Macx

Lives in Denmark Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined on Jul 13, 2011

Comments

Total: 156, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photomonkey: 1788 comments in 24 hours! Must be a record.

Some people can't fathom that something that doesn't have a mirror and is smaller than 135 format has an appeal to other people. Their minds are blown, yet they are compelled to comment.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 01:46 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Karlmann: Can anyone address what the Histogram is doing? Apparently there are FOUR colors displayed WITHIN the Histogram. Here is the bit from the E-M1's Manual:
"Histogram display: Display a histogram showing the distribution of brightness in the image. The horizontal axis gives the brightness, the vertical axis the number of pixels of each brightness in the image. Areas above the upper limit at shooting are displayed in red, those below the lower limit in blue, and the area metered using spot metering in green."

Question: What are the Upper and Lower limits referred to here? Interesting!

You can set values to when you want highlight and shadow (over- and underexposure) warnings to appear.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2013 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

guatitamasluz: "Sensor like this one has probably a NATIVE ISO of 204.800 or 102.400, so, YES, it is impressive in every way." ... Just two words: great news, if these ISO are correct.

The interesting bit is how noisy the images will be at those ISOs. The numbers themselves are sort of meaningless in this context.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2013 at 19:11 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

MadManAce: imaging-resource dot com (IR) posted some test photos on their website. Compared to DPR, I always felt IR has better more controlled test scenes. With DPR the apertures are all over the place (EM-5 @ 4.5, E-M1 @ 5.6) and when one downloads the raw files from DPR, the luminance levels seem off between cameras. In other words, the jpeg shown on the website test scene are likely corrected for exposure. I downloaded the test samples from IR and open them with Olympus Viewer 3 making sure the settings were exactly the same.

Plastek, I'm not quite sure I understand exactly what your accusation is, and what you base it on?

DPReview claims that the E-M5 overexposes their JPEGs by 1/3 of a stop, and while that's a discrepancy it's nothing close to the full stop that you're talking about.

It sounds a bit like you're looking at the DxOMark measurements, but if that is the case, your conclusion is wrong. Have a look at this article http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2845734946/behind-the-scenes-extended-highlights It should clear things up.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2013 at 11:52 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

photohounds: Ah, amnother poster who "thinks" less glass/metal means the lens is "worth" less.
They'll buy an f150 truck rather than a Ferrari because more metal for the money is "better".
Making excellent small things is harder and costs MORE, not less.

Some people appreciate the price of everything and the value of nothing.

More compact cameras often translate into more/better photo opportunities.

Agree, Nuno, I don't hang around the CaNikon forums either. Too busy enjoying my camera.

These cross brand whiners are a very sad lot and it must be very depressing in CaNikon land for them to enjoy spending so much time here ....

First: Price is a function of supply and demand; not cost.

Second: Optical correction isn't in itself better than software correction. Both create a loss of contrast, resolution and noise/aberrations. Both are used to keep costs, weight and size of the lenses down. Sometimes optical correction will give a better end image, sometimes software correction will; as mentioned above, the end result is what matters.

Third: Optical corrections have been a necessity because of optical viewfinders, and if you're using a DSLR you'll want to use such lenses to give you the corrected view in your finder, but mirrorless cameras do not have OVFs so they have more freedom to choose how to correct the lens. For mirrorless there's no inherent disadvantage to software correction, but even so you often see a combo of the two in lenses for mirrorless.

That's why we see software correction for mirrorless. Not because they're junk or cheap, but because they're an option we didn't really have with DSLRs.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2013 at 10:21 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Karlmann: I am seeing a growing and unsettling trend in DPR reviews -- no picture of the focus points. In this review, I had hopes, as you showed the legacy 4/3 phase detection points. Where are the m4/3 Contrast AF points? You have also missed this important depiction in many other reviews to the point where I have to go looking elsewhere to find it. DPR is deviating from what used to be an all-inclusive review to one of smart phone connections and some other stuff. You spend an entire page or two on all sorts of irrelevant-to-me connections to some smart phones while ignoring a far more fundamental topic. Is DPR is becoming a smart phone accessories forum? I'm not going to bother checking back for your Conclusion, because, well, without the smart phone, why bother?

In fairness, this is more of a "first look", not their final review.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 18:23 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

Actrurus: I like the HDR function you didn't mention :-)

The camera can be setup to shoot up to 7 exposures with a 2ev increment - brilliant for me shooting HDR panoramas, no longer any need to adjust the shutter speed manually anymore!!! Now, will my Olympus Fisheye work with the adapter....

Kay, if you set it to sequential mode and hold down the shutter button, it fires off the series in a snap. Consider getting a cable remote for the tripod shots, though. Third-party ones are fairly cheap. (I suppose on the E-M1 you could also just use your smart phone/tablet as remote)

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 18:15 UTC

Fujifilm keeps creating attractive cameras and lenses for their X-series in an impressive rate. I think the return to a conventional sensor array is probably wise, even if they lose a "unique feature" to the camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 08:33 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

MadManAce: imaging-resource dot com (IR) posted some test photos on their website. Compared to DPR, I always felt IR has better more controlled test scenes. With DPR the apertures are all over the place (EM-5 @ 4.5, E-M1 @ 5.6) and when one downloads the raw files from DPR, the luminance levels seem off between cameras. In other words, the jpeg shown on the website test scene are likely corrected for exposure. I downloaded the test samples from IR and open them with Olympus Viewer 3 making sure the settings were exactly the same.

I trust DxO, but the fact that the camera ISO doesn't match the sensor saturation ISO isn't strange, as you know, they're not the same thing. Even if the over-cautious camera ISO on the E-M5 makes their JPEG look more noisy in comparison shots, that's simply the decision of the camera maker, balanced against the risk of the user inadvertently blowing the headlights.

P.S: Yabokkie, if Olympus is trying to cheat by making their JPEG look worse (underexposing plus pulling) then they're frankly doing it wrong.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2013 at 17:14 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

MadManAce: imaging-resource dot com (IR) posted some test photos on their website. Compared to DPR, I always felt IR has better more controlled test scenes. With DPR the apertures are all over the place (EM-5 @ 4.5, E-M1 @ 5.6) and when one downloads the raw files from DPR, the luminance levels seem off between cameras. In other words, the jpeg shown on the website test scene are likely corrected for exposure. I downloaded the test samples from IR and open them with Olympus Viewer 3 making sure the settings were exactly the same.

"it is a known fact that the ISO speeds on the E-M5 are off by nearly a full stop". Pardon me, what? Please explain.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2013 at 15:54 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

daqk: 1. Too Expensive!
2. No Flash?

And for that matter: This camera is still weatherproof with the supplied clip-on flash.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2013 at 07:58 UTC
In reply to:

saracino: Silly question... Is this lens fitting the new Pana GX7, isn'it? Just to double check!

Yes, it fits the GX7

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Great camera! The only bummer is the video spec. No 24/25P? I think Oly leaves some money on the table here.

The issue isn't really TV, but the underlying reason to the difference in the TV standards: The type of electrical power coming out of the wall.

In most of the Americas and Japan they run with 60 Hz mains, and in most of the rest of the world they run with 50 Hz. This frequency can make your artificial lights flicker, and the easiest way to avoid it is to shoot with a shutter speed of 1/60 s when the power is 60 Hz and 1/50 s when the power is 50 Hz. But if you shoot with a 1/50 s shutter speed while you record 30p you risk getting smearing.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 06:34 UTC
In reply to:

dark goob: To continue my message below: you can also expect, if you buy this camera, that they will not have an API for developers to use the WiFi (like Sony does), nor any robust control interface with active software development behind it (like Canon does). They will not have any open-source firmware like Samsung does (so that when they cease development of the firmware in a year from now, you might actually be able to improve your camera if you know how to program).

I really wish Oly would bring on someone to make sure their video features, user interface, and support for third-party developers was all greatly enhanced. I would gladly pay $200 higher for this camera if it had the additional features I lamented in my first post below. But now I have to buy a GH3 if I want decent video. It makes me sick.

I agree. I would also prefer if Olympus (and other manufacturers like them) dared to open up their firmware somewhat to third party developers and "hackers".. I can see that they might have certain code and algorithms that they wouldn't want to share, and especially with wifi and net connectivity you would want some protection from malicious apps or hacks, but if that could be overcome it would be great to have a community working on improving and adding features to the cameras.

Regarding video, I think it's probably "decent enough" for most with the 24 mbps 1080p30, but I'm disappointed too about the lack of 24/25 fps to reduce flicker from 50 Hz lighting, as well as the lack of the PDAF during video. The IBIS is such an enormous improvement for handheld video, that a few extra bells and whistles could have made it one of the absolute top cameras for video.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 06:13 UTC
In reply to:

Anadrol: Way overpriced ! The 70D costs 1200 USD...
A used D600 costs 1500 !

Just interesting for people that have many m43 lenses already.

cgarrard, true to a certain degree, but you can also overspecialise. Making this camera appeal to both 4:3 customers as well as M43 should allow for more sales and a overall smaller price.

Anadrol: The E-M1 has features that neither the D600 or 70D has, just as they have features the E-M1 lacks. How you set a price on that is and thereby whether an item is overpriced is very subjective. This is obviously not a camera aimed at everybody, however, so it's clear that a lot of people won't be interested. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any customers for it at all, or that they won't be perfectly happy to pay the price for it. (And it should go without saying that personal preferences isn't necessarily indicative of whether people are being smart or dumb for liking or disliking the camera at its price)

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 05:55 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Morris: Where are the user configurable setting on the mode dial or does this camera use setting banks like other "Pro" cameras.

"Any of the positions on the mode dial can be over-written with a user-defined 'Myset' preset, if you would like quick access to your preferred settings." Page 4.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 05:03 UTC
In reply to:

PK24X36NOW: DPR viewfinder size fiction continues. "Dividing (viewfinder magnification) by the crop factor" is essentially an assumption (in this case) that the MFT sensor is 1/2 the size of a FF sensor, which it is not. It is little more than 1/4 the size.

The correct relative size calculation is as follows:

OM-D EM-1:

17.3 * 13 * 100% * 1.48 = 332.852 sq mm

D800:

35.9 * 24 * 100% * 0.7 = 603.12 sq mm

So the new Oly's "wonder viewfinder is actually little more than 1/2 as big as a typical FF dSLR viewfinder.

Nonsense.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 16:06 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

tireur: Can't understand it: RAW and JPEG look much better from the E-M5. More resolution than the new sensor. Is Dpreview sure having not interchanged the pictures? They took the same lens? Which one?

PDAF is still used with micro four-thirds lenese for C-AF tracking and for this it is much better, according to the previews.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 15:45 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Great camera! The only bummer is the video spec. No 24/25P? I think Oly leaves some money on the table here.

I have to agree with this. Especially since the IBIS makes it a good candidate for handheld video.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 15:09 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2086 comments in total)
In reply to:

whyamihere: Dear Olympus,

Cute camera.

Remind me again: Why am I paying $1400 for the image performance of a 3+ year old APS-C camera? ('Portability' isn't really an excuse. Don't forget, you are in a joint venture with Sony, a purveyor of tiny APS-C M-ILC cameras.)

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Everyone Confused By Your Price Tag (which should be just about everyone)

You're paying for the full feature set, not just the sensor. You can get the sensor performance in a lot cheaper cameras, both inside the M43 format and outside it.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 15:02 UTC
Total: 156, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »