Steven Ellingson

Steven Ellingson

Joined on Nov 7, 2013


Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mel Snyder: I've never been a MFT fan - I believe size matters in sensors - but at under 800 ISO, this is impressive. For those who shoot in high light levels and post only on the web, this camera will do very well - impressively,

It was interesting to see how much better the lowly A3000 is than this camera over IS0 800. One poster who claims to have sent back his A7r and bought this for the IBIS must have been shooting under high light levels, because there's no comparison. If the A3000 sensor i what is in the A6000, I'd think that's a better machine for those who don't need IBIS to take slow shutter speed shots.

I guess if Olympus could pack this performance in a package as small as my old Olympus XA, just about any photographer could rationalize buying it as a true pocket rocket. But in a size and price competitive with small APS-C DSLRs, it will remain a niche product appealing mostly to MFT fans who can't afford or justify the top-of-the-line model.

That same poster was talking about shooting 1/3 second shutter speeds. Tell me why you'd need to go above ISO 800 again?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

fishywishy: i dont get people being excited about the size. no way that fits in a pocket, so who cares if its 1 cm shorters?

No it won't fit comfortably in a jeans pocket. (I have actually walked around with the slightly larger EOS M in my jeans. It fit, but I looked kind of stupid.) But it fits a little bit better than its peers in lots of places. Jacket pockets, purses, side pockets of bags, glove compartments...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

67gtonr: It seems to me that the Canon EOS M with its 22 f/2.0 lens would be better, it's roughly the same size with a better sensor, better screen, better built, providing better image quality and unlimited expansion possibilities, and it costs less!

halfway, olypan, bluevelvet, you have added nothing to the discussion and so I won't respond to your comments.
DT200: They aren't the same size, but they are pretty damn close:,351.349,ha,t
For practical purposes, it's essentially the same. Too bulky to fit comfortably in a jeans pocket, but easily fits in a jacket pocket.
Marty: This is a terrible argument. And it's funny because I see a lot of Canon fans making arguments like this all the time. I suppose you also think that Transformers: Dark of the moon is one of the greatest films of all time?
Flash: Personally, I'd rather have the hotshoe, but I'm probably in the minority on that.
EVF: neither does the EM1.....
Autofocus: I'll give you that one. But personally I find it to be more than adequate with the firmware update.
inorog: who cares what canon wants? Look at the camera itself and make your decision.
At launch, the M was a mess. With new firmware and price, it is a bargain.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 21:23 UTC
On Preview:pentax-k-3 (959 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grant Hutchins: This maybe a stupid question, but aside from button clicks to set the camera vs. mouse clicks to set panel attributes, wouldn't post processing a non-camera anti-aliased image be preferable? Of course, that assumes you have photo editing software, so I guess my question is to photogs and graphic designers with Photoshop. Given the multitude of different blur filters, de-speckle, etc in PShop, wouldn't you have more ultimate control to just leave anti aliasing off on the camera, and adjust as needed (if needed) in Photoshop?

This isn't a stupid question. Using photoshop to correct for moire can be preferable depending on the situation. There are exceptions though.

First is the big one - video. Though I have no idea if Pentax's method of correcting for it works in video anyway, so this might be a moot point here.

Second, anything that lets me spend less time in PP I'll take in a heartbeat if it doesn't degrade image quality.

The other point is for someone more knowledgeable than me to explain. But essentially when you use photoshop, lightroom, etc to correct for this, the software is essentally just guessing based on an algorithm what the photo should actually look like. Where the small amount of blur caused by an AA filter actually corrects for it. Correcting for it afterwards might end up making the photo more blurry than it would have been otherwise.

Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 01:10 UTC
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4