Hubertus Bigend

Hubertus Bigend

Joined on Sep 13, 2011

Comments

Total: 180, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: Too bad that until now there's still no 'travel zoom' camera yet I'd offer my money for. The only camera I ever saw that came close to one is the Olympus C-70Z aka C-7000Z. Give me something similar, with a half-decent EVF instead of the (at least) optical finder, a half-decent sensor (1/1.7" or larger), and a stabilized lens reaching up to around 200mm with really decent image quality, and I'm sold. As of now, there is no such beast (there's a Panasonic plus a Leica variant that comes close, but as far as I could see lens IQ isn't enough).

Thanks for the comments to all of you!

@FuhTeng: Yes, too big. I've already got an OM-D with a 14-150mm lens for when I don't actually need something pocketable...

@ANAYV: Nice pics, but I haven't found a travel zoom camera yet that would still be anywhere as sharp without substantially scaling down the images.

@Kharan: The G5X is a nice and capable camera, but it's indeed the 120mm which I'd find too limiting.

@Callus: The Stylus 1 is a really nice camera, too, but already too big for my purposes (see my comment to FuhTeng above)...

@james s. kennedy: The ZS100 indeed is the one camera of late that comes close to what I'm looking for. It's just that I've found the tests and sample images I've seen so far to be somewhat disappointing. But perhaps I should give it a closer look, anyway...

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 10:04 UTC

Too bad that until now there's still no 'travel zoom' camera yet I'd offer my money for. The only camera I ever saw that came close to one is the Olympus C-70Z aka C-7000Z. Give me something similar, with a half-decent EVF instead of the (at least) optical finder, a half-decent sensor (1/1.7" or larger), and a stabilized lens reaching up to around 200mm with really decent image quality, and I'm sold. As of now, there is no such beast (there's a Panasonic plus a Leica variant that comes close, but as far as I could see lens IQ isn't enough).

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 19:41 UTC as 29th comment | 7 replies

Too bad they designed their latest digital SLRs, the K-1 and KP, after the ugliest of them all, the 67. Making the K-1 so ugly they didn't even show the whole prism outline in the poster, it's cut off...

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 10:55 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

iudex: Nice. That´s exactly what M 4/3 system needs: fast lenses that take advantage of smaller sensor, thus enabling relatively smaller lenses (compare to Nikkor 24mm/1,4 with 620g and 77mm filter thread).
However given the Leica badge it will cost a fortune, so I do not expect big sales. It´s a pitty Oly or Pany do not make such fast lenses (f1,2-1,4) on their own (i.e. cheaper than Leica).

electrophoto: all true, and you don't need to sell me Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds, because that's what I'm having fun using for more than ten years now. The size difference to FF becomes the smaller, though, the faster the lenses are which I want to use (as long as I compare sensibly), and a Sony A7x body isn't really bigger than my E-M1, either...

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Nice. That´s exactly what M 4/3 system needs: fast lenses that take advantage of smaller sensor, thus enabling relatively smaller lenses (compare to Nikkor 24mm/1,4 with 620g and 77mm filter thread).
However given the Leica badge it will cost a fortune, so I do not expect big sales. It´s a pitty Oly or Pany do not make such fast lenses (f1,2-1,4) on their own (i.e. cheaper than Leica).

Vincent DP - you don't gain two stops with the f/1.4 aperture, you only make good for the two stops you lost by cutting the sensor to a quarter of the size. With a FF sensor, you even have the choice whether you want that size resulting in much better resolution (e.g. Canon 5D MkIV) without much improved per-pixel noise, or into much better per-pixel low-light capability (e.g. Sony A7S II, which probably has an even larger advantage over MFT than just the two stops), or some of both (like Sony A7R II).

And if you choose mirrorless FF, by the way, the size advantage of MFT can become reduced to nil depending on lens choice (OM-D + 17/1.8 vs. A7 + 35/2.8 which still has a light gathering advantage of 2/3 of a stop).

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 11:11 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Nice. That´s exactly what M 4/3 system needs: fast lenses that take advantage of smaller sensor, thus enabling relatively smaller lenses (compare to Nikkor 24mm/1,4 with 620g and 77mm filter thread).
However given the Leica badge it will cost a fortune, so I do not expect big sales. It´s a pitty Oly or Pany do not make such fast lenses (f1,2-1,4) on their own (i.e. cheaper than Leica).

"stepping up the ISO will change that" – exactly. And, by tendency, the result will only start to become worse if you step it up even further than what you need to get the same shutter speed.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 09:13 UTC
In reply to:

Nixyz: seriously, why are people expecting background blur from a 24mm FF equivalent lens?

Like, because they've been used to be able to produce nice background blur with their 24mm lenses on their film cameras for thirty years or more?

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 08:40 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Nice. That´s exactly what M 4/3 system needs: fast lenses that take advantage of smaller sensor, thus enabling relatively smaller lenses (compare to Nikkor 24mm/1,4 with 620g and 77mm filter thread).
However given the Leica badge it will cost a fortune, so I do not expect big sales. It´s a pitty Oly or Pany do not make such fast lenses (f1,2-1,4) on their own (i.e. cheaper than Leica).

In practice, there's nothing a 12/1.4 can do on a MFT body that a 24/2.8 couldn't do on a FF body – if necessary at two ISO stops more. So yes, a 24/2.8 FF is always the closest match for a valid real-world comparison.

And that includes 'light gathering', too. A full-frame sensor gathers, as a good approximation, four times the number of photons with the same f-number. Stopped down two stops, it becomes the same number of photons.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 08:31 UTC
In reply to:

TN Args: Are we investors? Never understood the passion for 'market watch' discussions. If, as consumers, we are obsessed with minimizing resale losses, then fear has overtaken passion, And buying gear that is 'less right' because it might resell better (in digital tech for goodness sake!) is a sure sign that you have taken up the wrong hobby.

It could also be that someone simply has no unlimited budget for pursuing their hobby, and that for some people such worldly calculations simply are necessary to come through the year if they do not want to give up the hope of being able to buy new gear when it fits.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 06:57 UTC

"It's the first camera of its kind to ever even attempt to use its native phase-detect AF system to focus non-native, even off-brand lenses" – that's slightly wrong, the first was the Olympus OM-D E-M1 :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 17:44 UTC as 107th comment

Seems it only allows for single-row panoramas, as it only rotates but does not tilt. I'd probably rather go for a Gigapan head instead...

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 20:14 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Just buy a camera -- and lenses matching it in the first place. Simple, really. That'll put Metabones and all other gizmo-makers out of business, and do so rather quickly, I would surmise.

That would force me to buy (and, for that matter, carry) more than one camera in order to be able to use the lenses I want to use. And it would force me to buy a camera I wouldn't really choose if it wasn't for the lenses. This is what adapters and focal reducers are for: getting the most out of all kinds of lenses while staying with one – possibly your favorite – camera. Which is why Metabones & Co. won't get out of business any time soon, although their stuff is not cheap.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2015 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

Jokica: Why would owners of A7R II needed SpeedBoster anyway. Why would they need adapter with PDAF ???

@Bernard Carns, random78: With DSLR lenses designed for PDAF, CDAF is either intolerably slow or inaccurate. It cannot be accurate and decently fast at the same time. Exceptions prove the rule.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2015 at 07:56 UTC

Excellent! Can't wait to try it all out... Now all that's still missing is configurable Auto-ISO and exposure compensation in M + Auto-ISO mode. I really hope they will be added, too, before the E-M1 II comes along and firmware updates for the predecessor will end. At least Olympus has conclusively proven they can do upgrades by firmware just like Fuji.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2015 at 07:38 UTC as 40th comment
On article Meet Milvus: Hands-on with Zeiss's Milvus lenses (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: "What's the plural of Milvus? Milvi?" Yes, may be. But in Latin, there is another form of plural for some words ending with -us: If Milvus belongs to this group the plural would be Milvus.

It stems from 'miluus', the plural of which is 'milui' (cf. http://www.latein.me/latein/miluus), so it would indeed be 'milvi' :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 15:27 UTC

Other reports say ISO 12500, not 125000.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 12:07 UTC as 81st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

justmeMN: "US $649 (Canon EF mount)" Yikes! :-)

@dleemans: Of course, but what if you already have the camera you want and neither want to buy nor carry a second one, a camera that would come with maybe just the size and weight because of which you chose to buy into a mirrorless system in the first place?

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 04:44 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: I wonder if they could make speed booster for Medium format lenses onto full frame (sony a7) cameras.

@ProfHankD: Nice idea, but remember that the MFT Speed Booster was designed for a thicker filter stack and thereby image quality would be slightly reduced especially at large apertures when used on a Sony body...

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 04:40 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I just never understood why people buy into formats that don't have the lenses they want to use, and instead opt to spend more money on compromising performance...

What is so difficult to understand? There are valid reasons for choosing a smaller-format camera, even if it is just the option of having a smaller and lighter setup for everyday applications. Or because of the increased telephoto range and macro resolution. So the decision has been made, the Micro Four Thirds camera has been bought along with a couple of lenses. Now why should I buy and carry another camera just to use the full-frame SLR lenses I still have and like and which significantly broaden the options I have in terms of shallow depth of field?

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 04:36 UTC
In reply to:

RPJG: "offering the attractive option of a 25-49mm equivalent F1.3 lens (F2.5 equivalent in full frame terms)."

When describing equivalence for f numbers, I wish you'd separate out the two separate factors, i.e. exposure equivalence and DoF equivalence.

'Exposure equivalence' is not a meaningful concept. When using equivalent ISO settings (instead of numerically identical ones), which of course is what we have to do when 'equivalence' is what we're after, then by using what you misleadingly call 'DoF equivalence' both DoF and shutter speed will be the same across sensor sizes.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 04:25 UTC
Total: 180, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »