Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 699, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Great piece, Barney, and entirely predictable whingeing from the souls that haunt these pages. "Overpriced", "Under-spec", whatever, #yawn. I think you expressed perfectly well why you like the M10 more than any other camera at the moment, and I have to agree with you.

One person asked, given a series of photos, could you tell which ones were taken by a Leica, and which not? Of course not, but that misses the point. Look at it this way: the time is currently 14:48 - now did I read that time from the face of a Rolex, or a Casio? Answer: it doesn't matter to you, but it might to me!

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 14:48 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Along with using ancient Videocon tubes to measure sensor sizes, and applying crop factors to all sensors smaller than 135, but never for sensors bigger, one more thing perplexes me about the world of photography: "GREY Imports"?!!

We live in a global economy; I can by my laptop from the USA, my wine from France, my show posters from Italy. It's up to me. So why do CAMERA manufacturers, almost uniquely, try to punish those who buy a camera in one country, for use in another? What is GREY about me picking up a new camera body while on vacation in Japan and bringing it back to the UK? Why should my warranty cease to apply?

It's high time the concepts of "GREY" imports and a "GREY" market were banned.

Brian

Not quite my point - yes, if a manufacturer closes down its entire support chain for a given territory, one might be tempted to switch to another brand - but I am talking about "grey" imports in general. If I buy a Canon in the USA, why on earth should I not be covered for warranty repairs here in the UK, where Canon are still very much in business. I know of no other consumer commodity that is treated in this way.

It stinks of market protectionism and manipulation, and of the £=$ rip-off.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 12:56 UTC

Along with using ancient Videocon tubes to measure sensor sizes, and applying crop factors to all sensors smaller than 135, but never for sensors bigger, one more thing perplexes me about the world of photography: "GREY Imports"?!!

We live in a global economy; I can by my laptop from the USA, my wine from France, my show posters from Italy. It's up to me. So why do CAMERA manufacturers, almost uniquely, try to punish those who buy a camera in one country, for use in another? What is GREY about me picking up a new camera body while on vacation in Japan and bringing it back to the UK? Why should my warranty cease to apply?

It's high time the concepts of "GREY" imports and a "GREY" market were banned.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 10:58 UTC as 58th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

Assuming we are talking about a mirrorless future, I see no reason why rectangular "frames" and a circular sensor, could not co-exist. You'd choose 4:3. 3:2, 16:9, 1:1, or whatever else you wanted from the menu or custom settings - and (how about this) ALSO choose landscape or portrait. At which point, the camera's built in accelerometer would make sure your frame remained perfectly horizontal (or vertical) now matter how much you tilted your camera. Yes, for angled shots, there would also be an "fixed" option.

In the finder, you'd only see the rectangular image in the format you'd chosen, and this is what would be rendered, in-camera, to JPG. But the RAW files would contain the entire, full circle, complete with meta-data about the shot's original aspect ratio and orientation. This way you could change your mind later, while still benefiting from the best that the entire sensor could offer.

That would be Very Nice Indeed, IMHO!

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 10:04 UTC
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

OK, let's all agree that 36x24mm has a certain "niceness" about it, in terms of being not too small and not too big. And there is, after all, all that legacy glass out there designed for it. Lovely glass, producing an image circle of just over 43mm diameter.

Now here is a thought: that image circle has an area of around 1450mm², ((43/2)^2 * pi), whereas the 36x24mm format has an area of only 864mm², using about 59% of the image. A 34.4x25.8mm rectangle would also fit that image circle, and with an aspect ratio of 4:3 (as opposed to 3:2) would be more aesthetic to some (like me). It would also use 888mm², 61% of the image circle. Even more fun, why not 30.4x30.4mm, square format? With an area of 924mm², it would use 63% of the image circle.

But for me, the PERFECT sensor would be a 43mm diameter, circular one. From a single shot, you could extract any of the above formats, both landscape and portrait. And arbitrary tilt: you'd never have a wonky horizon ever again!

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2017 at 10:11 UTC
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

Roland, the SAD bit is that, for whatever reason, Photography has always (not just recently) been draped in jargon and obscure references to bygone technologies. Why on earth do we still describe phone camera sensors in terms of Videocon tubes? It all has the feel of a "club" whereby newbies have to pass the initiation tests of conversion factors and other claptrap before they are allowed to speak, let alone take a photo.

Perhaps the time has come to describe cameras on an absolute sensor size basis - yes, even using so-called "full frame" (24x36mm) as "1.0" on the scale, with a suffix (3/2) for the aspect ration, and then to STOP measuring lens' focal lengths in mm, but instead as a comparative ratio to the format's diagonal. So a 42mm(ish) lens for 135 "full frame" would simply be called, "1.0", as would a 25mm (or so) lens for 4/3rds format. No more crop factors: 1.0 = "standard", 0.5 = "wide angle", 2.0 = "portrait", 4.0 = "telephoto", etc.

All RELATIVE to the diagonal.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 23:26 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Reading the comments here, I am amazed at JUST how anti-DJI so many folks are. Why? Because you are jealous that your Canikons can't fly? Or that your GoPro has a lousy fish-eye lens and very laggy iOS software?

I am proud and happy to use whichever combination of Olympus, GoPro, DJI, Contax and more for my work, choosing the best tool for any given occasion. I would have added Canon AND Nikon to that, had some b'stard not stolen them from me!

Brian

AlanG - TOTAL agreement on the remote (and by implication, the wireless technologies and protocols). I would have bought my Spark earlier, had the remote been available at the start. So I asked my dealer whether I could simply by an (existing) Mavic remote to use with my potential Spark. "NO" came the answer, so I waited until the fly-more combo was available.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 23:15 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Reading the comments here, I am amazed at JUST how anti-DJI so many folks are. Why? Because you are jealous that your Canikons can't fly? Or that your GoPro has a lousy fish-eye lens and very laggy iOS software?

I am proud and happy to use whichever combination of Olympus, GoPro, DJI, Contax and more for my work, choosing the best tool for any given occasion. I would have added Canon AND Nikon to that, had some b'stard not stolen them from me!

Brian

AlanG, I agree to some extent. Yes, with DJI, it does seem that every new consumer drone model is incompatible with the last. But then again, with such different form factors, are we surprised? The Spark is so small, there is NO way it could take (for example) a Phantom battery pack or an Inspire 4/3rds camera! And the Mavic is a wonderful piece of kit, but due to its foldable nature, again needs a different form factor to the battery and camera modules that might be fine on a Phantom.

Nikon is no different: lenses you buy for the Nikon 1 J5 won't fit on the D3: they are different beasts altogether, and that's fine.

Back in film days it was no different: Pentax had an SLR for 110 mini-Instamatic film, alongside their 42mm screw fit, and later bayonet fit 35mm SLRS, and then yet another system built around their enormous 6x7cm roll film cameras.

In short, buy into whichever range you like (DJI or Nikon), but don't expect cross-platform continuity.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 02:20 UTC
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

dongle, thanks for the agreement, but I am not excluding "system" cameras. Simply pointing out that as film effectively "died" about 15 years ago, for NEARLY ALL USERS, the legacy formats are of little if any relevance to the same, "nearly all users". In truth, seriously, just what percentage of current digital camera owners, EVER attach one of their old film-era lenses to their precious new bodies? Perhaps 5%? Maybe more on this forum, but I mean the REAL population, not photo-buffs!

I have 4 gorgeous prime Zuiko lenses in pristine condition, part of my OM-1 system I originally started buying, all brand new, in 1976. But I have NEVER bothered getting an OM to 4/3 (or micro 4/3) adapter, because for my new cameras, the latest Olympus lenses offer more.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 02:04 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Olympus makes good cameras and lenses. I haven’t used the M43 system, but still have the 4/3 EM1; which in its day was a terrific camera, and still a lot of fun to use. I did have the film-era OM1 and OM4ti, which were both ground-breaking and class-leading professional cameras.

The commenters who like to disparage the M43 have a point, in that by adopting the small sensor Olympus finally left the stage as a major player for professional photographers; leaving the field clear for the full-frame Canons and Nikons.

Photographers with any genuine experience that pre-dates digital photography will recognise the photographic heritage in current Olympus products. Pixel-peeking nerds have no idea what a beautifully balanced camera feels like, or why genuine photographers will always buy an Olympus product blind. These lenses (equivalence? nerds!) will produce superb images because they’re made by a proper camera manufacturer, rather than a gadget-maker; they are made for photographers.

pdelux, agreed. Part of the reason I don't like Sony cameras, is that my early ones (Mavicas) used SUCH aggressive sharpening and compression, that the only way I could get a usable image was to add a 1-pixel Gaussian blur, then halve the size of the picture from 1024x768 to 512x384 pixels! Olympus is the extreme opposite, where even their out-of-camera JPGs are amazingly usable when you can't be bothered with RAW development.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 14:48 UTC

YAY! Maybe I can NOW finally process that Instamatic Film I found in my ancient Kodak camera recently when clearing out a cupboard, and call it cutting-edge art!

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 00:04 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

NO sensor is a "CROP" sensor. Film, and its fixed formats, has gone the way of the Dodo. ANY sensor is full-frame for the size it is, and BIGGER is BETTER if you want ultimate quality, SMALLER is BETTER if you want a degree of affordability and portability. Choose your favourite, and get on with it. End of.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 10:26 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Olympus makes good cameras and lenses. I haven’t used the M43 system, but still have the 4/3 EM1; which in its day was a terrific camera, and still a lot of fun to use. I did have the film-era OM1 and OM4ti, which were both ground-breaking and class-leading professional cameras.

The commenters who like to disparage the M43 have a point, in that by adopting the small sensor Olympus finally left the stage as a major player for professional photographers; leaving the field clear for the full-frame Canons and Nikons.

Photographers with any genuine experience that pre-dates digital photography will recognise the photographic heritage in current Olympus products. Pixel-peeking nerds have no idea what a beautifully balanced camera feels like, or why genuine photographers will always buy an Olympus product blind. These lenses (equivalence? nerds!) will produce superb images because they’re made by a proper camera manufacturer, rather than a gadget-maker; they are made for photographers.

I love SONY. All my HiFi is SONY. They make great AUDIO products. Can't stand their cameras, with their gold-fish-bowl colouration and excessive sharpening algorithms. Such a waste of Zeiss lenses.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 22:41 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Olympus makes good cameras and lenses. I haven’t used the M43 system, but still have the 4/3 EM1; which in its day was a terrific camera, and still a lot of fun to use. I did have the film-era OM1 and OM4ti, which were both ground-breaking and class-leading professional cameras.

The commenters who like to disparage the M43 have a point, in that by adopting the small sensor Olympus finally left the stage as a major player for professional photographers; leaving the field clear for the full-frame Canons and Nikons.

Photographers with any genuine experience that pre-dates digital photography will recognise the photographic heritage in current Olympus products. Pixel-peeking nerds have no idea what a beautifully balanced camera feels like, or why genuine photographers will always buy an Olympus product blind. These lenses (equivalence? nerds!) will produce superb images because they’re made by a proper camera manufacturer, rather than a gadget-maker; they are made for photographers.

I am also an OM-1n vintage user (my first serious SLR, bought in 1976, new, and over the next 3 years, a total of 4 prime Zuikos and lots of other bits and pieces, ALL of which I still have, and ALL of which still work perfectly). And my first serious (ie, NON-Sony Mavica) digital camera was the E-1, which again I still have and use from time to time. Now using the OM-D E-M1 as my usual camera, and in love with it.

YES, I've owned Canon, Nikon, and even Contax cameras over the years too - and the Contax S2 is still one of my film go-tos if I want one, but for me, Olympus has shone the light all the way.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 00:25 UTC

Why do I prefer LCD displays to OLED? Now let me think ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 13:09 UTC as 4th comment

In the short time we've been discussing this, how many Americans have died from GUNSHOT?! We desperately need to start getting risk assessment into proportion.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 13:07 UTC as 9th comment
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1632 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Valentino: My last purchase from them was my upgrade to CS6. I refuse to subscribe to software.

Rather glad I bought both my PC and Mac versions of CD6 on DVD - so when I come to transfer to a new computer, I should have no problems finding the install image!

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 11:13 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1632 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Valentino: My last purchase from them was my upgrade to CS6. I refuse to subscribe to software.

Me too. I bought TWO copies of Photoshop CS6 - one for my Windows PC, and the other for a Mac, which I didn't even have at the time! Then I bought a Mac (full specced-out 15" MacBook Pro) to run it.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 11:01 UTC

Might almost work in cold weather - but just imagine how horrible its wearer would become on a hot summer's day or when filming in the tropics. And if you jacket contains all your gear, you can hardly take it off and hang it on a chair-back when you need to let your eccrine fluids evaporate. In short, YEUCK.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 00:05 UTC as 17th comment

Single viewpoint, stereo ("3D") image - WOW. VR?! Not at all. Again.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 18:55 UTC as 6th comment
Total: 699, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »