Lives in Australia ACT, Australia
Works as a z/OS IT, freelance
Joined on Jun 28, 2009
About me:

Was gifted a second hand Minolta rangefinder at 11yo. No manual, no Google, no money. I learned DOF, shutter speed, motion, flare, sharpness and film speeds at a time when you had to WAIT a week for your photos. Colour was too expensive!
Since then, I've always had trouble putting a camera down especially a FULL frame Mamiya RB-67 outfit :)
Semi-pro since the '80s. 6x7 and 35mm then, Micro four thirds now: A good compromise.
Pro results without bulk and weight to lug around.
Years ago, I recovered from "Equivalence Phobia" that so many suffer from, and find that people react better to a smaller setup and love the results.
Customers want results, not "format psychobabble".
Enjoy photography - not silly format arguments!


Total: 351, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Still the usual trolls who think that the film (sensor) is all there is to a camera along with gimmicky wafer thin DOF.
How naive ..
Portability, speed, IS capability and handling are just as important in the real world and that's where this camera shines. The M1-Mk2's IS bests any other camera for now.
Have a look at the galloping horse video shot from a truck. It looks like a steadycam (etc.) was used.
IQ is very usable - especially in capable (not troll) hands.
The others will either try to copy, but more likely they will MARKET their war around their own deficiencies (like they still DO with sensor clean - for which they offer the "innovative solution" of spot removal software - LOL).
They will continue to sell a lot of huge cameras, that get left at home most of the time.
DSLR size and MASS sure has helped phone photography along ...

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2017 at 14:45 UTC as 6th comment
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1385 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lombard59: I can not understand why EM1 II has lost value in ISO and RAW in relation to EM1. Can anyone explain to me why Olympus has let the new EM1 II lose in such important values as ISO and RAW? How is it possible that a camera that has taken 3 years to exit, according to Preview, is worse in those values, compared to its predecessor the EM1? Are you sure Depreview has done that comparison well? . It is very strange that the EM1 II is worse than the EM1 in ISO and RAW. I do not understand and it has no logic. Does anyone have any comparisons between EM1 and EM1 II, regarding ISO and RAW?

I didn't notice that first time, and I couldn't see that said on the second read. Are you talking per pixel results?

Mine's on order, and have seen nothing I don't like nor any "worse".

I spend no time on the sony forum rubbishing their speed and focus performance.
Nor the severe vignetting present in many sony lenses.
Nor the poor IBIS (except the OLD EM-1 system they have just licensed from Olympus and are putting in a "new" model).

When my Mk 2 arrives I will probably be absent for a while - taking pictures. Portability rules.
Call me crazy, but that is what I like to use cameras for - not criticising bricks 'n' bazookas in another forum.

If really I need a bigger sensor, I'll bypass the full MARKETING frame cameras and their 1.2 lenses that are v.soft and look at a new Fuji 33x44mm sensor mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 11:38 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1385 comments in total)
In reply to:

my hobby: Hi there,I dont know where did you find the score of 85 percent ? First RAW and JPG are not good,video is not extra quality and final product is not what we expected,only body-machine seems good build what is not point if we don`t take it because of bad product-photo or videos..................

Mine's on order - ALL gear is a compromise, this set is right for many people who don't need to win moaning contests in the pub.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 12:36 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1385 comments in total)

That price, it isn't really "body only" it is body plus a small, useful, detachable bounce flash.
It may not be powerful, but given the IS capability not an issue and represents a saving.
Are any competitors packaged with a flash - at all?
Here, it also comes with a fast 23Gb UHS 2 card saving #2.
And it WILL be taken along because the kit doesn't weigh 15 Kilos :(

If you want to lug full MARKETING frame gear around then feel free.
Wassamadda? Bricks 'n' Bazooka camera injured your back so have to whine, chair-bound on other forums?
More likely, whiners don't even HAVE a camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 12:34 UTC as 104th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

steviewa: As nobody's stupid enough to buy one of these compact cameras they defo need to give them away !

Oh yeah?
Features the others will copy NEXT YEAR **MAYBE**)

IS that kills **ANY** dSLR or "competing" mirrorless STONE DEAD?

What's not to like? It is a tool, not jewelry for fools ..

NO gallery from the OP ... probably does not even understand a pinhole camera.

Here's what people who actually HAVE cameras and USE them, seek: (capable in just about ANY suituation)

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 03:47 UTC

I applaud you in the extra effort for real world images.

Thank you - EXCEPT that it makes the wait all the more agonising ;)

The "mirror slap fan boy" comments are ignored, as is appropriate .

The features are unobtainable elsewhere (until they COPY next year).
This IS KILLS any other pro (consumer not $50,000) camera stone dead - period.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 02:58 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Lan: Nice to see actual money as a prize, and no entry fee either. Well played Olympus!

EVERY photo contest I've ever seen, (even where there is NO prize) expect rights to USE the picture(s) you submit.
What's the point if the promoter can't publish the pictures? That would be moronic.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 01:21 UTC
In reply to:

janist74: I think the tech is there to have better IQ from the M4/3 size sensor, but it might be somewhat expensive. Compare the Sony RX100V and tell me if you see 1 stop difference....

I hope the GH5 gets a Sony sensor with the tech of the RX100V (IQ and AF) and then we have a winner there. The I would even pay 1999CHF/EUR/USD.... ;)

I can see it - I'd make it 2/3- to 1 stop.
Not earth shattering - worthwhile, very usable. and satisfying. You know for actually making images?
The other stills features are unavailable in ANY other camera, let alone a compact SYSTEM.
The OMD-EM1 Mark 2's IS leaves all other "competitors" in the veritable dust You know, when you are NOT playing a game of "test twerps".
NO "ifs" .. "buts" .. or "maybes", in places I LIKE to shoot in, e.g. museums old buildings - this ability KILLS other portable cameras - stone dead.
I can't wait and I plan to reshoot some old work ASAP!

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Good luck, Olympus.

Good luck mirror slapping Bricks 'n' Bazookas - BnB (tm)
Got some images for us to look at?
Without them, "credibility as a photographer" = 0

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:48 UTC
In reply to:

Valterj: The image is out of focus... all other cameras have better images than Olympus Mark II

The photographer didn't focus where you "think" it should be? L effing OL ..

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:43 UTC
In reply to:

razadaz: If photographers had been as derogative as some of the posters here over resolution and grain size when Oskar Barnack developed his 35mm camera, we would probably never have heard of Leica cameras, or Nikon or Canon 35mm. I can imagine the comments now about how the image quality was a joke compared to their Speed Graphic sheet film camera.

Quite right - gear heads NOT photographers at all, they certainly RARELY have a gallery of their wonderful work to look at.
Worse .. they rarely even HAVE what they are praising.
They can criticise, posture, whine away - HERE . . .

I'm sure there's SOMETHING "wrong" with each and every shot, be it serious efforts, images made in crowded venues or just snaps.

"Coulda" been this", "shoulda been that" L effing OL

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

CheersUK: I just took a quick look through the comparison. After the initial launch price shock of the Mark II, I was starting to lean back towards I dont know again. I'm certainly not seeing image quality to rival the best APS-C fact, I'm not seeing much improvement beyond current M43 bodies.
Without doubt, feature wise, the camera is amazing, but nobody has shown me any output from this camera that rivals Olympus' IQ claims for this camera. High ISO (1600 for example) and image sharpness, dont look great. Thats a worry. The G85 wasn't even on my is now.

Seen this insane IS capability? While Olympus may have licensed their OLD IS tech sony - they didn't let them have THIS!

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:32 UTC
In reply to:

Sigma82: You are using the Olympus 45 1.8 (250 euro) on the em1 II , the Nikon 50 1.4 (450 euro) on the d500 and the Fuji 56 1.2 (950 euro) on the xt2? How is it a fair comparison?

I agree, it will be a very good TOOL that I think will offer me a whole lot of new CHOICES not available elsewhere - ESPECIALLY in a compact system.
In size/weight terms the SYSTEM is reminiscent of my 35mm systems
In performance it VASTLY exceeds the quality my Mamiya RB-67 system could deliver - in *EVERY* respect.
I pixel peep for a few minutes. Soon I get back into the real world and just use the tool.
Looking forward to mine.

Seen this? 15s hand held! Insane all right!

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to: EM1-2 image detail looksvery much as good as the APS-C images, at least up to ISO 1600. Olympus has done a nice job.

Agree maljo ... it appears well done - can't wait for mine. It is on the way.
@Mike99999 got any PROOF for that wild speculation?
If this drivel were correct, can you explain WHY they don't also do that to Nikon - who they also supply with sensors?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:15 UTC
In reply to:

pdelux: at ISO 200 the PEN-F appears sharper and has better tones (especially in the faces) - and punchier than the EM1-2. I dont believe that it could be worse than the PEN-F at the very least on par. I can only assume this is a result of the beta raw converter not working the files to its potential.

Correct - there are too many variables - PP has a huge effect :) I put it half a stop behind the D500 given the sharpness seems a tad better (to me) with the EM-1 MKii

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I always thought the original E-M1 test shots here looked like there was always a slight amount of blur--either motion or out of OOF. Clear back in 2013 it would be that way and so I would compare to the E-M5 even though that wasn't the camera I was looking at.
Compared to the E-M1mk2 it's pretty clear the E-M1 is a little out of focus.
It might explain what might be the problem with people's view on the new camera, thinking it doesn't resolve well at 200

@deep7 - don't hold your breath for an EM-1 retest.
Sometimes cameras are not even configured properly when "tested" - let alone with up to date FW.
Not saying that is the case here, but it is common enough.
FW added EFSC to drastically reduce the effects of the mechanicals moving. It also introduced a rolling (silent) shutter mode which allows for even sharper shots of relatively slow moving subjects - especially with teles.

I used that mode here:

and most of here:
Most camera mechanisms move the camera a bit. dSLr shutters do too, but due to the sheer mass of the body, it is less noticeable.
Mirrors are even WORSE.
This is WHY the top model dSLRs have mirror lock-up:
To avoid mirror slap softening every image.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 00:03 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Can someone explain why the whites of the pictures changes when switching from raw to jpg in the low-light (tungsten) mode? The raws have a relatively neutral white balance, but the jpgs are all over the place (except for the Phase). Is it supposed to be like that? Shouldn't the guys have corrected the white balance manually on the tungsten shots so the pictures would be comparable?
Or is this another one of their innovations?

You'd need to do your OWN tests rather than flaccidly cherry-pick someone else's test to try to make a point.
The results look very good, the original EM-1 is still a very good tool for making images, but maybe not for a "mine's bigger than yours" contest down the local pub.
You prefer cameras resembling Bricks 'n' Bazookas? B 'n' B (tm) Go right ahead!
Many of US prefer Portable Quality and some high speed shooting in a configurable camera.
Just wait a while 'till CaNikSon copy the features, like they did Live View which all the B 'n' B fans said was "useless".
Mine's hopefully here in 2 weeks.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2016 at 23:55 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Apart from a few compact primes, can anyone tell me why so many Olympus MFT lenses are so large and heavy, many of them have such outrageous native distortion? The cameras, E-M1 II apart are compact and lightweight, especially the beautiful Mini Leica like Pen-F. Silly name though for what ought to be called an E-M2, perhaps.The bodies may be 4/3 but most of the lenses are 16/3.

Probably seeking edge to edge sharpness and low vignetting something the big bangers don't do well.
Have a look at the sometimes two stop of vignetting for most full MARKETING frame primes.
2 stops loss (not uncommon) means a supposed f/1,4 lens is f/2,8 at the edge. Hardly a fast lens when compared to the numerical specification.
Not everyone wants that "auto-vignetting 1950's look" for most images so vignetting ALSO forces correction.
2+ stops vignetting also means 2 stops MORE noise when you have to correct for the dim edges.
Or maybe they want to avoid THIS well documented fault.
Isn't it a CON when sensor and camera software are hacked to PRETEND that a lens is f/1,2?

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 23:51 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (502 comments in total)

Is that correct? The Sony costs TWICE what the panny does?

It looks OK, but a 100% premium seems a lot to pay.
Admission: I own neither.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 10:43 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies
On article New kid on the block: YI M1 review (710 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: I think Yi just killed the 16 megapixel MFT camera
I am sure from now on Panasonic and Olympus would not dare to put 16 megapixel sensor even in their cheapest camera

expensive one like the new g85 with 16 megapixel is a joke
When they design this they probably not aware Yi M1 exist

now they probably regret doing so. Seeing how much this M1 cost, they are really cheating their customer using an old sensor on new and expensive camera. Even E-PL8 is a rip off, G85 more so

All MFT people should thank Yi for killing the stupid old 16 MP sensor
Thanks XiaoYi, sincere thank you from me

Ah someone who knows how to count ... knows the cost of everything, the value of nothing.

Pixel count is used to mislead mathematically challenged users. It works well as a marketing ploy!

One must take the square root of the division of one sensor pixel count by the other to get the actual resolution difference.

The real numbers mean less. MUCH less.

eg 24mp has 22.5% more linear resolution than 16 mp - that's JUST visible, and only impresses some people as "significant"

Better lenses are more important. For full MARKETING frame, good lenses are usually large.

Viz. SQRT( pixelcount_L/pixelcount_S)

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2016 at 04:15 UTC
Total: 351, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »