ptox

Joined on Dec 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 231, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (176 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 (176 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 (176 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 (176 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 (176 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
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (635 comments in total)
In reply to:

monokultur: This is a very cool cam - indeed. I shot FT and mFT for more than 6 years. Even made money out of my shootings. But last year I did a step by step switch to Full Frame. And once you have tasted this - there is no way back. The files are much cleaner - at any ISO. The sharpness and tonality at pixel level is so much clearer. You can crop the files to half the size and still get real sharpness where the mFT file is looking flat and more and more like a smartphone picture.

Given the choice: Canon 6D and 50mm 1.2 vs. E-M1 II 25mm 1.2 or Canon 6D and 85mm 1.8 vs. E-M1 II 42.5 1.2
I would always choose the 6D. And than I would rather buy a 70-200 F4 L than the 40-150 2.8.

Why stop there? Go to medium format this year!

In all seriousness... yeah, FF sensors produce better absolute IQ than 43 sensors -- just like MF sensors are better than FF.

That's no surprise. But ultimate IQ is not the only consideration. Obviously.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:36 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (635 comments in total)
In reply to:

bergat: It is very strange Olympus goes with its errors. I do not understand whyOlympus continues with 4/3. It is not better start with APS-C?

In other words, "duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:29 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (635 comments in total)
In reply to:

sknai16: It is now as expensive an almost as big as cameras with much larger sensors. The MFT sensor size remains the weakness of the system and the lenses are now substantially more expensive than the Sigma Art line of lenses. Something does not make sense and I think people will start to react. I went back to Nikon!

"The MFT sensor size remains the weakness of the system"

Is there really room for yet another APSC or FF system? The size is the whole POINT of the system. You either get and can work with the compromises -- and all format sizes have compromises -- or you don't and you pick something else.

As for the lenses: SOME are more expensive than SOME of Sigma's. It's still perfectly possible to put together an inexpensive and relatively high-performance MFT system...

"Something does not make sense and I think people will start to react. I went back to Nikon!"

There are plenty of options in MFT for pretty much any user/use. If you didn't find the equipment that suited your needs at the price you were willing to pay, then fine.

But don't assume that other people are as dissatisfied. (Would Oly and Panasonic be releasing more and more high-end equipment if people didn't want it? Hmm...)

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 18:08 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (635 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Man, that looks like my OM-4T. The paint is rougher, but other than that it's really close. I can't help wondering if someday we might see an OM digital camera with a big sensor.

"I can't help wondering if someday we might see an OM digital camera with a big sensor."

Hope not. The last thing Oly needs is to put its barely-profitable camera department behind yet another format.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 17:39 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (635 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: Full frame user (switched from M43 once upon a time) not looking to troll but asking an honest question:

Looking at the 25mm 1.2 makes me think the same thing as when I saw the f.95 Noktons: Isn’t this just the wrong system for shallow DOF? Putting a big, heavy, and expensive lens on a system built around portability makes no sense to me…

Especially considering that the cost of this lens is the same as a used D600+50mm 1.8, which will provide similar DOF characteristics at little size/weight penalty when considering the whole combo. And that is not even considering the (at least in my opinion) poor ergonomics of a big lens on a small body, the IQ advantage of full frame, and the (presumably) poorer performance at f1.2 compared to a good ol’ f1.8.

Of course M43 has its other advantages, but doesn’t a larger format just make more sense for shallow DOF than shoehorning a very fast lens into a system that really just doesn’t excel in that area? Am I missing something here?

"Am I missing something here?"

Well, yeah. MFT isn't designed around a single intent .. just consider the exceptional range of body & lens styles -- there's something for pretty much everyone.

Anyway -- now that MFT is pretty mature, why should someone invested in the system have to go elsewhere for shallow DoF?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (635 comments in total)
In reply to:

Truebar: The size of this camera&lens combo is clearly entering the dslr territory, and there I say full frame. Therefore the sensor in that camera has to be much, much bigger, otherwise what's the point? I'm sure that this camera has all the funky and fab bells and whistles, but no commercial photographer would want to touch this because of its sensor size.

"but no commercial photographer would want to touch this because of its sensor size"

Factually incorrect. Many commercial photographers have publicly announced their use of MFT for at least some of their shoots.

None of them give a toss about the sensor's _size_ ... only its performance. And in that regard, MFT gives up very little to APSC .. or, indeed, to any 35mm imager, film or digital, before six to eight years ago.

(And god knows no good images were shot with 35mm cameras before then...)

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 17:35 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (635 comments in total)
In reply to:

feritol: beautiful & stylish camera.... but(pic no 7) what a damn little sensor.just sized equal to tester's nail!

Seriously? Your impression of the physical size of a sensor is utterly irrelevant -- you might as well be comparing pants bulges.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: And it's getting more and more DSLR like with every iteration - seems like it has slowly dawned on DSLM manufacturers that people actually want to be able to hold a camera without getting cramps in their hands, and that requires a certain size and decent ergonomics.

So what was the point of mirrorless again?!

"So what was the point of mirrorless again?!"

Am I really still reading this kind of crap in 2016?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:36 UTC
Total: 231, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »