Dave Oddie

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

Comments

Total: 402, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

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 18th comment | 9 replies
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (273 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 (157 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 (146 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 8th comment
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 19th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bullfinchphoto: MacBook Pro was actually made mainly for a Pro users (its price was higher comparing to MacBook), e.g. professional photographers, artists, and designers. Pro photographers used to have CF cards in their cameras, no use of SD card slot. So, what to complain about? And who is still using SD cards slot? Another point, when Apple removed FireWire port, any noise in social media? And CD-reader? Please stop complaining, there many other laptops on the market with SD slots and USBs you all love, who knows what they need will buy new MBPro without any grumbling.

Are you being serious? Because it's a Mac Book "PRO" it's for professionals and because professionals use CF that makes it OK for apply to remove the SD slot. Really?

That is an even lamer argument than the excuses Schiller dreamt up.

Plenty of professionals will be using SD cards with Nikon D800's and the like.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 22:00 UTC

There was a time when Apple products represented the best ergonomic and user experience around.

Now they go backwards making something a little more inconvenient to use. And it is the attention to detail on the little things that make great to use products.

Removing the SD slot does not represent good ergonomic design so no, it doesn't represent a "step forward".

SD slots are not cumbersome, they aren't slow and yes "more consumer cameras have SD" so why make the majority of consumers use a card reader or faff about using the port on the camera body (often under a fiddly cover for weather sealing)?

Wireless transfers can be slow and in any case far fewer cameras have wireless anyway so they are catering for the minority. Why not just provide both wireless AND and SD slot as well as the ports they have?

If Apple are really bothered about having to "only pick one" someone should remind them multi-format slots that take CF, SD and MS have been around for a while.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 21:54 UTC as 304th comment
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (871 comments in total)
In reply to:

TimT999: It's such a surprise to read the DP comments. So many folks who know exactly what's wrong with the new Apple laptops. ... But none of the commenters (including myself) have used these new machines. We don't know how fast these laptops are. Don't know how well integrated the new touch bar functionality and the OS are.

The folks who harp about this or that being missing don't get how Apple works, their all-around approach. These machines are gonna hit the sweet spot for most photographer users. And the fact that the new 13" model is about the same size and weight as the 13" Air (but with retina display and all that power) is particularly appealing to photographers like me who travel.

"There is no reason why just SD should be catered for."

Yes there is. It is by far the most common form of flash storage.

Just because a minority of cameras and other devices use some other far less common form of flash storage is no reason to remove support for SD cards.

Apple currently seems to be in the business of inconveniencing people first with the removal of the headphone jack off the iphone 7, now this.

While you can argue the technical merits of doing either (though personally I think the arguments are weak), practically from a users point of view these represent an inconvenience. Ignoring and/or annoying users and adopting an "I know best" attitude is a good way to drive them away.

Some people love Apple products and will still buy but for those not in the fold but looking, like me, I am less likely to buy now.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (871 comments in total)
In reply to:

TimT999: It's such a surprise to read the DP comments. So many folks who know exactly what's wrong with the new Apple laptops. ... But none of the commenters (including myself) have used these new machines. We don't know how fast these laptops are. Don't know how well integrated the new touch bar functionality and the OS are.

The folks who harp about this or that being missing don't get how Apple works, their all-around approach. These machines are gonna hit the sweet spot for most photographer users. And the fact that the new 13" model is about the same size and weight as the 13" Air (but with retina display and all that power) is particularly appealing to photographers like me who travel.

"I can't see how people have a need to plug an SD card into their Macbooks more than once or twice a day.

It is just as easy to connect the camera directly to the Mac."

Not its not. That requires a separate lead an on mine fiddling about to open the weather sealed port that hides the USB port.

Even at home with my desktop I always take out the SD card and slot it into the reader in the side of my monitor. It's just quicker, easier and also faster as the reader on the monitor is USB3 whereas the camera USB port (as are many still) is USB2.

However the real issue is what you do "on the go". I have always fancied a MacBook as a portable machine to back up and edit photos but the idea I will have to remember to take the card reader then find it when I want to upload is as good as reason as any not to buy one.

Leaving it out simply makes for more inconvenience. So why do that? Ergonomic design is supposed to do the opposite. Bizarre decision to leave it out.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: I would have liked a mirrorless camera to replace my Nikon D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens, that I use most because of the weight but last week finally gave up on the idea because no camera mount or lens combination suits me better. I ended up buying a Nikon D610 and Nikkor 20mm f/1.8, thereby saving 296g, too little but better than nothing and of course better IQ.

I have an EVF on my Olympus Pen but I do not like them at all. The A99 II weighs 849g, as much as my D300. In my opinion this only underlines the pointlessness of it, no need even to bother looking at its features.

Ever since digital, there has been a fashion in bigger and heavier which IMO is madness. Reviewers describe the new Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 as lightweight. Are they in the pockets of the manufacturers? So far, among the worst are those PRO lenses on MFT, whose size and weight is out of all proportion.

If I want to strengthen my arm muscles, I prefer to go to the gym, not buy a camera for the purpose.

@keepreal The A99II is smaller than the original A99 it replaces and weighs 1 gram less than a Nikon 610.

If weight is an issue why go for the Nikon 20mm F1.8 @ 355g? The Nikon F2.8 is 270g and as you were using a 12-24 obviously didn't need the speed.

The Sony 20mm F2.8 weighs 285g, so if weight is the issue you could have saved yourself 69g total over your 610/F1.8 with an A99II/F2.8.

Saying the A99II is "pointless" because it weighs too much is just ludicrous particularly since you shot yourself in the foot and bought a heavier combination.

As to the EVF, an advantage of that is there is no mirror slap vibration which when you get to 42mp can be an issue. There are other advantages as well but you should be aware of those already if you have an Oly Pen.

The fact you don't like EVF's also doesn't mean the camera is "pointless". Your dislike of EVF's is just your personal preference and plenty of other people get on fine with them, many seeing them as an advantage.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

slick83: This is going to be pain to clean.

Didn't you notice they supply a couple of special brushes to clean it with?

And if you lose one no doubt they will supply you another for $2000.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 10:00 UTC
In reply to:

Chev Chelios: The rubber surface of pretty much every table tennis bat I've used eventually Starts to peel off. Just sayin'

Price aside, as a piece of art work though I quite like it.

"The answer is in your question, you talk of object you use, not object you show off. I'm sure that if you had only been showing your table tennis bat at even, it would still be in pristin condition."

So is this camera the first one designed not to be used so as to keep it in pristine condition?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 09:56 UTC
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: Nice to see a couple of commentators such as Sam Spencer pick up on the fact most lens announcements are of the big, fast, huge and expensive variety.

I am sure there must be a market for smaller more portable (and yes cheaper) lenses even on full frame cameras as it will reduce the overall size of the package you lug around.

I own a Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM lens (which is full frame) and it weighs a mere 175g (6.2 ounces). That is four times lighter than the Tamron 85mm F1.8 which is one of the smaller fast 85mm lenses on sale!

"The problem with that is the image quality of such lenses do not exploit the potential of full frame,."

Well that is obviously not the case. The proof being the Sony/Zeiss EF-mount 35mm F2.8 FF lens. Modern design, small, light and tack sharp with virtually zero distortion and CA.

This should be no surprise. It is obviously possible to make sharp F1.4 lenses but they are necessarily large such as the Sigma 35mm F1.4 art but being able to make optically excellent fast lenses means it is also possible to make optically excellent slower lenses and if you do, they will be smaller as the Sony/CZ 35mm F2.8 proves.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 16:15 UTC

Nice to see a couple of commentators such as Sam Spencer pick up on the fact most lens announcements are of the big, fast, huge and expensive variety.

I am sure there must be a market for smaller more portable (and yes cheaper) lenses even on full frame cameras as it will reduce the overall size of the package you lug around.

I own a Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM lens (which is full frame) and it weighs a mere 175g (6.2 ounces). That is four times lighter than the Tamron 85mm F1.8 which is one of the smaller fast 85mm lenses on sale!

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 13:52 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

medicus: Hi!
From my point of view it is not absolutely clear wheater the converters are intented for use on the 150-600mm. Due to the aperture AF would not work anymore. This is a rther useless combination.
The lens itself seems to be great.

It might AF with a Sony A mount camera with the 1.4 TC attached because they have always been configured to AF with the now discontinued 500mm F8 mirror lens - which I own and does AF properly on an A77.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2016 at 11:19 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Canon EOS M5 quick look video (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: It is a camera DPR can't help but like?

It was a big disappointment last week:

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4495586328/the-canon-eos-m5-is-a-great-mirrorless-camera-and-a-big-disappointment

"I shot a lot of video for this show, and exactly none of it was shot in 4K."

Great. If you were using the M5 you wouldn't have a choice either way. And I know the gist of the other article was this is late to the party but that being so the fact it doesn't do 4K says it is still behind the curve. So I think your headline with the preceding article remains more appropriate.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 00:35 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Canon EOS M5 quick look video (262 comments in total)

It is a camera DPR can't help but like?

It was a big disappointment last week:

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4495586328/the-canon-eos-m5-is-a-great-mirrorless-camera-and-a-big-disappointment

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 09:01 UTC as 16th comment | 16 replies
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Sony a99 II (441 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vignes: What I picked out from the comments
- Sony users saying A99 II is better than A7.
- Sony is doing this because they realised that on sensor AF is not matured enough.
- Some say, it's sad that they’ve have sold most of my A mount lenses which includes me.
- Some justifying that the A99II price tag is OK (same folks whom commented that 5DMk4 is too pricey). Can’t understand why the high price is OK when you only have minimal lens options compared to Canon/Nikons offer plus 3rd party guys like Sigma don’t make that many options for A mounts.

I’m just wondering, does Sony actually needs the A99II? OR they should have concentrated on their A mount, consistently developed they body/lens and become like Canon and Nikon, DSLR brand of choice

They used to use the minolta hot shoe as on my A77 but then dropped it which is unfortunately not untypical of how Sony does things. It was actually a better more secure design but that isn't the issue.

Like A to E mount adapters are now needed to use your old kit on the new kit. A needless complication.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
Total: 402, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »