Dennis

Lives in United States CT, United States
Works as a Software
Joined on Oct 25, 2002

Comments

Total: 255, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

aramgrg: Sounds like a good lens, until one sees the price.
How comes a lens covering 4 times smaller area is more expensive than canon and nikon ones?
Well, they know the market better. Not for me for sure.

Mitch, hard to know who you're referring to. I'm guessing it's to me, but I did state that the lens requires higher resolution and the Nikon is in the ballpark, so I'm not sure why you think I'm bashing it on the price. I'll repeat: I'm only saying that it's fair to compare it to other 300/4s when trying to judge whether it's overpriced. As a starting point. Evaluate the sharpness, the technology, etc.

As for the rest, we're al bored, aren't we ? You're here calling a lens you have no intention of buying an "absolute bargain". Why ? Got stock in Olympus ? It's ok to spend time talking about new gear if we're going to praise it, but not if we're going to evaluate it critically ?
Sorry if I don't agree that a $2500 300/4 isi a bargain. Looks like a nice lens and might be worth the money, but the word bargain doesn't come to mind, and again, I only got into this discussion to argue that it's reasonable to compare it to other 300/4s.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Sounds like a good lens, until one sees the price.
How comes a lens covering 4 times smaller area is more expensive than canon and nikon ones?
Well, they know the market better. Not for me for sure.

I don't even think the price is all that bad ... I'm just saying it's fair to compare to other 300/4s since those are the closest thing to it.

Nikon's new phase fresnel lens is $2000. I'm sure Olympus had to develop and pay for some new technology for this lens - it needs to be sharper (on a lp/mm basis) than FF lenses to record fine detail on a m43 sensor.

It may be that it's just a superior lens and well worth the price. But meantime, there's no OTHER lens (besides a 300/4) that makes for a better comparison.

As for cropping Canon, it's already a 1.6X crop at 20MP (for the 7D-II). Crop that down to m43 dimensions and you end up with a 13MP file. What Oly needs to follow up this announcement with is a higher res sensor to put 24MP behind that lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 15:56 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Sounds like a good lens, until one sees the price.
How comes a lens covering 4 times smaller area is more expensive than canon and nikon ones?
Well, they know the market better. Not for me for sure.

0MitchAG writes:

"Why does everyone want to price this lens like it's CRAP? It's not - and the price is an absolute bargain for what you get."

Canon's 300/4 is $1349. Is that CRAP ? Depending on how good the lens really is, from the optics to the AF to the IS, it might be a much better lens ... but it's a bit of a stretch to call it an "absolute bargain" when Canon makes an excellent lens of the same specs for half the price. Or do you think that a lens should cost twice as much if it's to be used on a sensor that's smaller ?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Sounds like a good lens, until one sees the price.
How comes a lens covering 4 times smaller area is more expensive than canon and nikon ones?
Well, they know the market better. Not for me for sure.

"Calling this a 600mm is silly and dishonest."

That depends on the context. If you're accustomed to FF and using equivalent FLs to express field of view, then the 300 is the 600 for m43 users. You would buy it for the same purposes.

That said, it's a 300. And of course, it's worth what it's worth to you, but it's entirely reasonable to compare it to other 300/4s to evaluate the pricing. You just have to realize that no two lenses are the same - optics will be a little different, focus motors, weather sealing, IS mechanism, build qualty, coatings, etc. So I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn. Yes, it's an expensive 300/4, but it may be justifiable in terms of the technology, and regardless, some users will find it worth the money no matter what a Canon or Nikon lens costs.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Sounds like a good lens, until one sees the price.
How comes a lens covering 4 times smaller area is more expensive than canon and nikon ones?
Well, they know the market better. Not for me for sure.

Are we still talking about price here ? Because I can't fathom how its FL equivalence should have any bearing on price.

Suppose I know a guy who shoots a FF body, but crops all his images down to a 2X crop. Should he pay more for his lenses, because he's using them like longer lenses ?

It's a 300/4. Evaluate the price as a 300/4.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 05:04 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Sounds like a good lens, until one sees the price.
How comes a lens covering 4 times smaller area is more expensive than canon and nikon ones?
Well, they know the market better. Not for me for sure.

Ultimately, it's a 300/4 and a 300/4 that only needs to cover a small image circle. For pricing, it's entirely reasonable to compare to any other 300/4. But Nikon's new 300/4 is $2000 (the PF model). And I assume Oly threw everything at this lens. $2500 is expensive, but not outrageously so. People who buy it are looking at it as a super tele.

BTW, for those who insist on comparing equivalent lenses, you can always put a Sigma 150-600 on a FF body, shoot at f/8 and come out looking pretty good. Maybe someone with lots of toys will do a comparison on day.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 04:19 UTC
In reply to:

callaesthetics: 40-150 f2.8 + teleconverter = this lens?

40-150 + teleconverter = 300/5.6 (and probably not nearly as sharp)

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 04:11 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: Too bad this "sharpest lens ever" is probably sharpest at its wide-open aperture and maybe ~1 stop down, thanks to diffraction on the 2x crop sensor.

Pentax is finally making a full-frame camera, will Olympus seriously spend the rest of its days dedicated to the 2x crop sensor size? Seems a shame... But then again there's a whole new generation coming that has never stopped down their lenses more than one stop, since they're obsessed with bokeh. Too bad 2x crop is counterproductive to that as well. 'Round in circles the debate goes...

Wow - you dug deep to find something to complain about !

Never thought I'd hear someone complain that a fast tele performs best wide open ...

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 04:10 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: Should have been free, really.

Why ?

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 04:07 UTC
In reply to:

Photography201: What was the Fuji XA-2 compared to to make the Fuji gear of the year?

The author of the article said he did not come to DPREVIEW with too much hands on experience with other brands.

If you are comparing this Fuji camera why not compare micro four thirds for example or a high end bridge camera and forget the sensor size.

I guess I am missing the criteria or checklist for what makes an editor choose any camera gear of the year. Does this mean all the other cameras are not worth a look in the same price point. Does this mean it is only a mirrorless camera comparison. Is this a Fuji XA vs Nikon D3300 ?

The one point in the What I love list is "Cheap" IMO, the word Cheap will deter certain buyers from any camera. Say less expensive, for the frugal buyer or bargain. I am not wasting $500 on a cheap camera. I see "cheap" as a negative not a good thing with any product. If the Editor would meet the CEO of Fuji, nice to meet you I like your cheap cameras, not the nicest review.

You go 201 !

Tell Amazon on them ! And if they don't listen, then YOU buy them out (or start your own REAL review website) so you can be the boss ! Straighten them right out ! Nobody cares what anyone THINKS about cameras, we want to know SNR and mft and fps ! Come to think of it, just shut dpreview down, because all that stuff is available elsewhere ! That'd show them ... expressing their opinions. Sheesh.

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" — Harry Warner, Warner Bros.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: There's money in consumables. Not so much in cameras that nobody really needs to replace.

Missed that ! More like printer ink than film - has to be something somebody wants ;)

My daughter wants an instant camera. Just because it looks "fun". (She's 13 and used to sharing pictures instantly, so naturally, she wants her prints instantly ... I wonder if that's driving the demand for Instax). But at 80-90 cents per picture (Instax) it's not happening.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

magneto shot: just shoot film guys. i was having a real blast doing it in between digital.
check out http://marcuslowphotos.com/2015/09/

Why ?

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 17:41 UTC

There's money in consumables. Not so much in cameras that nobody really needs to replace.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 17:40 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Donnie G: Absolutely hilarious! Canon's business has a hiccup because it only managed to earn $665 million during its 3rd qtr and the trolls have diagnosed that result as being proof of cancer. Meanwhile, the other camera businesses, with the exception of Nikon, will struggle, as a group, to earn a combined $600 million for the entire year, and those same trolls will conclude that those businesses are as healthy as it gets. Too funny! LOL :))

There isn't a "trend" towards bigger or smaller. There are millions of consumers out there. They all want something different. Even this:
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/6965706821/samsung-launches-enormous-galaxy-view-tablet

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: Just a photographer wrote:

> They refused to see that change was necessary too.
The world has changed and so has the business of camera making.

> Soon there is not much left of this market, and only consists out of people that take photography more seriously.

So Canon added higher profit margin models to its lineup and made more money, despite shrinking volumes. Sounds like they're adapting.

I know some people think that the answer is obviously to get into the smart phone business or ... you know ... "go mirrorless". But a growth path isn't obvious at all, and successfully adapting to a shrinking market is better than nothing.

I should add that I don't own a single Canon camera (I do own a Canon printer) so not saying any of this out of fandom - I own Nikon and Sony at the moment.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: Just a photographer wrote:

> They refused to see that change was necessary too.
The world has changed and so has the business of camera making.

> Soon there is not much left of this market, and only consists out of people that take photography more seriously.

So Canon added higher profit margin models to its lineup and made more money, despite shrinking volumes. Sounds like they're adapting.

I know some people think that the answer is obviously to get into the smart phone business or ... you know ... "go mirrorless". But a growth path isn't obvious at all, and successfully adapting to a shrinking market is better than nothing.

Donnie,
I think people miss the importance of profit. As you say, Canon could be biding its time. And when it is ready to do something, it doesn't have to be the "thing to end all things". It's just a matter of balancing your investment with expected revenues for ROI and market share. The mirrorless guys are growing because they had so few sales to start with, they can't help it. But they're spending a lot of money to create systems that give them their still small market shares.
The big debate is over where the market goes. Some believe that mirrorless is destined to "overtake" the legacy systems. The various players will achieve equilibrium with Canon having top market share, Nikon #2, Sony #3 and so on. Canon may lose some in the process, but will remain profitable, having spent little money. Sony and the mirrorless guys will have spent lots of money to get there. And Nikon & Canon will have mirrorless technology without all expense of new systems.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

The Squire: How much longer can Canon keep 'protecting' their DSLR revenues by under-investing in ILCs? There wont be much revenue to protect soon...

Canon could easily be the next Kodak.

DSLRs *are* ILCs.

Anyway, it isn't remotely obvious that going mirrorless is the answer to anyone's ills.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:11 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: Just a photographer wrote:

> They refused to see that change was necessary too.
The world has changed and so has the business of camera making.

> Soon there is not much left of this market, and only consists out of people that take photography more seriously.

So Canon added higher profit margin models to its lineup and made more money, despite shrinking volumes. Sounds like they're adapting.

I know some people think that the answer is obviously to get into the smart phone business or ... you know ... "go mirrorless". But a growth path isn't obvious at all, and successfully adapting to a shrinking market is better than nothing.

Whoops - meant to post that under Donnie Gs post ... now it's out of context. Oh well.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:07 UTC

Just a photographer wrote:

> They refused to see that change was necessary too.
The world has changed and so has the business of camera making.

> Soon there is not much left of this market, and only consists out of people that take photography more seriously.

So Canon added higher profit margin models to its lineup and made more money, despite shrinking volumes. Sounds like they're adapting.

I know some people think that the answer is obviously to get into the smart phone business or ... you know ... "go mirrorless". But a growth path isn't obvious at all, and successfully adapting to a shrinking market is better than nothing.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:07 UTC as 22nd comment | 4 replies
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: Photography is art. Stop.
The tools of this art are sophisticated devices called cameras and in nowadays tons of software. Stop.
The easiness of producing an image using a camera (its main tool) is colossal compared to other arts. Stop.
Furthermore this image may not require any particular education, culture or skills. Stop.
The aim of photography as art is common with all other fine arts. Stop.

Ι respect everyone's opinion for what he likes or not. Stop.
I do not pay any respect to all those who consider their opinion as an expert or specialist opinion just because they shoot some pix, the same way I would not pay any respect to the guy who paints my room and feels that he has an authoritative opinion for the work of Leonardo, Picasso, Dali, Turner (to name but a few), just because he can use a brush. Full stop.
Full stop.

Was there a point to pretending you're sending a telegram ? Were the "stops" supposed to make people think there's some weight behind your words ? Anyway, I stopped after "photography is art". Seemed like a good place.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
Total: 255, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »