peterwr

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Works as a Webster
Joined on May 10, 2004

Comments

Total: 223, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

dennis tennis: Oh wait, I thought OIS ruins the image because of the extra optical element. Where is the outrage now that Olympus has finally started to put OIS on its lenses. The longer 50-150 f2.8 "PRO" didn't have OIS but this one does? Where's the betrayal of IBIS superiority over OIS? I thought you don't need OIS and that IBIS was awesome all by itself. I can't wait when Olympus announce a FF body. There won't be any outrage that the lenses will be huge. The fanboys will spin it as "having options". Just wait and see.

<< Oh wait, I thought OIS ruins the image because of the extra optical element. >>

Depends on the lens. Fuji, for example, put OIS in their 10-24, 50-140 and 100-400 zooms, but left it out of the 16-55 because they felt it compromised optical quality. It would probably have made the lens heavier, too, and it's a beast already.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 08:44 UTC
In reply to:

ekaton: This one or the 12-35 & 35-100 f2.8 Pana duo is the question.

How much stuff you want to carry around with you is the question.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 08:36 UTC
In reply to:

yahoo2u: HEY NEWBS......listen up...it's a 12-100 f4 lens for M43rds...right?
Then why do you fools keep making statements in the negative about DOF?
Hint: leave it alone, you look stupid.

I guess they wouldn't. But this is an f4 lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera, which is a different beast entirely and is chosen by its owners for different reasons.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 08:30 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Why Olympus calls their lenses 'M.Zuiko'.
Is that some Mount Zuiko in Japan or nearby?

@thubten: Very interesting link! Many thanks.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 08:23 UTC
On a photo in the M.Zuiko Digital Ed 12‑100mm F4 is PRO Real-world Samples sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Hmm. This one and the statue one look very good, in contrast to the awful Space Needle shot. Looks to me like this lens is strongly optimised for short-to-moderate distances.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 08:03 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the M.Zuiko Digital Ed 12‑100mm F4 is PRO Real-world Samples sample gallery (1 comment in total)

A *world* of No. I'm a huge fan of Olympus and (most of) their products, but maybe giving you this particular lens to play with wasn't the best idea they've ever had...

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 07:46 UTC as 1st comment
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photo Pete: I switched from Nikon D800 to EM1 partly because of the size and weight saving, but mainly because I was sick of front and back focus ruining the shots. The em1 was a step back in terms of focus tracking, but was usable. If the performance of the EM1 mkii AF tracking system delivers as promised there is nothing I will miss from having made the switch. Way to go Olympus.

<< but mainly because I was sick of front and back focus ruining the shots. >>

Good call making the switch from Nikon to Olympus - now the Mark 2 is a thing, I'm about to jump ship myself - but did you know you can fine-tune Nikon's autofocus to each individual lens via a menu item? It's a bit of a trial-and-error faff, but basically pretty simple. I did it with my D7000 and its kit lens, and it made a very noticeable difference.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 22:00 UTC

Ooh, pretty! Loving the minimalist look. And the square sensor! It's about time someone did that.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 16:17 UTC as 15th comment

Not bad. Looks like a commercialised version of the rig the BBC used to shoot Monarch butterflies for Life.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 13:08 UTC as 6th comment
On article Canon announces new flagship EOS C700 cinema camera (169 comments in total)

Oof. Gunning for Arri, much?

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 22:30 UTC as 27th comment | 3 replies
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)

Pic 3: << Don't be fooled, they won't necessarily give you transparent, true-to-life colors >>

Unless you're shooting for ads, catalogues or scientific research, "true-to-life" colours are something of a red herring. What matters is that you get a pleasing, high-quality picture that comes out as you intended. All the Fuji cameras and lenses (still and video) I've used over the years have delivered that, in spades. My Nikons and Ricoh GR, though excellent cameras, invariably take some tweaking - time that I could be using for something more productive.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 13:21 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Bernard Carns: Give me flash sync, DR, global shutter, RAW, 8k, and kiss my DSLR goodbye!
:-)
BC

On its way:

http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/3662-surprise-red-weapon-8k-helium-s35-camera-on-sale-for-ten-minutes

"The other really interesting thing about this announcement is that RED is making a big deal of the ability to shoot still images at 35.4 megapixels, and not only that, but extract those stills from moving video."

:-)

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: Will 8K TV also be in 3D :)

Ah, 3D TV. Those were the days. You tell the kids now, and they don't believe you... :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 18:29 UTC

Now the incompetent media studies graduates with rich parents will need *16K* to allow for camera shake and bad framing...

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 18:27 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1297 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: Thank you Richard for the update on video. Exactly this is what I was afraid of: a great camera with totally crippled video AF system. Maybe firmware update 3.0 in two years will have these issues ironed out.

<< There are only two cameras I'd try to use for autofocus in video at the moment and only one of those will shoot 4K, >>

Do tell... I'm in the market for a dual-mode camera system.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 10:50 UTC

I'm guessing winking at strangers isn't such an issue in Japan...

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 09:32 UTC as 20th comment
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: If I were Simon Stock, and saw basically 99,9% of this board trashing an extremely high end assignment shot for Bentley, I'd sign in and ask everyone here to do any better. Would even give a deadline: 1 month, and sit back waiting for what you guys would actually produce.

But since I'm not Simon, I can't speak on his behalf.

All I can say is that it's super, super easy to criticize other's work sitting behind a keyboard.

Sorry for the harsh words, but what I'm saying is that if one doesn't know any better and stops by this comments page, one would believe this is the most talented photography board on the planet.

99% of the commenters here act like they could actually deliver a better image to Bentley!

<< Several people have commented that the 53 billion pixel math seems wrong (based on the cameras used and the number of frames claimed), that the flare and clouds are inconsistent with the stitching of 700 images, >>

I've been thinking about this for a couple of minutes now, and it seems to me - given that most countries' laws don't allow advertisers to make misleading claims - that the missing gigapixels must be used in the zoom process, so every step of the zoom remains sharp. So it's effectively a multi-layer image, with each succeeding image in the zoom being smaller than the previous one. That would also explain why you can only zoom in on one part of the pic - the surrounding parts of the image don't exist at the higher zoom levels.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 09:36 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

barrym1966: looks like a pile of crap if you use your browser zoom

*All* pictures look like crap if you use your browser zoom...

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 09:30 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

alextardif: A fool and his time & $$... does anyone really believe that a target buyer for this vehicle has any interest (or any appreciation) in such geekiness and wants to sit around and zoom in on the most played out tourist-y scene one can capture when visiting SF?

Nice car, but, this is a perfect example of how some marketing "genius" convinced people that this nonsense is, in fact, "EXTRAORDINARY!!!" and wasted however much $$ and people's time on something completely meaningless. Reminds me of a dummy at my company that blew over $10mil on stupid social medial garbage like a "professional blog"/FB/Twitter/LinkedIN only to see 0 yield from it a year later.

<< Reminds me of a dummy at my company that blew over $10mil on stupid social medial garbage like a "professional blog"/FB/Twitter/LinkedIN only to see 0 yield from it a year later. >>

I don't suppose you have any jobs going at the moment...?

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

2JoeA7R2: What an obscene waste of money.

<< What an obscene waste of money. >>

The photo, or the car? ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 17:36 UTC
Total: 223, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »