Joined on May 17, 2006


Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Small but mighty: hands on with the Panasonic GX85/GX80 (315 comments in total)

I'm more than happy with my GM5. To me the ultimate travel cam. Built like a tank, small, with the same lens, which, by the way, is REALLY sharp. And, speaking of lenses, if you can find the discontinued 14-45, grab it. It's great.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 14:20 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
On article History Repeating: Olympus PEN-F Review (1095 comments in total)

Nice machine, but I'll stick with my Panasonic GM-5: Outstanding little camera. Huge image customization options. Olympus is as behind the curve as Canon has gotten.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 14:53 UTC as 152nd comment | 1 reply


Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 14:56 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

Franco8: What about the Panasonic GM 5 with the 12~32mm lens. Some say its not classed as a compact camera, but it is a lot smaller then the FZ1000 & X100. put a 15mm pancake lens on it and it will become a pocket camera.

How can anyone say it's not compact compared to the FZ1000?? The GM5 is an ULTIMATE travel camera. I use and travel with mine regularly. Massive customization options, ability to shoot RAW, Wi-fi, 4/3 sensor, and great video. What more could you possibly need?

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2015 at 08:00 UTC

I'll hold on to my Panasonic TS-2. Built like a brick, sharp, great video, and just keeps om going for skiing, kayaking, and parties! ;) Not to mention, never any sensor dust to worry about- a HUGE plus with this class of camera. Between it and my Lumix GM-5, I'm all set in the compact dept. (I may see this Olympus in my future, though...)

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 05:29 UTC as 10th comment

My red and black Lumix GM5 is MADE to live in this bag. I see money being spent... and after all, it IS sort of a Leica- it's a Panasonic! ;)

Link | Posted on May 24, 2015 at 15:46 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

The only thing Canon has done to advance the state-of-the-art in my opinion is develop dual-pixel AF. As a filmmaker, I actually used autofocus (!!) recently in a scene I shot with the 70D and STM 40 wide open to shift focus to several characters stacked within the frame. Worked flawlessly. And WAAY better than the system on the GH4. Still, no micro-focus adjustment on the Rebels make them a deal-breaker for me for serious still shooting. (And the 70D, with it's bounce flash underexposure issue, makes IT a pain for still shooting too. But that's why I have a 5DII and 50D- two of the most solid and reliable non-top-of-the-line Canons ever, imo.)

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 13:24 UTC as 148th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

toni2: The real thread would have been a Rebel with optical viewfinder (760d), and a Rebel with an electronical viewfinder (like 760de).
Canon is the leader, so they don't need to do this, at this moment.
But I think others (perhaps Nikon) will do it soon.

A DSLR without microAFadjustment is one of the silliest things I have ever seen. Almost every compact or smartphone camera has in fact better focus precision that a DSLR without microAFadjustment. So, they have 2 options: add microAFadjustment or put an electronic viewfinder.

I just has to send my T4i in to Canon for a body-focus adjustment, costing me over $200.00. Eventually, over time, the focus WILL get less accurate with Rebels. So therefore, no more Rebels for me unless they start including the feature.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 13:14 UTC

I like the idea of it. I wish one of the major manufacturers had the balls to produce something similar: a bare-bones instrument without silly bells & whistles. Now, I think, the market would support it. BUT, I'll believe this one when I see it... it would be very tempting, depending on the price.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 13:39 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

DRNottage: That's all fine, but when you're a working pro with a significant investment in a system like Canon (warts and all), one can't justify blowing cash on luxury items like Fuji's machines. (More money than brains?;) Yes, great lenses. I'm sure many love them. Or- love from afar, as I do.

I've used them, so I know plenty. I know their lenses are good as are their sensors, but for serious field use, they're impractical. (And their video is cr@p.)

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 04:14 UTC

That's all fine, but when you're a working pro with a significant investment in a system like Canon (warts and all), one can't justify blowing cash on luxury items like Fuji's machines. (More money than brains?;) Yes, great lenses. I'm sure many love them. Or- love from afar, as I do.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2015 at 12:43 UTC as 80th comment | 2 replies
On article Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 (598 comments in total)
In reply to:

frenchie44: I got an eos M last year, I have 5 canon SLRs and wanted a " take everywhere cam" for when I am carrying a 7D with 500mm lense outfit. I am very pleased with the M, I cannot fault the picture quality at all, easy to use, focus is very accurate, it does feel like a quality item with the metal body. the only problem I had was when I first got it every time I wanted to use it I put it up to my eye, then made sure no one was watching and used at it should be used. the M 18-55 lens is a really nice lens, better than the old ef version that was bundled with 40D etc.

Absolutely love my M as a filmmaking tool. Got it dirt cheap. No optical system or mirror to get in the way. I can use all of my lenses with an adapter, store custom picture styles, AND it's nice and light. A very underrated and solidly built little machine.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2015 at 05:53 UTC

After the body focus went off on my T4i, I vowed to never buy another Canon body without micro-focus adjustment. Spent almost 200 bucks to have Canon fix it. Eventually, all Rebels float off spec over time. Fine for the casual shooter, but not a reliable back-up if you ever use 2.8 70-200, especially close to wide-open. Lesson learned.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 16:12 UTC as 209th comment
On article Canon EOS M hands-on preview (564 comments in total)

Got one with EF adapter for $250. As a back-up still image body, or as a B cam for film, or even an A cam, it's great for what it does. Same T4i sensor. You really can't go wrong picking one up now that the price is down. A very underrated and underappreciated machine. Built like a tank too. Strange and unusual yes, but it works! :)

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 23:51 UTC as 13th comment

FAIL. Of major proportions. Canon at least is slightly less clueless than Nikon these days. At this rate, the future, Sony and Panasonic are going to be the only survivors.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 13:30 UTC as 58th comment
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion (502 comments in total)

Great review. Hated it when I used it too. Focus system was a real pain, and color-wise, it was not up to older Canons. Only the original 5D was worse. Our local paper bought 50 7D's and called them paperweights! However, the color profile overall that I'd describe looking like "puke"- that is, in most of their cameras since day one- is Panasonic's. Yellowish, pasty, horrible jpg structure and tungsten WB. It keeps me from picking up a GH4.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 13:17 UTC as 45th comment
On article Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 (366 comments in total)

Got the original Q with zoom for a steal. Found a standard prime soon after. Lenses are damn sharp. I'm a pro and I've produced some stunning images with it, so I can't understand all the bitching. It's even got more image adjustment options than my Canons. I stuck an old folding Polaroid 95a viewfinder on it. Now THAT is a conversation piece...

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2014 at 17:15 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

After all the fuss about "The Dark Knight" being shot on film, the final result was a tremendously over-processed, trendily-graded digital look. All of the "benefits" of shooting on film are for all practical purposes non-existant to the viewer. So I say, as with still photography, evolve or die. (I shot and processed film for over 30 years. Enough is enough!)

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:46 UTC
On article Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know (181 comments in total)

I use Lightroom 75% of the time for my workflow. If they go to subscription-only with it, screw them. And Lightroom for ios only? As I said, screw them. (Because they ARE screwing us, no matter how one attempts to rationalize it.)

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 11:12 UTC as 27th comment | 4 replies
On article Olympus Tough TG-3 real-world samples gallery (46 comments in total)

I've had a Lumix TS2 for a few years now that's been diving, skiing, and through a whole host of activities. Wouldn't trade it for any of these- even my friend's TS5, which seems to have an inferior lens. Mine's sharp as hell.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 22:00 UTC as 7th comment
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »