bryanbrun

Joined on Apr 6, 2011

Comments

Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Raist3d: Taken with GX850 in the last week. Olympus f1.8 24 mm . Great for street photography. It's a quiet speed demon and focuses better than any of the okympuses I have tried (penf, em5 mkII , other pens).

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/talkingtoheadphonesp1060050.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/p10605012017-ricardo-hernandez-machado.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/p10605062017-ricardo-hernandez-machado.jpg

The AF speed on the latest Olympus models is among the fastest in the market. You are consumed by an imaginary notion. Deluded. Absolutely no one talks about AF speed of the latest m4/3 models because they are all so fast and nearly identical.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 15:27 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

J2Gphoto: These forums seem to draw the same mindless talk. How many of the nay sayers have ever even picked up and shot with an Olympus? When you knock a camera or system based on other peoples opinions who have never used the system or are complete die hard Canikon fan boys, you sound like an idiot. I've shot with Canon, Nikon and use Olympus. I really like how Olympus always pushes to top their last camera and cram as much new technology in their new bodies as they can. In addition to the obvious things to like ( size and weight) I have always liked that they offer some amazing glass in comparison at a much lower price and size in many cases. When they say they are dust and weather sealed, they are dust and weather sealed. I've been on photowalks where people with weather sealed gear is treated like it will melt if it gets a little wet. I've shot in blizzards and downpours and none of my Olympus gear has ever had any issues. Other camera companies seem to update just enough so u want it.

>> Olympus has some incredible technology, but the sensor still lacks in IQ.

That's nonsense.

If you compare the EM 1.2 sensor to nearly all APSC cameras, it equals or exceeds their IQ.

So give us some facts, with comparative images using the dpreview image tool.

Where exactly is the IQ of the latest m4/3 sensors lacking?

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 01:04 UTC

How many people need a medium format camera to "earning a living selling very large prints in galleries or juried art festivals."

What is that maybe 1,000 to 2,000 people in the entire United States?

A great camera for that .00000001 percent of the market.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 16:12 UTC as 45th comment | 5 replies

The iPhone takes "nice" looking photographs because it doesn't take real photographs.

The iPhone lifts shadows, adjust colors and curves. Any SLR could be made to do that.

The photographs just wouldn't represent reality.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 01:46 UTC as 94th comment | 4 replies

Admittedly, I know very little about Canon cameras. Are these the best products they have?

There's no electronic shutter, no 4K video and the FPS for all these models seems quite low.

Why do people buy these cameras?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 19:24 UTC as 24th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

PAntunes: The images look beautiful, but when they get zoomed in, they look a "little" noisy.

Being a paid shoot, doesn't the client care? Specially when compared to the competition, with images shot by medium format or full frame cameras...

If it's for social media, they look fine, but I wonder how big they could print them...

It's a great camera, but is it really the right tool for the job?

The best APSC cameras have the same noise characteristics as the EM1 Mk2 all the way up to ISO 3200.

Few of these shots even approach ISO 3200. So you are imagining "noise" that doesn't exist.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 22:21 UTC
On article Canon debuts EOS M6 mirrorless with optional EVF (669 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: Riddle me this:

I thought the simplified design of mirrorless cameras was supposed to lead to reduced cost.

Yet the T7i and EOS-M6 cost almost exactly the same (and the M5 is more expensive).

Any thoughts on which costs more to produce? Is the EOS-M6 cheaper to produce than the T7i but they are hoping that the compactness sells and translates into more $$$$?

Or is there something else about the EOS-M6 that puts it in the same price class as the T7i?

My theory: Canon does not want to gut rebel sales by releasing a camera with similar features that undersells the rebel line. If the EOS-M6 has higher margin/brings in more dollars than that's OK if they loose rebel sales but anything else would be a step backward. Sort of like when IBM was in the predicament that PC sales were killing their typewriter sales.

(1) Totally agree about not wanting to undercut.
(2) More volume = lower selling price. Right now mirrorless sells fewer units than DSLR.
(3) Newer product = R&D that Canon needs to recoup = higher price.
(4) Other competing mirrorless systems (Olympus, Fuji, etc) also have premium pricing.
(5) Collapse of ILC camera market = higher pricing. No reason to flood a shrinking marketplace.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

Collie Camp: I wish, they would make a FF camera - that would be sooo good.

Oh I see, you changed from: "The Canon Can Do It". Oh crap: "Who needs it?"

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

Gimli son of Gloin: I know the mFT fans are excited about this cam but I still maintain that a 1 inch sensor bridge cams gives similar, if not equal, IQ with much more versatility in video, reach and compactness than the current crop of mFT cams.

The only thing against a bridge camera would be price but the E-M1 is certainly higher.

Good times indeed.

Gimli son of Troll. Go compare the image quality of the E-M1 to bridge cams using the dpreview comparison tool at high ISOs, and get back to us on that. And which bridge cams can mount a 7-14 2.8 lens?

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

Collie Camp: I wish, they would make a FF camera - that would be sooo good.

We are not talking about 4k video. The E-M1 Mark II captures 20 MP RAW image files at up to an 60 fps in S-AF Mode. Using the electronic shutter.

Which FF camera does that?

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): You guys can keep all this publicity, but that camera still take pictures that look a lot worse (specially in any kind of shadows even at base ISO) of what you can get with half of the money that camera cost and Olympus is not the only one with weather sealing. Its doesn't matter how many article you guys published about this camera, the camera still fails to provide IQ of the same level as Nikon, Canon, Sony or Fuji and you can get weather sealing with this others brands too.

Use the dpreview comparison tool. The IQ of the Olumpus is identical to Canon/Sony/Fuji APSC cameras up to ISO 3200.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 18:54 UTC
In reply to:

Michael S.: Nice Ad for Olympus...but keep in mind - shooting at f5-f7 with the m4/3 sensor means shooting at f10-f14 with a full format camera, so getting a quite sharp picture is kudos to far larger depth of field too with that small sensor, not only the AF-capability of that camera.

;-)

And when I want a small DOF on my Olympus EM5, I use one my 1.8 primes. Or the $99 dollar 40-150mm.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 18:53 UTC
In reply to:

Collie Camp: I wish, they would make a FF camera - that would be sooo good.

If they did FF, they couldn't do 60 FPS. And they couldn't do a 14 frame cache when you half press the shutter button.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

nz769r: I walked away from Olympus after a long wait for their micro four thirds products to have more than cheap plastic lenses without a bloody hood! I had just moved on to Fuji when they actually got serious with the 12-40, 40-150 and the 7-14 2.8's which actually complemented the EM1. The video is a perfect showcase for the Mark II and the pro lenses. Well done!
I am really tempted to reconsider Olympus but the Fuji lenses and the XT1 and XT2 are fantastic as well. Setting aside the fact that Fuji's customer commitment via continuously adding of features to existing camera's embarrassed Olympus into the firmware 4.0 upgrade for the EM1.

Fake news. Olympus has been doing regular firmware upgrades to bodies and lenses for years now.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

Daft Punk: I do not believe those who say that EM1Mk2 quality is as good as APSC.

I have spent some time on the FredMiranda site looking at the galleries. The D500 galleries from members are definitely a step ahead of the EM1mkII shots in detail and richness. There are a LOT of birding shots in there to compare and the better IQ of the D500 shots is quite noticeable.

You don't need to go to Fred Miranda's site. Use the Dpreview comparison tool. The EM1 II is equal to a variety of different APSCs at ISO 3200 and below.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

bryanbrun: The best use of a 50mm, or the m4/3 25mm, is for taking casual portraits. It provides for a reasonable close working distance -- you don't have to back up from your subject in a restaurant or the street. It provides for a decent background blur.

A 50mm (m4/3 25mm) doesn't heavily distort facial features as wider lenses do.

This article is unfortunately missing any portraiture work.

Contra, I've taken hundreds of great casual portraits in restaurants with my Olympus 25mm. It literally is the best lens for the across the table shot where you are not also taking a picture of cups and plates that later have to be cropped out.

Carey, thank you for the wonderful gallery. I totally understood that you wouldn't want "personal" portraits in the official gallery. And I knew that it is hard to get permission from strangers for galleries on DPR.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 19:48 UTC

The best use of a 50mm, or the m4/3 25mm, is for taking casual portraits. It provides for a reasonable close working distance -- you don't have to back up from your subject in a restaurant or the street. It provides for a decent background blur.

A 50mm (m4/3 25mm) doesn't heavily distort facial features as wider lenses do.

This article is unfortunately missing any portraiture work.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 16:17 UTC as 34th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

John C Tharp: Got to wonder if they used stabilized lenses for the video; they used the very best unstabilized lenses for the stills (except the 70-200/2.8L II of course). Some of the shots looked a little jumpy.

Realistically I'd expect them to be using the 24-70/4L for video, versus the 24-70/2.8L II. The f/2.8 lens is certainly sharper at the widest apertures, but the f/4 is certainly sharp enough for the 8MP crops that 4k video uses.

I think the video is fine as it is. These are nearly all landscape shots, so there is no need for small DOF. Aside from the Gerta's lovely face, I didn't many subjects that would benefit from a heavily blurred background.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

bryanbrun: I'm curious if people actually use 4K video when recording casual/every day videos. Videos of your everyday life that you might only share with family. I just don't see the point of 4K video. I've heard all the down sampling arguments (for better 1080p quality) and zooming arguments, and they just don't make sense to me.

I shoot a lot of 1080p videos with my OMD EM5. When I go on vacation I might come back with at most 10 gigabytes of video. I can't imagine going on vacation as Max did and returning with 1.5 terabytes.

What exactly is the point of 4K video if it takes up so much damn space and requires so much computing power to edit?

I would probably need to take another vacation after editing and finding a place to store all of that video.

Oh, and great video by the way!

No, maintaining hundreds of terabytes of video is not cheap. Nor is it convenient or practical to back up. Especially off site.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 23:50 UTC

I'm curious if people actually use 4K video when recording casual/every day videos. Videos of your everyday life that you might only share with family. I just don't see the point of 4K video. I've heard all the down sampling arguments (for better 1080p quality) and zooming arguments, and they just don't make sense to me.

I shoot a lot of 1080p videos with my OMD EM5. When I go on vacation I might come back with at most 10 gigabytes of video. I can't imagine going on vacation as Max did and returning with 1.5 terabytes.

What exactly is the point of 4K video if it takes up so much damn space and requires so much computing power to edit?

I would probably need to take another vacation after editing and finding a place to store all of that video.

Oh, and great video by the way!

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 19:31 UTC as 41st comment | 6 replies
Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »