ptox

Joined on Dec 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 239, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bas Emmen: I noticed that the unedited footage from Casey Neistat look Crap! @1080p
Just not sharp.
https://youtu.be/iPG1Xa5Uqwo?t=10m16s

It does look awful, but if you compare this footage to the footage shot in the official release video, it's pretty clear that this guy screwed up his postprocessing / downsampling. The official video footage looks very sharp.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 17:10 UTC
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nigel Tafferham: If you get the full kit plus goggle + spares you are at $2000.

I think most serious videophiles will want to choose their cam and lens.

Looks nice but lots of alternatives, this just easy but not the best ?

That's kind of a silly comparison -- if you get any drone with all the extras it's obviously going to cost a lot more.

This isn't intended for videophiles, anyway. Isn't that obvious?

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 16:55 UTC
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

junk1: The only way I'll buy a drone is if they design it for a standard 1/4" tripod mount so I can mount my own "real camera".

You won't be mounting any "real cameras" on drones this small or this inexpensive -- fully integrated is the only way to go. Kind of obviously.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

Arizona Sunset: The ultimate 'tweener lens. Not fast, not slow, not long, not short, not huge, not small. Just the wrong amount of this and the right amount of that to make you wonder if it's compelling. I don't think it is, now that the dust has settled. I preordered the other two Olympus lenses, but this one, I patiently waited. I'm glad I did.

Sorry, what, one sample gallery containing no comparison images with competing lenses and suddenly "the dust has settled"?

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

Atsel: This lens seems no better than 14-150 & 14-140 zooms from Olympus and Panasonic.

Urgh... how can you possibly tell without looking at a side-by-side comparison of the same subject matter shot with each lens?

I mean -- you can't, of course!

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Adam Sharp: It's cost so much and it's not great value for money . It's s nice lens but nothing amazing

You can tell that just by looking at a sample gallery?

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: As if being an expensive and slow zoom wasn't bad enough, this lens doesn't do anything to mitigate the rather dry, matter-of-fact look characteristic of micro 4/3's images. On the contrary, it seems to accentuate it. Looking at these samples, I can't seem to find any justification for the high price. (Neither can I see any sense in labeling this lens as 'PRO.')

"the rather dry, matter-of-fact look characteristic of micro 4/3's images."

How is it possible for a pattern of RGB values to be intrinsically "dry" and "matter-of-fact"? It's not, of course, and I'd bet money that you wouldn't be able to identify MFT images via these criteria in a blind (to to speak) examination of shots from various formats.

The answer, of course, is in the postprocessing. Maybe you dislike Olympus and Panasonic's JPEG engines, which are probably the most typical postprocessors for images identified as coming from MFT.

But come on. A few tweaks in Lightroom and the effect is gone--so it can hardly be said to be "accentuated" by a lens. That's just woo.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 18:08 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

dbltapp00: That camera body is HUGE!

You must have small hands?

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2016 at 18:36 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

User6915810299: You need FULL FRAME sensor or even bigger 70%, fully articulated HD touch screen and lens can be fixed super zoom like compact cameras has bur lens will be wide . 4K and time lapse will be great too without frames limit to make long time lapses. With huge sensor ISO will very high in auto mode for night pictures without flash .

cameron2: lol!

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 23:00 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: The size: m4/3 system was created to minimize the size and weight of bodies and lenses. But this body is almost of the same size with D7200. So, why not to purchase an APS-C camera instead?

Wu Jiaqiu "the Oly is doing nothing in particular that hasn't already been done"

The E-M1 II is a more capable camera in almost every single way than the v3 but you pick framerate and size and say "oh, nothing new here" ?

That's just silly.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 22:59 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

User6915810299: You need FULL FRAME sensor or even bigger 70%, fully articulated HD touch screen and lens can be fixed super zoom like compact cameras has bur lens will be wide . 4K and time lapse will be great too without frames limit to make long time lapses. With huge sensor ISO will very high in auto mode for night pictures without flash .

Um, what?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 20:12 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Ed: The hardware in this looks very nice, even though it seems to be drifting towards big-camera territory. I'll look forward to seeing if there are significant UI/menu improvements. DPR has described Olympus' menus as somewhere between train-wreck and nightmare (not exactly their words) for a long time now.

Olympus menus are comprehensive. They expose an enormous number of options and customization points. It's a bit daunting, but it's hardly a "train wreck"...

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 20:12 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: The size: m4/3 system was created to minimize the size and weight of bodies and lenses. But this body is almost of the same size with D7200. So, why not to purchase an APS-C camera instead?

Because MFT lenses are still smaller than APSC lenses? Because there's barely any difference in IQ in most situations anyway? Because Olympus doesn't make an APSC system? Because regardless of sensor size, this looks like it's going to be an awesome camera?

Why even ask such a silly question?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

sknai16: Is anyone seeing that the MFT company that promised smaller cheaper and just as good components now is supplying more expensive lenses than most anyone in the market? Go figure. I'm back with Nikon.

Wow. That's awesome. Seeya!

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 16:19 UTC
In reply to:

Photo_AK: A 24-200/8 equivalent lens .... ideal for taking pictures, that look like being taken with a compact camera ...
Tamron 28-300 takes 4 mm on the wide end and gives 100 mm more on the tele end; is a full frame compatible lens, weighs less, is smaller, cheaper, takes smaller filters and offers lesser DOF - all while being equaly "fast" or "faster" in the 28-200 mm range.

So, what's the point, really ...?

"heck, get a long zoom 1" model and barely lose a stop for less money & less weight: RX10-II/III @ f/2.4+ or FZ1000/2000 @f/2.8+ for example. The RXs, FZs & DLs(?) should perform equally well in the travel & events role."

You're joking. The lenses on those cameras are enormously compromised .. heck, at 24mm, the FZ1000's lens doesn't even cover the entire sensor.

To say they'd perform on par with this lens is a claim nobody can make. Particularly since the quality of this lens hasn't been tested yet.

In all likelihood, it'll be a far better performer throughout its range than any of the RX/FZ options.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

Combatmedic870: I think the rx10mk2 would give this a run for its money. Around the same DOF.

lol

no

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 16:14 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: if Olympus will set more realistic prices for OM-D and this lens, they will be very popular in the world, and also will be enough for millions of customers, including some professionals. But in this dragon-like prices i am not sure... For example, OM-D with 12-100 will be cost about 2300 USD! Its more then Nikon D750 with 24-120 (with real F4!) + 50/1.4G + Yungnou YN685 professional flash! And last set will be FAAAAR better then OM-D system...

"with real F4!"

The most braindead equivalence argument so far. Congratulations.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 16:14 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: ho hum . an f/8 equiv zoom

StevenE: your post is boring. It adds nothing. Go away.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

ogl: It's 28-200/f8.0 equivalent for FF...F8.0...Hmmmm...

24-200, not 28-200. And seriously, why bother posting this? Everyone's pretty well aware of what f/4 means on MFT...

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 16:11 UTC
In reply to:

sonics: Looks like a great lens, but gone is the compact m43 format:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#594.613,660.545,hd,t

What do you mean "gone"? It's not "gone" -- you can still buy small MFT lenses. Nothing changes with the availability of this lens. And re this lens, it still makes no sense: a 12-100 f/4 can only be made so small -- are you saying MFT would be better off if this lens didn't exist? It's still smaller than the APSC or FF equivalents (by focal length) ..

Your post is just nonsensical.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 16:09 UTC
Total: 239, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »