Josh Dahlberg

Joined on Nov 4, 2010


Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4

Sheesh, the guy's fooling around. Cricket is a summer sport, he's mocking Wellington weather and giving viewers a giggle. Typical kiwi humour.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 05:19 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

TheYetiCom: You see occasional complaints about depth of field, but you probably don't understand how bad a problem it is. I looked into getting one of these (reflector based telephoto lenses)years ago, and at the time the russian models were available. I don't imagine that this can be much different.

the 500mm lens had a depth of field of 1 inch at a distance of 1/4 mile at F11. focusing required a tripod. Maybe that is desirable, you would have crazy bokeh, but the bokeh is all donuts not circles.

So given the problems with the depth of field, you need lots of rotation on the focusing grip, or a usm motor, a stepper motor is not precise enough.


"Even with some room for rounding, you are off by a few football fields."

Thanks - that made me laugh! (I'm still laughing, admittedly after a couple of drinks). M43 is a great system to sign up to... exciting to have such varied options from Olympus, Panny and associates.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 08:59 UTC
In reply to:

Sabatia: This is exactly one of the directions Pana needs to go to have a fuller system. If the lenses are as fast as 2.8, sharp, and with high color resolution, that would be almost perfect. Having sold all my Canon gear this fall, the two lenses I miss most are the 17-55 EFS 2.8 and the 70-200 f4 L, which between them probably took 75% of my favorite shots over the last dozen years. I suspect that I am not alone in terms of 30/40/50/7D shooters in loving these lenses. So Yeah! Now get them done, glitch-free, and into the stores. And if the 35-100 is f4, but smaller and lighter than the Canon f4, I will be still be very happy.

Canon's comparable lenses at 2.8 cost $1,000 and over $2,000 or $1,400 for the 70-200 f4 IS. I think if Pana can get these out at $1k to $1,200 they will be winners.

PS: While the aperture size on m4/3 will cause loss of a little depth of field compared to crop cameras and more to FF, the brightness is not similarly affected.

"And if the 35-100 is f4, but smaller and lighter than the Canon f4, I will be still be very happy."

That would be a no-go for me. At f2.8 they should still be markedly smaller and lighter than the Canon f4 (the pics with 58mm threads indicate this)... at f4 you really will lose DOF control and low-light/indoor shooting potential. They've just released slower X zooms so I'm hoping these will be f2.8 at the very least.

I'm sure Panasonic has half an eye on the video market with these lenses - the AF100 (and whatever replaces it) is in dire need of fast zooms.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 01:24 UTC
In reply to:

Claudio Pinchi: I really don't understand all these complaints about DOF of M43. I recently bought a GH2 and (among others) the Leica Summilux 25 f1,4 and I can honestly say that DOF and bokeh are absolutely first quality, also compared to the same lens on my 5D (Canon ef 50 f1,4). Seems that many people ignore that DOF is influenced not only from aperture but also distance from subject. I will not buy these new lenses probably... but honestly who can say a 24-70 f2,8 is not an interesting lens? Kit lens in m43 is really poor in quality. People that look for more image quality (at the expense of portability) will surely buy this zoom. What make IMHO m43 still a little lower step to DSLR is the small choice of high level lens. If I look to the shots of my GH2 compared with ones took with DSLR with APS sensor and standard lens... i can say... NO GAME! The small m43 lens make more simple to reach high optical quality.

P.S: i beg your pardon for my poor english ;-)

Spot on Claudio. I too have a 5DII and GH2 - the GH2 is the camera I carry around with me these days (along with 14/25/45 primes) because I hardly notice it's there.

On a pixel level the images are of course noisier than the 5DII and there's much less dynamic range, but I love using the m43 system... it's a lot of fun and I'm simply taking a lot more shots. The three primes I have are superb, as sharp as any Canon prime... almost too sharp, even wide open. The m43 zooms I don't even bother with... but these two mock ups look great: f2.8 on m43 is fine for subject isolation if you have reasonable technique, and for video it's spot on (these overly blurred backgrounds in video - much more than seen in feature films - are rapidly becoming passe). Can't wait for these lenses to arrive, especially after carting a 5DII with 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 around city streets, these will be a breeze!

While f2 would be nice, their physical bulk would defeat the point of the system somewhat.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 22:13 UTC
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4