Lives in Sweden Sweden
Joined on May 11, 2004


Total: 94, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article History Repeating: Olympus PEN-F Review (1065 comments in total)

DPR says the on/off is somewhat too large, considering its "only one function" status. I say what where you thinking???
It's a pretty important function and is VERY WELL large sized, and very well placed too. By that ne can easily and quickly(!) put the camera ON when needed...

Compared to the silly, diminutive, and very badly placed (almost invisible already during light darkness and so small one can hardly feel it) on/off on the E-M5 mk1, this one on the new PEN-F really sems to be just it!!!

I recently aquired the E-M1 and also on that model the on/off is both prominent, well visible and easily maneuvred. Good, Olympus!

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 23:58 UTC as 185th comment
In reply to:

M1963: A digital PEN with an integrated viewfinder. It only took Olympus seven years to realize what their consumers wanted. That's fast by Olympus standards.
Hopefully within the next ten years they'll realize the 4/3 sensor is impeding their cameras.

The 4/3 sensor is why they do still exist, and why they also can make good use of being in their own niche (ok, together w Panasonic)

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 22:36 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: The only ergonomic issue I can see so far is the way the LCD tilt mechanism has been implemented: it forces you to place the LCD to the side of the body and then rotate it in order to tilt the LCD upwards or downwards. Thus, when you want - for example - to take a waist-level shot the camera becomes twice in length and the balance as well as the steady grip goes out the window. In my opinion, P5 has the right implementation, but, alas, they had to please the selfie bunch...

"Everybody" talks about the flip screen like it was something new and also bad...when in fact Olympus had it on several cameras before. Then most people using those cameras with flip screen seemed to like it, now soo many complains. Why??
I think Olympus even did premiere it, by the way (?)

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

wetracy: It is NOT a "gun."

"Flashgun" is what it normally was referred to as, not only in the sixties, but as far as I know most of the time since then. Was it really a new word for some people, or just that it maybe haven't been used in the US?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 21:58 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: This is very expensive indeed compared to equivalent lenses from Canon, Nikon and even Pentax. I would imagine that an upcoming Pentax full frame body and 300mm F4 would end up being cheaper than combining this Olympus lens with an E-M1.

"Post withdrawn"

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

Xenol: Who are the 45 people that chose the
'I had it' option for this xD

That refers to the Leica SL, not to the Epson unit. But I would also be hesitant to believe 45 people already have sold off their Leica SL... (maybe it´s not even for sale as new yet(?))

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2015 at 12:17 UTC
In reply to:

Timur Born: Now the really interesting question is which cameras do not use line skipping (on sensor) during Live View? When the source image is lower resolution than the EVF then all the extra EVF resolution is only useful for playback (which is based on a full resolution image).

For example, the E-M1 does not make much use of its 2.3M EVF during Live View. In practice during Live View you cannot make out any difference to the 1.44M EVF of the E-M5 (MK1) when it comes to recognizing fine details of a scene.

@Timur Born

A. All reviews I´ve read have included a few words on the EVF; about it being notably more detailed on the M-1 than on the M-5. OK, some reviewers are not always very reliable, or not very thorough, that´s true. But why do 'all' reviews include at least a reference to the M-1 finder being better? If that would refer to its quality/resolution only at playback it would be absolutely mandatory to state so. None has, of at least 20 reviews I´ve happened to read.

B. IF the sensor, like in these cameras, have 16 mp and the finder have around, or less than, 2 megapixels, then the "line skipping" (which may be there, I don´t know actually) would have to be rather coarse to make the EVF´s resolution (at liveview) higher than the sensor´s resolution. Which is what you imply when you´re saying the EVF´s hi res on M-1 is wasted in liveview...

Did I get your rant totally wrong, or do I misunderstand the whole thech shebang in this matter?

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2015 at 12:10 UTC
In reply to:

Osa25: So exiting the two largest markets in Europe...but not its "not official" that they are winding down the biz? Hmmm

Obviously Samsung will remain in the smartphone camera business, but clearly this is the wrong time to be ENTERING the DSLR market. Should have been obvious to them.

DSLR shaped or not, it´s the tech (features & IQ) folks are buying.
If it looks like a DSLR it´s only because that shape is what works best for most uses, at least in the "advanced amateur/semi pro" market, and of course some pros would perfectly well get by with a NX1, too.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2015 at 10:45 UTC
On photo Motorbike Mechanic in the Its Occupational-Mechanics challenge (14 comments in total)

A good image in itself (composition and such) but the HDR which is severly overdone destroys it, in my view. Congrats anyway! ;-)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2015 at 09:59 UTC as 3rd comment
On Article:1482756284 (72 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Gotta love how they measure sensors using a combination of fractions and decimals. Who came up with that idea?


Yes, that´s the reason those numbers are used.

THE silly thing is why on earth at all refer to inches, when the whole world (well, US and a few others persist using inches) use the metric system, including camera manufacturers all over the world...
Must be strange to think in metrics as far as lenses are discussed but then think in inches when sensors are the subject ;-) soon as that was written I came to realize even here in metric land we use inches for example when talking wheel/tyre sizes on cars/bikes etc...or the size of tv/computer/mobile phone screens..inches there too

Seems it´s just a matter of what you´re gotten used to refer to from "tradition", things decided upon before you were born or so..

Posted on Oct 1, 2015 at 08:54 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2082 comments in total)
In reply to:

RandallDunphy: I do believe that with the newly announced firmware 4.0, there should be an updated review based on what is a new camera. Any thoughts?

That would be nice, but the new firmware (4.0) will not be available in quite a while. Somewhere in November they said. (they = Olympus)

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2015 at 19:23 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 II: What you need to know (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

tektrader: Its ENORMOUS, How is that micro 4/3rds ???

For a camera that size and lenses that big it may as well be full frame..

Are you totally ignorant, blind or what??? Or worse, just trolling around..?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 21:26 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 II: What you need to know (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

ikfoto: Fine looking camera, but the 1972 switch is a 'style mismatch'.

Well, no! It´s a thousand times better than the switch of the E-M5 which I happen to possess since three years time in a month or two. Adding to its functionality it´s simply very good looking too! The E-M5 switch is simply soo badly designed it´s almost incomprehensible. VERY small & very badly placed. The "OM-1/OM-2" switch design was good, and still is.
But of course it´s nothing but a matter of taste in the first place....

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: first series of mft-lenses are all bad, beside 5.6/9-18 mm - all much worse then the lenses from Panasonic
and now the PRO-lenses are good concepts but it's more illusion than reality... and very expensive too.

Olympus mFT is only a shadow from Olympus FT...

so they get more profits.

Don't get me wrong - Olympus has done a lot for digital photography - even more then most other photo-compagnies... they still deliver fantastic colors (even in JPEG), a real good IBIS (but only in E-M5II) and dust proof

but new mFT cameras and lenses are made for 1-3 years and just for beginners and amateurs as bad as Sony does with NEX

A heavy price for profit... and we have to pay for the criminal faults of management!

"than" not "then"..

Sorry, couldn´t help myself having read your rants.

Though I must acknowledge you have your Oly camera experience and that´s it. I sincerely hope you will fare better in the future.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: But, but... Does it offer a cure for DSL-Arm lengthening? Will my arm get short back to normal after I switch to Olympus? If not, this all is a fraud.

Haha, that was a nice angle... ;-)

Link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

msowsun: "half the the size of a DSLR, but with all the power"

How can it have all the power with a sensor that is almost 4 times SMALLER?


All the power of a DSLR *camera*, not neccesarily a "full" format one, and not literally meant as "the full power of a 'full' format *sensor*"!!

Of course I didn´t read the minds of Oly's copywriters, but...well if you get what I mean you do...perhaps you just don´t... Anyway, "full power of..." leaves some leeway of how to interpret it...and some for a bit of...dare I say it: humour!

Link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 20:51 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: The Pro line of Olympus lenses are a good example that large mm aperture-diameter lenses for smaller sensors are expensive to make.

The 7-14mm is probably meant to match the Nikon, but in equivalent terms, it is 14-28/5.6 for Olympus vs. 14-28/2.8 for Nikon. I wonder if Olympus couldn't have made it F2.0 to match F4 lenses at least. OTH, the Olympus already at that aperture isn't much cheaper than the Nikon (which is expensive indeed).

The 16mm F3.6 equivalent prime is nice but expensive too.


Technically correct, what you are saying, all of it, (at the time of writing this). But that is a characteristic of the m4/3 system as a whole. Those into it KNOW this, thus do not necessarily care that much. Equivalency rants are now all over the place, since a number of years, and I feel it´s time to let go for all of you who bother sooo very much about it. The system is here, it has some advantages and a few disadvantages, but it is FOR THOSE who need the merits of it that it exists. And WE don´t need the equiv rants anymore. As if we ever did... ;-)
Not out to take your right to complain away from you of course, I just couldn´t help myself...

Link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 14:23 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers (227 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Weird, surprisingly sensible price. It is significantly cheaper than Canon and Nikon full-frame wides (although those have a benefit of extra shallow DOF, which is probably not a big deal for most users), and only $150 more expensive than the new Sigma. So that looks like a pretty good deal, assuming it performs well.

It even looks better considering that APS-C DSLR users' only option is manual Samyang 16/2. And I don't think any other mirrorless system has a 24mm equivalent that is so fast.

So, good for Fuji users, their system is shaping up nicely.

@Just a Photographer:

(deep) DOF is exactly what many wide angle shooters are looking for!
SHALLOW DOF is not, though. So simple, so few words needed to describe that. ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 09:43 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers (227 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Not worth the money if comparing to a FF lens. Nikon sells the 20 f1.8 cheaper and is rumored to have a 24 mm f 1.8 on the way which should be even cheaper yet and have better depth of field control.

@Terry Breedlove (regarding your main post):

This lens fits a Fuji camera, which is THE point when evaluating if this lens is something to get or not, of course.

For those living in FF-world the launch of this lens would normally be of ZERO interest. Well, if not to get a reason to spread some more "this is worse than FF"-bull.

I wouldn´t bother to comment, or bash, a new Canon handgrip for one of their cameras, since it would not fit my OMD anyway...

And I wouldn´t dive into a MTB bicycle thread to spread the "important info" that a roadracer is better IF you want to race roads...

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 09:30 UTC
On article Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know (505 comments in total)

@dark goob:

It´s "selfies" not "selphies". ;-)

Got cha; now, it seems you are as good at spelling as you possess knowledge for real about what Nikon 1´s are capable of.

My sister has a V1 to her and her family´s great satisfaction. It focuses faster than my OM-D E-M5 does with native m43 glass...and images are GREAT seen on a computer screen or on a large hi rez TV!! Period.

Of course noise at hi iso or at dark shooting conditions is worse than from the M-5 but they are different kinds of cameras/systems, so for those who need/want the speed and size advantage the 1-series is absolutely not "sh*t" like you seem to believe. "Believe", not know!

(I may have spelled something wrong, but English isn´t my first language)

End of rant, just had to...

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2015 at 09:27 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
Total: 94, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »