biggles266
Lives in
Australia
Joined on
Jun 27, 2004
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |
| Mirrored Pen Tip by RyanB123 from Writing utensils - Still Life | The perfect couple by ruley74 from A Big Year - Birds 2022 | Elephant Procession by PTSC from Elephants Unlimited | Old Mate by old shutter bugger from People Photography 2022 |
biggles266: The pictures look fine viewed on a mobile device. Viewed on a larger screen they look average. Viewed at closer to 100% they look absolutely awful - like a watercolour painting.
So this article actually succeeded in turning me off the iPhone 8. Why would I want to go on a big trip with a camera that takes photos as bad as that? If you ever need to crop into a photo, or want to print it large, you will realize that your images now look poor. And these photos were taken in good light. Imagine if the light had been bad...!
The photographer in the article has a good eye though. I recommend he get a nice, small mirrorless camera so he can still travel light but get some proper quality images.
That is why I put in the phrases "if you ever need to crop" or "want to print large". Personally I don't want to take photos that only look good under normal viewing conditions - I want photos that, if necessary, can handle being cropped in up to 2x (which loses three quarters of the image data), or can be printed large on the wall if it's a special image. The iPhone photos won't do that, because the poor quality then starts to become visible.
(That isn't to say that some well-taken iPhone photos, with good light, can't be printed large. Some can, particularly if processed nicely from RAW (the default Apple processing on those Nepal images looked bad). But you lose a lot of flexibility, and can't handle poor light conditions.)
A simple, light mirrorless camera would solve these problems, and is a better photographic tool than the iPhone.
The pictures look fine viewed on a mobile device. Viewed on a larger screen they look average. Viewed at closer to 100% they look absolutely awful - like a watercolour painting.
So this article actually succeeded in turning me off the iPhone 8. Why would I want to go on a big trip with a camera that takes photos as bad as that? If you ever need to crop into a photo, or want to print it large, you will realize that your images now look poor. And these photos were taken in good light. Imagine if the light had been bad...!
The photographer in the article has a good eye though. I recommend he get a nice, small mirrorless camera so he can still travel light but get some proper quality images.
I didn't mind the lens flare effects at all, but I couldn't get past the heavy brown tones of all the photos. Skin tones were off on all of them, and everything was just.. brown. The video was pretty well done, and the review seemed fair, but I didn't like any of the photography results, and the model looked bored and had some awkward poses. Not good photos despite the 3 x $4000+ camera & lens gear.
To be perfectly honest, when I read this headline, I felt nothing. No feeling of tragedy, no surprise, just ... nothing. I'm not proud of that, but it's just a fact. There are so many people in the world suffering despite not choosing to constantly take such silly risks like this, risks which disrespect the gift of life and health. So if someone dies when doing these stunts it seems completely unimportant compared to the people who deserve compassion because their circumstances are tragic even though they aren't contributing to it through their repeated foolishness.
Stunning!
flip 21: No mic input?!?!??!!? Ok, a small 3.5 mic input is so HIGH TECH that only the more expensive cameras has it... for god sakes... this is crazy... there was a time when pro audio was atributted to XLR inputs, now it seems for some brands that Pro Audio is also allowing a camera to have a small mic input... I really don't understand this policy... can someone explain me? If a camera records video why are users stucked with poor audio??!?!??! Also, the AF speed for video is really not good...
Their saving of $5 by leaving out the mic input cost them a sale of their camera to me. It's that simple. I won't buy a camera without a mic input. It's a silly limitation.
skysi: Looks like a great cam, but now that Canon full frame mirrorless is expected to come out soon, I'm going to wait I think
I wouldn't hold your breath, it's been supposedly coming for years now.
hires: How would this adapter work with a Luminix G7 and a Canon400 5.6L or a Tamron 150-600 for 4K wildlife video?
No, your F will reduce to F4, equivalent to Dof of F8 on FF.
nerd2: So nothing really new except for the gimmickry 40MP shot mode?
40MP shot mode sounds awesome.... until you realize that you need lens sharp enough to outresolve 160MP FF sensor. I highly doubt any lens out there can do that at all, and without sharp enough lens it's just a lot of wasted pixels.
No, that's false, you don't understand what is happening. Will work fine with normal lenses, it puts no extra resolving strain on them than a regular single shot.
Infared: I absolutely LOVE my E-P5. Just an amazing camera. (Mine is in for repair right now as the main dial was not changing info on every click...). I have no shutter shock issue that I can find, tho. Tested in all the modes, shutter speeds with MANY lenses...cannot observe the phenomenon. I believe this may be a manufacturing or a batch issue....many posters here are not having the issue (but I do believe there is an issue.)
I think Olympus needs to be responsible to its loyal customers and issue a statement (or fix?), regarding this situation and also the shearing off of the lens mounts on the new 12-40mm Pro lens. BOTH of these situations are widely documented on the web...especially this open discussion about the shutter shock issue here throughout DPR's review of the camera. C'mon Olympus...step up!
Where did you read that the auto-detect IS my contribute to the problem? Do you have a link?
Infared: I absolutely LOVE my E-P5. Just an amazing camera. (Mine is in for repair right now as the main dial was not changing info on every click...). I have no shutter shock issue that I can find, tho. Tested in all the modes, shutter speeds with MANY lenses...cannot observe the phenomenon. I believe this may be a manufacturing or a batch issue....many posters here are not having the issue (but I do believe there is an issue.)
I think Olympus needs to be responsible to its loyal customers and issue a statement (or fix?), regarding this situation and also the shearing off of the lens mounts on the new 12-40mm Pro lens. BOTH of these situations are widely documented on the web...especially this open discussion about the shutter shock issue here throughout DPR's review of the camera. C'mon Olympus...step up!
Hi, I have noticed my E-P5 front dial is starting to only sometimes change settings, or do its job, sometimes it does nothing. I googled it and this comment of yours came up first. What country are you in, and has Olympus given you any trouble over this warranty repair? Have you heard if it is a common problem with the dials going bad? p.s. I haven't seen any shutter shock either. I wonder if it is more common for users who don't use a viewfinder.
biggles266: I don't understand the love for the Sigma lens. The range is boring, so the only good thing is the f1.8. What do I need f1.8 for in that zoom range? Astrophotography I guess, but what else? It's too wide for indoor sports. Not wide enough for serious indoor architecture. For anything outdoors the f1.8 is irrelevant. f1.8 can't provide shallow DOF because it's a wide angle lens plus on a crop body. So what is the lens actually good for? What do you need f1.8 for at that focal range? (Sure, it's nice to have, but what is compelling about it?)
Thanks everyone for the input.
biggles266: I don't understand the love for the Sigma lens. The range is boring, so the only good thing is the f1.8. What do I need f1.8 for in that zoom range? Astrophotography I guess, but what else? It's too wide for indoor sports. Not wide enough for serious indoor architecture. For anything outdoors the f1.8 is irrelevant. f1.8 can't provide shallow DOF because it's a wide angle lens plus on a crop body. So what is the lens actually good for? What do you need f1.8 for at that focal range? (Sure, it's nice to have, but what is compelling about it?)
OK, sorry of course you can get shallow DOF if you get close enough to your subject. But I don't know that there is anything you need to shoot wide that say f2.8 or even f3.5 wouldn't do a sufficient job of getting some background blur if you had a close subject. Maybe it's just me but even though I do appreciate Sigma's pricing, the lens doesn't seem revolutionary or attractive to me.
I voted for Canon's 200-400 lens which even though I will never buy because it's too expensive, I felt that was a revolutionary idea and a useful and desirable lens - if I had the money and was doing safari, wildlife, bird, sports, surfing photos (and more), that would be an attractive lens. Opens up many possibilities, whereas I don't see the Sigma does.
biggles266: I don't understand the love for the Sigma lens. The range is boring, so the only good thing is the f1.8. What do I need f1.8 for in that zoom range? Astrophotography I guess, but what else? It's too wide for indoor sports. Not wide enough for serious indoor architecture. For anything outdoors the f1.8 is irrelevant. f1.8 can't provide shallow DOF because it's a wide angle lens plus on a crop body. So what is the lens actually good for? What do you need f1.8 for at that focal range? (Sure, it's nice to have, but what is compelling about it?)
So street photography in lower light like after dark, is that what you mean? I suppose so, although I think the lens is a little large for discreet street work. But I guess it could be useful for that.
biggles266: I don't understand the love for the Sigma lens. The range is boring, so the only good thing is the f1.8. What do I need f1.8 for in that zoom range? Astrophotography I guess, but what else? It's too wide for indoor sports. Not wide enough for serious indoor architecture. For anything outdoors the f1.8 is irrelevant. f1.8 can't provide shallow DOF because it's a wide angle lens plus on a crop body. So what is the lens actually good for? What do you need f1.8 for at that focal range? (Sure, it's nice to have, but what is compelling about it?)
What? I'm serious. If you have a proper answer for me, then say so.
I don't understand the love for the Sigma lens. The range is boring, so the only good thing is the f1.8. What do I need f1.8 for in that zoom range? Astrophotography I guess, but what else? It's too wide for indoor sports. Not wide enough for serious indoor architecture. For anything outdoors the f1.8 is irrelevant. f1.8 can't provide shallow DOF because it's a wide angle lens plus on a crop body. So what is the lens actually good for? What do you need f1.8 for at that focal range? (Sure, it's nice to have, but what is compelling about it?)
Owned an E-P5 for a fortnight now, no sign of shutter shock for me.
hpy2bsal: I own a DSLR but I didn't want the bring a backpack of camera gear on a three-week trip through Europe. I bought the X100S specifically because of its compact size and f/2 lens.
I was very nervous whether the 23mm fixed lens would work under all shooting circumstances but there wasn't a single time I wished I had brought a different camera. Whether I was shooting the interior of Notre Dame at night, the expanse of the Swiss Alps, the UCI Road World Championships along the streets of Florence during a torrential thunderstorm, or one of my meals at dinner, my X was the perfect camera. I probably could have sold three X's to fellow tour members once they saw the quality of my images. Attached to the Black Rapid SnapR 35 Bag and Strap and slung diagonally across my chest, my X was super lightweight and easily accessible. Even when handheld, I barely noticed the weight of the camera.
I'm already planning another trip to Europe next year and my X will be the only camera I'm bringing.
Sorry for the gender assumption. I'm glad you got images you are happy with. The Fuji X100S is one of the prettiest looking cameras I have seen, I really like its looks. I'm very conscious of weight too, that is why I am in the process of selling my DSLR equipment to move to micro four thirds. I want to save my back as well, but also for an extra few hundred grams of weight to carry, still be able to switch lenses when I need to. Some of those m43 lenses only weigh 100g. One small bag with 3-4 lenses is my aim, equally suitable for trips or for close to home.
hpy2bsal: I own a DSLR but I didn't want the bring a backpack of camera gear on a three-week trip through Europe. I bought the X100S specifically because of its compact size and f/2 lens.
I was very nervous whether the 23mm fixed lens would work under all shooting circumstances but there wasn't a single time I wished I had brought a different camera. Whether I was shooting the interior of Notre Dame at night, the expanse of the Swiss Alps, the UCI Road World Championships along the streets of Florence during a torrential thunderstorm, or one of my meals at dinner, my X was the perfect camera. I probably could have sold three X's to fellow tour members once they saw the quality of my images. Attached to the Black Rapid SnapR 35 Bag and Strap and slung diagonally across my chest, my X was super lightweight and easily accessible. Even when handheld, I barely noticed the weight of the camera.
I'm already planning another trip to Europe next year and my X will be the only camera I'm bringing.
Anyway, I hope this clarification settles things. Didn't intend to sound inflammatory, just express a different view to the original poster, and I was genuinely astounded that someone would find a single focal length enough, hence my language I guess.
hpy2bsal: I own a DSLR but I didn't want the bring a backpack of camera gear on a three-week trip through Europe. I bought the X100S specifically because of its compact size and f/2 lens.
I was very nervous whether the 23mm fixed lens would work under all shooting circumstances but there wasn't a single time I wished I had brought a different camera. Whether I was shooting the interior of Notre Dame at night, the expanse of the Swiss Alps, the UCI Road World Championships along the streets of Florence during a torrential thunderstorm, or one of my meals at dinner, my X was the perfect camera. I probably could have sold three X's to fellow tour members once they saw the quality of my images. Attached to the Black Rapid SnapR 35 Bag and Strap and slung diagonally across my chest, my X was super lightweight and easily accessible. Even when handheld, I barely noticed the weight of the camera.
I'm already planning another trip to Europe next year and my X will be the only camera I'm bringing.
@ljclark - I know the idea that a single focal length inspires creativity, I enjoy primes myself. Perhaps imagination and creativity weren't the best words to use. I'm not sure what are, the main point I was trying to get across was simply that there are so many interesting shots which I would love to capture travelling through Europe, and which need a range of focal lengths to do so. For me I would feel disappointed being on an exotic holiday and missing those compelling shots. I don't feel that I am passing up thousands of compelling images every day around home when I am not on vacation.