Juurikas

Juurikas

Lives in Germany Germany
Joined on Feb 25, 2019

Comments

Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Is the Olympus OM-D E-M1X right for you? (389 comments in total)

This reviewer attitude is like 2012 again.
Almost all points are just personal angst without logic.

Sad that DPR has dropped on such level.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2019 at 07:04 UTC as 33rd comment | 2 replies
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

itsnotthecamera: this camera is for Oly users that are trapped with too many lens, to the point of no return....and desired an ''upgrade'' but sadly have nothing to do with picture quality.

Say that to now for Canon and Nikon users. Trap to F and EF mounts.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2019 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

Juurikas: Comparing the user experience between Olympus to Fuji, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, the Olympus clearly offers the best experience. The functionality, the handling, the design, the effortless use and deliver of the happiness and joy to use their cameras. They really get "out of the way" and you can concentrate to the subject and moment and trust the camera do what you do with it.

But Olympus is not without faults, like they opted because loud but small market pressure to add a swiveling screen, that is no use for videography or photography. That is where Fuji is leading now as they thought out of the box when making X-T2. Superior screen to anything and second best is the tilt screen.

all that is possible with tilt only.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2019 at 10:27 UTC
In reply to:

Juurikas: Comparing the user experience between Olympus to Fuji, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, the Olympus clearly offers the best experience. The functionality, the handling, the design, the effortless use and deliver of the happiness and joy to use their cameras. They really get "out of the way" and you can concentrate to the subject and moment and trust the camera do what you do with it.

But Olympus is not without faults, like they opted because loud but small market pressure to add a swiveling screen, that is no use for videography or photography. That is where Fuji is leading now as they thought out of the box when making X-T2. Superior screen to anything and second best is the tilt screen.

after your statement that a swiveling screen is of no use in videography,

Tilt is better for video and photography. Faster, easier, sturdier, aligned, protected, smaller.
You don't remember that no one shoot seriously 16:9 vertically, or do you?
And 4:3 is superior to 3:2 in framing even if you need to later go for vertical 3:4 crop, something you can't do with 3:2 as 2:3 crops way too much.
And why it is so amazing to have the screen off-axis from your perspective? Why it is so great to have screen blocking your left hand? Why it is so great to look that 3" screen from 4 meter distance instead on your palm via smartphone? Why it is so amazing to flip screen doubling camera size every time you want to shoot from hip or above head? Why it is so great that you spend lots of time and effort adjusting the screen to get it some ange, to view your taken shots or video?

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

Juurikas: Comparing the user experience between Olympus to Fuji, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, the Olympus clearly offers the best experience. The functionality, the handling, the design, the effortless use and deliver of the happiness and joy to use their cameras. They really get "out of the way" and you can concentrate to the subject and moment and trust the camera do what you do with it.

But Olympus is not without faults, like they opted because loud but small market pressure to add a swiveling screen, that is no use for videography or photography. That is where Fuji is leading now as they thought out of the box when making X-T2. Superior screen to anything and second best is the tilt screen.

"My current camera has a swivel and tilt, and its awesome."

What camera has the side swiveling screen and the tilt screen in the same?

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 22:29 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

MILC man: this camera isn't really competing with dslrs, because the a9 rendered dslrs largely obsolete for sports shooting... about the only reason to buy a dslr for sports is to leverage your investment in dslr lenses, or get extreme telephoto primes that you don't want to use on sony.

somebody posted e-m1x rugby photos in an earlier post, so what can you get for the same price with sony, with comparable fov/dof.

a9: 588g $3.5k
e-m1x: 997g $3k

sony fe100-400: 49oz $2.5k
dg 200/2.8: 44oz $2.5k

a9 ospdaf points: 693
e-m1x ospdaf points: 121

the a9 rig is:
1) lighter,
2) with the zoom advantage,
3) higher resolution,
4) a stacked sensor,
5) far more ospdaf points,

for only $500 more...

"you clearly don't have the slightest idea how to shoot sports."

You don't have. As you don't even do video with manual focus. It is super easy to prefocus on the given areas as the athletes do not move in situations as I said or the action is inside DOF. That is why SAF works almost all the times

"no, that is wrong again... dpr uses the same basic test for all cameras, and the e-m1x was weaker than the competition, they posted the pics to prove it."

A: "Reviewers don't know what difference is between tracking and continuous automatic focusing"

B: "You are wrong again, they do all the same tests for everyone".

Again, you totally fail to even realize what is talked about. If you are stupid and you use wrong settings in situation or you use right settings in wrong situation, it is your failure when you can't perform. And if you go to write how the other is more failing than something else when you use wrong settings, it is again your fault that you did it wrong.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: I like anamorphic lenses since it is widescreen. Human have 2 eyes so why we have a wide field of vision (not talking focal length). I guess we can crop the image with our regular camera lens combo or go anamorphic stretch in post production ( general technique).

No. It is the brain that does it. You have a spherical vision, an fisheye. That you receive as circular projection. And your brain will create you the straight lines as is rapidly when you are scanning the environment and looking around.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

AshleyMC: I'd prefer a forward-looking, future-defining video.

" Most English speaking posters here do understand that non native English speakers do make mistakes."

Commonly non-native do less mistakes than native speakers. There are always those who do lot (like me), but if someone is better, then it is their skill and honor to understand what other is trying to say even if through bad grammar etc. But if someone thinks that makes them "superior" or "better" and wants to point that out by correcting others mistakes? That is just that, being rude.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 10:16 UTC

Comparing the user experience between Olympus to Fuji, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, the Olympus clearly offers the best experience. The functionality, the handling, the design, the effortless use and deliver of the happiness and joy to use their cameras. They really get "out of the way" and you can concentrate to the subject and moment and trust the camera do what you do with it.

But Olympus is not without faults, like they opted because loud but small market pressure to add a swiveling screen, that is no use for videography or photography. That is where Fuji is leading now as they thought out of the box when making X-T2. Superior screen to anything and second best is the tilt screen.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 09:43 UTC as 16th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

MichailK: Nice clip, recent scandal notwithstanding.

HOWEVER, of one thing I am now 100% sure:
The Olympus Menu programmers never read Mr.Maitani's guides of design.

Recent? That was decade ago already. That is way past in the history books already.

And you never have used Olympus menus, as they are best in the industry. Most logical, best organization, best layout and terminology.

But it is the problem that reviewers has this "Olympus menus are terrible" but no one can tell what is wrong in them or how they should be done differently so they would be actually better. Some who try are just failing "I want this to be there as I use it so often".

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 09:39 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: I like anamorphic lenses since it is widescreen. Human have 2 eyes so why we have a wide field of vision (not talking focal length). I guess we can crop the image with our regular camera lens combo or go anamorphic stretch in post production ( general technique).

We see as two fisheye lenses. It is our brain that will correct the heavily curved lines to straight.

You can example take a fisheye photo and print it to size of A4. Then look that fisheye image from very very close range (almost nose in it) and you see magic to happen, your brain will automatically correct all the heavily circular lines to straight lines.
But our eyes are fisheye lenses, our brains does the magic. And once you actually realize that, you train little bit, you can see uncorrected images with your eyes as you can override the brain correction. Danger is, if you do that too much, you start to see everything uncorrected and you can "flip" over it. Required to train your brain again to see normally. But that is as only about 1.5-2 degree from our FOV is sharp, everything else is extremely blurry (why shallow DOF is gimmick) and at center we see straight lines straight, at edges they have heavy curvature.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 09:28 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mistajolly: It might be a fantastic camera, but without faster glass, I don't see how this is going to compete with FF for sports shooters.

MFT 35-100 f2.8 or 40-150 f2.8 are great lenses but they can't compete with a FF 70-200 f2.8. The MFT is giving up two stops on ISO and the inevitable noise. The DOF separation won't be as good either assuming you've nailed focus of course.

A sportsman who is half in focus is not better than who is fully in focus.
And that is why you have denoise in the body, you don't need to run through any other denoiser if not wantd.

And as repeated, ISO 12800, 1/1250-2000, f/2.8 and you don't separate A9 from E-M1 II at the A4 size prints by any other means than the bokeh. But if the bokeh is so important for you, then you have failed as photographer because you need to document the event, not to take bad portraits where background blur is more important than the event and the person.

And no, the pros do not switch because they are vendor locked to Canon and Nikon. Sony is catching now only the new photographers who are not custom to anything and have not invested but are free to try something flashy new heavily marketed system. Sony Playstation is familiar for them, but none of them likely even know what Canon printer or scanner is. So Sony phones, gaming devices, music etc are selling Sony cameras to young people.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 09:12 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miles_H: This reviews can effectively help Panasonic G9 and NIKON D500 increase sales.

I didn't say you have reviewer other brands, but using other brands. Using != Reviewing.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 09:05 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

melgross: I still don’t see the point to this. A 4:3 camera with inferior image quality. And no matter what the fans of the format scream, it is inferior.

The body is big and heavy. It’s fairly expensive.

Where are the advantages? With a 20mp sensor with worse noise and dynamic range, it can’t brag about image quality. So what can Olympus barge about? They have some very good lenses, but then, so do their competitors.

Trying to bring this format in direct competition with APS-C, much less full frame, professionally, seems to be an exercise in futility.

I’d like to remind everyone that when 4:3 first came out, the slogan spelled what it was there for:

“The best compromise of size, weight and image quality.”

Note the word “compromise”. That is truer today than it was when the format first came out.

E-M1X is the camera to show what m4/3 system can offer.

You buy, use and carry the system, not a one body and one lens.
You have just one camera in your hands when using it, but you carry more. And professionals lug even more gear with them all the time, not just one camera but multiple bodies and multiple lenses and all the flashes etc.

And they have assistant that is carrying everything else really. They just then extend hand and assistant gives the second camera with wanted lens etc. And why do these assistant are there? Because the FF setups are extremely heavy and big. For a travel photographer there is not just one camera and maybe two bodies, but far far more. And you basically have a car that you need to move that setup and yourself.

But you can't go everywhere with the car, you still need to carry your camera bag kilometers every day, all the time. So every kilogram that you can shave off from the setup, it is huge gain.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 08:45 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: I just did a very quick and VERY casual review of other recent camera reviews and camera specific articles on DPR. Of the group I sampled, this review has generated the most comments.

I think this is indicative of the disruptive nature of m43s and, possibly, of Olympus itself. Olympus has always heard 'camera music' differently from the rest of the industry, and probably will continue to dance to that music well into the future.

m43s and 4/3s in general have been its most disruptive product line so far. Would there have been a Sony FF mirrorless if not for m43s? Would there have been a Canon or Nikon mirrorless without Oly or Panasonic?

I don't think so. And m43s was disruptive while trash talk was going on about it the whole time. Lots of 'trash talk' about how inferior 4/3s and m43s is since 2008, at least. I think writing the "X" off as an odd and inferior product is premature, at the very least. I hope I last 20 more years to see what camera industry is like then.

"@Glen - that's one way to look at the comments. Another way to look at it is that the system that is shrinking with less marketshare - the remaining people become more active/defensive. It happened with 4/3rds."

So you are saying that more defensive/active the format users are, then smaller the market share is.

No wonder that FF users are so active and so defensive as their miniature market share is so miniscule that they can't even find other FF users among all the APS-C and smartphone users unless they have these very specific organized gatherings like Olympics.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 08:41 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

MILC man: this camera isn't really competing with dslrs, because the a9 rendered dslrs largely obsolete for sports shooting... about the only reason to buy a dslr for sports is to leverage your investment in dslr lenses, or get extreme telephoto primes that you don't want to use on sony.

somebody posted e-m1x rugby photos in an earlier post, so what can you get for the same price with sony, with comparable fov/dof.

a9: 588g $3.5k
e-m1x: 997g $3k

sony fe100-400: 49oz $2.5k
dg 200/2.8: 44oz $2.5k

a9 ospdaf points: 693
e-m1x ospdaf points: 121

the a9 rig is:
1) lighter,
2) with the zoom advantage,
3) higher resolution,
4) a stacked sensor,
5) far more ospdaf points,

for only $500 more...

"Also I wouldn't compare the EM1X AF with the A9, which is pretty much noted widely by reviewers as having superior AF to the EM1X."

By the same reviewers who doesn't even know what difference is between tracking and AF, and what are difference between CAF and AF.

You are trying to base your argument for amateurs and people who have zero understanding about technology, only because they are famous youtubers and gear reviewers, that they shouldn't be in the first place! Most of them are nothing more than a sheeps repeating the marketing material and then making their own kool aid and drinking it. Look the DPR reviewers, lots of fallacies full, totally bad AF tests, false claims, improper testings and results.

Give either one to a professional sports photographer and they make both of them sing far better than anything DPR has ever produced as samples or in their reviews.
You can't go wrong with either one, A9 or E-M1 line.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 08:39 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

MILC man: this camera isn't really competing with dslrs, because the a9 rendered dslrs largely obsolete for sports shooting... about the only reason to buy a dslr for sports is to leverage your investment in dslr lenses, or get extreme telephoto primes that you don't want to use on sony.

somebody posted e-m1x rugby photos in an earlier post, so what can you get for the same price with sony, with comparable fov/dof.

a9: 588g $3.5k
e-m1x: 997g $3k

sony fe100-400: 49oz $2.5k
dg 200/2.8: 44oz $2.5k

a9 ospdaf points: 693
e-m1x ospdaf points: 121

the a9 rig is:
1) lighter,
2) with the zoom advantage,
3) higher resolution,
4) a stacked sensor,
5) far more ospdaf points,

for only $500 more...

A high jumper is always jumping over the bar in same distance. A basketball player is always jumping under the same ranges and positions. A icehockey goalie is always on the same position.

Most in the sports actions happens in the exact range from the camera (and relative to the DOF and the perspective) and the actions are split seconds, not multiple seconds across the long distance changes. It is literally that football player kicking the ball, it is around less than 1 meter range difference, well inside the DOF. The american football player throwing a ball is again at stationary distance because balance. A ball catching is again stationary range as no one cares if the ball is 10 meters from the receiver or has the receive already completed and advanced 3 meters, the moment is just catching the ball or just before it. All that are relative to DOF and the camera range, stationary.

Almost all in the sports can be captured with SAF, and CAF is über overstated feature among amateurs.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 08:32 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

MILC man: this camera isn't really competing with dslrs, because the a9 rendered dslrs largely obsolete for sports shooting... about the only reason to buy a dslr for sports is to leverage your investment in dslr lenses, or get extreme telephoto primes that you don't want to use on sony.

somebody posted e-m1x rugby photos in an earlier post, so what can you get for the same price with sony, with comparable fov/dof.

a9: 588g $3.5k
e-m1x: 997g $3k

sony fe100-400: 49oz $2.5k
dg 200/2.8: 44oz $2.5k

a9 ospdaf points: 693
e-m1x ospdaf points: 121

the a9 rig is:
1) lighter,
2) with the zoom advantage,
3) higher resolution,
4) a stacked sensor,
5) far more ospdaf points,

for only $500 more...

"don't make false claims that af-s is a viable choice over ospdaf in a sports scenario, that is ignorant... you clearly aren't a sports shooter, and that is one of the markets that the e-m1x is trying to target."

You clearly are not.

Most sports situations are all in the stationary range from the camera.

The moments where example javelin thrower throws it is at the specific range, all the time.
The position of the long jumper to jump is specific range, all the time, and landings are even almost all in the same, relative to DOF and direction it is always the same.
A baseball player hitting the ball is always the same, the pitcher is as well always in the same position.
A golf player is always in the same position. A chess player is always in same position. A 100 meter sprinter will always cross the goal line at the specific position, A shooters (arrows, rifles, shotguns) are always on the same range.
A rally car jumping from the hill is always at the same range in the air.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 08:26 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mistajolly: It might be a fantastic camera, but without faster glass, I don't see how this is going to compete with FF for sports shooters.

MFT 35-100 f2.8 or 40-150 f2.8 are great lenses but they can't compete with a FF 70-200 f2.8. The MFT is giving up two stops on ISO and the inevitable noise. The DOF separation won't be as good either assuming you've nailed focus of course.

You make again the common illogical thinking.

Lets take a m43 camera and FF like Sony A7 III and set both at ISO 6400 and take photos and make a A4 size prints. Those prints are larger than most will ever need for magazines. You can't see the noise at all even when either one has gone through denoising. You can raise the ISO to 12800 and still see no such difference that you think. Now if one does ISO 3200 and slight denoising, now you can go up to A3-A2 sizes without difference. And that is visually compared in optimal case.

We can then go to take the common digital forms, 0.5-1 Mpix files on webpages, For a full download performance it is 2.1Mpix, same as Full HD. That put then through heavy compression as no one is going to set a news site with 5 MB files, but they need to be under 100 MB, again the advantages of the A7 III sensor are gone in noise performance.

And in most sports you want DOF deeper than 0.3 meters.

You just don't have benefits from FF for sports as you think.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 08:20 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1X review (2418 comments in total)
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: I just did a very quick and VERY casual review of other recent camera reviews and camera specific articles on DPR. Of the group I sampled, this review has generated the most comments.

I think this is indicative of the disruptive nature of m43s and, possibly, of Olympus itself. Olympus has always heard 'camera music' differently from the rest of the industry, and probably will continue to dance to that music well into the future.

m43s and 4/3s in general have been its most disruptive product line so far. Would there have been a Sony FF mirrorless if not for m43s? Would there have been a Canon or Nikon mirrorless without Oly or Panasonic?

I don't think so. And m43s was disruptive while trash talk was going on about it the whole time. Lots of 'trash talk' about how inferior 4/3s and m43s is since 2008, at least. I think writing the "X" off as an odd and inferior product is premature, at the very least. I hope I last 20 more years to see what camera industry is like then.

"No manufacturer has taken up the format since its beginnings, and at least one has dropped out."

Sharp, Blackmagic, Yi, DJI, PowerEYE, Leica and few others.

So all that shows that you know nothing about m43 but just throw around BS.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 08:15 UTC
Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »