Mike99999

Joined on Feb 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 598, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (383 comments in total)

Is there a reason why a 135/2.8 or even 135/4 would provide significantly different images?

The logic of this article can be applied to a 200/2.8 as well. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8).

Ironically all the sample images in this post are painfully soft.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 16:27 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jan and his Camera: As I understand it, Milvus and Otus are produced by Cosina under the supervision of Zeiss, while Batis, Loxia and Touit are true Zeiss lenses. Does anyone know if this is correct?

Loxia, Milvus, Otus = Cosina
Batis, Touit = Tamron

Only the cinema lenses are true Zeiss.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: Poor reception from buyers?
Too expensive royalties from Zeiss?
Insufficient marketing?
A combo of the above?

Eh? These old lenses are replaced by the new Milvus line of lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 12:58 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ab Latchin: Looks good to me. I am not sure why the first image is a poorly exposed shot demonstrating one of the hardest things for a fast lens set wide open to control, namely CA.

Aside from that, the bokeh looks lovely, colour transitions and tonality look very nice as well.

Cant wait to upgrade my VL f0.95 42.5 and 17.5 to these new pro lenses.

"Wide open" at f/2.4 equivalent is quite a stretch.

But I guess that is what you get with M43: the bokeh and amount of light of a f/2.4 lens with all the flaws of a f/1.2 lens shot wide open.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 12:21 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

bluevellet: I'm more interested in the 17mm f/1.2 PRO but the 45mm has the better gallery.

The difference in quality in DPR galleries can be sometimes striking. These m43 PRO lenses galleries are middle of the road but light years behind the very best (usually top Leica/Zeiss/Canon/Nikon stuff).

Since the photographer matters more than the lenses themselves, I wonder how those DPR gallery assignments are organized. The staff must be fighting among themselves to test drive the super high end stuff while interns are probably ordered to cover token, low end products. :)

A gifted PRO can perform miracles with any lens.

I like how DPR sends out mediocre photographers to see how much the gear boosts their performance. Hence the results are always appalling with M43. M43 is more of a hindrance than anything really. Such awful photos in this gallery.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Nice 90mm f2.4

Sony FE 90/2.8 is quite good value. IQ blows this Olympus out of the water.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 12:17 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

ekaton: An A7..... & Batis 85mm looks like bargain for portrait shooters in terms of IQ/ounce and $.

Save even more with the FE 85/1.8, it is practically the same lens.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 12:13 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)

I'm not convinced that this lens is an improvement over the 45/1.8...

CA / purple fringing seems to be off the charts just like with the 17/1.2.

These sample images are flat, dull colors, and the bokeh is nervous. Compared to the cheap 85/1.8 lenses this PRO lens underwhelms. Seriously, any run-off-the-mill CaNikSony with cheap 85mm f/1.8 blows these images out of the water.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 14:07 UTC as 47th comment | 14 replies
On a photo in the Olympus 45mm F1.2 sample gallery sample gallery (6 comments in total)

That purple fringing!

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 14:03 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Let me explain the part people don't really "get" with these premium m4/3 lenses. An FF lens cannot keep look of its bokeh when stopped down to gain more workable DoF: you gain DoF, but kill the bokeh. And if you like bokeh, the DoF is so thin it is impossible to work with; or must move farther away, which, again, changes the composition and needed magnification.
Premium designs for m4/3 solve those problems, and such lenses deliver best of both worlds. (1) More DoF is better to avoid errors when shooting dynamically, with less focusing mistakes especially in portraiture. (2) Bokeh at f/1.2 is made NOT to match f/2.4 bokeh of a conventional aspherical design, which is very messy, but SURPASS it by far. The lens allows optical design (with more elements but with less thickness of glass) to render bokeh as if made with a much faster portrait lens of a classic design with fewer elements.
For those who really understand this, the m4/3 becomes best thing since sliced bread!

So what's your message? Just buy native f/2.8 lenses for FF then? Sounds a lot cheaper to me.

The Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 and Sony FE 90/2.8 macro are stunning examples.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 16:21 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

waldoh: Disregarding compression.

17 1.2 = ~35 1.2 (2.4 DoF) - $1199
35 1.4 FF = ~$1500
35 1.8/2-2.8 FF = ~$500

M4/3 is cool and useful in video and to shed weight but these prices are quite high.
I think I would take a small FF body with a slower 1.8-2.8 lens and rely on the sensor size advantages for any low light (non flash) photography.

Hell 23mm (35 equiv) aps-c lenses can be had for $400-$800. Same size body, bigger sensor, less money.

@photogeek: are you sure? My 35/1.4 is definitely a lot sharper wide open than what is shown in this sample gallery...

I used to buy into the same myth of "FF needs to be stopped down to be sharp". Bogus. Most modern FF lenses are tack sharp from the get-go and MUCH sharper than M43 lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 16:20 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

kobakokh: this is a great lens but not for portraits. in fact this is a true 17mm lens with 17mm DOF etc.. great for landscape, street photography, and many other things... For portraits Olympus have two great lenses - 45/1.8 and real masterpiece - 75/1.8.

35mm portraiture is awesome. You are missing out due to small sensor size.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 16:18 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

em jo photo: Great sample gallery!

Two notes:

(1) GOOD:

Lovely, characteristic Olympus color, tone, and image structure throughout. Great skin tone, great contrast. (And all tastefully proofed by the photographers.)

(2) BAD:

I just don't see a better sense of dimension or better bokeh in the f/1.2 shots than you'd get from the Oly 17mm f/1.8 or even the Pana-Leica 15mm f/1.7. Maybe if I saw direct side-by-side or "swipe-able" comparisons? Still, I'd hoped the extra stop would land a look that's immediately, recognizably new for the system.

To my eye, the f/1.2 results *definitely* look flatter than what you'd get out of a Canon 6D and a 35mm f/2 @ "equivalent" f/2.4. Were I to see any of the f/1.2 photographs without a caption or context, I'd have insisted, with confidence, that they were from the Oly 17mm f/1.8 shot at f/1.8.

OVERALL: the gallery definitely sells what's special / unique about Olympus color science--it's a showcase endorsement for the PEN-F, there. But the lens? Meh.

@Jan Chelminski: you disagree because you purchased the lens? Sounds biased...

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 16:17 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)

Oh my. The IQ from this lens in this gallery is *abysmal*. Use the loupe, there's no detail! Bokeh/DoF is deeply underwhelming. How much are they asking for this lens again?

And sensor noise at ISO 200? What's up with that?

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 16:16 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1223 comments in total)
In reply to:

elementare: At this point I think that it's quite hard for both Canon and Nikon to release a FF mirrorless camera. By this time they aren't in the position of neither being able to project a so technologically advanced camera without taking away resources from FF dslr cameras. Canon's mirrorless apsc is a good example of how Canon put the same sensor inside mirrorless and dslr but crop a lot of functions of the first.

And they aren't in the position of being able to release FF mirrorless unable to compete with mirrorless cameras like Sony A7RIII without collapse themselves. It's quite obvious that none is going to buy a Canon or Nikon FF mirrorless with a new mount that it's not able to match a Sony A7RIII like this.

At this point they have two possibilities, release just some aps-c mirrorless for amateur and enthusiast market (as Canon is already doing) or convert the whole pro dslr FF production into a pro FF mirrorless one, something I think it's never going to happen.

It depends, right?

The Canon EOS-M system can perfectly accommodate a full frame sensor. All they have to do is release the body, an adapter, and a handful of lenses.

Nikon is in a tougher spot and probably even considering releasing a Pentax K-01-style monstrosity by clinging to F mount. It will be even more awful than the Nikon Df. In a way I'm hoping Nikon will come to its senses and join forces with Sony. Getting Sony (Minolta) G, Zeiss, and Nikkor lenses all in one system would be seriously disruptive.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 17:20 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bassman2003: I tried this camera for a short while at a Sony event and I just could not get past the ergonomics. Without the grip attached it just did not feel comfortable in my hands. Seemed like an a6300 only a little larger. Great camera but I don't think I can ever get past the nice grip of my 5D III (or DSLR sized camera).

Also was expecting to be knocked over by the viewfinder and I thought it just looked ok compared to my pro video cameras. Still some room for improvement in this area imho. Yes they cost more but feedback is feedback.

I was entertaining a switch to Sony but not yet. The 24-105 f4 looks like a great lens. What the Canon version II should have been! Great to see so much tech in the cameras and the march forward.

Well, that is what the battery grip is for, right?

You shoot the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 sans grip, and then the 100-400 GM with the grip attached of course. The former feels like a M43 setup, the latter like a fully fledged DSLR. Best of both worlds.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 17:15 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gimli son of Gloin: This is really a watershed moment for Canon/Nikon as companies. This is the camera where strikes their bread and butter and it is truly standing on its own. The downsides of mirrorless have practically been mitigated with latest updates while DSLRs are standing still. I would still grab a DSLR like the Pentax K1 for extreme weather but for everything else a A7r3 is indeed a better package.

Which comes back to my previous system: Micro Four Thirds. Oly/Pana have to wake up and smell the money to notice that their clunky huge cameras, with tiny sensors, low resolution and laughable higher ISOs, have to be re imagined to compete with something this small that delivers this amount of IQ. It is time for the Micro Four Thirds cameras to return to their roots and know their place: cheaper, smaller, lower IQ cameras for the masses who are interested in ditching their phones.

1 inch sensors are really going to eat their lunch since IQ is so comparable to be difficult to tell the difference.

Agreed about Oly/Panny. I don't think Oly can do anything; Sony would block it. However, Panasonic has already developed a state-of-the-art full frame system with the Leica SL. It is about time they open this system up to people who don't want to pay the 500% Leica surcharge.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 17:11 UTC
On article Buying Guide: Best cameras under $500 (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

liviutza: I am a long time Canon user and still cannot see how the M100 holds a handle to the A6000, photography-wise... focus in video may be faster to a certain degree (did not test them) but as far as I can tell that's the only feature where Canon may show some, if any, superiority. I do not believe buying a beginner's camera in this price range is better than buying a more serious one...

"still cannot see how the M100 holds a handle to the A6000" - referral sales. Everyone and their grandmother already own the A6000, so DPR cannot make money on referrals.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 12:11 UTC
On article Leica CL: first sample images (39 comments in total)

Image quality of a Canon Rebel at the price of a pro camera.

In fact, I liked the EOS M gallery with the 22/2 quite a lot more.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 10:06 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

yanisha: Leica is responding to the wonderful Olympus PEN-F with a me-too product. It is Leica, so, of course, very expensive with limited very expensive lenses. I am glad that people who can't get the PEN-F now have a substitute.

Both this CL and the PEN-F are jewelry cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 10:05 UTC
Total: 598, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »