Dave Oddie

Lives in United Kingdom Chester, United Kingdom
Works as a IT
Joined on Jan 23, 2002

Comments

Total: 415, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

TORN: Most things said are pretty relevant for any interformat comparison. So if you do not want to buy highly expensive cameras with expensive and huge lenses then APS-C like Fuji compares pretty nicely to full frame. Fuji x just offers some nice and small 1.2/1.4 lenses which usually are costly to beat with full frame.

In addition I wonder how lenses wide open and base or max iso are the only relevant camera settings? Use other settings and you can pretty much enjoy the advantages of a bigger sensor with an equivalent lens.

"The point is that away from these extremes, you can probably use equivalent settings, at which point there is little to no advantage of a bigger sensor."

Which is the point I think Torm was making in that the same logic implied in the article that says you don't need MF if you have FF applies to FF v APS-C.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

colourgeek: Glad to see Sigma bring quality lenses to fill in the voids in product line ups. For once I'll say Canon's 135mm f2 is one of their best. Yet this brings great quality to Nikon and perhaps Sony. Would have been nice to have IS, as my 100mm macro 2.8 L Canon has!

Sony already has the Zeiss 135mm F1.8 and it is an outstanding lens. It is old screw drive tech but it doesn't seem to bother users.

Sigma have seemed to stop making lenses in A mount. I have their 105mm macro (latest one with O/S) and it is a great lens.

I am not interested in a 135mm prime anyway but it is a pity Sigma have dropped A-mount just when Sony released the A99II

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 16:30 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (384 comments in total)

My first camera was a little Ilford Sprite. One of these:

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Sprite_127.html

I then moved onto a Kodak instamatic that took 126 cartridges.

My first "proper" camera was a Yashica FR, manual everything but had an electronically timed shutter. Very nice camera. That was stolen on a Geology field trip when I was at University.

I bought an Olympus OM2 to replace it with funds from a summer job. Ended up with an OM4 and stuck with that until I bought my first digital camera, a Minolta A1. Eventually moved to a Sony A100 and currently an A77.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 15:31 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

cosinaphile: id like to see smaller lenses .... these beasts.... im seeing 50mm 1.4 that look the size of medium format lenses that are 4 times the size of a lovely 50mm 1.4 ais

for perspective remember how the early leicas and the later evolved ones and things like the minolta cle in m mount with is cultishly adored 40mm f2 rokkor m

the format we somehow have come to call full frame was in fact the miniature format when it first was born .. the lenses were beautiful compact had genuine helicoids metal construction and aperture control accessible to humans

the teardowns i see of modern lenses with flimsy shells that crack apart like a pinata with an 18 inch drop that are so filled with specific electronics they are virtually guaranteed to be paperweights in a few decades as systems evolve in the computer errr camera body world

im sure im alone but id like to see smaller lenses tat have adequate sharpness
but great oof character and size and build for the ages

I am with you. A 135 F2.8 can be a very small medium tele and with today's computer generated optical formulas could be insanely sharp but Sigma and others seem to think a lens of anything less and F2 isn't worth making.

If I were a Canon user I'd take their 35mm F2 over any of the 35mm F1.4 alternatives any day if the week. Some will no doubt say they need an F1.4 lens but it is only ONE STOP faster and for that you pay a huge weight penalty.

The whole obsession with fast lenses seems counter intuitive to me as sensors become better and better at high ISO's. We are no longer shooting film that at ISO 1600 had grain the size of a small pea! So improving sensor technology should be driving a move to smaller slower lenses being made but it isn't. Sure, some will argue about bokeh of fast apertures but for those who don't need it there are few compact alternatives.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 16:34 UTC

When Olympus first came out with 4/3 I don't think they ever meant for it to be a physically smaller system so the telecentric lens design which means bigger lenses wasn't an issue they were seeking to address.

They had no legacy AF system of lenses to support (unlike Nikon and Canon) so they went back to first principles and were free to do what they liked. They decided the 4/3 sized sensor was sufficient and built a system around that not to be small but to simply be a new system with lenses built for the sensor.

As far as Olympus was concerned there was no automatic need to design for a full frame or aps-c sized sensor. Digital for them was starting from scratch. For Olympus, 4/3 was full frame! The 35mm legacy aspect ratio was just that to them.

The "problem" down the line was Panasonic. It is they if I recall correctly that decided to turn 4/3 into a much more compact system by coming up with m4/3. Whoever invented m4/3, the end of 4/3 was then inevitable when they did.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 17:35 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On article Leica SL Review (1079 comments in total)

In the days of film to show off your camera and lens then put some Kodachrome 25 in it. With the best film in the you could argue your Leica was delivering the best results, better than a Nikon or whatever with the same film. There was no tweaking post processing either so the film showed the lens characterises up.

Now you can’t put the best “film” in your digital Leica. The best “film” only exists in other cameras such as the 42mp sensor in Sony’s.

I think this is why Leica’s are seen as bad value of money. People understand the fine mechanical engineering costs money and will pay for it but to have inferior results from the built in “film” you can’t change? No one should find that acceptable. I think the best Leica quality is going to be a Leica lens on a Sony A7RII and it will be much cheaper which is a problem Leica.

I used to lust after a Leica but not now. I know despite the lenses the results will be worse than with another make and that should never be true of Leica.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 15:24 UTC as 31st comment | 4 replies
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1566 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkAllen: You guys didn't fall on your head and drop the camera before you wrote this review did you?
Have a look at every comment below with a user feedback of over 10, and see what your readers think of your rating. You have to admit that they can't ALL be wrong...

"How many of them have used other systems? Particularly, the latest most recent ones?

For example the a99 II is a God-sent miracle in terms of focus next to a 5D classic. Doesn't say much does it?"

Well exactly, what matters is how it performs in absolute terms and on that score your review is at odds with just about every other one I have seen and with user experiences (many of whom are suggesting why you had the issues you did).

I tend to discount user responses to a degree as some will be biased but other reviewers? I read one today comparing that compared it to a Canon 5D (the 30mp one, 7fps), Pentax K1 and Nikon 810. The Sony won the AF category.

On imaging resource the sub tile of their 2nd field test is:

"A99 II continues to impress thanks to excellent autofocus".

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 15:02 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1566 comments in total)
In reply to:

ocean1: I expected in deph analysis for a complex and inovative camera such as this and the review is 8 pages , not good !
Bring back multiple page reviews at least for cameras in this level and keep it simple for rebels and the like.
If you think that big reviews make us bored you mished the whole point of dpreview as a site . I am reading this site from the days of Phil and I might not doing so in the future if the reviews going to be so small, just a suggestion.
Also this is the first time that so many users of a camera reports the opposite that your review suggest. And not just the users but the whole Internet ! I usually trust dpreview reviews but this is puzzling.
This makes me puzzled and I am waiting for an in hand experience at a show that going to be made in a few days in my Country. Also I am waiting for the review of Camera Store Tv . These guys always have good points to add in a review .

I agree. The days of in depth reviews are long gone on this site.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 12:21 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: I still own my Dimage A1, which is 2003 tech, and the worlds 1st bridgecam with anti-shake (image stabilizer) built-into back then, 5 MP and a great zoom lens.

It features a 2/3" sensor, so it was bigger than these days 1/1.8" sensors back than - and is the direct Dimage 7 Series Sucessor. Into the End, the A1 was all the Dimage 7 Series was, but much better & more advanced, and it was also being succeeded by the A2 & A200 Series, albeit the A200 was a lowcost Bridgecam back into it's day - and plastique-drastique, mediocre build quality - no more being a al-mg body.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1

.edit. my DSC-S75 is still fine and working like new.

But later, the Olympus C-8080 WZ (Widezoom) 2004 have had the best lens of the Bridgecam crowd (5x Zoom & 8 MP) and was a year later being dethroned by the Sony DSC-R1, with Carl Zeiss T* 24-120/2.8-4.8 Zoom, and (almost) APS-C Sensor size.

I do still use & like my R1 today, occasionally.

cosinaphile, Sony got their IBIS off Minolta who invented it and who Sony bought. Oly went for it later and Panny only recently. Panny didn't have it at all for quite some time.

As to IBIS itself I can remember to this day what sold me on it. I took some photos at Manchester Science museum indoor at silly slow shutter speeds with my A1 and they were all sharp. I was amazed. That was 1st gen IBIS. Repeated the experience at the Lowry museum some years later with my A100, amazing again.

The technology works. Like AF is now universal, no idea why IBIS is not also.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 00:28 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: I still own my Dimage A1, which is 2003 tech, and the worlds 1st bridgecam with anti-shake (image stabilizer) built-into back then, 5 MP and a great zoom lens.

It features a 2/3" sensor, so it was bigger than these days 1/1.8" sensors back than - and is the direct Dimage 7 Series Sucessor. Into the End, the A1 was all the Dimage 7 Series was, but much better & more advanced, and it was also being succeeded by the A2 & A200 Series, albeit the A200 was a lowcost Bridgecam back into it's day - and plastique-drastique, mediocre build quality - no more being a al-mg body.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1

.edit. my DSC-S75 is still fine and working like new.

But later, the Olympus C-8080 WZ (Widezoom) 2004 have had the best lens of the Bridgecam crowd (5x Zoom & 8 MP) and was a year later being dethroned by the Sony DSC-R1, with Carl Zeiss T* 24-120/2.8-4.8 Zoom, and (almost) APS-C Sensor size.

I do still use & like my R1 today, occasionally.

I had one of those. The A1 was my first digital camera and sold me on the idea of IBIS.

Which is why I went with a Sony A100 later. Not because Sony bought Minolta's camera division - I had no investment in Minolta lenses or the brand (the A1 was the first and only Minolta I ever owned having previously shot Olympus OM film cameras).

I still don't understand why the likes of Fuji, Canon and Nikon do not have IBIS. As Panasonic Oly and Sony have shown you can even combine it with in-lens VR to get even better stabilisation so there is no need for an either-or approach.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 16:48 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Companies MUST rethink their lenses, because people keep their digital cameras at home and use smaller equipment, like smartphones, to take more photos.
Lenses are the main problem! We live in the age where cameras shoot ISO 1 million, but still are fed with lens behemoths and designs from the film era, like, gigantic f1.4 primes or f2.8 zooms are recommended stuff. C'mon!
Which company will be brave enough, visionary enough, to release three smallish f/4 of f5.6 zooms, and four f/4 primes, all tiny and small, much more portable?

Triplet Perer, I agree. Some of the fast-ish wide angle zooms are massive. Things like the Sigma 24mm F1.4 / 35mm F1.4 are huge.

In film days Olympus used to effectively make two ranges of lenses. You could have prime lenses from 21mm to 200mm that had had a filter size of 49mm!

21mm F3.5, 24mm F2.8, 28mm F3.5, 35mm F2.8, 40mm F2, 85mm F2 , 135mm F3.5 and 200mm F5.

They also had faster lenses that had 55mm filter sizes (still not massive) such as 24mm F2, 35mm F2, 135mm F2.8 and 200mm F4.

Today if I were a Canon user I'd take their stabilized 24mm F2.8 and 35mm F2 over any of the F1.4's around any day. For the limited time I need the extra 2 or 1 stop of light respectively the high ISO performance of D-slrs is good enough and certainly means for me the extra weight of the modern F1.4's (never mind the cost) is easily ignored.

As a Sony APS-C A mount shooter I myself use a 30mm F2.8 SAM and a 85mm F2.8 SAM and these lenses weigh virtually nothing and are very sharp.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 14:03 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1566 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeDeane: Semi transparent mirror is a no-no in my humble opinion - Canon had that back in the 60'[s with it's PELLIX...and it bombed....not enough light entered the viewfinder for most people....MD

Canon had it a lot later than the 60's. They brought out an EOS 600 series in the 80's. Just like the Sony's it was blindingly fast compared to other similarly priced cameras for continuous shooting despite having to wind film . No doubt it had other drawbacks being an OVF and Pelix that the Sony does not, but at least get your facts right.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 23:46 UTC
On article Feisty upstart: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T20 (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ribbit74: One important thing to note is that the USB interface is still USB 2.0, not USB 3.0 like on the X-T2. So transferring the larger RAW files will require a bit of patience.

"So you actually physically connect your camera to a computer as opposed to plugging the card into a reader?!?"

MacBook Pro user ???? ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 17:44 UTC

We've "reached out" to Olympus for comment.

Ugh! How about some plain English? We have asked Olympus for comment. Or: We have asked Olympus to comment.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2016 at 13:57 UTC as 21st comment | 10 replies
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

quiquae: >There are abbreviated depth-of-field markings set against the focusing scale, applying to full-frame cameras (they're not accurate for APS-C format cameras, as sensor size affects DoF).

I can't believe a DPR reviewer, of all people, is making such a stupid mistake. The DoF is exactly the same at any given focal length and physical aperture, regardless of the size of the sensor.

Do this thought experiment: a 20Mpix APS-C sensor should be optically exactly the same as a 51Mpix full frame sensor with outer edges taped over. Taping over the outer edges of the sensor, in turn, should be optically exactly the same as just cropping the image in post-processing. Does cropping an image in Lightroom change its DoF? No, right?

What APS-C does give you is deeper DoF than full frame given same aperture and ANGLE OF VIEW, not focal length. A 35mm f/1.4 lens on Canon APS-C has the same angle of view and DoF as a 56mm f/2 lens on full frame, for example.

"Given the same FL and the same distance to the subject, DOF is determined by the circle of confusion, the latter is inversely proportional to the crop factor. "

You won't have the same distance to the subject. If you do you get different images with the apc-c version a cropped version of the FF version.

So your point is irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 09:36 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (160 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: I have mine still, and it still works, as do its own special batteries and their charger. This is pre RoHS build quality for you.

I took a few fruit bowl etcetera snaps a few weeks ago, and the image quality from RAW still impresses. It is in fact solid, well-built and very nice to use, or at least I think so, and I prefer it to the later E20 whose results were not so good.

When you think about it, with a few exceptions, the early digital camera WAS an Olympus- theirs were just so much better on all levels.

The disgusting shame of the 4/3rds decision and that tiny sensor that haunts Man still, rather than a full frame or at least APS-C sensor that works with their 35mm lens range- what are they thinking really? degraded the act of photography as much as anything ever has, because why do worse like the company when you can suceed, as they obviously can, on all levels.
I had the accessory lenses, wide and long, but not longer, but they do reduce resolution so not recommended by me!!

The other reason they went 4/3 is they decided that digital allowed them to go back to first principles.

Oly thought what is it that means the format of the sensor must be of 36x24 dimensions and concluded nothing!

Remember that is a historical accident itself with Oskar Barnack hijacking 35mm movie film to use in his Leica.

Olympus also didn't have a legacy of AF lenses like Canon and Nikon that were designed for full frame so were not constrained by the lens mount.

They concluded a 4/3 sensor would give enough resolution to match 35mm film if not then but eventually so why require larger FF lenses?

Were they right? I'd say almost. While people marvel at the resolution of current 42mp and 50mp FF camera few actually need it but at the moment APS-C being slightly larger than 4/3 does seen to offer an advantage.

I admire Oly's decision to go back to first principles and Nikon and Canon were lazy IMO. When they came out with APS-C SLR's there were no dedicated lenses remember.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

sunjester: Oddly enough you could say 5 good things and 4 bad things about every digital camera ever made.

Maybe but I think the ones mentioned for the Sony are fair and so are not a contrived list as such.

That is good going for DPR when you look at some of the Pro's and Con's lists in the reviews ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
On article OWC's Thunderbolt 3 Dock adds 13 ports to your MacBook (151 comments in total)

$279.00! Decimal point is one place too far to the right.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 21:41 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-3040 Zoom (119 comments in total)

If you look at the spec of this camera you can see under metering it had something called multi area spot metering.

This was something that first appeared on the Olympus OM4 film camera. A camera which I owned. As the name suggests it allowed you to take several spot meter readings from across the frame and it would average them out. So you could ignore very dark or light parts of the image (if you wanted) and get it to average out the best exposure for the rest of the scene.

Olympus has always been an enthusiast brand even with so called P&S cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 14:53 UTC as 60th comment

If people are hung up on the price then why not the same reaction to any camera above 1600 in price, the price of a Pentax K-1?

Nikon D500? Useless isn't it! I costs more than a Pentax K-1 and has a puny aps-c sensor. Isn't a D500 actually more expensive than a Nikon D750? Pah! Useless!

Of course it isn't useless. People will buy it for what it can do regardless of the sensor size.

Which is exactly the same for this Oly. Both the D500 and it are sophisticated cameras. Their smaller sensors bring advantages as well as disadvantages.

The fact you can buy a full frame camera for less than these cameras is of no consequence if you do not want what comes with a full frame sized sensor (much less d.o.f and the need for long focal length lenses for action/wildlife).

I don't own an Oly camera so am no fanboy. I just don't get the angst.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2016 at 20:59 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
Total: 415, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »