Twong

Lives in United States OH, United States
Joined on Sep 21, 2006

Comments

Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Carl Mucks: Now, ask yourself a simple question. How many people would buy a $1300 24-200mm f/8 lens for their FF cameras? That's right, the answer is 'close to zero'. Because the lens is too expensive, too slow for anything but a bright daylight, and offers no DOF control. Basically the pictures look pretty much like coming from a typical P&S camera. And that's the antithesis for FF shooters. Are m43 shooters content with P&S quality and the insane prices?

Of course, there will be those who will claim that that zoom offers great flexibility being that small and having such a huge zoom range. I find those arguments meaningless. Ask yourself, do you want more pictures or better pictures? I'd rather have one great picture than thousands of mediocre ones.

Bottom line, dump those slow zooms, get one, two, maybe three bright good quality primes and take fewer but better pictures.

The f/8 is only relevant for depth of field comparison. The lens is f/4 for exposure. This is a common mustake , so you are not alone.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

EcoR1: Aarrg. Read some commments below and I'm just astonished by the ignorance of some people. This Panasonic lens will gather as much light as any f2.8 full frame lens when mounted on the full frame camera. There is no debate. There is no "other" truth. If you think otherwise you are wrong, and that's it . If you wan't to consider the possible size/weight benefits for any full frame lens, the only comparison must be made for the 24mm f2.8 lens. That's it people.

The proper way to look at is photon density. A FF lens will gather more light but that amount of light is also spread over a larger area. IOW, photon density is normalized. This is the basic concept of aperture. The DP article you cited discussed depth of field equivalence and not light density equivalence.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 13:42 UTC

This is a huge lens especially for m43 format. I bought my e-pm2 because of its compact size. This lens is too big to be compatible with m43 format imo.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 13:27 UTC as 99th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

EcoR1: Aarrg. Read some commments below and I'm just astonished by the ignorance of some people. This Panasonic lens will gather as much light as any f2.8 full frame lens when mounted on the full frame camera. There is no debate. There is no "other" truth. If you think otherwise you are wrong, and that's it . If you wan't to consider the possible size/weight benefits for any full frame lens, the only comparison must be made for the 24mm f2.8 lens. That's it people.

In terms of straight light gathering capability, this lens gathers more light per unit area than a f/2.8 lens because it is f/1.4. What confuses people is the depth of field. This lens has larger depth of field which is more-or-less equivalent to a f/2.8 lens. Even though both qualities are controlled by aperture, they are not the same.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 13:23 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (285 comments in total)

This is a stunning endorsement of K-1, which no doubt is a great camera. I will buy it if I am in the market for a FF camera, but APC is fine for me at least for now. Pentax is on a roll right now, the brand that has been offering truly innovative products.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 17:27 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Twong: For those who want the PS technology, you can get that at half the cost by getting the Pentax K-3II. Same technology but implemented on the APS-C platform. Great technology, great innovation, great company.

The mechanical shutter in K-3II stays open during PS. This is from PF. "In order to get around the limitations of the Bayer sensor pattern, Pentax's pixel shifting implementation captures a total of four consecutive images without closing the shutter and shifts the sensor microscopically such that every pixel is exposed to all three color channels."

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

Twong: For those who want the PS technology, you can get that at half the cost by getting the Pentax K-3II. Same technology but implemented on the APS-C platform. Great technology, great innovation, great company.

I think you have mistaken with the Olympus system. K-1 and K-3II share the same technology but with K-1 partially compensating for moving subjects via software, not hardware. Read IR again.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 00:47 UTC

For those who want the PS technology, you can get that at half the cost by getting the Pentax K-3II. Same technology but implemented on the APS-C platform. Great technology, great innovation, great company.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2016 at 18:30 UTC as 73rd comment | 4 replies

The biggest advantage of mirrorless IMO is elimination of the mirror which is a major source of vibration. Short flangeback distance is nice but not essential to me. Making it too small actually renders it more difficult to hold.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 12:57 UTC as 27th comment | 2 replies
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (397 comments in total)

I don't find it to be attractive at all. I actually find it to cumbersome and pretentious. I don't want a camera to attract attention - whether they are good or bad.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 16:00 UTC as 152nd comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

webber15: DPR...stop with the equivalence b.s....I'm pretty sure ya never used to do this 4-5 years ago,,comparing everything to full frame...I simply couldn't care less...

Dave...

Equivalence is not new to many of us but I believe it is important to state that. It is a common platform for comparison. It is a standard reference by which lenses across formats can be compared. I am familiar with APS and m43 but not much on 1" or 645. Not wanting to have it is a little snobbish imo.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 15:03 UTC

I am probably in the minority here. The pictures are unique but not very appealing to me. #5 & #9 are pattern but neither attractive nor interesting.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2015 at 11:33 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

rtogog: Samyang should offer fl 200 mm 2.8 macro lens. Not this lens, otherwise this lenses performs better than similar lens on the market today.

I'd seriously consider a 200 mm macro, but not this 100 mm.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 00:59 UTC

What makes it stand out among other great 100-ish macro lenses already on the market?

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 20:30 UTC as 45th comment | 6 replies
On article CP+ 2015: Hands-on with new Pentax K-S2 (171 comments in total)

I was intrigued by K-S1 but did pull trigger because no WR. K-S2 is exactly what I am looking for. This will replace my K-01. Time will tell if it can replace my K-5 IIs.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 15:22 UTC as 42nd comment

Essentially mimicking the lens in our eyes. Instead of moving lens elements to focus, the focal length of an element changes. Implementation represents a significant challenge.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 22:03 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 (349 comments in total)

If it had WR, I'd buy it in a heart beat as replacement for K-5 IIs and K-01.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 00:43 UTC as 120th comment | 1 reply
On article Adobe launches Lightroom for iPad (130 comments in total)

I am already running LR 5 on a Win 8.1 tablet.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 18:32 UTC as 35th comment

I prefer to see a 16-32.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 01:24 UTC as 57th comment
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »