deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 1127, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (564 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hellraiser: These m43 camera makers should really make their sensors go below ISO200, compared to modern APS-C these images (especially landscape) seem really really bad :S

Karroly/Richard Butler. I.S.O. stands for International Standards Organisation, so it is correct to put dots between the letters. I always use the quotation marks because, when people quote an I.S.O. number, they nearly always actually give the A.S.A. (American Standards Association) number instead. The real I.S.O. number gives both A.S.A. number and the German D.I.N. equivalent. I haven't got a film here to read but an example would be something like 100/21.

I know nobody says that anymore blah blah blah but if it's not right it's not right. I compromise by using quotation marks, no problem for anyone.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 21:17 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Holly: "1 inch" is the stupidest most-misleading format name ever.

"Full frame" is the worst, when it is only used for one particular format!

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 14:01 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (564 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hellraiser: These m43 camera makers should really make their sensors go below ISO200, compared to modern APS-C these images (especially landscape) seem really really bad :S

EM1 works perfectly at 100 "I.S.O.".

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 13:57 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-P1 (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan Vincent: The AF on these were absolutely dreadful, but it was a product that was alone in the market. Nothing else was like it at the time. To think we're coming up on almost ten years of mirrorless products.

Hmm. Mine had, and still has, perfectly serviceable autofocus. Speed is entirely lens-dependant, even quite fast with the 12-40 or 75-300, and always very accurate.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 13:48 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-P1 (60 comments in total)

I still have my EP1 but rarely use it. It's funny how perceptions change. When I got it, it felt genuinely tiny. Now, after using an EM1 for a few years, the EP1 feels heavier than expected. The EP1 is nice and compact though and the build quality is nice.

The screen options were frustrating, menu less of a hassle than the EM1 but maybe more than the E3 I had at the same time. It did autofocus my 4/3 lenses, though terribly! Much quicker and quieter with m4/3 lenses.

The thing that absolutely killed it for me was a feature it didn't have. No (proper) viewfinder! There were times of utter frustration because of that. Never again. (I still have the totally inaccurate and therefore useless VF1. Even that only worked at one little-used focal length.)

It's a shame. The EP1 is a camera which feels nice and you want to use it but, ultimately, it just wasn't that easy to use. A trick missed there.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 13:44 UTC as 27th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-P1 (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: how is E-PL1 different than E-P1

EPL1 had a lighter build and only one control dial. As far as I can tell, the sensor, processor, focus etc. were the same.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: Always a good thing to add more options but it's not like a leaf shutter is usually loud, not does it produce camera shake. I know 1/15 is eminently usable on my Rolleiflex and it produces the softest little click. Not that I have heard or seen the X1D. A rare beast here in New Zealand.

Oh, there are more reasons than that but the text highlighted those particular points!

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

Arca45Swiss: I think Hasselblad just got its chops busted by Nikon.

Really? Has Nikon announced a larger format camera?

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 02:21 UTC

Always a good thing to add more options but it's not like a leaf shutter is usually loud, not does it produce camera shake. I know 1/15 is eminently usable on my Rolleiflex and it produces the softest little click. Not that I have heard or seen the X1D. A rare beast here in New Zealand.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 19:25 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies

I'd love to know how this would compare to my Canon 55/1.2 S.S.C.? I'll bet it's better in several respects, despite the editorial comment here. Way more practical too, depending on your system!

The thing that I am finding interesting is that so many rarer old lenses are being bought up by digital enthusiasts that it is worth a manufacturer's effort to create new, similar optics. With "new" bringing an expectation of less chance of fungus, dust, wear etc., they do make a lot of sense.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 09:56 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Tieu Ngao: I think the test must be based on RAW files and must include post processing because that's the real world. In that case, it'd be very difficult to see any difference.

That would depend on how you did your post-processing. If you used the manufacturers recommended software, you would very likely see a difference. If you used a generic RAW converter, you would see what the software writers consider correct, which means they tweak all files to the same template. More or less.

If, on the other hand, you processed every file with the software you considered best for that model, you might see the real differences best?

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 01:27 UTC
In reply to:

absquatulate: I'm looking forward to the Democrat "Trump is helping Russians spy on us using cameras" outrage.....

I don't know about the F1 but I've yet to find any digital camera as easy to use as a Canon Ftb (by "use", I don't mean "point and press the button"!). I've recently been reacquainted with one and it has been an eye-opener.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: What is the correct pronunciation of the name, please?

That doesn't sound right. There is no "d" in the name...

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 19:44 UTC

That bear photo is wonderful if you crop right in. Shame it's so grainy but the look in the eyes of the left bear just makes it anyway. Personally, I wish it HAD been heavily cropped but I understand this is the photographer's memory.

Interesting article - it gives an insight into some of the thinking processes on this site...

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 20:30 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

tonyC1994: Where is Olympus?

My comment was slightly sarcastic. Sorry, shouldn't do that!

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

tonyC1994: Where is Olympus?

"Where is Olympus?" Did I misread? I thought they won one of the awards...

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 21:54 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: The real headline could have been that Canon beat Sony to that title. After all, the A99Mk2 would have been a pretty serious contender, surely? More so than any recent Nikon anyway! Nothing against the Canon though. It is a very well-developed product which does an excellent job.

Fair point, though it is still reflex for focus so, technically, does meet the criteria for the name (digital, single lens, reflex). It definitely competes in the 5D's market more than the A9's one. That's the trouble with having to categorise!

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

FrankS009: I am surprised he didn't take lighter m4/3rds gear. For example. the 12-40mm is a relatively big and front heavy lens compared to the Panasonic 12-35mm, and there are smaller, lighter lenses than that.
F.

It's bizarre how this story has apparently provoked people to get very excited about cameras the author didn't use! Read the text - he was very happy.

If you are going to suggest alternatives, there are many options (the original G1X or a Leica T could be added to the pile already mentioned). His option wasn't the cheapest, lightest or maybe even technically best for any given image but the point is it was easily good enough and he loved it. I understand that. Rave on about what he didn't use but you're wasting your time, people. It's too late!

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 10:00 UTC
In reply to:

FrankS009: I am surprised he didn't take lighter m4/3rds gear. For example. the 12-40mm is a relatively big and front heavy lens compared to the Panasonic 12-35mm, and there are smaller, lighter lenses than that.
F.

Sharpness is merely one parameter...

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 05:36 UTC
In reply to:

FrankS009: I am surprised he didn't take lighter m4/3rds gear. For example. the 12-40mm is a relatively big and front heavy lens compared to the Panasonic 12-35mm, and there are smaller, lighter lenses than that.
F.

You either haven't got the 12-40 or you should send yours back then!

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 03:21 UTC
Total: 1127, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »