EarthQuake

It's rather telling that the concept of skill being more important than things is somehow taboo. Generally yes, a skilled photographer with a cheap lens will produce better images than a novice ...

Magnification (image size) and viewing distance are important factors. If you switch from a 1080P screen to a 4K screen of the same size, but sit twice as close to the screen, you'll notice more ...

There's a certain type of person in every hobby. In photography it's the MFT worshippers, the people who talk about wide open corner sharpness for a 35/1.2 lens - when you're going to stop down to ...

Especially when it comes to this kind of camera (large sensor, very efficient), noise is mostly something that pixel peepers care about. If you print, or view the entire image on screen, noise is ...

Yeah I mean, the Sigma is great if you're the sort of person that needs to buy a lens because some obsessive compulsive lens reviewers say it's the best, and put no consideration into size, ...

Not surprising, the 35/1.8 is an excellent lens for photographers. The Sigma 35/1.2 is an excellent lens for people interested in test charts and measurbating.

How often do you shoot at F2.8 at 12-24mm? I generally want more depth of field rather than less when shooting ultra wide. So the extra speed would be moot most of the time for me. Maybe for astro, ...

DNG represents a solid middle ground if you want smaller file sizes compared to uncompressed raw, but don't want the data loss you get with Sony's lossy compressed files. The DNG file size should ...

Yes, absolutely. 35mm is nowhere near wide enough for real estate. Either of those lenses would be a good choice. I bought the 17-28/2.8 personally (speed more important than range to me), but the ...

Precisely because it's silly and amusing, is there any reason why we should care about your humorless and vapid opinions? Clearly you care enough to look at the thumbnail, read the title, click on...

So you're posting on a photography website. And you're upset that someone built a camera out of trash and spare parts? Maybe find a different hobby.

Says the guy making a worthless comment on the internet for attention. Oh sweet irony.

There's a couple different ways to think about noise. If we're talking about image-level noise, ie: how much noise the entire photo has when viewing in the normal way (the entire image, not zooming ...

Very good advice, I would add that of the three only the 85/1.8 is a true "portrait" lens, ie, useful for tight crops, headshots and the like. 35mm and 55mm can be used for portraits, but mostly ...

I haven't used the EM1 II but shot with the EM1 Mk I for 5 years. For portraits, using face detection set to nearest eye resulted in a hit rate of 90%+. This was in SAF, CAF wasn't that good on ...

Hear hear. Plus, Olympus has eye-AF. Face detection with front or rear eye priority and has for many years. It works great for portraits.

Lackluster reviews for the 35/1.8 must be an exaggeration. It's a small, lightweight, fast and accurate focusing, sharp lens with great contrast and nice rendering. Yes, there's some bokeh fringing ...

Close focus at 2.8, depth of field is extremely narrow. Very little in this image is in focus. What is, though, is sharp.

There are a couple ways to look at this: image level noise or pixel level noise. First up is image level noise. If the output size is fixed, ie: you're viewing the image fullscreen on a computer ...

This, or look for a used copy of the Sony CZ 55/1.8.