W Sanders

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 22, 2010


Total: 44, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Ed Gill: How depressing. I have been waiting four years for the MFT market to catch on with lenses but it seems like these cameras and lenses are designed by the junior engineers with no imagination. Three major area of still photography that are perfect for MFT. 1. Long lens telephoto - is a 250/300/350mm REALLLY that hard - with a tripod ring mount please. 2. Macro - 75mm f2 and 100 f2.8 marco with tripod ring please or a 50-100 f2.8 macro/micro zoom. 3. TRAVEL, how about some alternate power sources like AA battery packs/grips. Yes you can take spare expensive batteries but spare chargers(?) if the fry? I really don't need to comment on the lens prices either do I - 20mm f1.7 at $350 - really?? Great potential poorly executed, the blunders in this industry are breath taking.

If I'm going to need a three pound lens I might as well use a DSLR. The 14-140mm 10x zooms are clunky enough that I'm not interested.

I'm in the "wanting fast m4/3 tele primes" clique, a 100 / 2.8 would be perfect.

The Olympus 75/1.8 is close - but not sure if it autofocuses with Panasonics.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 23:59 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Quote: "This also promises sharper images compared to using the same lens with a simple, non-optical adapter, as the visibility of aberrations is reduced."

I am sure, that if any serious tests are done, this will turn out to be a crock of BS. It is a known fact that adapters with a lens increase chromatic aberrations. This is obviously more marketing spin than science.
Maybe I'm sounding a bit harsh... but for $600, which is the price of an apsc camera body, there is no excuse for marketing hype substituting physics!

I use a $20 adapter with no optics in it, and my 50mm f1.4 retains all it's glory in the results it produces.

But this isn't that kind of an adapter, it matches the focal length almost 1:1. Doesn't solve the problem I think most people need solved, which is the lack of long fast teles for m4/3, but hey.

I've tried a $20 adapter with my Panasonic GF bodies and my old twist on Canon lenses and the pictures look like crap. My theory is that internal reflections inside the body "fog" the image. Some lenses work better than others, and stopping the lens down helps cut the fog, which is exactly not the point when using a long tele.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2013 at 18:07 UTC
On article Accessory Review: Nimbus Cloud Dome (96 comments in total)

I have an iPhone and it is teh envy of all around me. I would much rather pay $80 than have its immaculateness sullied by taking pictures through a hole in the bottom of a bucket.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2012 at 23:42 UTC as 57th comment
In reply to:

WhiteBeard: About pricing... A long time ago, lenses were made with a lot of metal and glass - not polycarbonate - and 70-200mm zooms (35mm eq.) were the most popular and mostly least expensive zooms available. Now, Panasonic wants to make us believe that putting an O-ring, less glass (polished by much more precise and efficient automated means than before) and putting back some aluminum instead of the usual polycarbonate is sufficient to warrant a 1500$ price tag... Anybody out there familiar about Marketing Theory and the expression "Whatever the Market can bear"?

The price for modern autofocus, image stabilized lenses is high because all of the autofocus and image stabilization machinery is usually in the lens.

Feel free to switch to a full frame format like Canon EF where non-AF lenses are available; the "IS" capable lenses are still 1.5X to twice as expensive as their non-IS counterparts.

I can't imaging using a non-AF tele on a m4/3 camera for regular work, the viewfinder on my GF-2s is not up to the task. I occasionally use my old full frame Canon teles with them, and manual focusing is nearly impossible. AF overcomes this limitation.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 19:25 UTC
In reply to:

snow14: they should made it F2.0 instead of F2.8 yes that will make the lens little larger but it will be much more useful .

It's expensive enough as is without adding another zero to the price!

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

carlgt1: the problem I've found with these cards is they're pretty damn slow, so transferring 16GB would probably take at best close to an hour? I mean say you can get 50 mbps (6.25megaBYTES per second) out of the fastest '.11n' network, that's 2560 seconds for 16MB (and typically you'd probably get 1MB/sec rates not 6+).

Why would you wait until your card was full to upload your pictures? You could get three or four regular cards for the price of the Eyefi and just swap them out to your PC.

I think the idea is to upload your pictures one at a time as they are taken, and/or upload only JPEGs and keep the RAWs on the camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 19:07 UTC
On article Hasselblad responds to Lunar criticisms (606 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jekyll: Gentlemen, I was at the Photokina yesterday, Sunday 23rd. We were 5 Photoenthusiasts, friends altogether. We stumbled upon this Lunar prototype at Hasselblad's phenomenal stand - which by the way displayed a nice black Ferrari cabriolet in it's center - giving a hint about their target group I guess.

Whatever - an interrested customer approached the Hasselblad's representative standing right next to us and asked him "Why should I chose a Hasselblad over the original Sony?".

The Hasselblad's guy responded the following - hold your breath;
1. Well our camera is better looking than the Sony, since we added a fancy grip and fancy colours to it
2. If you buy it you will own a "real" Hasselblad
3. And you have to spend more money on this as for the Sony

I swear to God (and I have 4 witnesses with me) that this was the original response of the Hasselblad guy. If I was younger I would write *facepalm* to comment this :o).

B the same token, more Porsches are sold with automatic than mnaual transmissions. Time change, brands change,

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 18:33 UTC

Question: Is it cheaper than an M9?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2012 at 19:37 UTC as 27th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Dennis Linden: That HUGE GROVED focusing ring looks like it was designed for rack focusing video! I am saving up now, have my Lumix 14 for sale!

That could be important .. I am only an occasional video shooter, but when I use the cheapo standard size Lumix 14-42 for video it's impossible to rack the focus without jiggling the camera a little. The zoom is even clunkier. You definitely get what you pay for.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

Barbu: Bad Kreuznach. Go to your room ;)

Yet another brainwashed press release, unfiltered at the producer and unbelievably unedited on this site.

Even the rumors sites are more careful with what they publish...

>> Explain

I think he means you'll take a "bath" on the price! (But it is probbaly worth it.)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 19:59 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: I'm not sure how it could be much better than the already wonderful Olympus 12mm f/2. The Oly 12 is great.

Well, it could be much, much, more expensive :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 19:57 UTC
On article Leica M-Monochrom Hands-on Preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

motobloat: At last, a camera for hipsters living off of their parents' money! Pretty easy to afford with a $10,000 a month stipend from dad, and soooo retro! Does it do instagram filters too?

Seriously though, besides hipsters and the insanely wealthy, I can't see much of a target market for this specialty device...

"Hipsters and the insanely wealthy" also describes the pros that will buy this camera right away. The rest of us will have to consider carefully whether to spend $8K (or nearly double that with a lens) on this little wonder or the equivalent amount of Canon or Nikon kit.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

Baxter Bad: Not enough scene modes. I need "Appearance of UFO" and "Baby Has Diarrhea".

The funny thing is, the "scene modes" really work. But shooting your girlfriend in "dog" mode might get you in trouble.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2012 at 21:42 UTC
In reply to:

Malcolm Hopkinson: Rather than produce a new model every 6-9 months, most photographers would prefer to see a new camera in 15-18 months but with real progress and innovation. For example, the GX1 is just a step up from G2 and G3 and core Panasonic supporters are likely to feel shortchanged. With the mirrorless market on a roll and Canon's effort probably appearing this Summer/Fall, our observations are that Panasonic need to pay attention to the camera using public. Incidentally, for first hand experience, have used/ traded GF1 and currently have GF2, G2, G3 and Olympus E620 in the immediate family's camera assortment. How much longer we have to virtually give away one camera to purchase another of the latest upgrades?

Are the masses really jumping into photography? I heard something to the effect that 80% of the photos on flickr are taken by smartphones. Not sure about the market for idiot proof mini cameras in 4/3 format. I've got my GF1 and GF2 "poor man's Leica" since I used to use an M4 back in the film days and I need a viewfinder since I'm farsighted, but if I got really serious about photography I'd upgrade to something with better image quality.

At some point it will just be easier to put a phone in a camera instead of the other way around.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2012 at 21:34 UTC
On article Samsung US announces rugged and waterproof SD cards (49 comments in total)

My SD cards are all Class 11.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2012 at 20:47 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

DioCanon: f6.3!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank god I've got my Canon fast lenses f1.2 and 2.8!

Well, my all time favorite lens was my old Canon 300/2.8 monster. Size is relative :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 19:30 UTC
In reply to:

DioCanon: f6.3!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank god I've got my Canon fast lenses f1.2 and 2.8!

Because, for about $500 you can get the stock Lumix 100-300 that is f5.6 and has autofocus and stabilization. Unless this lens costs $50 or something.

Life's too short for a slow tele that doesn't autofocus.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 23:15 UTC
On article CES 2012: Lytro Photowalk (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mssimo: This is not new technology. All it is....a fun hack. Camera takes tiny previews of images on the same old cmos/ccd sensor with the somewhat unique optical system.
If you happen to have something in its limited focal range, you can "refocus"

The only future I see is if they make lenses for canon and nikon (with provided software) This will allow your 21Mp full frame to take cel phone quality pictures you can refocus. How excited are we about that?

As I understand it the "magic" is in the sensor and not the lens. And considering the resolution you don't really need a super duper lens. I can see Lytro's tech getting packaged into a smartphone but not a "camera system".

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2012 at 18:37 UTC
On article 10 Photography Accessories for Under $250 (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

Earthlight: Thanks Dpreview, what a nice read this was. I'm not into market to buy any of these (I have more than enough gear as it is), but it sure was nice to read your thoughts about them.

What about a microfiber cloth comparison. I'm serious: the quality differences are vast! My best cloths are no-name chinese cheapos plus a cloth that came with my Serengeti sunglasses. Some of the brand name cloths have been a total waste of money.

The hotshoe spirit levels also seem to have loads of quality variation... Some of them are skewed. Plus I lose so many of those that it is not even funny.

Most importantly, why not carry out a filter comparison. You could, of course, test the optical quality, but also be sure to test how easy it is to clean a big fat thumb print from the glass. There are big differences there. It would be great to see that kind of stuff. The daily stuff of active shooters.

What about a comprehensive article about sensor wet cleaning? DIY spatulas and pec pads? Stuff like that.

Tlltall Tripod! I am pretty sure the ones Calumet sells are knockoffs (http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/tiltall_st01_tripod_black/os1000) but my Leitz Tiltall is still going strong after 35 years.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2011 at 19:31 UTC

DMW-BLD10 Battery, same as GF-2, FTW!

I already own a GF1 and GF2. Although the GF-1 has better battery life, not having to lug around 3 different chargers is a win. Because I will get one sooner or later :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 18:35 UTC as 24th comment
Total: 44, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »