iudex

iudex

Lives in Slovak Republic Slovak Republic
Joined on Dec 16, 2011

Comments

Total: 905, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

As many before me have pointed out, the "DL normal" and "DL telephoto" were not interesting compared to the competition, however the "DL wideangle" was really tempting, something that hasn´t been here before and the DL18-50 would be the only one, without competition. I can imagine such a compact for hiking; tiny pocketable compact for wide landscape shots (something that now requires a much bigger combo of CSC/DSLR + UWA lens). Pitty it was burried.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 16:35 UTC as 264th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

stevo23: We will never know the true story behind this cancellation. I don't believe all of what we've been told. Sad - this series was poised to sell. But now that it's so late to market, I think there's little market share left.

Or maybe there is no conspiracy and Nikon simply told the truth: that the cameras would have not made profit and it would be too costly for Nikon. The market for expensive enthusiast compacts is not big and is already dominated by Sony, so gaining some small market share in an already small market simply wasn´t economical.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 16:34 UTC

Inspirational. I am going to Tromso, Norway to shoot aurora, unfortunately I take a day flight so no chance to see aurora from the plane.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 09:32 UTC as 23rd comment
On article Field Test: Wedding Photography with the Fujifilm X-T2 (233 comments in total)

8:34 min. made me laugh... This is one of the reasons why I refuse to photograph weddings. You don´t have second chances, if you spoil something, it´s over.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 14:31 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

t.c. marino: forgot to mention the 36mp pentax k1 ff is less expensive...see my previous post below

@ASINMT: I guess you know why, but let me remind you: the most expensive part of a camera is the sensor. So basically a FF camera will be more expensive than APSC or 4/3 camera. Of course there can be some overlapping if the specs are different, e.g. entry-level F can be cheaper than high-end APSC (see the Nikon D500. But if an high-end M43 costs more than high-end FF, something is wrong. It´s like a Mercedes A250 would cost more than a BMW 540i.
Of course there are people who have so deeply invested in the M43 system that they will pay 2 grand for it (though I guess the majority will wait for the price to fall down a bit), but every sane person realizes the price is way too high.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 14:07 UTC
On article Olympus E-M1 Mark II Iceland sample gallery (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

whakapu: Anyone else a little underwhelmed by these jpegs at that price?

OK, Scotland is special ;-) (although when I was in Scotland last year it was actually warmer there and more sun than in central Europe).
In my experience it doesn´t rain heavily in Iceland, it was more a constant light showers. So maybe no big numbers in rainfall like in Scotland, but quite unpleasant and demanding for the gear.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 13:53 UTC
On article Olympus E-M1 Mark II Iceland sample gallery (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: Wow, just wow. $2,000 for images that look like they were taken with a compact. Underwhelming.

As you say: for a 3300 eur kit the pictures should be of amazing quality. Which they are (according to majority of users here) not.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 13:46 UTC
On article Olympus E-M1 Mark II Iceland sample gallery (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: Images 15, 20 & 22 Are giant NO NOS! Just like standing on train tracks. People trying to get photos there have lost they're life, in fact MANY have lost they're life in those locations because they are to close to the beach, this is the most DANGEROUS place on EARTH for Freak Waves. You were completely irresponsible!

Sir Corey: AFAIK CamFan is from Iceland and he knows what he is talking about. And yes, there were people drowned on that beach because they underestimated the power of the ocean.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 13:44 UTC
In reply to:

t.c. marino: forgot to mention the 36mp pentax k1 ff is less expensive...see my previous post below

That´s exactly what came to my mind first as I saw the pricetag. A 4/3 camera, whatever good, simply cannot be more expensive than a high-end fullframe camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 10:51 UTC
On article Olympus E-M1 Mark II Iceland sample gallery (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

whakapu: Anyone else a little underwhelmed by these jpegs at that price?

I think Iceland is a perfect place to test new high-end camera. Demanding weather and light conditions show the potential of a camera much better than e.g. sunny Florida.
@ovatab: it´s not the autumn, I have been to Iceland this May and the weather was the same (OK, I have seen sun as well, but in Vík or in Jokulsárlón it was exactly the same, it rained and I got hit by waves too).

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 10:47 UTC
On article Olympus E-M1 Mark II Iceland sample gallery (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: Wow, just wow. $2,000 for images that look like they were taken with a compact. Underwhelming.

I wouldn´t say compact, but it would be fair to say that such images could have been taken with any decent CSC or DSLR that costs fraction of the E-M1 II price.
Maybe the lens didn´t help too, the new 12-100mm zoom doesn´t impress either.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 10:42 UTC
On article Field Test: Birds in flight with the Nikon D500 (92 comments in total)

Almost like watching Nat Geo Wild in the TV. Great video (maybe the best so far), very professional and educative. All thumbs up!

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2016 at 12:25 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

iudex: Much faster autofocus and silent motor is a welcome addition. However f4,5-6,3 is a step back. I guess the worse luminosity is due to the new retractable design and slightly smaller dimensions, however in my opinion it was not a good trade. The predecessor was no big lens, so there was no need to make it even smaller; instead Ricoh should have made it a bit faster, even with a size increase.

Sam: I had the DA version, so I know how it sounded. Typical screw-driven lens, just like many other Pentax lenses (actually there are louder lenses, eg. DFA 100mm). Sound was not the reason I gave it away, the luminosity was (f5,8 at tele end was a bit too dark). And this new lens is even slower,so no matter how silent th AF is, I won´t buy it.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2016 at 12:11 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Much faster autofocus and silent motor is a welcome addition. However f4,5-6,3 is a step back. I guess the worse luminosity is due to the new retractable design and slightly smaller dimensions, however in my opinion it was not a good trade. The predecessor was no big lens, so there was no need to make it even smaller; instead Ricoh should have made it a bit faster, even with a size increase.

Having seen the pictures I must say I am quite impressed. Pretty good resolving power, great sharpness, crispy images. For the price it cannot be any better.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 15:11 UTC

Much faster autofocus and silent motor is a welcome addition. However f4,5-6,3 is a step back. I guess the worse luminosity is due to the new retractable design and slightly smaller dimensions, however in my opinion it was not a good trade. The predecessor was no big lens, so there was no need to make it even smaller; instead Ricoh should have made it a bit faster, even with a size increase.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 15:05 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

babart: "...it's a bit darker..." Umm, WHAT'S a bit darker: the lens, the auto-focus (how could that be darker?), or the images the lens produces. And if the latter, what does that have to do with the focus? Sorry, not trying to be a pain, you just threw a big curve ball. NO, I don't teach English :).

Previous 55-300 lenses (DA and later HD DA WR) were f4-5,8, so luminosity of this new model is a bit worse (f4,5-6,3). Thus the words "a bit darker".

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Great! This is the kind of lens I have been dreaming of for my DSLR. Broad range (starting at useful wideangle), constant aperture, reasonably fast and high quality (the Pro lenses already proved their qualities so I have no doubt this one will be good too). If I was a M4/3 shooter this would be definitely my must-have lens. All the 14-something lenses are too narrow at wideangle; 12-40/2,8 is fast, but a bit limited in range, 12-60/3,5-5,6 is better in range, but too slow and obviously ment as kit lens. 12-100 looks perfect in all aspects.
I wish there was similar lens for Pentax, something like 16-135/4. The 18-135mm is too narrow at wideangle and 16-85 is a bit too short at tele, but most importantly, they are both slow variable aperture lenses (f3,5-5,6). Bt Richoh is now concentrating it´s limited fnds on fullframe, so DA lens is not real. Sigma maybe?

That was a DSLR lens, for M4/3 users quite unusable. It had nice specs nonetheless and those could work nicely on M4/3. But soon you will have exactly the same lens, since Panasonic announced such lens. Then there will be a great choice of fast (or faster) zoom lenses: 12-40/2,8, 12-60/2,8-4, 12-100/4. Spec-wise the 12-60 looks like the sweet spot (when it reaches the market).

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 08:11 UTC
In reply to:

KCook: An M4/3 lens requiring a 72mm filter???

justshootme

My f3,5-5,6 APSC lens requires also 72mm filters.
You simply cannot have it all: fast aperture, big range, small dimensions and small filters.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 06:56 UTC
In reply to:

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

Ogl: error in your calculation: 12-100mm equals to 24-200mm (2x crop sensor), not 28-200.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 11:47 UTC

Great! This is the kind of lens I have been dreaming of for my DSLR. Broad range (starting at useful wideangle), constant aperture, reasonably fast and high quality (the Pro lenses already proved their qualities so I have no doubt this one will be good too). If I was a M4/3 shooter this would be definitely my must-have lens. All the 14-something lenses are too narrow at wideangle; 12-40/2,8 is fast, but a bit limited in range, 12-60/3,5-5,6 is better in range, but too slow and obviously ment as kit lens. 12-100 looks perfect in all aspects.
I wish there was similar lens for Pentax, something like 16-135/4. The 18-135mm is too narrow at wideangle and 16-85 is a bit too short at tele, but most importantly, they are both slow variable aperture lenses (f3,5-5,6). Bt Richoh is now concentrating it´s limited fnds on fullframe, so DA lens is not real. Sigma maybe?

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 06:58 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies
Total: 905, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »