EZGritz
Veteran Member
Be fair. The Canon is an f/2.8 prime lens.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The 150-600mm f5.0-6.3, setting the record straight
- Thread starter the bluesman
- Start date
EZGritz
Veteran Member
It's a good point that resolution infinity makes a great lab test but not a great photo. A great photo does not have to set records for resolution.
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
"A great photo can have mediocre IQ, but a mediocre photo cannot be saved by great IQ"
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
Amazon.com: The Pelican Squadron: A Tale of Intrigue, Revenge, and Redemption in Silicon Valley eBook : Sherman, Harvey: Kindle Store
Amazon.com: The Pelican Squadron: A Tale of Intrigue, Revenge, and Redemption in Silicon Valley eBook : Sherman, Harvey: Kindle Store
www.amazon.com
Ken Croft
Senior Member
Does the RX10 have 600mm or just 600mm FF equivalence? The Oly Lens actually is 600mm so 1200 ff equivalence.
In the case of the OM-1 II review, it would have been nice if he'd put a little more effort into getting his facts straight. His claim that the OM-1 II remains fully functional while clearing the buffer nearly had me ordering one, and I know some other people were excited about that too. It was disappointing to learn from an OM ambassador that in reality this hadn't improved from the OM-1.
Obviously in a long review video it's reasonable to expect a few mistakes, What damaged his credibility with me is that he doubled down on the incorrect information when it was questioned in the comments. It would have taken moments to check it for himself and correct the mistake.
Maybe that was just an isolated error and everything else he's put out have been 100% accurate, but the impression I got from his gushing over OM's "masterpiece" is that he's more a salesman than an objective reviewer.
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Not only that, but he didn't watch your video!
You should be offended after making so much effort to provide the details.
He is a known OM-System fan. And also a Nikon DSLR fan. Nobody else provides more information.
You should be offended after making so much effort to provide the details.
He is a known OM-System fan. And also a Nikon DSLR fan. Nobody else provides more information.
whumber
Senior Member
I wouldn't put too much thought into any MTF measurements he provides. He did another test where he showed results that were higher than the theoretical maximum which strongly suggests he doesn't know how to conduct the test properly.
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Look at the photos, not the tests of the photos.
It's an interesting thing:
While Eisl knows his photography, he uses buzz words and doesn't necessarily explain much - just parroting the blurb. "Voice coils"??? I know what they are - a precise actuator used in speakers. Many devices need and use precise actuators. IBIS / OIS included. It is a given that they have a high level of precision otherwise the stabilisation would be crap. Throwing in a feel good buzz word just sets off my bullsh*t meter and I am likely to develop a negative attitude.
The small sensor review, on the other hand, tells it as it is. I think I had already read one of his earlier reviews but after reading that one I have a much better appreciation of the 150-600 and wouldn't hesitate to buy it if circumstances dictated / allowed.
I have no negativity towards that lens now, while after watching the Eisl video I was of the opinion I would probably NEVER buy it.
I wonder if marketing depts, factor in reactions of those that aren't swayed by hype or are indeed put off by hype. I wonder if marketing types actually have the capacity to understand such concepts...
That's just too funny.
He is a droid, programmed by the marketing department, kitted out with voice coils that insert buzz words at the push of a button.
I consider accuracy of information more important than quantity. For me it loses a lot of value when some of the content is downright misleading, especially if errors aren't corrected when they're pointed out.
Humansvillian
Senior Member
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Make a better video and post it.
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Make a better video and correct the errors.
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Make a better video, correct the errors and post it. It's easy to throw rocks from the sidelines, hard to make a video. Prove you are right, Post your video.
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
"A great photo can have mediocre IQ, but a mediocre photo cannot be saved by great IQ"
--
Author of "The Pelican Squadron" - Harvey Gene Sherman
https://www.amazon.com/Pelican-Squadron-Tale-Internet-Bubble-ebook/dp/B08FCY6V7Y
"A great photo can have mediocre IQ, but a mediocre photo cannot be saved by great IQ"
Last edited:
EZGritz
Veteran Member
Well, no. f8 on FF is not equal exposure to f6.3 on M43.
I get that you're his no.1 fan and are doing your very best to defend his honour, but that isn't really an argument.
I'm not a professional Youtuber with an OM-1 II review that claims to "dissect every single one of its features". It's his job, as someone who presents himself as an expert, to test the camera properly and get his facts straight.
That issue of functionality while clearing the buffer was brought up in the comments section of his video. Really, that should have been enough for Eisl to double check and correct the error himself, but instead he responded with more incorrect information.
Am I really being unfair and unreasonable if I find him a less credible source after that?
Humansvillian
Senior Member
James Stirling
Forum Pro
That is excellent news the Nikon p1000 goes to a 3000mm equiv focal length at F/8 would you be expecting the same result ? I wouldn't I would expect the OM-1 image to be far far better
These 4 cameras are taken at the same aperture same lighting same subject same settings tell me do the results look the same to you. It is the end result that matters .DPreview low light RAW 12600 samples 1" , OM-1, Z6 II all shown at 100% and finally the MF GFX 100 which was too big to show at 100%
It is the result that matters
The explanation of equivalence is ridiculously simple and there are no legitimate reasons for not understanding it beyond not being smart enough to get a topic that has been explained literally 1000's of times. Or alternatively understanding it but prepared to outright lie in a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.
Sadly I doubt that there are many stupid people in the forum. Which means that a good number { though thankfully a minority } are deliberately setting out to deny a fact and spread misinformation which I simply cannot understand. Like everyone else I make mistakes but I would much rather have the facts explained to me than make a fool of myself and argue that black is white. Which some folk here have been doing for years
It is perfectly reasonable to declare that you don't care about equivalence if you only use one format . But that does not change the fact that it true and applies equally to every format.
--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
Last edited:
Humansvillian
Senior Member
Eight years ago when that sly old Guy Parsons tempted me, and I bought my first PL1 Olympus, I didn’t know what an F stop or ISO or the exposure triangle was.That is excellent news the Nikon p1000 goes to a 3000mm equiv focal length at F/8 would you be expecting the same result ?
These 4 cameras are taken at the same aperture same lighting same subject same settings tell me do the results look the same to you. It is the end result that matters .DPreview low light RAW 12600 samples 1" , OM-1, Z6 II all shown at 100% and finally the MF GFX 100 which was too big to show at 100%
It is the result that matters
I learned from a book, PL1 for Dummies, and with the help of my friends here.
Until tonight I believed that if I used aperture priority f 8 on either my Olympus 75-300 lens on my M5 II or my Canon 70-300 lens on my Canon 7DII the iso and shutter speed for an f8 lens opening according to the exposure triangle would be the same.
Since my Oly M5 II has much better stabilization I can raise shutter speed by increasing ISO, to freeze the bird.
But does the exposure triangle (not depth of field) for a f8 vary according to sensor size, or focal length of the lens?
--
Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks
Last edited:
daddyo
Forum Pro
Trust me, you are kicking a tree stump. The tree stump won't move, and you'll just end up with a sore foot and wasted time.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum