Lost in Time

Has a website at http://transienteye.com
Joined on Sep 26, 2010


Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5
In reply to:

Aaron MC: Rather disappointing to me. I've had the GF1 since launch, and this is nothing more than measured steps forward. I need more than that to plunk down my cash

@marike6 - You may be confused by the ISO labels on the two cameras. ISO 160 on the GX1 is roughly the same real sensitivity as ISO 100 on the GF1. The dynamic range and shadow noise at base ISO are essentially the same for GF1 and GX1, and if you want better performance, the GH2 seems presently to be the only option (it is curious that Panasonic did not use the GH2 sensor in the new camera).

Where the G3/GX1 improves over the GF1 is higher ISO settings, but I find that less of a problem than the low ISO DR, which is very painful if you do much PP work with higher contrast scenes.

I don't think you can compare the new Olympus yet: no one has properly tested the IQ, which depends on both the sensor and surrounding circuitry.

Howver, what is very clear, is that the G3 (body) currently costs ~£375 UK (amazon), whereas the GX1+LVF2 costs £690. Clearly the GX1 is not a "no-brainer", even if not looking at other brands.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2012 at 12:58 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron MC: Rather disappointing to me. I've had the GF1 since launch, and this is nothing more than measured steps forward. I need more than that to plunk down my cash

Hardly a "no-brainer". The G3 costs less, gives the same image quality and has essentially the same handling - yet it also gives you an EVF and articulating LCD.

As a GF1 owner who shoots RAW and uses the LVF most of the time, it is very difficult to justify the upgrade. For me, the biggest problem with the GF1 is low-ISO dynamic range: burnt highlights vs shadow noise. The GX1 sensor performs identically to the GF1 in this area and is significantly worse than competing cameras (esp. Sony).

I think that a lot of people are going to wait and see what the new Olympus models offer.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2012 at 09:28 UTC
On article Leica Announces V-Lux 3 superzoom (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

SF Photo Gal: At least with the D-Lux/LX collaboration they make an effort to change the exterior enough to make it LOOK and feel different. Here, all they do is slap the Leica logo on it. Sad.

Actually, I think that this is a good thing. It seriously devalues the Leica brand and image. Ultimately the only effect is to drive the brand down market, potentially meaning that Leica's more serious cameras and lenses will have to become cheaper.

It is hard to understand who would buy one of these. It certainly makes a statement about the buyer - though probably not what Leica might hope for.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2011 at 19:36 UTC
On article Video Interview: Chuck Westfall of Canon at PPE 2011 (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

grafli: wired LAN? seriously? no WIFI?
I love to jump around with a cable attached to my camera... NOT!

A photo-journalist sometimes needs a means for a fast and simple upload of a few pictures, not 1200 in one hit.

At this price point, WiFi should be integrated (the parts cost next to nothing).

The $600 price for a WiFi dongle is a disgrace - for that price point I would have expected a multi-radio device with cellular support to allow a journalist to send a few critical images without needing access to a computer or wired network.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2011 at 19:51 UTC
On article Lytro announces Light Field Camera (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyefuse: We need 1080p video of this sort! :)

If it means smooth, silent (motor-less) AF tracking, this may actually be a very interesting technology for high-end video cameras.

However, I can't see the resolution being sufficient for a consumer still camera - why carry something so awkward and bulky when your cell-phone takes higher resolution images?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 20:11 UTC
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5