AngelicBeaver

AngelicBeaver

Lives in United States San Antonio, TX, United States
Works as a Steel Detailer
Has a website at www.ndowell.com
Joined on Nov 3, 2004

Comments

Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

AngelicBeaver: I've been browsing through the samples on this and other sites. Even stopped down, I'm not seeing the "stellar sharpness" or "amazing center sharpness" that I'm hearing about. I've got some sharp lenses (notably the 75 1.8) and I haven't seen anything coming close to that in any of the samples I've looked at. Maybe I'm going crazy...

Weren't you just saying that lower resolution can make any lens look sharp? A lens that outresolves its sensor should look sharp at 100%. I have lenses like this. They look sharp. This lens doesn't, from what I 've seen.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2014 at 01:04 UTC

I've been browsing through the samples on this and other sites. Even stopped down, I'm not seeing the "stellar sharpness" or "amazing center sharpness" that I'm hearing about. I've got some sharp lenses (notably the 75 1.8) and I haven't seen anything coming close to that in any of the samples I've looked at. Maybe I'm going crazy...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2014 at 22:40 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

nerd2: I just googled around and found out this portrait taken with 50/1.8 lens and D5100 body (which costs around $600 for the set) - which obviously have better background blur and good enough sharpness, at least for portrait.

http://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sample-2.jpg

Also,
D3300+50mm 1.8G lens weighs 430g+185g = 615g, around $600
GX7 + 43mm 1.2 = 402g + 425g = 827g, around $2600

As far as your P&S lens comment, the lenses are comparable (because they can be compared) but I don't compare them because the cameras they ride around on don't meet my needs. The m4/3 system and full frame would fall into the "meets my needs" category, thus the comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2014 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: I just googled around and found out this portrait taken with 50/1.8 lens and D5100 body (which costs around $600 for the set) - which obviously have better background blur and good enough sharpness, at least for portrait.

http://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sample-2.jpg

Also,
D3300+50mm 1.8G lens weighs 430g+185g = 615g, around $600
GX7 + 43mm 1.2 = 402g + 425g = 827g, around $2600

The idea that two lenses aren't comparable is laughable. I can compare the 24-70L and the 12-40 because they have the same field of view. Each lens has its strengths and weaknesses. The m4/3 lens is smaller, cheaper, and image stabilized. The 24-70 on a full frame gives you the best image quality, shallower depth of field at a greater cost in terms of weight and money. And no IS. Smaller, lighter, and cheaper sways me over to m4/3. There. I just compared them.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2014 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: I just googled around and found out this portrait taken with 50/1.8 lens and D5100 body (which costs around $600 for the set) - which obviously have better background blur and good enough sharpness, at least for portrait.

http://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sample-2.jpg

Also,
D3300+50mm 1.8G lens weighs 430g+185g = 615g, around $600
GX7 + 43mm 1.2 = 402g + 425g = 827g, around $2600

The bottom line is, I've been shooting digital cameras for ten years. I like the lenses that are available for the M4/3 bodies, which will continue to improve. I knew the tradeoffs and I still bought into the system. I think it's great that they are offering an f1.2 portrait lens. Will I buy it? No. I have the shallow depth of field thing taken care of with the 75, and I can shoot in daylight wide open and it's still razor sharp (and in focus). Different cameras suit different people. I don't want a full frame or APS-C cam. I'm not going to crusade against them. There are some great benefits and drawbacks for both. I bought into m4/3 for the lenses, and they keep delivering.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2014 at 04:56 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: I just googled around and found out this portrait taken with 50/1.8 lens and D5100 body (which costs around $600 for the set) - which obviously have better background blur and good enough sharpness, at least for portrait.

http://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sample-2.jpg

Also,
D3300+50mm 1.8G lens weighs 430g+185g = 615g, around $600
GX7 + 43mm 1.2 = 402g + 425g = 827g, around $2600

I'm curious why you hate this lens and camera system so much. It obviously isn't for you. I shot with a Canon for years and, while the image quality from my T2i at higher ISOs is a bit better than what I can get on my EM-1 or E-PL5, I chose to switch over completely to Oly for the following reasons:
1. I love the lens selection. I get small, fast pancake lenses that are nice and sharp. The 20mm f1.7 really floats my boat and the 12-40 2.8 is a great little lens. My 70mm 1.8 blows the Canon 85 1.8 out of the water, especially given that it focuses correctly.
2. The AF is better than what I was getting from my Canon. I can autofocus with the 75 1.8, wide open, where I could not with the T2i.
3. Most of Canon's top of the line lenses are way more expensive than the m4/3 equivalent. The 24-70 2.8L is $2300 and doesn't even give me IS. I bought my E-M1 AND 12-40 for less. The Canon 50 1.2 is $1600, so it's about the same.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2014 at 04:49 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: how come when i clicked on the "I own it" button from one of the items listed the total dropped by 1?

Maybe you clicked on it before. I did the same thing and it dropped by one. I clicked it again and it went back up. I vaguely recall clicking that I owned my new camera a few weeks ago. Maybe you did too.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 04:10 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2066 comments in total)
In reply to:

alec lewis: what a seriously ugly camera...

why do camera companies put giant grips on these mirrorless cameras? it makes it so big and clunky, defeating the purpose of the camera being mirrorless in the first place...

do they seriously not think there is a market for a pocket(ish) sized mirrorless high quality/full frame interchangeable lens camera that looks good and comes in different colours?

someone save me

My opinion is that the grip should be the same size as the smallest lens for the camera. If the 14mm f2.5 pancake can slip into something, a grip that sticks out the same distance will not affect my being able to slip the camera into said thing, but will give me the ability to hold the camera. I don't quite understand the lack of grips on these cameras. I like having the buttons that come on a larger grip. I didn't even consider the EM5 because it looked like it sacrificed too much in terms of ergonomics for the sake of a retro design that appeals to an older generation. To me, the EM1 is about as good looking as it gets, and I'm thrilled with the grip. I don't like the hump, but if I get a fantastic viewfinder out of it, I won't complain too much.
I am going to purchase an EM1/12-40 bundle as soon as it is offered.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2013 at 04:35 UTC
On Olympus PEN E-P5 Review preview (497 comments in total)

What happened to the ability to compare noise reduction levels? I'm really hoping that Olympus will go back to allowing control over the amount of noise reduction. Excepting for the high ISO shadow noise, I loved my EPL2 with noise suppression turned off. The grain had a lovely characteristic. My EPL5 took a big step backward. It smears fine detail no matter how low the noise suppression is set. I was hoping Oly would restore some of this control (and hopefully do a better job with shadow noise) in the new camera, but I don't see the noise comparison tool in this review.

Am I missing it?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 03:05 UTC as 73rd comment
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 6D In-depth Review article (530 comments in total)

I think I may have found my backup camera for my EPL2.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2013 at 13:15 UTC as 110th comment
On Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? article (1511 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Seltzer: Wait! I thought "the best camera is the one you have with you!" This is such a dumb "poll" that it really puts into question the value and credibility of DPreview. Are you weighting results by ownership? How are you defining "best?" What do we conclude about the winner? Totally silly.

Maybe this is just supposed to be fun?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2012 at 02:07 UTC
On Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Review article (177 comments in total)

I find it sad that Optical Zoom became the next megapixel race. I had the FZ20, and it was a great learner camera: 12x optical zoom, 5 MP, constant F2.8 aperture, and Image stabilization. Then came the FZ30 with a little more zoom and an aperture that darkened on the long end. Wrong way, I thought.

I drop out for a while and when I look up again, all these superzooms are coming with 26x, 30x, 36x optical zooms! I thought, just like the MP wars, this is targeted for people who don't know anything except more "X" is better (X = MP, optical zoom, etc.). 12x vs. 30x? 30x is better. 5mp vs 12mp? 12mp wins.

Give me 8-10 megapixels, 12x optical zoom, constant fast aperture, and clean ISO 80-800 (perfect at 80, good at 800) and I'd say you had a killer superzoom.

Of course these cameras have lens issues. Too much optical zoom. My mother in law bought one (26x Nikon) and took it to Ireland. Every zoomed pic she took looked like crap and she never could figure out why.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2012 at 04:09 UTC as 23rd comment | 3 replies
On Just Posted: Leica X2 real-world sample gallery article (114 comments in total)

I wasn't aware Leicas were in the real world.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 03:50 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

skytripper: As fas as I'm concerned, adding that big honking grip completely negates the Nikon 1's main benefit, which was its compact form factor.

A grip should be the size of the smallest lens that goes on the camera. Otherwise, the "big honking" lens is what completely negates the form factor, which is the problem with most of these small systems. If you can't slip the camera + lens into your pocket/purse, the grip doesn't even matter, except for ergonomics.

I think the chronic lack of grips in these small cameras is a psychological issue. People see large grip and think large camera. Small grip = small camera. The lens can be taken off so it doesn't even factor into a lot of people's reasoning.

But, unless you plan to carry it around with the lens off, the lens is going to ruin the form factor, not a decent sized grip.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 21:19 UTC
On Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 review article (187 comments in total)

Hey DP Review, when you do side by side comparisons of camera models, you should make sure they are the same color (black and black or white and white). Otherwise, it makes it really hard to see the difference in size or shape (larger ladies often wear black for the slimming effect).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2012 at 18:13 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images article (294 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Glam: Though the photos submitted here were OoC JPEGs, I think I can draw a few conclusions.

1. It doesn't match the Nikon D4 and Canon 1D-X at high ISOs.

2. The lens, though supposedly good, is a limiting factor. I always need zoom!! There are many situations where you simply can't get close, and a zoom must be used. I wish the lens was 35-70mm f/2.0, for x2 zoom. This is really the bare minimum to justify buying a camera with a non-removable lens.

3. I wish it had an articulating LCD, like in the A77 and A99.

4. USB3.0 would have been more adequate in this day and age.

5. The price is a problem. Well, the price is always a problem, but for the RX1, Sony should have aimed for a lower target price.

The megapixel race is a good example. Back in the day, people were constantly wanting more (and then complaining when the counts got "too high"). But the technology is almost mature, and an equilibrium is nearly achieved. MP count is no longer THE factor in a camera. Consumers and manufacturers have moved on to the next area for improvement: High ISO. In a few years, they'll move on to something else (battery life? touchscreen interfaces? Wi-fi?). All with the goal of making the camera the most natural extension of our eyes and minds as possible.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 12:54 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images article (294 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Glam: Though the photos submitted here were OoC JPEGs, I think I can draw a few conclusions.

1. It doesn't match the Nikon D4 and Canon 1D-X at high ISOs.

2. The lens, though supposedly good, is a limiting factor. I always need zoom!! There are many situations where you simply can't get close, and a zoom must be used. I wish the lens was 35-70mm f/2.0, for x2 zoom. This is really the bare minimum to justify buying a camera with a non-removable lens.

3. I wish it had an articulating LCD, like in the A77 and A99.

4. USB3.0 would have been more adequate in this day and age.

5. The price is a problem. Well, the price is always a problem, but for the RX1, Sony should have aimed for a lower target price.

I find it interesting that so many people say that they grew up on ISO 25, etc so we should be happy with ISO 400. In the early days of photography, people had to sit for 30 second exposures in broad daylight. I suppose those early photographers chided the younger ones for not being satisfied with their five second "miracle" exposures.

Camera tech has come a long way in the last few years, but it seems to me that the ultimate goal would be to have a camera capable of capturing the image you see without the need of bulky accessories. Having to use a tripod is like having a laptop that needs to be plugged in to operate. It's been so in the past, but it isn't the ideal.

Most household lighting is low enough to require ISO 800 (with a fast lens). When cameras can capture clean images at lighting levels people like to hang around in, then ISO will no longer be such a debated factor. With that goal just around the corner, people are expecting each camera to deliver on the promise.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 12:40 UTC
On La Corrèze in the -Blue Sky Red Bricks- (Provide a Border, Title and Date) challenge (9 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ugo78: Nice pic, but:
- blue sky? mmh, the reflection in the window is still a very marginal element, not a protagonist as the title of the contest asked for...;
- red bricks?! Not at all. A brick is "a block, or a single unit of a CERAMIC material" (Wikipedia). These are blocks of painted (?) sandstone...
Sorry, but in my opinion your photo had to be disqualified...

The challenge is "Blue sky, red bricks". There is blue sky. It says nothing about how front and center it's got to be. And there are red blocks of building material. I'd have thought they were bricks. They're laid in a very brick-like way. They look like bricks.

Seems to me that these challenges are vague in a way that's meant to inspire creativity. If you're looking up definitions on Wikipedia, you're probably missing the spirit of the challenge, just a bit.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 05:53 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Doleman: A year ago I would've been fairly excited about this camera. With the arrival of the Sony RX100, however, it just seems to me that every other offering in this particular niche is suddenly well behind the curve. Particularly considering that the RX100 is one of the most compact, and offers a much bigger sensor than any of its direct competitors. Neither this, nor Samsung's latest compact-enthusiast offering will sway me from my plans to replace my Oly XZ-1 with the Sony RX100.

If Sony had made the RX100 12 MP and f2.8 on the long end, I'd agree with you, but 20MP and f4.9 on the long end takes it down several notches in my book. Different priorities, I guess. It would've been nice if the sensor size on the Panasonic was a little bigger, but if it can pull off ISO 1600 pretty cleanly, or at least without color blotching, I might look to pick one of these up.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 17:49 UTC

40mm pancake is only cool if it's on a relatively inexpensive, small, full frame mirrorless. Otherwise, it's too long and slow to be that exciting for me on a 350d unless the IQ is stellar. I may still buy it though...cause it's just so pancake-y.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 9, 2012 at 03:40 UTC as 31st comment
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »