tlinn

tlinn

Lives in United States OR, United States
Has a website at www.tlinn.com
Joined on Dec 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 508, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jones Indiana: Unfortunately the whole X-Series start to show its age.

Yes we have X-T4 - it is not a bad camera - but it is the lenses that are starting to lack.

8 years down the road and still no specialty lenses, still no lenses for birders or wildlife photography. Yes I know there is the 100-400. But its slow and with the extenders attached to it many i ages look either soft or are a little oof.

To me at least it looks Fujifilm is going the Olympus route and we all know how that story is ending.

I don't see Fuji following Olympus but, still, I don't know if I've ever used a system where there is so much inconsistency in the lens line up. I get the feeling that it is starting to become an obstacle for people considering Fuji. The first primes debuted with focus motors that were already behind the competition—despite getting to start with a clean slate. How does that happen? Some lenses have a focus clutch. Others don't. Constant aperture lenses have marked aperture rings...except the 10-24 which doesn't. It's as though there is no common design language among them. Too many lenses with great IQ but otherwise substandard performance. My 56 F1.2 can't even tell I have eyes if I put on a pair of frameless eyeglasses.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: Call it magic all you want. It is outdated, with an outdated whole unit focus AF system, average optics, and no weather sealing

Fuji needs to update their premium lenses. It makes no sense that their mid-price lineup is more feature-complete than their high-end one

No one complains about the optics of the XF35. The IQ is great on that lens. It's everything else. I hope Fuji is making boatloads of cash on their GFX system because there is no question that it has diverted attention away from X System lens development and it is starting to hold them back.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

Veselin Gramatikov: It`s good lens. For what it is its great. But Fuji need to upgrade their af motors in old lenses. Optically they are very good. I guess they want to keep it cheap nowadays. And for 35mm lens af motor is not an issue in stills but in video it is. They pushing the video features but their lenses af motors drags X-system back. I have 100-400 and the motor is superfast. Their pro-grade lenses are actually "SONY" fast but their old lenses are very bad. Now X-system approaches moment that 4/3 passed out long time ago....they competing with cheaper and cheaper larger format sensors. Key advantage in this competition is camera features and right lenses. Right lenses...small, fast, not very expensive. I think 50 1.0 is same mistake as 200/2. To ambitious for aps-c system. For portraits compact 1.4 is enough. Fot telephoto lenses moderate f/4.0 and f/5.6 are the right numbers. But keep it compact and not very expensive. Going super big and expensive lens is mistake.

It will be interesting to see how that 50 F1.0 does. No one asked for this lens. People asked for a 35mm F1.0—and, even in that case, asked without knowing price, size and weight. I'm not optimistic about the 50 F1.0's prospects. The 200mm F2.0 seems like an odd choice too. It would have been a far better test of customer interest in telephoto primes if Fuji had led with something like a 500mm F4. As an outside observer, it seems to me that Fuji continues to make questionable decisions about product choices. The X-H1 debuts with two-year-old internals six months before a technically superior X-T3 shows up. How do you judge interest in the X-H concept when you do that?

I agree that f/1.4 lenses are good enough, that Fuji needs to make upgrading their older lenses a priority, and that they should focus on small. However I disagree that they need to focus on cheap. Personally, I want to see smaller lenses, particularly zooms, where the lens design is weighted toward IQ rather than price.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 15:57 UTC
In reply to:

photo_curry: They probably are undercutting one another and hurting themselves in the process; but that's not the fundamental issue. Even if they lengthened product cycles and increased prices, they wouldn't be able to compete with smart phones.

The fundamental issue is that cameras cost 3x the cost of a smart phone and yet they are technologically in the dark ages compared to a smart phone: 1) compared to smart phones, they use low quality screens, 2) low quality touch sensitivity 3) no internet connectivity 4) intentionally difficult to share or to wirelessly back up your images 5) closed ecosystem that doesn't allow developers to augment the camera with "apps" of sorts 6) etc, the list goes on

There will _always_ be demand for a dedicated photographic tool. You can't overcome the fact that larger optics and interchangeable lenses helps image quality. However, if you are going to charge 3x the cost of a smartphone, you better make a product that's worthy of that pricepoint.

@George1958 Smartphone cult? LOL You sound like my mom—at least until she got my iPhone 6 Plus as a hand-me-down. Now she's a devoted smartphone user herself. I hate phones in general. I hate talking on phones. But I never go anywhere without the most flexible tool I own.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2020 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

Happy Dad: Bottom line.
Most AP photographers will still be shooting Canon and Nikon. Even with this Sony will stay 3rd.
Most are freelance and they can stick with what they want.
It says "250 locations in 100 countries" and yet only 200 photographers are affected. 2 per country. Lol!

It's interesting that the only way Sony could break into this was to pay and force them.

@MattWPBS Hahahahaha

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2020 at 15:24 UTC
On article Canon EOS R5 initial review (1768 comments in total)

Put a Sony sensor in this beast and you've got my attention.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2020 at 16:02 UTC as 255th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

SteB: This is very sad. I was a long time OM 35mm film user and then 4/3 Olympus user. In fact I still have an E-1. I never made the transition to m4/3 although I long considered it and use Canon.

Those going on about it is Olympus's fault for choosing a tiny sensor, not going FF etc, you're entirely mistaken. Firstly, in real terms the 4/3 sensor isn't that much smaller than APS-C. What is more Nikon haven't being doing well, and Pentax hardly made the big time with their FF camera. Even if Olympus had produced a FF system they wouldn't have done any better.

@Harold66 Okay, because I know the Dunning-Kruger effect is real :-) I pulled out my camera and now fully appreciate your point. When I set my X-T3 to a square format, the viewfinder shows a square image, the JPG is a square image, and even the RAW file is cropped as a square image. This is just as I expected. What I didn't expect is that a 4:3 image ratio isn't even an option. Neither is 5:4. This is really surprising to me since it seems like it would be so simple to add these options. Regardless, point taken.

Out of curiosity, why is a 3:2 ratio problematic for art galleries and photo books? I've seen images with this ratio in both. I know you specifically mentioned vertical comps in your initial comment.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2020 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: This is very sad. I was a long time OM 35mm film user and then 4/3 Olympus user. In fact I still have an E-1. I never made the transition to m4/3 although I long considered it and use Canon.

Those going on about it is Olympus's fault for choosing a tiny sensor, not going FF etc, you're entirely mistaken. Firstly, in real terms the 4/3 sensor isn't that much smaller than APS-C. What is more Nikon haven't being doing well, and Pentax hardly made the big time with their FF camera. Even if Olympus had produced a FF system they wouldn't have done any better.

@Harold66 You may be right. I may not appreciate your workflow. I know you can set a 3:2 camera to display a 4:3 image in the viewfinder so composition should be no more difficult than in a camera with a native 4:3 sensor. And I know the JPG will come out 4:3. I don't know if that 4:3 composition is carried over into your RAW processing software. If not, then I see your point. You're kind of stuck. Your only other options (that occur to me) would be Panny, a step down for stills, or something like Fuji's GFX system, which is orders of magnitude bigger and more expensive.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2020 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: This is very sad. I was a long time OM 35mm film user and then 4/3 Olympus user. In fact I still have an E-1. I never made the transition to m4/3 although I long considered it and use Canon.

Those going on about it is Olympus's fault for choosing a tiny sensor, not going FF etc, you're entirely mistaken. Firstly, in real terms the 4/3 sensor isn't that much smaller than APS-C. What is more Nikon haven't being doing well, and Pentax hardly made the big time with their FF camera. Even if Olympus had produced a FF system they wouldn't have done any better.

@Harold66 When you need a 4:3 image, you can crop an image from an APS-C or FF sensor and still end up with higher IQ in most cases.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2020 at 16:44 UTC
In reply to:

Marsipulami: I think that JIP could focus on the areas of Olympus that still seem to be successful, namely small, cheap and "pretty" cameras for on the road. In Japan, the E-PL 9 and EM10 III are among the best selling cameras. You don't hear anything like that from their top models. It is therefore quite possible that JIP will abandon the technology competition, i.e. freeze further development, and concentrate on lucrative lifestyle products. This can also bring economic success. This is of course very speculative. But I believe that the Olympus brand will take a completely different direction from 2021.

For most Olympus aficionados, your scenario is only preferable to outright killing off the company in that existing gear will remain serviceable.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 17:44 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Don't fret my friends. Olympus camera remains.

Like Rolls Royce, Bugatti, Audi to name a few are owned by VW. Land Rover is owned by an Indian. SAAB by China. Canon Camera by a photocopier. Nikon by Mitsubishi.

@Ziginox The Minolta-Sony sale was totally different. The camera market was in a much better place and Minolta's camera division was sold to a corporation that dwarfed everyone else in that market. Sony had the resources and expertise to make the transition. Even then, it took years and several failed attempts to innovate before Sony introduced the FF mirrorless bodies that have become so successful.

My understanding is that Olympus is being sold to a group of private equity investors, who will not have the resources or expertise of Sony. It would be naive to think the outcome will be similar—but, even if it is, that would mean none of the gear Olympus owners current use would remain relevant even if, like some Minolta bodies, they remain useable.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 17:42 UTC
In reply to:

Terrible Photographer: Full Frame is for the artistically insecure

The failure to recognize and react to the fact that the m43 sensor had become an anchor for the brand is a contributing factor to its demise. It is not an issue of being a good sensor or bad. It is an issue of relative merits at their price points. Olympus fans are free to bury their heads in the sand about this market reality but company officials didn't have that luxury. The EM1x...are you kidding me? Give Panasonic credit for carving out a niche with video where the m43 sensor can actually be an advantage; and also for at least attempting to transition to FF. At least they're acknowledging the market reality.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: I hope all those who so yearned for Olympus's downfall are happy and satisfied now. Maybe all your dreams will come true when another brand like Pentax also folds. The future must never have looked so bright for you.

Predicting and yearning are two different things. Any real fan of photography would be foolish to yearn for Olympus' downfall. At their best, they brought a lot of innovation to the industry. This is very different from Pentax, who are just taking up space at this point.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 17:25 UTC
In reply to:

6x9: This is sad new. Let's hope that Olympus photography product line will still be alive. I am an Olympus digital user since the E-M5 & E-P3. For me personally a small system footprint was always the major qualifier. There are several reasons for Olympus to be where they are now. My own perspective is:
- many of us cannot justify the price of the new cameras and lenses, especially compared to FF and APC offerings of the competition.
- with a shift towards "Pro" lenses and "Pro"bodies Olympus system lost one of its key benefits - portability. Yes the F1.2 lenses are great. But heavy and expensive.
- the m43 sensors have not improved significantly over the years (just moved up a bit from 16 M to 20M pixel).
- Only the top of the line bodies offer PDAF. Well, the CDAF works well for stills, but if you need continuous AF or video, it sucs. I am neither interested in a E-M1 III (too big), nor in a E-M5 III (whys does it have such a small battery?) So, what is an option?

That is a good list.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 17:20 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: This is very sad. I was a long time OM 35mm film user and then 4/3 Olympus user. In fact I still have an E-1. I never made the transition to m4/3 although I long considered it and use Canon.

Those going on about it is Olympus's fault for choosing a tiny sensor, not going FF etc, you're entirely mistaken. Firstly, in real terms the 4/3 sensor isn't that much smaller than APS-C. What is more Nikon haven't being doing well, and Pentax hardly made the big time with their FF camera. Even if Olympus had produced a FF system they wouldn't have done any better.

At the time, the m43 sensor made sense—and it was successful. In the time since, things have changed. The cost of larger sensors has decreased. Adoration of images with shallow DOF has increased. m43 sensors seem stuck in the same place in terms of performance and resolution for years. m43 has never really been less expensive than bodies with larger sensors so their only real advantage is size—and they're not that much smaller. I personally concluded it was over for Olympus when they released the huge and hugely expensive EM1x.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 17:14 UTC

It makes me sad that a company responsible for so much innovation is now in limbo. It seems unlikely that it can continue in the same direction it is currently in, which suggests that the Olympus we love is likely dead even though the name will live on.

I see some people comparing this sale with Minolta's sale to Sony. Three key things to keep in mind: First, the Minolta mount Sony inherited is effectively dead. The successful Sony products we see now may have a little Minolta DNA in them but they are largely a Sony creation. Second, Sony acquired Minolta when the state of the camera industry was much, much better. And, finally, Sony dwarfs all other photographic manufacturers in this space. They had the money and the expertise to finance a transformation that took years.

The biggest thing that Olympus owners have going for them is that their lenses work on other bodies. I use them with my BMPCC4K and love them.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 16:56 UTC as 390th comment

I really like some of these ideas: scopes, RAW video, XLR audio compatibility, shutter angle. I would use every one of these features. There is a lot more room for growth in the video arena than with stills. That said, it would be unfortunate if Fuji makes design changes for the sake of video that disadvantage stills shooters. The most obvious example of this would be making the body bigger and heavier.

The biggest area of improvement that would benefit both stills and video shooters is AF. Although Fuji's AF is good, it is not so good with moving subjects that shooters don't have to work to get it right. That is really the holy grail for me, and Fuji is not keeping pace with Sony and Canon in this regard.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2020 at 17:51 UTC as 55th comment

If Fuji adds RAW video, I really hope they take a look at Blackmagic RAW and don't just default to ProRes RAW. From what I've seen, BM RAW is the more flexible format.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2020 at 17:31 UTC as 56th comment
In reply to:

n3eg: My theory has always been that video haters are just afraid of it.

@Ross Perhaps my phrasing implied that Fuji came up with the concept but that's not what I meant. That said, in the X-T4, it's not a matter of video having a separate menu. It actually has a separate menu system. Perhaps Olympus has that too.

Olympus is an extraordinarily innovative company. One only has to look at their best-in-class IBIS, or best-in-class weather sealing, or some of the extremely innovative accessories they produce to appreciate this. I think it's really unfortunate that they hitched their wagon to m43. Regardless of its benefits, it seems like this decision will eventually take the company's camera division down. I hope I'm wrong but their financials are horrible. If Olympus offered an APS-C option, I think it would really have given Fuji a run for its money.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2020 at 19:31 UTC
In reply to:

n3eg: My theory has always been that video haters are just afraid of it.

@Bigsensor I agree. I will be extremely disappointed if the design of the X-H2 gimps stills performance in favor of video. For example, increasing the size and weight of the body to allow for longer recording times. OTOH, I would welcome XLR capabilities, improved focus transitions, stepless ISO and other tweaks that would make the body more broadly appealing without penalizing stills photogs.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2020 at 19:21 UTC
Total: 508, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »