Cameracist

Joined on Jun 26, 2013

Comments

Total: 815, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rmbackus: In photography 'bigger' is always 'better'. If it was not, we should go back to the old Minox camera again (8 x 11 mm), or even smaller.

Bigger is better, but it has to translate into lenses as well. Until it does, it's not "better" in a true sense.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:40 UTC

Going up in "equipment hierarchy" means gradually lesser gain for more money with every step up.
Every new format/system means severe limitations at the beginning.
Only you know if it is worth it for your work.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:05 UTC as 136th comment

Is it optically the same as the Sony version of Lens Turbo II?

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 13:27 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (384 comments in total)

Myirst real camera was the Olympus Trip AF-30... first digital SLR was Pentax K10D.
Boring, I know, but I wanted to share :-D

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 12:53 UTC as 253rd comment
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: That guy is a hipster. Everybody that buys a Leica is stupid. I can't afford one. Immigrants are a problem. Trump never lies.

Earth is flat.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 16:17 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

sai1: The Fuji clearly pulls ahead of the FF marketleaders. Maybe I can get a used one at some point.

Corner resolution is a lens problem. The sensor is obviously superior. Every system has better and worse lenses.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 15:50 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lyff: The pixel shift K-1 file is still quite impressive against those medium format sensors, no moiré and even more resolution.

http://imgur.com/a/QHiw9

Obviously your subject must be completely still, but for some kinds of photography it's really a good deal.

Basicly a product photography without strobes. But why not!

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 15:48 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: So much moiré that the usable resolution is less than the Sigma dp2. And the Fujis do arguably better also.

I suppose for landscapes this isn't such a problem, but there are small repeated patterns in clothing, weave, that make this a grave danger.

You can combat it in postprocessing or you can use lens diffraction instead of AA filter.
With organic patterns moiré is not a problem, more of a problem with test charts, really.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

TwoMetreBill: "but by abandoning the mirror box (and the telecentric design philosophy) was able to fully deliver on the size benefits that had originally been promised."

And they abandoned a line of lenses with superb image quality for a collection of mostly mediocre or worse lenses, hanging a Pro label on some truly second rate products (e.g. 12-40 f/2.8, 7-14 f/2.8, 12-100 f/4...) and a couple of great lenses such as the 40-150 f/2.8 and 75 f/1.8.

They've turned themselves into a maker of mostly small and cute gear that is an insult to the Olympus legacy.

We'll have to see what Panasonic delivers with their newly announced 12-60 and 50-200 lenses. Perhaps they bought the rights from Olympus to build those SWD lenses in the M43 mount? They've already delivered a 7-14 f/4 which almost matches the original F43 version from Olympus.

Abandoned? That's what is the EM-1 for!

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 09:13 UTC
In reply to:

TFD: 4/3 was born when DLSR's had 6M APS-C sensors and the pixel wars had not started and at a time when sensors were more costly and difficult to make. 4/3 was perhaps a reasonable size to squeeze 5-6M pixels into.
With the advent of APS-C and FF sensors in the 24-50M range the 4/3 is now penalized in its ability to complete (this applies to the M4/3 as well). What make the current M4/3 cameras doubly disadvantaged is they are not cheaper than their APC-C competition either from a camera or system perspective.

The one advantage 4/3 had was to offer smaller lenses and larger zoom ranges. Given that you can find multiple APS-C zoom lenses in the 18-250 and 16-300 range it should have been possible to make a 4/3 lens in the 12- >250mm (eq. 24-500++) range. As a travel camera a 4/3 camera with a long range zoom lens could have been an appealing product, sadly no one ever built one...

Frankly, 20MP (highest count for current 4/3) and 24MP (highest count for current APS-C) are not different enough to care about.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 09:11 UTC
In reply to:

dynaxx: The article above fails to mention the most important part of the Four Thirds standard ; the standardisation of a lens mount, sensor and lens-to-body communication that allowed lenses and bodies made by the Four Thirds members ( Fujifilm, Kodak, Leica, Lumix/Panasonic, Olympus, Sanyo and Sigma ) to be interchanged.

Only failed because, sadly, they chose an inadequate sensor size.

What are you losing with lens aperture differences?

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 09:08 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)

.
EVF - better for everyday shooting
OVF - better for looking through when the camera is off
:-)

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 11:44 UTC as 363rd comment
In reply to:

Cychen: The E-M1 is amost if not a little bigger than the E-620 if I remember correctly.

Yes, the E-M1 is bigger by the grip. But it's the largest body from Olympus and there is a reason for it (like handling legacy/pro lenses).

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 08:36 UTC
In reply to:

jdu_sg: Really interesting retrospective. There are a few things that standout to me :

1. Olympus did so much really good work on the lenses. It's amazing to me that they produced a fully populated Consumer and Pro lens line so quickly.

2. I always wondered why Oly weren't able to make small mods to their 4/3 optical designs, and make m43 lenses out of them. I guess the Telecentric design didn't make sense to continue with.

3. I have always wished Fuji would have produced m43 equipment. Not that they don't seem to be doing fine on their own, but I think all 3 companies could have benefited.

4/3 lenses were quite large as they were, adapting them to m4/3 would need to add free space behind the last element and thus make them even larger. Olympus dediced an adapter is sufficient for people who want that.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

Tommi K1: It should have been reminded that 4/3 system (standard) for 4/3" format is still alive and kicking with the m4/3 standard that is "block upgrade" to 4/3, by offering a new smaller m4/3 mount and m4/3 flash system, AP2 port and few other things and still using the same 4/3" sensor format like since E-1.

And Olympus was about to release E-7 three years ago, instead E-M1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x4mXvzNHjQ

There are 3 videos about how Olympus was testing the E-7 next to E-M1 side by side to final moments to decide which one will be the flagship model.

It seems it was very close that E-M1 wouldn't have come out and 4/3 mount would have got at least single body more at 2013.

Did anyone ever saw the "totally functional camera"?

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

jrg: I still have my 2 E-1's too but haven't charged them in years. However all my 43 lenses, specifically my 50-200, are still in action on my E-M1 via adapter. The 43 System served me ably from 2004 to 2010 and I got a lot of good pics with them. No regrets and many fond memories.

...you actually own more?

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 19:31 UTC
In reply to:

forceofnature: I did get some good images from the E-30

Congrats.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 07:19 UTC

In silicon heaven, rejoicing with Samsung NX...

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 22:45 UTC as 99th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Danielvr: Oh to contemplate those many innovations that we take for granted these days, that started out as 'solutions looking for a problem' when Olympus introduced them. Live view, flippy screens, the dust buster, sensor-based image stabilisation, high-res mode.. makes you wonder if other companies ever invent anything.

IBIS was Minolta.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

Danielvr: Oh to contemplate those many innovations that we take for granted these days, that started out as 'solutions looking for a problem' when Olympus introduced them. Live view, flippy screens, the dust buster, sensor-based image stabilisation, high-res mode.. makes you wonder if other companies ever invent anything.

Some of those are not olympus-invented :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
Total: 815, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »