that adds cost, complexity, and battery draw. Peering at a tiny video of your scene serves only to separate the photographer further from his subject. The original OM line had reflex mirrors, and were compact. The only gripe I had back then, in the 80's, was the strap lugs dug into my palms. From the look of it, they're still putting those nasty strap lugs on their cameras.

An EVF gives you the sensors view of the world. An OVF gives you the mirrors view of the world. It is the sensors view of the world that ends up on your memory card. You also get all that live feedback rpm40 mentioned, instead of having to check that stuff after you've taken the shot.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2014 at 07:53 UTC
In reply to:

Markol: What I don't get is pricing- The first 3 generations of PENs were sold at a 50% discount some 6 months after they were released, the P5 is still at the original price after 9 months, the PL5 dropped by less than 15% in much over a year. Compared to many competitors, they are just too expansive and the policy is confusing. I understand that for lenses, but cameras?

@Scottelly "when something is miniaturized, it is supposed to be cheaper."

Since when? Miniaturisation, putting the same capabilities into a smaller space, is more difficult to design, and more difficult to manufacture. This extra difficulty always cost more, not less. Always. ALWAYS.

You agree with MichaelKJ a little earlier that it's a Stereotype that all Americans believe "bigger is automatically better", then you REINFORCE the Stereotype with this "something made with less stuff should cost less than something made with more stuff" stupidity.

"That is why full-frame is so popular, vs. APS-C sensor cameras"

As pointed out by Thorgrem, this is utter nonsense, APS-C cameras far outsell Full Frame.

To counter people like you, we need an add on to "Flag as inappropriate", something like "Flag as just plain Dumb".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2014 at 07:36 UTC
In reply to:

Brandon Milner Photography: I can only speak to why I personally have been reticent to invest in mirror less and M4/3 systems. 1) If I'm going to have to carry a large-ish camera around (as in bigger than say a Sony rx100ii) then I want it to have very high image quality, especially in low light (I tend to but out the big camera to shoot shows, or natural light evening events). Apsc and full frame meets those needs.
2) 4/3rd cameras were supposed to be the next bigthing... But the IQ wwasn't so hot and then it all got abandoned when micro4/3 came along. I'm hesitant to invest in a system that might evaporate in 5yrs. Full frame and Apsc are proven.
3) why are lenses so expensive on m4/3? Aren't 50mm 1.8 lenses equivalent still like $300 compared to less than half that on crop-sensors?
4) I don't often need zoom, but when I do, like for a wedding, having a 34mm to 210mm equivalent is what I need. You can't even get a lens like that for m4/3 (can you?)

I'm really drawn to the small size, the hybrid viewfinder (focus peaking), touch screens and built in image stabilization of the omd series though. I'm *this close* to making the jump. (or to the new fuji stuff.

3) Why do the DSLR 50mm f/1.8 primes have to be stopped down 2 stops before they are even close to as sharp as the m43 25mm primes (oh, and thereby loosing all light capture & DOF advantages)? Because they are OLD. Why are they half the price of the much sharper m43 lenses? Because they are OLD.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2014 at 22:09 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 First Impressions Review preview (618 comments in total)

It is about time Olympus came up with a entry level EVF m43 cam to go head to head with Panasonics G6

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2014 at 20:58 UTC as 87th comment | 8 replies

Hmm... I thought JK Imaging's gameplan was to focus (no pun intended) on the Chinese market, where Kodak is still a well known brand (and an American brand at that), and there is a lot of anti Japanese sentiment? The idea being to hoodwink the Chinese public into believing they are buying an "American" camera and none of that nasty Japanese stuff, when in reality they are selling either a modified Japanese camera made side by side in the same factory that said Japanese company uses, or a Chinese knockoff of something that was a Japanese idea in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2014 at 01:23 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ybizzle: I'm going to assume this will come in around the $499 mark with kit lens. But then the question is, why by this off brand camera vs say a Fuji X-A1 that will most likely yield better IQ and looks better to boot?

I don't agree, $499 is too much for what is essentially a cut down E-PL5 (it may have gained WiFi over E-PL5, but it's supposed to be slow to operate, meaning they've cost cut on the processors driving the UI, and the screen doesn't seem to be the touchscreen you get on the Oly).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2014 at 00:57 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: The camera (S-1) is basically Oly E-PL6 in different body and with slower processor, right?

But the all-new lenses... 12-45 looks like a very nice kit lens, 12mm certainly more attractive than all those small kit zooms starting from 14mm, while seems a little shorter than Oly 12-50.

Regards the camera, pretty much, yes. No Oly accessory port, and the screen isn't described as a touch screen anywhere (and if it was, you'd think they'd mention it, wouldn't you?)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2014 at 00:46 UTC
In reply to:

Treeshade: They are working on the right focal length, size and styling. Nice try on putting a 400mm telescope on m4/3 to grab attention (but does it really has to be that long?) Every other things, however, require much testing and verification.

Well, they do say it's a teleSCOPE lens (as in Refracting Telescope) and not a Telephoto lens. Refracting Telescopes have just 2 glass elements, one at each end, and their 'focal length" is pretty much their physical length.

I would not be surprised if this lens is totally manual focus and maybe even fixed aperture (it is a modified telescope after all). In which case, you're probably better off with that Tokina Catadioptric lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2014 at 00:29 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Farace: Too bad Kodak can't have a decent funeral with a stately graveside ceremony... it was a great American company that passed into history (it's photographic div. at least). No, instead we have to deal with this zombie "Walking Dead" creature that looks a bit like our dear friend, but isn't. Will someone please put a round through its decaying brain... or maybe a bolt from Darrel's crossbow?

Remove The Head Or Destroy The Brain?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2014 at 00:12 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

Since this camera is packaged very small and tight (for what it is), I can see one good reason why it has no Video. Heat Dissipation. Those big imaging sensors run hot when they are going at 24 frames a second...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2013 at 10:22 UTC as 55th comment
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

flynnstone: Maybe I am missing something here but I dont understand how you can get a sharper image out of a 16mp ff sensor then you can out of a 16mp crop sensor with the same features. You have the same # of mp spread over a larger area. It almost seems like a step backwards to me. Now if you are talking about 24 or even 36mp on ff you should see a good improvement. It seems like a marketing ploy to me.

The answer is - it's not strictly speaking anything to so with the sensor, but the lenses. There are very few first party "native crop" lenses for DSLRs, most Nikon lenses are designed for Full Frame. Sharpness of a lens/camera combo is measured in Line Pairs/Picture Height. But the "native" picture height for the image circle of a FF lens is 24mm. Use that lens on a Crop Sensor DSLR, and you are only using the middle 16mm of that picture height. You've basically thrown away a third of the visual acuity of the lens.

All the top end, sharpest first party lenses are designed for FF, partly for prestige and partly because it is usually easier (and therefore cheaper) to make a "sharp" lens that throws a large image circle, than it is for a lens that throws a smaller image circle (less fancy glass needed, less precise alignment tolerances needed, etc). Trying to market a physically smaller, sharp lens for more than a larger sharp lens is a hard sell. Just ask Olympus.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2013 at 10:14 UTC
On Swimming with the Nikon 1 AW1 article (199 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: the whole design concept is wrong. It is too bulky, no IS, weak O-ring seal, low battery life

What is needed is a tough version of Coolpix A, Ricoh GR and RX1R (with IS and wireless charging of battery)
that is what the camera market needed
easily sold for $1000 and more

this is a failed first attempt. hopefully more to come

Olympus TG-2 which I own is an underappreciated camera. It is great up to ISO 400
There is a trick that I use to get shot at ISO 400 handheld when ISO 800/1600 is required. Use the continuous shooting mode at ISO 400, take about 10 shots and usually at least 1 will be sharp. Best tough camera at the moment

I think tough versions of the Coolpix A, Ricoh GR are going too far (plus wouldn't sell with their single focal length lenses).

Now a tough version of an "enthusiast compact", like a LX-7, with their slightly larger sensors and fast zoom lenses, now you are talking.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2013 at 00:00 UTC
On Mid-range Mirrorless camera roundup 2013 article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: Still no love for EOS M?
Possibly smallest and (currently) least expensive camera with APS-C size sensor.
Incredible line up of supported (via adapter) EF/EF-S lenses.
You can get the kit with a nice lens for much less than any of the cams mentioned in this round up. In fact it is less expensive than most advanced fixed lens compacts mentioned in "leave the DSLR" section.
We all know about the M's quirks but even slight mention would be nice and well deserved.

I think it's right that the EOS-M has been left out. Canon seem to be treating it as an expensive mistake they'd rather forget. The point that it can use EF/EF-S lenses is moot, the NEX cameras can use Alpha lenses, the m43 cameras can use Oly E-System Zuiko lenses, yes, all with adapters. Not that you'd really want to - all these DSLR lenses are badly unbalanced on the various mirrorless systems.

So the EOS-M has just 3 native lenses with no sign of any more (less than m43, or NEX, or NX, or XMount, or Nik1), and even after the firmware update, still focuses slowest of all of them. Oh, and is between Nik1 and m43 for noise and DR.

Yeah, what an absolute bargain!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2013 at 18:52 UTC
Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »