Kjeld Olesen

Not everyone shoots 8K all the time ;-)

When I bought my first PC, I opted for a "large", but expensive 90 MB hard disk - plenty of space for DOS and WordPerfect 5.1 - I was impressed!

When I bought my first dSLR, I opted for a "large", but expensive IBM 340 MB micro HD - space for over 100 RAW images - I was impressed!

And now - roughly 1000 times more capacity in a smaller form factor and considerably cheaper - phew!

8/10

Holy cow! Fantastic idea , combining the milky way and a dairy cow - and then perhaps even the road illustating milk transport - it holds some potential for marketing in the dairy industry. Milky way - ha!
And then it is a great image as well, by the way ;-)
PS: I would stamp out the white subsign in the cow though.

Both have their positive sides, but I did not see any DPR staff mention the ability to look through the OVF for hours on end without draining a single electron from the battery!

I can see there was a hole in it, so technically it must have had an apperture, but it was hardly usefull as a pinhole camera, as the apperture was rather to big for that. So what did this news have to do with Digital Photography Reviews??

Just for reference - here a DIY adaption of the Zuiko 20 mm/2.0 to EF mount cameras : http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/olympus20mm.htm
The Mitacon looks luring at this price and native EF-mount (or whatever), but no cable aperture may be somewhat of a problem for insect macros if shooting live objects!

Gulp!! A 100 mm lens going to 4.5x?? That is about 350 mm extention to achieve that - not so practical.

Great photo - I thought for a while that you had captured a flipper, which would still be a great shot. But I realise that critical composition was not an option :-)

As any good picture there are things thet may have been even better, but that con not in any way take away the overall impression of an absolutely fantastic image - congratulations.

It also shows the importance of the corner shapness of your lens - not important at all :-)

If the EXIF data is coorrect, shooting it at f/5.6 or less than f/14 would have left the background more soft, and hence the birds more isolated - but then again, it may have ruined your whole shoting setup of cause :-)

Hi.
I am very sorry to say that you have made a major mistake in your setting!! You left out the Noix De Coco, which must be my absolute favourite among all chocolates :-)
Otherwise a delicious photo!

Photoshopped or not, it is still a gorgeous result even though the mountains look somewhat monochrome :-)

It seems like the water and possibly mountains were shot from a boat judging from the waves in the water :-)

Hi Richard

Yes, great article, but still it appears incredible how difficult it is to get the message across - judging from some of the comments :-/

However, perhaps arguing “backwards” may do the trick?

I think all people could agree that to get identical looking images from different formants you would have to
1) take the pictures from the same distance
2) use lenses with the same angle of view
3) use lenses with the same physical aperture diameter
Hence, i.e. a 100 mm and 50 mm lens would produce the same angle of view on a 24x36 mm imager and a MFT imager, respectively.
If both lenses have a physical aperture diameter of 25 mm, then they would be f/4.0 and f/2.0 respectively.

Case closed.

The teachers of the true words of equivalence never said one is better than the other. They simply referred to pure scientific facts - what some would even refer to as "true facts", though any scientifically adept person does not differ between the two.
From your writing I gather that you are not impressed by facts however, so no point of discussing the technical background at all.

Just a word of warning :-)

People got banned from the forums in the past for teaching the true words of equivalence :-)

Rgds/Kjeld

Congratulations on the first place - and thank you for participating.

An excellent example to show that sharp cornes does not always make the image.

rgds/Kjeld

PS: I do think that you could have done a smoother job with the upper left corner - the cut in the dark area is quite obvious when viewed at 100% :-)

I miss the discussions :-(

Being a user of both a m43 system and a 24x36 mm system, I'd say this is certainly a nice lens and an improvement to the m43 lens array, but surely there will always be reason for m43 users to "envy full frame L glass" - at least until they bring out a 12-35 f/1.4 lens - and if they do, then what will be the point of using m43 anyways? It would likely be larger than a "full frame" 24-70 f/2.8.
So lets enjoy what m43 offers in terms of small size and not pretend that it is a replacement for larger apperture lenses.

Perhaps the fish needed more luck than technique to endue this unusual pet handling! :-(

Hi grahamdyke

Argh - you were out of luck, or you need to dig deeper - I removed the Skoda badges of our car and underneath there were rings ... OOOO