pannumon

Lives in Helsinki
Joined on Dec 12, 2009

Comments

Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Getting up close: Canon EF-M 28mm macro hands-on review (100 comments in total)

Lead: "Thanks to built-in LEDs and very close focusing abilities, Canon's 28mm F3.5 for EOS M offers a great place to start learning more about shooting macro."

This really promotes the idea that (Canon) mirroless is for the beginners, and real photographers use real cameras. This matches my idea of what is the target group of EOS M system. It also tells a lot about the (general?) attitude regarding mirrorless systems.

I am writing this simply because I find it interesting.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 23:15 UTC as 27th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Alan WF: Pass a loop in the camera strap through the bag handle and then pass the camera through loop in the camera strap. The camera is now attached to the bag handle with a cow hitch. It doesn't cost $26, but perhaps is not as satisfying as a yet another new toy.

"Sad" but true.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 01:16 UTC
On article Sony delays 70-200mm GM lens until September (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ilia Snopchenko: The white hood still looks nifty.

All right, my bad! :)

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 19:29 UTC
On article Sony delays 70-200mm GM lens until September (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ilia Snopchenko: The white hood still looks nifty.

If you think your peers wouldn't accept the hood, simply don't use it!

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 23:38 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: What's the point of a 12mm 1.4 lens? You are getting basically infinite DoF with it regardless of aperture. In bright sunlight you need to close it down a few stops anyway.

I´ll save my money for the new Hasselblad anyway.

@villagranvicent: Sunny 16 rule of thumb gives 1/100s shutter speed at f/16 at ISO 100 in bright sunlight. There is 7 stops difference between f/16 and f/1.4. By shooting 7 stops larger aperture and keeping the exposure the same, changes the shutter speed to 1/12800. I think practically all recent µ4/3 cameras can do 1/16000s by using electronic shutter. However, the lowest(/base) ISO on most µ4/3 cameras is 200. Based on sunny 16, you need to use extended ISO 125. In some cases you would have to use extended ISO 100, and that's when you hit the limit. However, especially if shooting raw, there should be enough headroom to recover the highlights. Also, underexposing is no problem in PP.

In conclusion, by using electronic shutter and extended ISO, shooting at f/1.4 with recent µ4/3 cameras should not be a problem, even at bright sunlight.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 15:44 UTC

At this price point you expect customer care. Delivered, excellent!

Link | Posted on May 22, 2016 at 00:55 UTC as 8th comment
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-1200 (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

pannumon: Are "pro-level features like a wide-coverage 51-point AF system with -3 EV low light capability for all points" mentioned in the conclusions really benefits for D7200 compared let's say against GX8 or other mirrorless? In this price range and within these cameras, this kind of functionality seems like the standard. Am I missing something?

Yes, this kind of functionality is remarkable for a DSLR. Just as the AF performance (including C-AF) is remarkable e.g. on GX8 and EM-5 II, considering that they are mirrorless.

"We recommend Camera X, because it is (almost) as good as the others in terms of low light focusing / focus points coverage / continuous auto-focus / whatever". I don't get it, especially not in a roundup like this. I try be constructive, but I guess I already failed.

I was prepared for war, but your arguments made me armless.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2016 at 23:46 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-1200 (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

pannumon: Are "pro-level features like a wide-coverage 51-point AF system with -3 EV low light capability for all points" mentioned in the conclusions really benefits for D7200 compared let's say against GX8 or other mirrorless? In this price range and within these cameras, this kind of functionality seems like the standard. Am I missing something?

Yes, this kind of functionality is remarkable for a DSLR. Just as the AF performance (including C-AF) is remarkable e.g. on GX8 and EM-5 II, considering that they are mirrorless.

"We recommend Camera X, because it is (almost) as good as the others in terms of low light focusing / focus points coverage / continuous auto-focus / whatever". I don't get it, especially not in a roundup like this. I try be constructive, but I guess I already failed.

Well it seems that Nikon DSLR's nowadays have features that have been in mirrorless cameras for many years, like Face detection, AF covering the whole frame, fast touch focus etc...

Anyway, these things are not benefits for Nikon DSLR's over mirrorless cameras. Of course, if these things are seamlessly integrated into the GREAT AF-C Nikon is known for, that's another story. But this was not the message I read.

Maybe it's just me, but i feel hilarious every time Canicon announces more cross-type focus points that cover more area and more RGB arrays for measuring exposure more reliably and more coverage for VF. These issues are totally eliminated in mirrorless cameras and for years I have been told that these are not issues in DSLR's. Someone has been fooling someone, and probably still is. BTW, my finger does not point at DPreview.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2016 at 16:48 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-1200 (215 comments in total)

Are "pro-level features like a wide-coverage 51-point AF system with -3 EV low light capability for all points" mentioned in the conclusions really benefits for D7200 compared let's say against GX8 or other mirrorless? In this price range and within these cameras, this kind of functionality seems like the standard. Am I missing something?

Yes, this kind of functionality is remarkable for a DSLR. Just as the AF performance (including C-AF) is remarkable e.g. on GX8 and EM-5 II, considering that they are mirrorless.

"We recommend Camera X, because it is (almost) as good as the others in terms of low light focusing / focus points coverage / continuous auto-focus / whatever". I don't get it, especially not in a roundup like this. I try be constructive, but I guess I already failed.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2016 at 13:02 UTC as 44th comment | 5 replies
On article Rice Hill: Shooting in Riisitunturi National Park (30 comments in total)

Great photos! A notice: in Lapland the days in winter are extremely short and in summer extremely long. This means that sun angle is low, and you get the golden hour for like half of the day (assuming that it is not cloudy, as it often is).

Autumn is great time for photography in Lapland, as you get separate autumn colors for the trees (not spruces though) and the ground vegetation.

Summer is a great time for shooting mosquitoes, you get them in every single photo whether you want or not (but there are less mosquitoes at the hills).

Link | Posted on May 15, 2016 at 23:41 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply

Nikon does not want their high-end models to be worse in any aspect than entry-level mirrorless cameras. They have been catching up, and they are practically there! But well, you need to pay a high premium for these features on a DSLR.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 01:49 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: This is one of the reasons I gave up on my Canon DSLR's...inconsistent AF. Mirrorless is the true solution here, everything else in DSLR land is a band-aid.

Not a way faster, not faster, about as fast, but better continuous focusing. At least on the price point of mirrorless (body-only <1500$/€/£). OTOH, DSLR's practicallly have no AF in video, no usable face detection, cannot choose the focus point ANYWHERE on the frame + freely adjust the size. OTOH x 2, 80D and so others can do this almost perfectly.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 01:46 UTC
In reply to:

Caerolle: Seems like not a bad lens for E-mount, but doesn't seem to add much for m4/3. I guess it is cheaper than the 25/1.4, but probably not as good, and faster than the 25/1.8 and 25/1.7. A 30/1.4 would also give you a little more DOF control than the 25/1.4, I guess.

This is a great addition for those who use Lumix 20mm instead one of the 25mm's. Based on these samples, Lumix 14mm + Lumix 20mm + Sigma 30mm + Olympus 45mm + Sigma 60mm would be a great <1000$/€/£ prime kit for µ4/3.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2016 at 04:06 UTC

Am I seeing the lack of AA filter on image 9 (Seattle Mariners), especially top right, where the building meets the sky? That 12-32mm lens looks impressive!

Great samples gallery, plenty of different subjects!

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 09:50 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

Azergoth: "This is a 25-400mm equivalent F2.8-4"

Stop saying that, please. It's not.

It is not "25-400mm F2.8-4 equivalent".

There is a difference.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2016 at 18:13 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)
In reply to:

pannumon: Please add an image of the controls at back of the camera. I cannot stop the rotating image.

PC, Windows 10, Opera 36.0 (Chromium engine).

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 01:24 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2136 comments in total)

Please add an image of the controls at back of the camera. I cannot stop the rotating image.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 20:56 UTC as 353rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I'm a huge fan of the Minolta/Sony 135mm STF, so this sounds great (and did when I first heard of it quite a while ago), but I'm still a tad confused. Isn't the particular method of making this apodization element patented by Minolta? My guess is that either the patent on the apodization element built by pairing smoked and plain opposing glass elements just expired or they slip by the Minolta patent because their pair doesn't form an optical flat. Still, isn't the STF name a Minolta/Sony trademark?

Anyway, assuming they have the rights to build and name it as they did, this is an awesome option to have at close to half the price of the 135mm f/2.8 STF....

The idea of patenting is not to prevent other to use the technology, but to get some royalties from your inventions. It's best for all to continue using the STM acronym.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 02:47 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (492 comments in total)
In reply to:

pannumon: In the article it is claimed that Panasonic LX100 is considerably larger than what was looked for. However, the Nikon DL18-50 is only slightly smaller (http://camerasize.com/compare/#569,663). Of course, the Nikon DL18-50 has much wider lens, but the physical size of the camera is not a very good argument here.

Anyway, I think I got the point of the article. We and our moms live in a good world. Thanks! :)

I mentioned cameras that were compared in the article. Now the article has been changed and LX100 is not mentioned at all. Now the story is much more coherent. Of course a question arises: How about LX100...?

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 23:22 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (492 comments in total)

In the article it is claimed that Panasonic LX100 is considerably larger than what was looked for. However, the Nikon DL18-50 is only slightly smaller (http://camerasize.com/compare/#569,663). Of course, the Nikon DL18-50 has much wider lens, but the physical size of the camera is not a very good argument here.

Anyway, I think I got the point of the article. We and our moms live in a good world. Thanks! :)

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 01:38 UTC as 60th comment | 6 replies
Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »