mmartel

Joined on Feb 3, 2013

Comments

Total: 143, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On photo Glass Artisan in Murano in the - Craftsmen/artisans - challenge (2 comments in total)

Great photo!

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2021 at 23:35 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

NexUser: It has insane image stabilization, it has great sharpness, it doesn't get hazy in close shots, it has special macro mode, it is 24-200mm, it is fixed f4, it has fast AF, it is metal, it has full weather sealing.

Why is it not gold then?

I see no rival to such quality in the market in such a wide zoom range. It really has no real competition if you want one zoom lens. I looked at many reviews, they all say the lens is sharp at all apertures at all zoom lengths. This is one insane lens.

@phouphou You might be surprised at what's possible with m43 at higher ISOs. Even 6400-10000 (really!) can produce some fairly decent images from RAW files if you have good software and good processing technique.

Here is some evidence you might consider. These are just family snaps I've taken with a lowly Panasonic GX85, inexpensive plastic kit zooms, and cheap primes: https://photos.app.goo.gl/1iLK8pTk258UGRAj8

I'm but a humble hobbyist/family photographer. But I've printed enough with enough sensor sizes in my lifetime to know that any of these images -- even the ISO 10,000 images -- would be just fine printed at 11x14" / A3 (or possibly even a size larger), or seen on a 4k TV at ordinary viewing distances. And that's good enough for pretty much everything I need a camera to do. YMMV.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2020 at 07:17 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Very nice sample gallery here. Well done.
This is a very expensive MFT kit lens. Nothing optically spectacular compared to the usual 18-135mm APS-C glass that are 2-3 times cheaper and even smaller and lighter. I just can't imagine why would I pay this kind of money for such optics. Because it says "Pro" on the barrel? Ridiculous! Even the equivalently faster (than F8) FF optics are cheaper than this. And sometimes even same size and weight, like the new Tamron 28-200F2.8-5.6. So, what's the point?
Also I find conclusions like "Heavy" and "Good for Travel" to be contradictory. And if it was under $600, then it could be "well worth considering".

@ecka64 Well, I invite you to check for yourself what equivalent lens angles of view on a photographic calculator if you won't take my word for it. According to the calculators I've checked, you're mistaken:

Here's one:
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{%22c%22:[{%22f%22:8,%22av%22:%224%22,%22fl%22:12,%22d%22:3048,%22cm%22:%220%22}],%22m%22:0}

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2020 at 03:57 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Very nice sample gallery here. Well done.
This is a very expensive MFT kit lens. Nothing optically spectacular compared to the usual 18-135mm APS-C glass that are 2-3 times cheaper and even smaller and lighter. I just can't imagine why would I pay this kind of money for such optics. Because it says "Pro" on the barrel? Ridiculous! Even the equivalently faster (than F8) FF optics are cheaper than this. And sometimes even same size and weight, like the new Tamron 28-200F2.8-5.6. So, what's the point?
Also I find conclusions like "Heavy" and "Good for Travel" to be contradictory. And if it was under $600, then it could be "well worth considering".

@Ecka64 25mm on FF matches 12mm on m43 for horizontal and vertical angles of view. 28mm is about 6 degrees less horizontally and 10 degrees less vertically.

I prefer plastic to metal, too. But metal lenses cost more. Or,, at least, people seem willing to pay more.

And no, we don't all want the best thing. Because if you want the best, you gotta pay for the best. And be willing to carry it. So most often I want the next best thing or the next next best thing.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2020 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Very nice sample gallery here. Well done.
This is a very expensive MFT kit lens. Nothing optically spectacular compared to the usual 18-135mm APS-C glass that are 2-3 times cheaper and even smaller and lighter. I just can't imagine why would I pay this kind of money for such optics. Because it says "Pro" on the barrel? Ridiculous! Even the equivalently faster (than F8) FF optics are cheaper than this. And sometimes even same size and weight, like the new Tamron 28-200F2.8-5.6. So, what's the point?
Also I find conclusions like "Heavy" and "Good for Travel" to be contradictory. And if it was under $600, then it could be "well worth considering".

I'm not saying I'd buy a 12-100mm F4 at list price. I wouldn't.

I'm not saying the Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 is a bad lens. It seems like it has great optics and and solid value for FF users. But it isn't metal. It doesn't have IS. And it starts at 28mm rather than 24mm equivalent. And it can't focus anywhere near as close as the Only 12-100mm, so no macro replacement ability. That may go a long way towards explaining the $500 price difference.

Look, some users are always willing to pay a premium for the best lenses any particular system.

Whatever your feelings are about MFT vs FF (and we know exactly what they are, because you never miss an opportunity to remind us), I think you can agree that this is one of the best zoom lenses (objectively) in the MFT system. Your problem is not the lens, in other words, but the price.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2020 at 16:11 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-S5 review (929 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: What most people don't really know or understand is that Panasonic's approach is "very close to the state of the art, as long as reliability and performance remain in the top". Panasonic has never launched a product that could be proven not reliable or performing less than what it says it does.

...Except for the rear dials on the GX85s, which seem to fail with alarming regularity, even on new devices, as I can attest to. That said, their warranty department did take care of me promptly and in my subsequent 2 years of ownership, I've had no subsequent problems with.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2020 at 18:24 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV initial review (763 comments in total)
In reply to:

pentaust: Bad noise above ISO800. Micro 4:3 sensors are too small. Sensor costs have come down quite a lot over the years. We're not 15 years ago when large sensors were very expensive to make. We're in 2020, full frame sensors are now cheap to make, and the full frame camera format is now the mainstream consumer camera format. Micro 43 is due to phase out, since the free cameras in mobile phone are now able to taking pictures as good as from a micro 43 camera. Full frame superior image quality is now the only thing to justify carrying a stand-alone camera system.

Redacted

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2020 at 02:05 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV initial review (763 comments in total)
In reply to:

pentaust: Bad noise above ISO800. Micro 4:3 sensors are too small. Sensor costs have come down quite a lot over the years. We're not 15 years ago when large sensors were very expensive to make. We're in 2020, full frame sensors are now cheap to make, and the full frame camera format is now the mainstream consumer camera format. Micro 43 is due to phase out, since the free cameras in mobile phone are now able to taking pictures as good as from a micro 43 camera. Full frame superior image quality is now the only thing to justify carrying a stand-alone camera system.

As a current m43 owner (and previous Nikon DX owner), there may be a day when the FF systems are more attractive to me than m43.

But right now, none of the existing FF mirrorless systems (or even APS-C) look better to me, for what I shoot, what I'm willing to pay, and what I'm willing to carry.

As a RAW and 4k video shooter, I'm more or less getting all I need from my m43 rig for my hobbyist level output needs.

YMMV.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2020 at 02:02 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV initial review (763 comments in total)
In reply to:

Halftrack: I can't see myself ever buying another camera with only contrast-detect autofocus. I think anyone coming to this camera as a "step up" from a smartphone is likely to find the autofocus system a frustrating disappointment. A robust AF system is just as important to novices as to advanced photographers, and CDAF only is a major drawback in 2020. Of course, if this is your first camera you may not understand the difference—until you buy it, try it, and then go back to using your phone because the camera can't hold focus on your face when you try to use it for selfies.

I've previously owned and shot Nikon DX, Nikon 1 for a span of 8 years.

I switched to Panasonic m43 (mid range GX85) with contrast detect autofocus. Here's the thing: It actually is more accurate than my previous phase detect cameras in a lot of shots and has eye detection, too. The only thing it's slightly weaker in is continuous tracking and continuous autofocus. And even there, it is still serviceable.

I have two kids. I shoot photos of them successfully all the time with my CDAF cameras. I occasionally miss a shot but I occasionally missed with my PDAF equipped Nikons previously too.

Phase detection is not a flawless system on all cameras, contrary to popular myth. And CDAF is also not the cripple on many cameras that many seem to believe.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2020 at 14:44 UTC
On article Nikon Z 24-200mm F4-6.3 VR sample gallery (222 comments in total)
In reply to:

EXkurogane: Another one of those lenses that gets the job done in a small and light package but screws over you in image quality. I'd use one maybe on vacations, and nothing else.

@brendon1000 This 24-200mm lens on FF Nikon Z will give shallower DoF *at wider 35mm equivalent focal lengths* than bridge cameras.

That said, and this may surprise some people, you *can* exceed the background blur with bridge cameras like the FZ1000/2000, Sony RX10 series -- even the tiny 1/2.3" sensored FZ300 with its constant f2.8 lens -- provided you shoot at a longer working distance (i.e., more tele-style subject framing). The physical aperture at the long end of the RX10IV, for example, is ~220/4 = 55mm compared to 200/6.3 = ~31.7mm for this 24-200mm lens. Even the tiny-sensored FZ300 has a physical aperture of 108/2.8 = 38.6mm at its longest focal length. So you can actually achieve more blur with the bridge cameras than with the 24-200mm FF cameras, provided you can back up far enough and frame your images sufficiently at those longer focal lengths.

On the other hand, if you are looking for shallower depth of field at wide angles, obviously that favors the 24-200mm FF rig.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2020 at 18:53 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Best budget lenses for Canon APS-C DSLRs (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kharan: Please don’t let the luddites get you down, Chris and Jordan, your videos are great! They’re the only i thing I look forward to seeing in DPR these days.

@xeppelin - As a literate, able reader, I also enjoy entertaining video content. The personality of the hosts adds a layer of entertainment to the information. For pure efficiency, the written articles can't be beaten. But I'm nonetheless glad dpreview offers both.

Also, you're like a broken record. Every dpreview video published has you registering a new complaint. I think you can stop. You've been heard on this point.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2020 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

Hibiscusbloom: I am primarily interested in the AF capability of the 150-400 with the camera, if it can equal or surpass the A9ii, then I am in. DOF is of a lesser concerns when you want reach and portability. Also need to know the noise level compared to APS-C and FF. Please educate as I know nothing about the Olympus four-third system. Thanking you in advance! Cheers.

You'll have to wait for reviews and production samples to determine if AF on the 150-400mm will meet your expectations/needs for your subject matter. I suspect the lens will not be a weak link, and you'll be practically limited by the body and processor capabilities. Recent flagship m43 bodies (e.g., EM-1iii, EM-1x, EM-5iii) are all excellent, although perhaps still not quite as good as A9ii (or even Nikon D500). I suggest you ask on m43 forums and Sony forums to see if anyone who owns both systems can comment.

As far as noise, recent m43 sensors are ~2/3-1 stop noisier at same ISO compared to APS-C and ~2 stops sensors compared to FF. But depending on what you shoot, you might find you can shoot m43 closer to wide open and still have adequate DoF, which may let you shoot at lower ISOs than on a larger sensor system. On the other hand, when you can shoot the larger systems closer to wide open and still achieve needed DoF and image sharpness, the noise differences will begin to appear.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2020 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

Lotus Cat: To Dale Baskin: A serious photographer doesn’t give a d**m about video. Stop complaining about the headphone jack. Buy a video camera.

To Fuji: Make up your mind. Are you a photography company or a video company? Jack of all trades = master of none.

In case you have not figured it out, I seriously dislike video in stills cameras. Video is a waste of engineering resources and merely clutters camera menus and buttons. The proper tool for the job is NOT one that tries to be everything to all people.

Don't want a Swiss army knife? Don't buy one.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,
The other 80% who shoot photos and video

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2020 at 03:14 UTC
On article Hasselblad XCD 45mm F4 sample gallery (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: I just don't see the attraction in this camera system other than lable/brand Snobbery. I don't see anything that any other good quality camera and lens couldn't do equally as well.

@ecka64 Perhaps you missed the "point taken" part of my response.

If you're a pro who needs an ILC with those level of flash sync speeds, then perhaps nothing else will do.

Doesn't change the fact that other cameras can flash sync at insane speeds.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2020 at 01:29 UTC
On article Hasselblad XCD 45mm F4 sample gallery (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: I just don't see the attraction in this camera system other than lable/brand Snobbery. I don't see anything that any other good quality camera and lens couldn't do equally as well.

@steveashd

Well, point taken but not accurate.

The following Fujifilm models all have leaf shutter allowing either 1/2000 or 1/4000s flash sync:
X-10, X-20, X-30, X100, X100S, X100T and X70

Also the Panasonic FZ200 and FZ300 have 1/4000s max flash sync speed.

Tiny sensors by comparison, of course. And as for compatibility with Hassy lenses, well, not so much.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2020 at 23:44 UTC
On article Hasselblad XCD 45mm F4 sample gallery (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: I just don't see the attraction in this camera system other than lable/brand Snobbery. I don't see anything that any other good quality camera and lens couldn't do equally as well.

Luxury goods are not merely about function. People don't buy a Rolex to tell them what time it is. They don't buy a Rolls Royce just to get them from point A to point B. People don't eat caviar or Kobe beef for nutritional value.

Some of us can neither justify nor afford such luxuries. Hence, we call this "snob appeal."

But there are those who can afford them, and wish to experience them.

I doubt most who do buy them do so "to be snobby."

They buy them because they can, because these toys (tools?) are more unique and intriguing, and they wish to experience them.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2020 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

BazzzH: I really don't get this enthusiasm for what, at the end of the day, is an extremely limited and vastly overpriced camera.

Some who like fixed focal length, smaller cameras really like Fuji controls and picture modes... more than Ricoh GR. They're apparently not very price sensitive.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 15:47 UTC

"...it's always going to be a bit more expensive than you'd like."

New models, yes. Not so new models? Well...

I was perfectly happy to pay $499 for my GX85 and two lens kit back in 2018. And I got an open box FZ300 on Amazon for $326 last year. Again, very pleased with the price.

Good things come at a good price to those who are willing to wait. Of course GAS is painful, too. So waiting isn't completely free. 🤷

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2020 at 07:08 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

Mister Anders0n: And this is why I won't leave my DSLR. It has amazing autofocus AND amazing ergonomics. All these companies keep pumping out MILCs like they were going out of style, and they still haven't figured out how to make the ergos better. Sorry, camera makers, but I will not reward your stupidity.

@Mister Anders0n How exactly does having a mirror and OVF improve ergonomics exactly?

Consider Panasonic G9 or S1, or Nikon Z line.

Having a prism and mirror doesn't automatically make ergonomics better. Lacking a mirror doesn't automatically make ergonomics worse.

You may just happen to prefer large, chunky bodies with large grips and traditional controls in the traditional places. That's cool, and there's lots of people who feel the same way.

I know this is hard to believe, but some people might actually prefer different things that you do. So camera makers might not be so stupid to provide alternatives.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2019 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

Max Iso: So let me get this straight, by using smaller pixels, and averaging multiples of them, you get MUCH better noise performance? So why don't Canon and Sony just cut out a 450mp sensor, downsample it to 45mp and show it's better than anything else around?

Heck, can we do that right now with downsampling? If i take my 24mp M40 and averaging it down to 12mp, is it better than it would be at 12mp native? Something tells me this is a hype job, based around judging at the pixel level.

Of course a 9:1 downsampling, at pixel level, has less noise, bc you are looking at a larger portion of the light path, 9x larger in fact. Funny, we have been reading here on DPR, for years, about how more pixels means more circuitry and thus more noise (per given sensor size). Now we hear more pixel circuitry is the exact opposite.

DPR why have you been lying to us?

Read this article:

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/3560214217/resolution-aliasing-and-light-loss-why-we-love-bryce-bayers-baby-anyway

I think you'll better understand the benefits of sampling more R, G, and B data for each final pixel.

If not, read it again more carefully.

Then consider why high res cameras we have seen recently have shown us better tonal range / color response than previous lower res sensors.

In other words, CanikonSonyPanaOly could probably benefit from doing this, too. And some do, with their high res modes.

But it does take a lot more processing power, memory, and of course new sensors.

Phones happen to have incredibly powerful CPUs, memory, and they can shoot photos without having to be troubled by CIPA battery life ratings and burst speed tagets (6+ fps) that would probably go bust if the same approach were taken in dedicated cameras...

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2019 at 04:41 UTC
Total: 143, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »