SirSeth

SirSeth

Lives in United States Hagerstown, United States
Works as a Teacher
Has a website at wallygoots.smugmug.com
Joined on Feb 8, 2004
About me:

My plan is to ever improve my trade, my hobbies, and my relationships with family, friends, and my God. My trade is teaching Math and Computers. My primary hobbies are lutherie (guitar building) and photography. My God is slow to anger and abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor His anger forever; He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us for our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth so great is His love for those who fear him. As far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us. If you have questions or gripes about my God, I always enjoy talking with someone who is a seeker. Rock throwers are rarely convinced of anything spiritual and I can respect their desire to believe differently than myself.

Comments

Total: 579, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Have your say: Best prime lens of 2016 (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: A popularly contest for the 90% who have never touched any of these.

Covetous contest for me. ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2016 at 02:35 UTC

Looks like a lot of fun. A camera that can handle the elements without flinching inspires confidence. I wish the price made the camera more accessible, but maybe it's worth it. I think the IQ is good for current tech.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 14:28 UTC as 49th comment
On article Kodak Ektra 'photography' smartphone goes on sale (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

NaBalam: It is worth mentioning that this is not 'KODAK' per se. It's just a brand USING the Kodak name. As far as I know, is the same company that produces CATERPILLAR and Land Rover cell phones.

In other words.. poo.

It's worth mentioning that most brands outsource some or all of their branded products, but I agree it's not the same Kodak that went bankrupt that is producing this product. That may be a good thing and it should stand on it's own merits. We'll see if it lives up to its name or not. (I mean the good old days name and not the failed bankrupted company name).

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 17:05 UTC
On article Kodak Ektra 'photography' smartphone goes on sale (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: It is absolutely stunning to see so many people being excited for the Chinese Y1 M1 which is a low cost and miserable performing camera while,here so many are bashing a product before even knowing what it might offer.....

The M1 is interesting because of price, established 4/3rds mount, and camera/smart phone interface melding. The RAW quality is good, AF is poor. Even more exciting would be if they made the software completely open source and kept the price low on subsequent models. I think this phone is interesting too, but would like to see IQ. Making a smartphone camera-like is not as novel as really making an ILC smartphone-like. With the M1 people with 4/3rds lenses could add a fun/second/backup body for cheap. Others can get into a ILC that shoots good RAW and video for less than a competing camera.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 16:52 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

a voice of reason: i dont agree with a single suggestion of dp review

use your 500 dollars to buy something better used a 6000

an x 30 a xe2 an zpro 1 an gx7 an a nex 7 ...gm 5.... an endless list

Hey Richard, I'll write an article about buying value leading used cameras as long as there is a way to update and discuss "recommendations" with the community. :) Many of us keep a pulse on used markets. We are market mavens and it could be valuable for the community to have such a resource. For example, the under $100 range is particularly interesting.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 17:18 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: Sorry, but I would rather take an xt2, d500 or 2 d7200's for that price...

So, I think what you all are getting at is that there are other options for less money (and better IQ) that are attractive in this segment. There are no duds, and with competition this good, it is possible to price a product unrealistically. The chief complaint of this camera is the price is higher than most think it should be compared with the other options. Whether the other options are better options is up to each person to decide. So has Olympus chosen a price the market will bear? I don't think so--not for anyone but early adopters, wealthy, or those very heavily invested. I think the price will have to drop sooner than other cameras and I don't think it's good for marketing or Olympus' reputation to price things higher then the market believes they should pay. Pentax and Nikon have a very different pricing strategy as seen with the K1 and D500. People were not fixated with the price of these cameras as the major drawback.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

photog4u: Consider this Christmas season you can get a:

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II + 25mm f1.2 Pro m43 for $3,199
-or-
Sony A7 Mark II + Zeiss 50mm f1.4 FULL FRAME for $2,996

I guess it really depends on whether or not you want the incredible light gathering capability and shallow depth of field that a great big full frame sensor provides or a tiny, albeit speedy sensor will suffice?

Kharan, though I do shoot the A7 (and not just portraits or landscape), the price comparison was about the A7ii which outclasses my camera by quite a bit. Yes, the E-M1 is faster as I stated. The A7ii is also faster than the A7. So while I agree with you, I wouldn't go nearly as far as you do with the comparison. I didn't find the E-M1 to be "that" fast and neither camera tracks well, but the E-M1 has an edge. Also, I did mention the m4/3rds optics were on average smaller, but from experience with both, the system size is about the same. I added an l-plate to my A7 because it's just a little bit too small and when I was using the E-M1 it was much the same. Smallish lenses on bodies just about the same size felt and have about the same feel and I used all the same bag space for either system. Basically, folks may exaggerate the size difference, but there's not much to it.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 06:54 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Looks awesome, but overpriced IMO at the same price as a D500. I realize that isn't a direct comparison and that the Olympus can do some things the D500 can't (and vise versa), but I think $1499 or so would be a better point for that body and it's smaller sensor. I love the mirrorless innovation that's happening, and I love that more and more companies are putting PDAF in them (previously one of their largest drawbacks other than the awful EVFs) but pricing them the same as the very best DSLRs I think is a little overzealous. Just my opinion.

Pricing the E-M1ii the same as the very best DSLRs in the "smaller sensor" segment would be great! $1499 would be fine and that's what Olympus should have done rather than charge hundreds more because they made a very fast and durable camera with an even smaller sensor. Not only did they not do so, they raised the price by hundreds compared with the previous flagship. In my opinion, it won't fly at that price for long.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 22:54 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

photog4u: Consider this Christmas season you can get a:

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II + 25mm f1.2 Pro m43 for $3,199
-or-
Sony A7 Mark II + Zeiss 50mm f1.4 FULL FRAME for $2,996

I guess it really depends on whether or not you want the incredible light gathering capability and shallow depth of field that a great big full frame sensor provides or a tiny, albeit speedy sensor will suffice?

I agree with the OP on this post. I shoot an A7 (not A7ii). I shot an E-M1 alone side it. Still shoot 4/3rds sometimes. The A7 and E-M1 for practical purposes are the same size. The optics of the E-M1 were slightly smaller--just depends what you choose to mount. The IQ of the A7 is far superior and the speed of the E-M1 better. I kept the A7. There are reasons for buying either platform, and as witnessed above, they can be stated convincingly, but it still stands that Olympus feels they can charge FF costs (and more) because of the speed and features they can leverage on the platform of the smaller sensor. Will users find a way to justify the price? Some will. But most realize that Olympus for the features can't offer the IQ. Nikon tried to do the same with the 1 series. But they didn't really go all out because the had to protect their higher tier DSLRs. If they had produced a true 1 system flagship for pro use it still would have been a hard sell if the cost was excessive.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 22:48 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

s.seng: Is this a paid advert? When did they excel in build quality? Many owner of OM1 every moaning about things failing off or breaking repeatedly which is lot higher than other brands.

I've had an OM-1 without problems for 30 years. I've owned an E-1 without problems for 12 years without major issues (hand grip peeling is all). I owned an E-3 for 5 years without problems. I owned an E-M1 for over an year without problems. I did have a lens fall apart once. But one person's experience good or bad doesn't prove the reliability of a brand or model. Having a lemon, and all companies occasionally produce a lemon, is disappointing for sure. If you've had that happen, sorry man. That stinks.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 15:04 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

s.seng: Is this a paid advert? When did they excel in build quality? Many owner of OM1 every moaning about things failing off or breaking repeatedly which is lot higher than other brands.

Since when have they excelled in build quality? At least since 2003 with the E-1. Even in the results of the survey with very small sample size that was linked, many people reported never having problems. Problems exist with all brands, Olympus is no worse and probably better.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 04:55 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daft Punk: I am not joining the criticism of the IQ.

It is a trade off - fast speed and amazing IBIS is a function of the smaller sensor. If the camera had the same performance with a larger sensor, it would cost more than a D5. So quit the whining.

However, I will use the opportunity ( and every chance I get ) to rage against Oly for ditching the tilt screen for a fully articulating, sticking out at the side abomination that makes you look away from the subject and the lens axis.

What were you thinking Oly?????? I damn well hate the screen. Deal breaker for me.

I've had that style of screen on 2 of my cameras. I like it. Works for me.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 04:41 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

NickyB66: DP say image quality, especially in JPG not good. I'll stick with the X-Pro2.

Of course it's no contest iamatrix! Simply because no one was contesting that point. So glad I don't have to research what isn't relevant to the discussion. Oh, and webger15, it doesn't matter that the XT2 has video or that you don't care about video. It also doesn't matter if the XT2 AF is better than the XPro2 if the E-M1ii is better than both and what is being compared here is the XPro2 and E-M1ii JPGs. But who cares since cognition isn't really a thing on the internet.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 04:38 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

NickyB66: DP say image quality, especially in JPG not good. I'll stick with the X-Pro2.

webber15, read the comment again if you were replying to me. When I said "blows away the Xpro2" I specified that was in speed, IBIS, and video. (Probably build quality/sealing, dust busting too). There are ways that the Xpro2 bests the other handily. But that's the point, if some people hyper focus on only one aspect because they have a specific need then fine. But some folks throw out any strength because it's not a strength they value--which doesn't mean it's not a strength.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 20:36 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stejo: These prices are absurd. Almost every new model introduced the past couple years by any manufacturer is significantly more expensive than the previous ones. $2k for a camera body is not ok. Nor is $1.5k or $1k actually.

Not sure what kind of bubble, isolated from the world economy they live in Japan, but maybe it's time for it to burst and this camera industry be put to bed.

I'd argue with you over it not being worth over $1000. The sensor is smaller, but over engineering speed and robustness doesn't come for free. I'd say $1300-1500 is reasonable. I don't think Olympus could make money on the camera at all if they sold for $800 or something silly like that. I expect the price to settle near $1599 to come inline with competition after initial release.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 17:25 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

NickyB66: DP say image quality, especially in JPG not good. I'll stick with the X-Pro2.

No, they don't say that. They say that high ISO noise smoothing is a little aggressive, but the colors are very pleasing and if you keep ISO within reasonable bounds, you can expect excellent IQ for the sensor size. The X-Pro2 also has very pleasing JPGs and for it's sensor size very competitive. Nothing wrong with either--they are very good for what they are. The E-M1ii blows the X-Pro2 out of the water when it comes to hand holding, video, and overall speed. If these are more important than slightly better JPGs, then it's all good with the E-M1ii.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1248 comments in total)

Better review then I expected. It does indeed sound like the camera delivers on the speed, features, robust build, battery, and IQ (for a 4/3rds sensor). I agree with the write up that though it is a very good camera, it's not a $2000 success. $1499... yes that's more like it. And since it's over-engineered and made to last, worth waiting until the price hits more reasonable levels.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 17:19 UTC as 217th comment
In reply to:

S Edwards: Olympus promised image quality exceeding all APS-C. The results speak for themselves, what a disappointment. I still like the camera, especially as a system, but they're a stop away from delivering the sensor they promised.

It's a good rule of thumb to take what politicians say and marketing hype claims with a grain of salt.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

photophile: Bit disappointed. I compared it with the Sony Alpha II, Fuji X-T2 and Nikon D500 - and pixel peeped. At the two hightest ISO settings, Sony & Fuji walk away with it. Nkon is not bad. But Olympus falls a long way behind. Just above the centre of the image are three items of text set against black, white and grey backgrounds. You can actually read the text with the Sony & Nikon at ISO25600! Impressive.

Naththo, you would think that FF needs better lenses, but my legacy lenses that I used on m4/3rds just deliver better IQ on my A7 FF than they did before. It doesn't seem logical because the m4/3rds camera is using the center of the image circle which should be the sharpest. When taking portraits with the A7 and legacy glass the DOF being shallower may mean that sharpness at the corners isn't an issue because the background is already blurred out, but even when stopped down the lenses are sharper and showing fewer defects on the A7 then 4/3rds. What do you make of this? I think there are theories about FF that are promoted that just don't work out in real life. But I know that using the same 30 year old lenses on FF is making these lenses shine which is what I have observed to be the opposite to what you are implying.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 14:06 UTC
On article TIME releases 100 most influential images of all time (173 comments in total)

Stop whining everyone. You don't have to agree that they are the "most" anything. These are what TIME considers the most influential and that's all. They picked not you and you might have picked differently and that's ok.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 04:27 UTC as 48th comment
Total: 579, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »