Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Joined on Jan 16, 2009

Comments

Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Gigapixels... so the megapixel race is officially over :-)

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 08:12 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: After trying few mirrorless I feel the digitised representation of the scene is either too ootimised (which hides the flaws in the scene) or too bad (inconsistant colors etc). IMHO the OVF is ireplacable.
But hey, if the market demands then sure that mirror will be soon gone for ever.

Sorry read *optimised

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 23:19 UTC

After trying few mirrorless I feel the digitised representation of the scene is either too ootimised (which hides the flaws in the scene) or too bad (inconsistant colors etc). IMHO the OVF is ireplacable.
But hey, if the market demands then sure that mirror will be soon gone for ever.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 23:18 UTC as 39th comment | 4 replies

Does this mean we have 5x magnification for m43? Is this magnification defined in terms of 35mm full frame sensor area?
Olympus says its 1.25x macro lens gives effective magnification of 2.5x.
I will buy if we can get 5x effective magnification

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2018 at 02:01 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies
On article Panasonic officially unveils 50-200mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH (303 comments in total)

Looks great on paper. Lightweight too. I will buy one when I got enough money..

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2018 at 22:33 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

iudex: This lens has just one flaw: it doesn´t have Pentax mount. ;-) Pentax DFA 70-200/2,8 is a good lens, but awfull big and heavy (1755 g), so a nice lightweight (859 g) companion to this Behemoth would be very welcome.

There is another flaw... no m43 mount :-(

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2018 at 07:34 UTC

This is really a good gesture from a camera manufacturer, I think others should follow. If Panasonic offers upgrade to gx9 from my gx85 at 1/4th the cost of the camera, I will be so happy to take that offer ;-)

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2018 at 00:55 UTC as 43rd comment | 3 replies

"budget option for Leica users"
I like that!

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 06:01 UTC as 24th comment

Given Nikon 200-400 VR II sells for about $7K at B&H, this $12K lens must have to be much better in terms of optics and performance... unless someone is lazy to avoid puttin 1.4x TC and wants it to be auyomatic...

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 05:41 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: "hair-thin depth of focus [that] isolates subjects with extreme precision"
So if you are shooting a model with focus on a hair, Only the hair will be in focus and everything else will be a smooth blurred background? To save some money, instead of hiring an expensive model just take a hair and put it on wall, chair, table anywhere and shoot !

@tkbslc, I was joking :-)
I know there are large aperture lenses, including f/0.95 and there is nothing new here.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 00:19 UTC

"hair-thin depth of focus [that] isolates subjects with extreme precision"
So if you are shooting a model with focus on a hair, Only the hair will be in focus and everything else will be a smooth blurred background? To save some money, instead of hiring an expensive model just take a hair and put it on wall, chair, table anywhere and shoot !

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 22:41 UTC as 83rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sunshine7913: People. You are comparing with wrong lenses. 200mm F2.8 in m43 is 400mm in FF. The light gathering doesn't even do anything but DOF. F2.8 is F2.8. All super telephoto lenses are super expansive even at F4. 400mm F4 from Canon cost $7000. $3000 for 400mm F4 is much cheaper.

Hey do you read what you write?
Tell me why you are entitled to compare 400mm f2.8 full frame vs 200mm f2.8 m43, AND you can not compare 400mm f2.8 on fz300 vs 200mm f2.8 lens on m43? You shoul follow the same norm when comparing.
Compare 200mm f2.8 m43 vs 400mm f5.6 FF if you want. Not with 400mm f2.8 FF which has far more utility value ( like shooting in dark rainforest at iso 6400 or iso 12800 which yoh can ont imagine on 200mm f2.8 on m43.
fz300 is 12mp, ha! you know there are 50mp full fra.e sensor cameras! ha ha!
Again, fz300 analogy is just to prove how sensless comparison is across formats with weired equivalence idea. I am no way comparing it with 200mm f2.8 on m43

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 05:59 UTC
In reply to:

Sunshine7913: People. You are comparing with wrong lenses. 200mm F2.8 in m43 is 400mm in FF. The light gathering doesn't even do anything but DOF. F2.8 is F2.8. All super telephoto lenses are super expansive even at F4. 400mm F4 from Canon cost $7000. $3000 for 400mm F4 is much cheaper.

OK, so when comparing with fz300 you will bring in the point of small sensor, depth of field etc. But when comparing between ff and m43 you will ignore those points!
BTW I am not comparing fz300 with this lens, I am giving you an anology to prove how your idea of 'Equivalence' is senseless when comparing costs across different formats.
I hope you also understand for telephoto range like 200 or even 400, zoom vs prime is no more relevant in terms of image quality. may be it was 10 year back. Most of the 70-200 and 100-400 full frame lenses are excellent performers.

So, the new panasonic 200mm f2.8 lens is way too expensive

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

Sunshine7913: People. You are comparing with wrong lenses. 200mm F2.8 in m43 is 400mm in FF. The light gathering doesn't even do anything but DOF. F2.8 is F2.8. All super telephoto lenses are super expansive even at F4. 400mm F4 from Canon cost $7000. $3000 for 400mm F4 is much cheaper.

Futgermore, 400mm f5.6 on full frame and 200mm f2.8 om m43 will give exactly same experience and depth of field. Only thing we will need to bump up iso for ff lens, but hey who bothers about iso on ff?

Note, this is from my experience as I HAVE used ff, m43 and aps-c formats and currently using panasonic. So nothing against panasonic

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 05:02 UTC
In reply to:

Sunshine7913: People. You are comparing with wrong lenses. 200mm F2.8 in m43 is 400mm in FF. The light gathering doesn't even do anything but DOF. F2.8 is F2.8. All super telephoto lenses are super expansive even at F4. 400mm F4 from Canon cost $7000. $3000 for 400mm F4 is much cheaper.

f2.8 is f2.8? Not if you consider the depth of field with FF vs m43.

If you argue abput this 400mm ff, then you know even panasonic has fz300 wchich comes with leica zoom of 25-600 'equivalent to ff' , and it costs nothing in front of this lens! My point is, it is 200mm f2.8 lens and not 400mm f2.8 lens. And it is way overpriced!

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 04:56 UTC
In reply to:

Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: I was hoping one day Panasonic will make such lens, but not at this price!
As I read a lot of comments here, pleople are arguing full frame vs mft field of view, equivalen aparture, equivalent focal length and what not. I am not even going there. Simply compare the PHYSICAL focal length of 200mm and PHYSICAL apartute of 2.8 and compare the lenses from canon, nikon or even tamron. Panasonic is overpriced for sure.
Long back Panasonic was planning for 150mm f2.8. But when they saw Olympus 40-150 reasonably priced lens , they had to scrap their idea. Perhaps because their proposed 150mm f2.8 would
cost much more So finally they came out with this 300mm f2.8!
Hope olympus brings in zoom like 50-200 or 70-200 f2.8 at half thr price.

Sorry typo, 200mm f2.8 lens

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 03:49 UTC

I was hoping one day Panasonic will make such lens, but not at this price!
As I read a lot of comments here, pleople are arguing full frame vs mft field of view, equivalen aparture, equivalent focal length and what not. I am not even going there. Simply compare the PHYSICAL focal length of 200mm and PHYSICAL apartute of 2.8 and compare the lenses from canon, nikon or even tamron. Panasonic is overpriced for sure.
Long back Panasonic was planning for 150mm f2.8. But when they saw Olympus 40-150 reasonably priced lens , they had to scrap their idea. Perhaps because their proposed 150mm f2.8 would
cost much more So finally they came out with this 300mm f2.8!
Hope olympus brings in zoom like 50-200 or 70-200 f2.8 at half thr price.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 03:45 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies

Tamron, make one for MFT please.
MFT is compact system, this kind of lens is most required to complement it.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 09:34 UTC as 29th comment
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stazza: I guess I'll stick to the "classic Chrome" simulation on my X-T2 then

Fujifilm still manufactures films... so rather than simulation you can actually use film

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 12:50 UTC

Come on google, leave at least somethings for humans.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 08:52 UTC as 19th comment
Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »