Joined on Jan 13, 2012


Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4

Olympus makes the sexiest cameras and lenses by far. Photographers have no style. Cannon and Nikon make the same black brick design forever. The Nikon FM and Canon AE1 both look better than today's crap, but don't hold a flame to the Pen series. :) This is really what is most important.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 06:33 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies

Very foreboding for Nex. I suspected, in my limited knowledge, that the flange depth of mount diameter were too small for these sensor sizes; and it seems Sony is proving my guess somewhat correct. Even if they manage faster, better lenses, they won't be significantly smaller than traditional SLR lenses and that kinda voids the Nex system. I'm sure e-mount can thrive on the cinema side because small lenses aren't favored, but as m4/3 sensors catch up and Sony keeps balking, it will seem like other systems will be better investments. No reason to have small cameras with big lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2012 at 04:43 UTC as 56th comment | 3 replies
On article Tamron and Tokina join Micro Four Thirds (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Too many lens mounts for too many camera brands. Why don't we think about a standard for the lens mount? Can we consider a mini - PL mount with enhanced electronic signal connections? On the other hand, we all knows that Panavision produces a line of super high quality lenses for their cameras, although their rental cost is very expensive, why don't we consider to have some kind of cooperation with them so that we can use their lenses for the still photos. I believe there is potential in this business.

There are less lens mounts now than ever. And don't say that, Panavision will find and kill you.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2012 at 07:50 UTC

This is what makes Dprieview the worst forum; it is so big people go around trolling all the time. :( Now if you really care about how big the sensor is, go get a medium format camera! I have a full frame camera, it's called film! The depth of field was too shallow at times, and 4/3 standard is a great choice- not everything needs shallow depth of field. Also, focus distance changes depth of field, so if these two lenses focus really close then there, walla, shallow depth of field.
If more super 16 like lenses would come out for this system, then 4/3 would be doing much better. I think ASPC is starting to look like the awkward middle child, with a 1.6 crop and bulky lenses too boot.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 06:07 UTC as 17th comment | 4 replies
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4