M43Hero

Joined on Sep 13, 2019
About me:

https://www.boxymoron.com/gallery/

Comments

Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13
In reply to:

pentaust: Olympus sensors are too small, that's why.

That's like saying one car is better than another based on engine size alone. A camera is the sum of it's parts...

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2020 at 14:09 UTC
In reply to:

AmateurMike: The main problem I see is the lack of bright lenses at affordable prices. When I was looking for a camera in 2016, I researched all available MFT lenses, and the brightest one was f1.2, and that was over $1000. If i'm going to spend that much just to get f2.4 FF equiv, then I'd rather just buy a full frame camera. So I bought a Sony a6500 and an EF-E Speedbooster, and now I have a set up that is brighter than even full frame. Canon 85mm f1.8 with Speedbooster is f1.3 for only $650 (all refurbished or used), and MFT has nothing that can match that, either in price or brightness, and they don't even sell refurbished lenses! And 12-35mm f2.8 lenses? That's a FF equiv of 24-70mm f5.6! The prices for these lenses just can't justify the brightness. And please, no lecture about how equivalency is nonsense. LOL I also wanted so badly to use vintage lenses, and with such a big crop factor, it's just not workable.

Well, I was exclusively a MFT shooter until a few weeks ago. I found a Sony A7R brand new NOS for a great price on ebay. I had to scratch the FF itch I've had for a while. I also bought a few MF lenses and some excellent Tamron lenses. Guess what? I think I'm selling all the Sony gear. Can I see a difference?, yes obviously, but so far all my tests indicate the Sony is only better at shallow DOF and higher ISO (>1600) scenarios. The different in good light or smaller apertures is just not that great. Also, I don't shoot sports, or use CAF. In fact most low light shots look better in my EM5 because of the great IBIS and the greater DoF.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2020 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

EthanP99: Just because Olympus was in the camera making game, did not mean it was a competitor to FF cameras. People saying competition is good... but what if it wasnt really competing?

Just like if you were looking at a Ferrari, you wouldn't be cross shopping KIA.

It was competing against all other manufacturers from the POV of all those ppl looking for a first time camera, or those who haven't a clue.

Anecdote: one time at B&H I saw an older gentleman with what appeared to be his granddaughter at the Olympus kiosk. They were looking at the EM10-II. The guy behind the counter goes over and starts talking them out of the camera, telling them they are better off going with a Sony FF. I walked over and interrupted the conversation. The customer was obviously interested in an Olympus camera, but instead of helping out with a potential purchase he was scaring them away. The clerk was trying to sell them the idea that Sony was better (more megapixels, bigger sensor). I told them that for *their* purposes the Olympus would be a good purchase, they could buy the camera cheap and buy some nice lenses with the money saved. They were not pros and did not need the 'FF'. I was astounded. I've seen similar behavior from at other stores as well...

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2020 at 18:38 UTC
In reply to:

AmateurMike: The main problem I see is the lack of bright lenses at affordable prices. When I was looking for a camera in 2016, I researched all available MFT lenses, and the brightest one was f1.2, and that was over $1000. If i'm going to spend that much just to get f2.4 FF equiv, then I'd rather just buy a full frame camera. So I bought a Sony a6500 and an EF-E Speedbooster, and now I have a set up that is brighter than even full frame. Canon 85mm f1.8 with Speedbooster is f1.3 for only $650 (all refurbished or used), and MFT has nothing that can match that, either in price or brightness, and they don't even sell refurbished lenses! And 12-35mm f2.8 lenses? That's a FF equiv of 24-70mm f5.6! The prices for these lenses just can't justify the brightness. And please, no lecture about how equivalency is nonsense. LOL I also wanted so badly to use vintage lenses, and with such a big crop factor, it's just not workable.

wow, ppl still ignorant about crop equivalency in 2020! f1.2 is f1.2 in terms of exposure/brightness. Depth of field is a different story.

For MFT, you multiply x2 for DoF which can be a disadvantage for certain types of shooting (i.e. shooting 85mm at F1.2 FF: one eye in focus the other not, if that's your thing).

Having more in focus (more DoF) at the same exposure can be an advantage of crop sensor, for instance shooting a landscape at dusk/dawn, macro, product photography, etc.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2020 at 18:11 UTC
On article Are mechanical film cameras better than electronic? (365 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Cameras: In the 1960’s and 70’s anything made in Japan was considered junk and no one trusted electronics. You have to keep in mind that electronics are so good today that no one is afraid of them, but that was not the prevailing attitude years ago. My first real camera was a Nikon FE2, which I bought in preference to the FM2 and everyone lamented that I hadn’t bought the mechanical camera that could be used without batteries. If you’re buying a 45 year old camera you
might just be better off with a mechanical shutter. A more modern electronic film camera will fail for other reasons besides the electronics. Probably materials issues with the quality of the plastics used.

or a Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui, etc

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2020 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

Calphate: I'm not impressed by the moon shot......

The images shown here are taken from a fullhd video, that would explain why they look like crap.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2020 at 09:49 UTC
In reply to:

rsf3127: It would be nice if less than 600USD. Otherwise, it is just a ripoff.

Mine is pretty sharp even at f2.8. Not sure where you get that it's soft. Yes it's a bit slow in AF and UI but still very usable and for the price (450 USD) not bad at all. Sure the GR might be sharper, but that lens is abnormally sharp to begin with (not that that's a bad thing). Oh, and it doesn't suffer from dust issues.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2019 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

rsf3127: It would be nice if less than 600USD. Otherwise, it is just a ripoff.

Fuji XF-10 1/2 the price and as good if not better IQ.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:33 UTC
In reply to:

M43Hero: Rumor has it the first shipments of EM5-3 are already sold out in Europe. Camera has been out for one day! Micro four thirds and Olympus are doing fine.

Oh really? Very reliable sources you have: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4443230

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2019 at 09:45 UTC
In reply to:

M43Hero: Rumor has it the first shipments of EM5-3 are already sold out in Europe. Camera has been out for one day! Micro four thirds and Olympus are doing fine.

Hint: it's not a rumor.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2019 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

M43Hero: Rumor has it the first shipments of EM5-3 are already sold out in Europe. Camera has been out for one day! Micro four thirds and Olympus are doing fine.

I got mine yesterday, pre-ordered...

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2019 at 15:34 UTC

Rumor has it the first shipments of EM5-3 are already sold out in Europe. Camera has been out for one day! Micro four thirds and Olympus are doing fine.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2019 at 14:51 UTC as 48th comment | 7 replies
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III sample gallery (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

bcvthul: The pictures don't impress me...Maybe the camera has a 'bad' RAW-to-jpeg converter.

I noticed that too, it's probably from all the dust in the air.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2019 at 17:40 UTC
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13