blohum

Lives in United Kingdom Cornwall, United Kingdom
Joined on Jan 6, 2011

Comments

Total: 79, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

IndyDad: (Just about) the same as it ever was. Unless you are a into 4k video there is not much meat on the bone here. I agree with most here, Olympus please update to the 20mp sensor.

There's plenty of differentiation between models up and down the m43 range, but it is time for the 20mp sensor to trickle down the range, the GX8 is over 2 years old now so this sensor has been around for a while.

I know this is aimed at non-camera people but they are exactly the sort of people who will look at the specs and say "the Sony/Fuji/Canon/Nikon has 24mp, the Olympus has 16mp... those other cameras are obviously 8 better".

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

IndyDad: (Just about) the same as it ever was. Unless you are a into 4k video there is not much meat on the bone here. I agree with most here, Olympus please update to the 20mp sensor.

Maybe the Sony 16mp sensors are better, but my comments on deliberately crippling this camera still stands... I've used Olympus 43 cameras and m43 since the EM5 and it's about time they moved IQ up a notch, and the annoying thing is that the bar has already been raised with the 20mp sensors.

When "bigger dials" is one of the mains upgrades listed in the title you know they're struggling to justify this release.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

IndyDad: (Just about) the same as it ever was. Unless you are a into 4k video there is not much meat on the bone here. I agree with most here, Olympus please update to the 20mp sensor.

@ijm5012, I've got the GX8 and in general terms it is better than the 16mp versions (though certainly not a night-and-day difference) but where it really scores is long exposures, they're so much cleaner than the files I got from the GX7.

I think the issue for most people is that the 20mp sensor has been around for a while now and really should be tricking into the lower end, this just seems like deliberately crippling a low-end model. I've been a long time m43 user and this release can quite easily be summed up with "meh".

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

2eyesee: I guess the term 'ultra-light' is relative. For me, ultra-light is taking my RX100M3 over my RX10.

The RX10 is about the same weight as a PEN-F + 12-40mm, while the RX100M3 is only about 1/3 the weight.

There's always options, he could have chosen a Panasonic GM1 with the 12-32mm lens which weighs about as much as the RX100 too.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 08:17 UTC
In reply to:

Christian Unger: "Please select mode of death: 'Quick And Painless' or 'Slow And Horrible' ".

"I'd like to place a collect call" :)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 11:32 UTC
In reply to:

Damián B: RIP shallow DOF, you will be missed

That is the equivalent of saying "RIP zooming" when a new prime lens is announced...

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 09:09 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

susan2012: How much smaller is this camera than something like a Sony A7 with 50 mm F1.8 lens?

It seems like neither the body is significantly smaller nor the lens since the smaller sensor requires larger aperture for same subject isolation/DoF.

Anyone have a comparison of the actual size?

Thank you ecka, I really appreciate that! You have a very nice photostream too, maybe you can try to convince me about the virtues of FF again in the future! :)

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 19:45 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

susan2012: How much smaller is this camera than something like a Sony A7 with 50 mm F1.8 lens?

It seems like neither the body is significantly smaller nor the lens since the smaller sensor requires larger aperture for same subject isolation/DoF.

Anyone have a comparison of the actual size?

You just keep on worrying ecka, I'm off now to take my toy camera for a walk with a smile on my face and a spring in my step! :)

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 15:45 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

susan2012: How much smaller is this camera than something like a Sony A7 with 50 mm F1.8 lens?

It seems like neither the body is significantly smaller nor the lens since the smaller sensor requires larger aperture for same subject isolation/DoF.

Anyone have a comparison of the actual size?

Why are you FF users so worried about? Graham, as I said above, a camera is a tool to do a job, if you have old glass then you use the right tool for the job which would be FF... (though I print plenty of my images so I'm not sure what you're insinuating there)

biza, again you're cherry picking a body/lens combination... why not compare it to the A7 with Sony FE 24-70mm f2.8 G Master Lens? Nearly £2000 and 886g... I'm sure it's a stunning lens but I'm not carrying that around.

I use m43, not because it's the got the best image quality (because I'm not stupid or naïve and I know it doesn't), but because it's the best compromise between size and performance for the *system as a whole*.

Everyone has different needs and expectations, FF is not the answer for everyone!

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:59 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

susan2012: How much smaller is this camera than something like a Sony A7 with 50 mm F1.8 lens?

It seems like neither the body is significantly smaller nor the lens since the smaller sensor requires larger aperture for same subject isolation/DoF.

Anyone have a comparison of the actual size?

I am not wrong, because FF is just one of many standards and is no more "correct" than any other system; it is a tool to do a job... believe me, no-one outside of camera forums cares about how big your sensor is.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 12:55 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

susan2012: How much smaller is this camera than something like a Sony A7 with 50 mm F1.8 lens?

It seems like neither the body is significantly smaller nor the lens since the smaller sensor requires larger aperture for same subject isolation/DoF.

Anyone have a comparison of the actual size?

Equivalence is trying to compare apples to oranges...

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 11:48 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

susan2012: How much smaller is this camera than something like a Sony A7 with 50 mm F1.8 lens?

It seems like neither the body is significantly smaller nor the lens since the smaller sensor requires larger aperture for same subject isolation/DoF.

Anyone have a comparison of the actual size?

They tried that with equivalence but it's never stopped the arguments!

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

#replyingtoacommentthatsbeenremoved!

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 10:02 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

susan2012: How much smaller is this camera than something like a Sony A7 with 50 mm F1.8 lens?

It seems like neither the body is significantly smaller nor the lens since the smaller sensor requires larger aperture for same subject isolation/DoF.

Anyone have a comparison of the actual size?

As Oli4D says, remember to look at the system as a whole, you can always cherry-pick a few combinations that make FF look small but when you start to add multiple lenses in your bag it soon adds up.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 09:26 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hellraiser: Note for Oly, Panny & Co. - Please give us a not to expensive f2.8 constant aperture standard zoom - something like Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 but made smaller for M43, pretty pretty please! :)

With the new Panasonic Leica zooms coming out I'm sure the price of the 12-35mm will fall further... I recently bagged a second-hand copy for £300.

Mark, the 14-54mm was my favourite 43 lens... just wasn't fast enough to focus on the older m43 bodies, gutted when I sold it!

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 09:23 UTC
In reply to:

blohum: I'm still amazed that people think m43 should not have premium lenses.

There are already plenty of small and cheap options within the m43 system and this is what I love about it, you can go from the tiny GM1 with 12-32mm or 20mm 1.7 right up to workhorse cameras like the GH4+12-35mm or EM1 with something like the 300mm f4... don't want to spend much? m43 has been around long enough to have a great market of second-hand cameras that can be picked up for peanuts; want great optics, get something like the 75mm 1.8 or 42.5mm 1.2.

m43 will always be a little behind in image quality, but absolute image quality is not what everyone needs. For example, I was out with the camera club the other night and there were some great crepuscular rays building on the horizon... my friend who uses a D810 didn't bring his 70-200mm lens as he didn't want to carry it, I had my 45-150mm in the bag, hence I got the shot.

If you think something is going to lose too much value, just don't buy it... there aren't many things in the world that don't depreciate in value, m43 and cameras in general are not immune to this.

This is why I rarely buy anything when it first comes out, I'm prepared to wait until the price reaches a point where I'm happy to pay.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

blohum: I'm still amazed that people think m43 should not have premium lenses.

There are already plenty of small and cheap options within the m43 system and this is what I love about it, you can go from the tiny GM1 with 12-32mm or 20mm 1.7 right up to workhorse cameras like the GH4+12-35mm or EM1 with something like the 300mm f4... don't want to spend much? m43 has been around long enough to have a great market of second-hand cameras that can be picked up for peanuts; want great optics, get something like the 75mm 1.8 or 42.5mm 1.2.

m43 will always be a little behind in image quality, but absolute image quality is not what everyone needs. For example, I was out with the camera club the other night and there were some great crepuscular rays building on the horizon... my friend who uses a D810 didn't bring his 70-200mm lens as he didn't want to carry it, I had my 45-150mm in the bag, hence I got the shot.

It's only bad if you see a lens as an investment... I buy lenses to use them, surely the point of owning a lens is to create images with it?

If I buy a car, I don't expect to sell it for the same amount years later; if I buy a new TV I don't expect to sell it for the same amount; what about a phone? a suit? or even a camera body for that matter?

Remember that NOTHING has an intrinsic value; a lens is an inanimate object after all, it's a simple supply and demand scenario, things will only remain expensive when there is more demand than supply.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

blohum: I'm still amazed that people think m43 should not have premium lenses.

There are already plenty of small and cheap options within the m43 system and this is what I love about it, you can go from the tiny GM1 with 12-32mm or 20mm 1.7 right up to workhorse cameras like the GH4+12-35mm or EM1 with something like the 300mm f4... don't want to spend much? m43 has been around long enough to have a great market of second-hand cameras that can be picked up for peanuts; want great optics, get something like the 75mm 1.8 or 42.5mm 1.2.

m43 will always be a little behind in image quality, but absolute image quality is not what everyone needs. For example, I was out with the camera club the other night and there were some great crepuscular rays building on the horizon... my friend who uses a D810 didn't bring his 70-200mm lens as he didn't want to carry it, I had my 45-150mm in the bag, hence I got the shot.

So after all the moaning that m43 lenses are too expensive, it's now also bad because prices come down?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 10:33 UTC
In reply to:

blohum: I'm still amazed that people think m43 should not have premium lenses.

There are already plenty of small and cheap options within the m43 system and this is what I love about it, you can go from the tiny GM1 with 12-32mm or 20mm 1.7 right up to workhorse cameras like the GH4+12-35mm or EM1 with something like the 300mm f4... don't want to spend much? m43 has been around long enough to have a great market of second-hand cameras that can be picked up for peanuts; want great optics, get something like the 75mm 1.8 or 42.5mm 1.2.

m43 will always be a little behind in image quality, but absolute image quality is not what everyone needs. For example, I was out with the camera club the other night and there were some great crepuscular rays building on the horizon... my friend who uses a D810 didn't bring his 70-200mm lens as he didn't want to carry it, I had my 45-150mm in the bag, hence I got the shot.

We all have our own limits and this is 12mm far too expensive for me , but if you have the cash and want it then why not? No-one is forcing you to buy it, and if the pricing is that ridiculous then no-one will buy it and the price will be forced to come down.

I recently got the 12-35mm f2.8 for £300, it was priced at around £1,000 when it first came out... time or money, your choice.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 09:38 UTC

I'm still amazed that people think m43 should not have premium lenses.

There are already plenty of small and cheap options within the m43 system and this is what I love about it, you can go from the tiny GM1 with 12-32mm or 20mm 1.7 right up to workhorse cameras like the GH4+12-35mm or EM1 with something like the 300mm f4... don't want to spend much? m43 has been around long enough to have a great market of second-hand cameras that can be picked up for peanuts; want great optics, get something like the 75mm 1.8 or 42.5mm 1.2.

m43 will always be a little behind in image quality, but absolute image quality is not what everyone needs. For example, I was out with the camera club the other night and there were some great crepuscular rays building on the horizon... my friend who uses a D810 didn't bring his 70-200mm lens as he didn't want to carry it, I had my 45-150mm in the bag, hence I got the shot.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 09:15 UTC as 47th comment | 9 replies
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (502 comments in total)
In reply to:

Haim Hadar: This week will be remembered as the "D-word" tantrum week... IMO it's great that DPreview staff is sharing the enthusiasm over an impressive piece of equipment.

Wish sony could have pulled out a little extra magic and shave off a few hundred grams of this camera as 1.1kg seems too heavy for long hikes - It weighs the same as my tent.

Does your camera also keep you dry and warm overnight? :)

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 07:00 UTC
Total: 79, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »