AngelicBeaver

Lives in United States San Antonio, United States
Works as a Steel Detailer
Joined on Nov 3, 2004

Comments

Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1224 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo_rb: I have to take DPReview to task on this. A couple of days ago I posted here that I wished they had made the 4/3 sensor a bit larger when it was originally conceived. This was my "opinion" based on my needs and the fact I like the camera.

It still reads that way to me but some prankster on the DPReview staff must have changed it on everyone else's feed to read "Real men don't use a 4/3 sensor." That is the only explanation I can think of for some of the replies. Shame on you DPReview!

Here's what I got: "I wrote some stuff, but people are reading way more into it then I intended, so this is my funny joke about how DPreview must have changed my words after I wrote them."

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1224 comments in total)
In reply to:

nokinonacynos: Looks like an amazing cam. However, I think MFT will continue to struggle. Once the cam is not pocketable, size becomes less of an advantage. People are realizing that a certain size is required for comfort and ergonomics. With a Pro lens, the package is similar to APC. So no advantage. In fact, the 25mm 1.2 is bigger, heavier and much more expensive than a 35mm f/2 for APC let alone a 50mm f/1.8 for FF.

This camera will have to sell on inherent qualities rather than size and weight.

I switched from Canon to Olympus years ago. Lens size was only one of the many reasons. The number one reason for my ultimate switch was Canon's terrible Auto Focus. I owned the 85 f1.8 and it constantly misfocused. I even had it checked out. With Olympus and the 75 f1.8, as long as I put the focus box at the right place, it doesn't misfocus, and the optical quality is top notch, which brings me to the close second reason I switched: Lenses. Olympus and Panasonic offered the best bang for the buck in lenses. They offered the focal lengths I wanted, many with size and weight savings, and they were better than what I could afford with Canon.12-40, 20mm, 75 f1.8. I love these lenses AND all of them stabilized. Whenever people try to make size the end game for micro 4/3, I laugh. Honestly, if size is your only consideration, M4/3 is still your system because they continue to offer other, tiny bodies that you can pair with their tiny lenses.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: Interesting and informative article, thanks. However, normally photographers that worry about these subjects will shoot Raw, not Jpeg, thus allowing more room in highlight and/or shadow recovery during processing.

@biza43 It's frustrating for a non-RAW shooter to get help with JPEG output because it seems every request for a feature or for help gets met with an immediate chorus of "Shoot RAW!" I find the benefits of RAW to be well documented and frequently expounded upon. As such, I get tired of having to battle the RAW shooters to get to the information I want. Shooting RAW is not the only answer, and is unacceptable for me. I know you wrote "normally", but you can certainly hear the chorus in a lot of the comments below. It's like asking how to get somewhere by bicycle and everyone always yells back, "You should use a car and take the highway!"

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: Interesting and informative article, thanks. However, normally photographers that worry about these subjects will shoot Raw, not Jpeg, thus allowing more room in highlight and/or shadow recovery during processing.

I like that this article acknowledges that there are some people who don't shoot RAW yet still want the best JPEG possible. That would be me. I can't do a RAW workflow for a variety of reasons and knowing the best way to capture scenes like these is very helpful.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 14:58 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)

Panasonic F-Z20 back in 2004. 12X optical zoom, constant F/2.8 aperture. Nice macro. I learned a lot with that camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 12:50 UTC as 619th comment
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V (236 comments in total)

I owned this camera for several years. I enjoyed it so much that I built a time machine and invited seven other users to go back to the moment of its introduction so we could let you all know what a lovely camera it has been. Oh, and just in case you're worried, the United States is still here, but I won't spoil who won the election.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 03:48 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article iPhone 7 real-world sample gallery (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Looks more like an Apple advert to me. I have never seen tack sharp images of people eating ice cream, taken at 1/30 th of a second. Ok, the camera stabilizer will prevent shake at 1/30 but where they instructed to freeze so that daddy can take a sharp picture ? That little guy eating icecream must have been drooling big time while the smartphonephotographer tried to compose the shot.

Other than that, the pics in good light look great, but why would you wash a chicken ?

I absolutely HATE the NR trend. I think it's because reviewers have been so focused on "noisy" images that the manufacturers have responded by smoothing it away, since they can't manufacture perfectly clean sensors. The frustrating thing is I don't hear reviewers complaining about the loss of detail or the terrible plastickness. Just praise that the noise is gone. The fact that Apple would do this just shows how widespread this philosophy is. Ugh.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 23:59 UTC
On article iPhone 7 real-world sample gallery (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Looks more like an Apple advert to me. I have never seen tack sharp images of people eating ice cream, taken at 1/30 th of a second. Ok, the camera stabilizer will prevent shake at 1/30 but where they instructed to freeze so that daddy can take a sharp picture ? That little guy eating icecream must have been drooling big time while the smartphonephotographer tried to compose the shot.

Other than that, the pics in good light look great, but why would you wash a chicken ?

You call that "tack sharp"? Looks like an oversharpened painting to me.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 18:30 UTC

Hey, now I know what everything in the studio scene actually looks like.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 14:59 UTC as 99th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Reginald II: I experimented the studio scene comparison and I'm not even impressed with the painting-like image of iphone 7, nor the oversaturated S7.

My top 3 based on that studio scene are these:
Nokia 808 Pureview
Nokia Lumia 1020
Nokia Lumia 1520 (i prefer 1520s color than 1020)

Man, they sure make it hard to do straight up comparisons on these phones. The ISOs are totally mismatched between manufacturers. The CM1 does 125 OR 3200. No comparison for ISO 800 between it and the pureview 808.

I agree though that the iPhone 7 looks terrible, even at ISO 50. People seem to like buttery smooth, even when it makes them look like they are melting.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

Reginald II: I experimented the studio scene comparison and I'm not even impressed with the painting-like image of iphone 7, nor the oversaturated S7.

My top 3 based on that studio scene are these:
Nokia 808 Pureview
Nokia Lumia 1020
Nokia Lumia 1520 (i prefer 1520s color than 1020)

I'm not a fan of the destructively aggressive noise reduction cell phone manufacturers love. Skin turns to plastic. Fine details to mush. The Nokia phones seem to be the only ones that appealed to photographers, but they had to go and be on weird operating systems. The Nokias managed to be grainy where all other camera models went with smudged. I keep hoping someone will break the mold and slap a big sensor, fast lens, and a classy JPEG engine into an Android phone. Panasonic had an interesting effort with the CM1, but the lens was relatively slow and the images didn't look great to me. Still a lot of aggressive NR.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 03:41 UTC

This kind of noise doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it seems to bother a lot of other people, thus camera manufacturers makes sure to smooth it all away. I wish we'd just accept and leave it. Banding or weird pattern noise is another issue entirely. A little grit is fine.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 15:43 UTC as 10th comment
On article Pinnacle Prime: Olympus ED 25mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

frosti7: please take wide aperture-shallow DOF pictures of subjects that are far from the camera,

one does not need a wide aperture of f1.2 for a closeup dof pictures since every camera can do that from a closeup.

My point being, I don't know if you could find a full frame camera + lens + spot on AF for under the street price of this lens. The Canon 5d mkII runs about 900 USD used, but I suspect you'd be dealing with misfocusing issues. I'd certainly like to be able to achieve that shallow DOF/super-blurry background for more distant/ full body portrait subjects, but it certainly isn't my priority and I accept this limitation of the system in exchange for what it brings.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:42 UTC
On article Pinnacle Prime: Olympus ED 25mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

frosti7: please take wide aperture-shallow DOF pictures of subjects that are far from the camera,

one does not need a wide aperture of f1.2 for a closeup dof pictures since every camera can do that from a closeup.

Honestly, unless the full frame DSLR came with quick and accurate contrast detect AF, I wouldn't want it for shallow DOF. My old Canon with 85mm lens loved to focus on people's ears instead of their eyes, and I even had the focus checked at a repair shop. With the E-M1 and 75mm, I almost never have that issue. AF was the final reason why I switched to Micro 4/3. I was keeping my Canon for portraits, but the AF was so poor that I realized it was practically obsolete.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngelicBeaver: I'm really hoping they'll let you dial back the noise reduction in JPEG mode. The E-M1 still applies a ton of NR, even when noise filtering (or whatever their special noise reduction term is) is turned off. That's my biggest gripe about the E-M1. I don't mind the noise as much as I mind the visible loss of fine detail due to smearing. Just give me an option to leave the grit (luminance noise).

@Hellraiser - I don't think it's too much to ask for a less destructive noise reduction option for the JPEG engine (which they used to provide, prior to the last couple of generations). The JPEG engine has always been a positive point of the Olympus system. I don't want to deal with massive RAW file sizes or processing for one single issue that should be relatively easy to fix, not to mention that it's a problem that Oly introduced after I'd already bought into their camera system.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:17 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)

I'm really hoping they'll let you dial back the noise reduction in JPEG mode. The E-M1 still applies a ton of NR, even when noise filtering (or whatever their special noise reduction term is) is turned off. That's my biggest gripe about the E-M1. I don't mind the noise as much as I mind the visible loss of fine detail due to smearing. Just give me an option to leave the grit (luminance noise).

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 04:27 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Teila Day: About time! I don't know how many times I've posted that the "writing was on the wall." You don't have to have a special line on corporate secrets, just a shred of common sense. Look at the greater photographic landscape. FF is just running out of Oomph and marketability. There's technical reasons why MF has advantages but there's also a very basic marketing reality as well. FF isn't "shiny and new" compared to MF. Most photographers dont know MF was practically the most popular format decades ago... people too casually call MF a "specialize tool". It's not.

The only reason MF isn't as popular as it once was is due to system price. The only reason MF hasn't become smaller, better AF, etc., was because manufacturers like Hasselblad, Phase, Mamiya and Rollei could get away with it; like Ferrari got away with building trash in the 80's (I digress).

MF can't get away with a single focus point and poor electronics today. Margins are thin & competition is heating up...

good!

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "better". Teila Day presented a market analysis. You provided a feel-good comment.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Pinnacle Prime: Olympus ED 25mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

frosti7: please take wide aperture-shallow DOF pictures of subjects that are far from the camera,

one does not need a wide aperture of f1.2 for a closeup dof pictures since every camera can do that from a closeup.

He's talking about full body portraits. You can get shallow DOF with a point and shoot if you're taking a picture of a cup two inches in front of the camera, but we want to see what kind of isolation you could get when the subject is a reasonable distance away from you. With the 75mm f1.8, you have to be pretty far away to get an entire body in the frame. I am also curious to see the isolation capabilities of this lens on slightly more distant subjects, like a full body portrait. Background to subject distances do play a role as well.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 17:17 UTC
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?

Portability is one option for the system. You can go small if you like, or now you can go larger. I have a small camera and pancake lens for when I want ultimate portability, and I have a larger camera and lens for when I want the best quality the system can offer. As long as the new lens doesn't cost the same as a full frame camera+ 50mm lens, I think it's a reasonable offering. That's where their premium longer lenses were running into trouble. At their price point, you could buy a DSLR and Sigma super-Tele for less and use that as your dedicated telephoto option. If blurriness is your only desire, it absolutely makes more sense to go full frame at this point. I like micro 4/3 for the price/quality/size relationship. Lenses and cameras that really excite me are offered at prices I can actually afford (E-M1, 20mm, 12-40 2.8, 75mm).

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

misspiggy01: i think the more natural competition for this phone is another phone, not a DSLR or ILC.

could a flagship android device produce the same pictures at a major sporting event? that´s the more relevant question than what it could do for DSLRs in the future.

btw NOTHING in this phone is an innovation. but it´s probaly a decent implementation of a number of technologies that have been around for some time.

They're just saying that the iphone raises the baseline for all the nicer cameras above it, meaning compact cameras need to be better than the iphone, and therefore enthusiast cameras need to be better than the now-better compacts, and so on until you reach the DSLRs. A trickle-up effect?

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 12:22 UTC
Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »