digifan

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on Nov 12, 2002

Comments

Total: 218, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ozturert: Why not just go and buy a cheap Nikon 1 camera instead? Even with a FT1 adapter, a Nikon J1 or S2 or even V2 is cheaper than this adapter.

@jyw5, many professionals use m43. But that wasn't the point, the point is that a focal reducer ala metabones is a useful tool, period.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 08:16 UTC
In reply to:

faithblinded: WTH Metabones. 0.5x for a dead system, but you can't figure one out for micro four thirds? It's the system that makes the most sense for a .5x converter. With the 2x crop factor, ff lenses could be used at their native field of view. Yes please!

Forgot to mention that for the EF AF is even possible with an E-M1 (which is what I have). To be clear there are a number of adapted speedbooster mounts for m43 the Nikon G is one of them.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 09:57 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Why not just go and buy a cheap Nikon 1 camera instead? Even with a FT1 adapter, a Nikon J1 or S2 or even V2 is cheaper than this adapter.

It's about the focal reducer not about the adaptation, why the Metabones is interresting.
Have one for m43 and at times it's very useful. Maybe for hobby it isn't a feasible buy but for the professional it is, many in the field use Canon and Nikon lenses and still have a number of them eventhough they use m43.
But I guess in these fora most can't comprehend why you would want a 1" or m43 camera iso an APS-C or 35mm ;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 09:43 UTC
In reply to:

MightyMike: So your 85mm F1.4 with this adapter on a Q7 would be like having a 200mm F3.3 on a FF camera, Is it worth it?

A 50mm F1.2 would be like a 118mm F2.8 and a 135mm F2.0 would be like a 317mm F4.7...

Its up to the user to decide what works for them, sometimes the larger format with native lenses just works better IMO

Mike

No it won't be like having a 200mm F3.3 camera since people buying this have no 35mm camera. But like with m43 this will make higher shutterspeeds possible in lower light and the bonus is that you get a tad more dof control.
People who buy and have bought m43, 1,"and Q know the camera isn't 35mm and don't aspire one. Maybe it's time for those numbskulls, that think we do, to get the message.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 09:36 UTC
In reply to:

faithblinded: WTH Metabones. 0.5x for a dead system, but you can't figure one out for micro four thirds? It's the system that makes the most sense for a .5x converter. With the 2x crop factor, ff lenses could be used at their native field of view. Yes please!

Metabones made it for m43 with 0.64x booster for Canon EF lenses
http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=micro-43-system-2

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 09:31 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-A10 sample gallery (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: The biggest IQ problem with this camera is like most MFT camera
that is no on sensor PDAF points !

These type of camera usually have focus problem even in cloudy days (like in a forest with trees in cloudy days)

most so called IQ people talk about is actually jpeg quality or lens quality
This is not true IQ
Actually sensor IQ from a Sony sensor must be good, don't even need to test

The real problem is no on sensor PDAF
in 2017, I won't buy a camera with no on sensor PDAF ( latest good camera from Sony/Canon/Fuji all have this must needed feature)

I can tell you there is nothing wrong with CDAF and it is even more reliable and faster than PDAF.
And IQ is in the least related with how those machines focus!!!!

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: Good old Nikon, the "master" of cumbersome, heavyweight cameras...

@DanSib you have clearly and most definately not handled any one of the candidates that could challenge them, like a E-M1mk2 or A9

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

jjz2: Say what? "Sony and Fujifilm can only cover a small part of that. So far there is no professional using their products. " ... kind of out of touch/condescending right? Plenty of pros are using them. Nikon is in denial.

@DanSib, now you are in denial!. The Panasonic GH5, Olympus E-M1mk2 and Sony A9 defiinately touches and in several areas exceed the D5 and D800 series

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 12:27 UTC
In reply to:

Sangster: What separates Nikon from the herd for me, as a Canadian consumer, is the warranty. Nikon backs up their bodies with a 2 year warranty and 5 years for their lenses. Everybody else is 1 year. So if Nikon does indeed launch FF mirrorless priced along the lines Sony's A7 series that extra peace of mind would be worth something for me.

@Mark9473 you are correct, warranty is 2 years minimum and the rest is about reasonable life expectancy and at a resonable depreciable rate.
It might mean you could be eligible for compensation by a refurb product as well.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 12:20 UTC
In reply to:

khunpapa: Nikon customer base is very broad, from novice to enthusiasts to prosumer to professional, that’s Nikon’s advantage. Olympus, Sony and Fujifilm can only cover a small part of that. So far there is no professional using their products.

ROTFL !!!!
Nikon, nikon, do you know what's "novice" mean??

So far there is no novice using your product.

Product, not products, because you have none which satisfy novice.

@gehairing "khunpapa" is probably cynical i guess, there are many professionals using m43 gear including myself.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 12:11 UTC
In reply to:

Great Bustard: Those who object to, for example, noting that 300mm f/2.8 on mFT is equivalent to 600mm f/5.6 on FF, whether that objection be based on arguing against the facts or utility of the statement, would not argue in the least if someone were to say that 300mm f/2.8 on mFT were equivalent to 600mm f/2.8 on FF. And that, all by itself, pretty much tells the whole story.

I mean, no one objects to the fact that 300mm on mFT has the same [diagonal] angle of view as 600mm on FF. Few object that f/2.8 on mFT results in the same DOF as f/5.6 on FF (for the same perspective and framing), either.

But when you say that f/2.8 on mFT puts the same amount of light on the sensor as f/5.6 on FF (for the same scene and exposure time), and that the noise in a photo is primarily a function of the total amount of light making up the photo (as opposed to the pixel size, ISO setting, etc.), well, that's where the trouble starts. What's worse is that when it's explained, they still argue against it.

@Antisthenes, I guess you totally missed the Dunning Krueger effect you cite.
You need to really read the article and then look in the mirror.
The Dunning Krueger effect is applicable to you, Great Bustard and several very vocal measurebaters here.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 13:15 UTC
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

digifan: A formidable example of why m43 is/would be perfectly capable for this kind of photography.

were they taken in low light? I think not!!! And besides it's not impossible either.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 11:29 UTC
In reply to:

ramonjsantiago: "85mm F1.2 is equivalent to 67mm F0.95"
How is that? Maybe its equivalent to to a 67mm F1.2.

@ Richard Butler, the equivalence debate is very stale.
The point IS as you suggest that people choosing m43 or aps-c or even smaller as professional tools are perfectly capable of keeping both concepts in their heads. But on top of that the ones adopted to one system don't NEED the comparison between 35mm and the other formats anymore.
Only when I shot 35mm and m43 side by side, I sometimes needed to adapt the workflow of capture and take the 35mm parameters in to account.
But mostly I didn't bother to do that and just stuck with the one system that I thought would be most suitable for the job.
As a sidenote:Before digital the very same existed between shooting 6x4 and bigger formats compared to 35mm.
In those days a DOF preview possibility, and a big bright OVF was even more important since there was no way of checking the result then after developpement.
So due to that I've learned to adapt quickly and envision the result before taking that comparison is of 2ndary to no importance.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 11:12 UTC
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarcoKoehlermkh: if they only made it in emount...

or m43 would even be better. But then again it would be too big and too slow for both.
That's why the 300mm F4 and 40-150mm F2.8(+ telecon) exist.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 10:57 UTC
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery (142 comments in total)

A formidable example of why m43 is/would be perfectly capable for this kind of photography.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 10:54 UTC as 47th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

ramonjsantiago: "85mm F1.2 is equivalent to 67mm F0.95"
How is that? Maybe its equivalent to to a 67mm F1.2.

I guess now 35mm zealots begin to see the idiocy of equivolence.
As a photographer I should use my eyes to see the desired result through the viewfinder.
That's why pro machines have DOF preview if you don't want or can't use manual.
But you know F1.2 = F1.2 and get same exposure across formats.
And if I so desire a specific result, just use a DOF meter to figure what lens can be used.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

panchorancho: Now this is what mirrorless is all about! Better than Sony's A9 which is a half-baked attempt at making a sports camera! Go Fuji!

@Internet Enzyme, Like E-M1mk2 has >800 AF but 121 selectable points and 60fps, maybe that's why.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

jl_smith: So here's my take on the whole "but MF at f/1.4 is out of focus!" etc.

Sure, shot UP CLOSE, all formats (even down to m43) are going to have issues with a short DOF under the right conditions.

Thin DOF **IS NOT A PROBLEM** shooting things closely (either with a telephoto or a shorter lens closer) with fast aperture.

The benefit of APS-C over m43, and the benefit of FF over APS-C, and now the benefit of MF over FF (ad nauseum) is a great thin-DOF look with medium-distance subjects, especially with wider-angled lenses.

It's trivial to get myself a 35-100/2.8 in m43 and shoot at 100mm f/2.8 and get a good looking background with a close subject. It's much harder to do this with a 14mm (28mm FOV) f/2.5 lens with m43.

But, this is easier to do with say a Fuji 16/1.4 at f/1.4, and even easier with say a FF 24mm f/1.4 -- You still have enough DOF to get your subject in focus, but you get a great dropoff quickly because it's still a fairly thin DOF.

Out of characters - GOodbye !

The problem with you lot is that you don't get that thin DOF is really a trade of.
You generally don't want too shallow DOF since it'll ruin the subject.
Only in specific situations you would want to have more background seperation but they normally are less than 10% of the photography oppertunities.
At Sports it's a drag to have too shallow DOF with 35mm lenses.
I.m.o. m43 it's perfectly fine. Enough background seperation but subject in focus!

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 08:02 UTC
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (767 comments in total)
In reply to:

ottonis: "...short zoom, long zoom, super telephoto. Essentially a 16-35, 70-200 and 400 mm F2.8,' explains Seattle Times photographer..."

To my knowledge, many sports photographers carry a couple of camera bodies with different lenses attached.
As of now, I do see the A9 as a "second body" with a short zoom attached ti it, alongside a D5 or 1Dxii with a long zoom.
The weight and size advantage if the A9 would make it the ideal "tiny" companion to a big camera with a gigantic lens.
That's exactly how I envision the A9 to make its way into the pro sports photography segment.
If the pro's like its performance they will ultimately upgrade to longer lenses once they become available.

@gianstam, correct and Olympus has been a great help. Though I think I am a little more drastic I'm m43 full in.
No more dragging those heavy 400's and up, now only have a single backpack, no trolleys anymore. 2-3 body's and the long lenses, the weight is a fraction of before.
And I've got similar results CAF on the Olympus, it's a dream come true.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 09:19 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric00: Just got rid of all my Nikon gear and went Olympus with the new OM-D E-M1 Mark II. My reasons were simply portability and technology innovations, not to mention the great PRO line of lenses the company is putting out. The new M.Zuiko ED 12-100mm f/4 is simply stunning, as is the new M.Zuiko ED 25mm f/1.2. Even my Nikon friends seem perplexed with the great quality that's coming out of the new camera/lens combo and several have begun questioning their blind loyalty to the big boys in the camera world. Took me many years, but Olympus finally convinced me.

@halfwaythere, no clue what to you is a fanboy. If you look at my posts it's not a big secret what I owned (Fuji, Canon, Pentax) and own right now (Panasonic & Olympus plus ...), and also that I sometimes rent equippement.
Yes today I own m43 equippement of al sorts of brands, at most it makes me a m43 "fan". I do however also rent equippements of various brands so I DO know what I'm talking about, so how does that make me a "fanboy".
I make a living with photography as such, not of selling camera's!!!
It's a fact that in journalism and many magazine's it's not about the sensor used, but about the pictures.
Getting out to get those with at least half to even a quarter the bulk IS a real bonus.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 09:53 UTC
Total: 218, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »