samfan

Joined on Sep 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 541, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Olympus always knew how to make good cameras, at least the non-compact ones (meaning digital, as they had some nice film compacts too). Their build and controls are hard to match.

But I still think this hybrid SLR design is kinda stupid as it results both in a shittier viewfinder image as well as less light for the sensor. Of course it's probably cheaper to make than the usual SLR mechanics.

Though Olympus kept trying to create more OVF/EVF bastards with the E-300 series (I think) which were even worse and most likely even more expensive to make as they had both a flip-up (or flip-side) mirror as well as extra sensors. Crazy.

Yea so it's a SLR. You know what I mean. For most of us, SLR doesn't just mean any single mirror, but a flip-out one. And despite that design having its own disadvantages, there's a reason it survived to this day while the fixed-mirror hasn't, apart from what Sony's been doing (which is even worse IMO since it's not even an OVF).

But it's been ages since I've used any of these cameras, so my memory of the viewfinder views (or the specs for that matter) is obviously pretty hazy. But I do kinda miss the simpler times of the first half of the previous decade when it comes to DSLRs.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2016 at 11:27 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Olivier GALLEN: I wonder why they do not use the same ergonomics now: a great-sized grip to handle the camera properly and nothing the other side but the lens/mount. That would help have small bodies with great handling.

They do, don't they? Bridge cameras are mostly built that way and actually so are the smaller SLRs.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 17:49 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (150 comments in total)

Olympus always knew how to make good cameras, at least the non-compact ones (meaning digital, as they had some nice film compacts too). Their build and controls are hard to match.

But I still think this hybrid SLR design is kinda stupid as it results both in a shittier viewfinder image as well as less light for the sensor. Of course it's probably cheaper to make than the usual SLR mechanics.

Though Olympus kept trying to create more OVF/EVF bastards with the E-300 series (I think) which were even worse and most likely even more expensive to make as they had both a flip-up (or flip-side) mirror as well as extra sensors. Crazy.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 17:48 UTC as 32nd comment | 3 replies
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (116 comments in total)

This looks pretty great. Where are all those haters that were saying the Chinese can't do anything but copy? Way to shut them up. If I were a FF DSLR user, this would be very interesting.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 14:57 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1220 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Quite a monster. It reminds me of the situation with E-1 back in 2003. It was also expensive and also had an immediate disadvantage of the small sensor. On paper. In reality it was s superbly designed camera.

When I had a chance to play with it back in the day, I was only losely familiar with digital cameras but was quite immediately able to understand and control it. It felt right in the hand, well built, and weather sealing was legendary. Nikon and Canon really matched some of its capabilities only with the D200 and 40D respectively.

Seems like a very similar situation here. Some downsides natively coming with the system, but also some amazing capabilities that may not be appreciated by everyone but which can't be found anywhere else.

It also kinda reminds me of the Nikon 1 V1 (ultra fast, modern, but also expensive and small sensor)... Except Nikon completely f*cked that up, while Olympus always tries their best.

I've not handled any m43 camera for a longer period of time but the way I see it, 4/3 lives on in m43. As much as truly liked Olympus 4/3 DSLRs and was close to buying one at least once, they had a major disadvantage in a small, dim viewfinder (especially the small E-4x0 models which I liked the most). I prefer OVF but they need to be good enough for me to care, and m43 fixed that.

Also m43 seems to have way more support than just Oly (and very limited Pana/Leica). Cameras and lenses from other makers crop up now and then, it seems to be fairly popular in the video world with yet more equipment selection, so I think m43 is pretty safe.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 06:45 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Casio QV-4000 (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: Wow, camera in 2001 beats smartphone image quality. I mean, the resolution is poor in this old camera but at this web image size, it packs a punch. The shadows can do some noise reduction but the 2nd and portrait photo looks great.

It could have been easier for us if the images were rotated.

Was just thinking the same. Except not just regarding smartphones but also the compact cameras that had been littering the market just a few years ago.

Sometimes I think I must be seeing things when I look at a 16+ MPx compact camera photo or a 20+ MPx phone photo and think its quality is garbage - but nope, compared to these old cameras, it's true. Those tiny plastic lenses and crappy sensors, all made on the super-cheap just can't make proper photos. In case of smartphones it's at least excusable but still.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 03:10 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1220 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Quite a monster. It reminds me of the situation with E-1 back in 2003. It was also expensive and also had an immediate disadvantage of the small sensor. On paper. In reality it was s superbly designed camera.

When I had a chance to play with it back in the day, I was only losely familiar with digital cameras but was quite immediately able to understand and control it. It felt right in the hand, well built, and weather sealing was legendary. Nikon and Canon really matched some of its capabilities only with the D200 and 40D respectively.

Seems like a very similar situation here. Some downsides natively coming with the system, but also some amazing capabilities that may not be appreciated by everyone but which can't be found anywhere else.

It also kinda reminds me of the Nikon 1 V1 (ultra fast, modern, but also expensive and small sensor)... Except Nikon completely f*cked that up, while Olympus always tries their best.

It's true that with a good EVF and reliable AF, the need to check the shot for technical aspects is somewhat minimized. And most repeatable shots usually don't require hyper-fast continuous shooting (e.g. portraits) so in most uses the buffer probably clears quickly enough before even pressing the playback button so the photog can check whether the shot was good or needs to be repeated.

At least I think. So it may not be a big deal in practice. It's still a weird limitation of such a high-end camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 04:41 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1220 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Quite a monster. It reminds me of the situation with E-1 back in 2003. It was also expensive and also had an immediate disadvantage of the small sensor. On paper. In reality it was s superbly designed camera.

When I had a chance to play with it back in the day, I was only losely familiar with digital cameras but was quite immediately able to understand and control it. It felt right in the hand, well built, and weather sealing was legendary. Nikon and Canon really matched some of its capabilities only with the D200 and 40D respectively.

Seems like a very similar situation here. Some downsides natively coming with the system, but also some amazing capabilities that may not be appreciated by everyone but which can't be found anywhere else.

It also kinda reminds me of the Nikon 1 V1 (ultra fast, modern, but also expensive and small sensor)... Except Nikon completely f*cked that up, while Olympus always tries their best.

That said, the fact that the user can't view photos while the buffer is clearing is truly ridiculous. Like, what is this, 1999?

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 14:09 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1220 comments in total)

Quite a monster. It reminds me of the situation with E-1 back in 2003. It was also expensive and also had an immediate disadvantage of the small sensor. On paper. In reality it was s superbly designed camera.

When I had a chance to play with it back in the day, I was only losely familiar with digital cameras but was quite immediately able to understand and control it. It felt right in the hand, well built, and weather sealing was legendary. Nikon and Canon really matched some of its capabilities only with the D200 and 40D respectively.

Seems like a very similar situation here. Some downsides natively coming with the system, but also some amazing capabilities that may not be appreciated by everyone but which can't be found anywhere else.

It also kinda reminds me of the Nikon 1 V1 (ultra fast, modern, but also expensive and small sensor)... Except Nikon completely f*cked that up, while Olympus always tries their best.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 14:03 UTC as 100th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

redseer: I know pasting news release is cheap and easy, but you guys should really avoid pasting news release from kick-starter or indigo-go. A lot of them are scams, like the Shiftwear e-ink sneaker (but some would argue that the entertaining update is well worth the backer's dollars, the scam is still ongoing and supported by many media). Some failed like the famous kick-starter zano drones. It really undermined the reputation of Dpreview if they failed. It makes you guy look like those teenager bloggers. Please stick to the mainstream news release like Nikon, Sony or Cannon. If you want to venture into kick-starters, make sure it's a well vetted campaign like the pebble watches.

True I guess, but then again I for example don't follow social media or all the stupid viral sites so I only learn about this silly stuff from reputable web sites like this one. And I do like some silly stuff now and then.

Hopefully everybody should know by now that backing a Kicstarter project does not equal a purchase.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 01:15 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm FinePix F601 Zoom (48 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: With a 1/1.7" sensor in those days, whoever owned one had the bragging rights, when the vast majority of cameras had the 1/2.5" sensors.
The 1/1.7" sensor remains a respectable size sensor for a lot of non-critical work, but of course we now sneeze at it, especially after the invasion of the 1"-sensor-based cameras that fit in a shirt-pocket.
I have made many 8" x 10" and 8" x 12" prints from cameras with a 1/1.7" sensor, and never had a single complaint. On the contrary, they all have been happy with them. I've seen many of them framed and proudly displayed at the owners' desks at their workplace.

The Kodak Z-series (Z1085, Z1285, Z1485), for example, all came with 1/1.7" sensors, and they took beautiful images, although Kodak used cheap plastic bodies for these models.
It would've been great if Kodak had kept up with the competition, they knew "color" more than many others, but the rest of the Kodak bean-counters' debacle is now for the history books.

Yea, 1/1.7" is good enough for a lot of stuff, but not if the camera maker tries to cram 20 MPx onto it, cram a crappy plastic f/5.6 lens onto it and then tries to pursue all kinds of software filters so the end result looks like an oil painting.

There was a time a few years ago when Canon, Panasonic and Samsung made good use of the 10 MPx 1/1.7" CCDs with quite fast lenses when everyone else was pushing towards 20 MPx on 1/2.5" or so. That said, 1" is still better if the lens is up to par.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 17:51 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm FinePix F601 Zoom (48 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentul: this camera taught me one thing: buy cameras that have AA batteries. there were numerous occasions when its proprietary battery would run out just as I needed to take a picture. it was its greatest weakness. it was good that you could use it plugged in, but still... i haven't recovered to this day, and i'm still terrified that the battery will run out at the worst possible moment, even though i now carry a spare for my current camera.

also, the placement of the (proprietary, if i remember correctly) USB connector was pretty bad - right on the bottom. i used to use the camera as a webcam (remember that functionality?) and placing it properly was a messy balancing exercise.

otherwise, it took good pictures.

Sadly, that's one of the features we'll never see again. In fact the next step in camera design is probably batteries that can't be replaced at all, like we see with phones, tablets and laptops.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 16:38 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm FinePix F601 Zoom (48 comments in total)

They really predicted the future with this thing. Nowadays most photos are taken with the ehm, imaging device being held vertically after all.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 16:37 UTC as 14th comment
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

bluevaping: None. Nikon j5. Audio options are just as limited for video, deal killer. Viewfinder cost for one lens. PDAF autofocus for stills and decent colors at bargain price wins.

Huh, I didn't realize the J5 is so cheap (not quite 1/3rd of the RX100V but less than half still). Also forgot the PD lens :) since I have the non-PD versions.

And yea, I'm sure it's a nice camera. I mean, I see the improvements from V1 to S1 where just a couple small touches changed the horrid V1 UX to fairly usable, at least "for what it is" (a low-end-ish consumer camera).

Tho I still don't think it's a good comparison to RX100 as they have so little in common beside the sensor size. The lens is a truly major factor (up to 2 stops difference), EVF is another, both are areas where the J5 lacks.

That said I think it's rather telling that the RX100 attracts so much attention from all sides while almost nobody talks about the J5. Nikon botched the system and left people with a bad taste in their mouths.

So even though the J5 with the lens is comparably a good value, it's still seen more as a part of a failed system rather than a good competitor in the p&s market.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 13:40 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: I welcome all the attempts in this area. I often need to use images from the web and often end up with some crappy 600x800 px or such because people buy 20 MPx cameras/smartphones and then need to compress to the smallest possible size.

Speaking of which, I'd really welcome an algorithm that can smooth out JPEG compression artefacts. Anyone knows of any? (BTW I know you can't get back lost detail. But since there are techniques to repair all kind of damage in images and video, maybe there's one for this as well.)

@MaKeR - thanks, $30 is a bit steep but I may check it out one day.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: "Zoom. Enhance."

Focus on the eye, there's a reflection. Zoom, enhance again, 100x for starters. (That's a real movie scene btw.)

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: I welcome all the attempts in this area. I often need to use images from the web and often end up with some crappy 600x800 px or such because people buy 20 MPx cameras/smartphones and then need to compress to the smallest possible size.

Speaking of which, I'd really welcome an algorithm that can smooth out JPEG compression artefacts. Anyone knows of any? (BTW I know you can't get back lost detail. But since there are techniques to repair all kind of damage in images and video, maybe there's one for this as well.)

A lot of people don't even have the originals, much less know where they put them or have time to send them over.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 21:06 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

bluevaping: None. Nikon j5. Audio options are just as limited for video, deal killer. Viewfinder cost for one lens. PDAF autofocus for stills and decent colors at bargain price wins.

But pretty much all the f/2.8 and f/4 zooms are stabilized and if you want a 85 eq,, other systems have fast primes too. It's not exactly the most universal focal length either. What should be available is a complete line of f/1.2 and f/1.4 primes and a couple of stabilized f/2 zooms. Or at least a couple of them, for starters, not just the usual dark f/3.5-5.6 zooms.

And yea I like the idea of the N1 system, but Nikon botched pretty much everything in the execution except the later J and S series cameras. And at this point I certainly wouldn't recommend the system to anybody unless they have some very specific needs. It's certainly not a replacement for the 1" compacts, not by a long shot.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 21:01 UTC

Ah, finally a lens for the red version of Nikon D5500 since Nikon only makes black lenses for that.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 20:49 UTC as 92nd comment

I welcome all the attempts in this area. I often need to use images from the web and often end up with some crappy 600x800 px or such because people buy 20 MPx cameras/smartphones and then need to compress to the smallest possible size.

Speaking of which, I'd really welcome an algorithm that can smooth out JPEG compression artefacts. Anyone knows of any? (BTW I know you can't get back lost detail. But since there are techniques to repair all kind of damage in images and video, maybe there's one for this as well.)

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 20:47 UTC as 21st comment | 9 replies
Total: 541, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »