Mike99999

Joined on Feb 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 589, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (359 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 (359 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 (359 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 (359 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 (359 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 14th comment | 3 replies
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1068 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 (1068 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 (1068 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 2017 Buying Guide: Best cameras under $500 (102 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
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Useful, cheap lens for Sony. Not so useful for M43, as there is already a 15mm f1.7, a 17mm f1.8, and pancake 20mm f1.7, all of which are smaller, lighter, relatively cheap, and extremely sharp.

@Boss of Sony: just so you understand...

https://i.imgur.com/XRYSILh.png

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 08:09 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Useful, cheap lens for Sony. Not so useful for M43, as there is already a 15mm f1.7, a 17mm f1.8, and pancake 20mm f1.7, all of which are smaller, lighter, relatively cheap, and extremely sharp.

LOL. I've owned all of those M43 lenses and none of them are "extremely sharp".

This lens is a cheap alternative to the Olympus PRO 17/1.2. In the case of the Sigma 30/1.4 vs. Olympus PRO 25/1.2, the Sigma is a tad sharper and has a slightly better light transmission (!).

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 08:05 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

FoxShutter: Its a huge lens !

Fast & sharp lenses are usually huge. At least it is cheap.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 08:02 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

DustSpeck: OK Sigma, now how about the M43 lens that I really want - a 60mm f/1.4!

Something like this is hinted at on their roadmap.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 08:01 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

coloR blinD: .

Same old gripe ..... Just where is Sony apsc e mount 50-135 2.8 ???????

.

I used to own the Tokina 50-135/2.8. This type of lens looks better on paper than it really is.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 08:01 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

CosminMunteanu: Quite big, compared to already good 15mm f:1.7 Summicron even if only half a stop faster but without aperture ring.
Seems to be like a crop dSLR designed lens, like Sigma's other combo: the 30mm f:1.4. The mirrorless version is bigger than the dSLR one even if is rated as C (contemporary) and not as Art.

That 15/1.7 is very soft wide open.

If it is anything like their 30/1.4, there's a good chance this Sigma is quite a bit sharper than the Panny. This, of course, comes at the cost of bulk. Nevertheless, everything points to these f/1.4 Sigma's having better light transmission than the f/1.2 Olympusses.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 07:58 UTC

Interesting lens but painfully overpriced.

Equivalence or not, this is an amateur-grade medium-telephoto prime. The price is outrageous.

The weight is also out of proportion. Nikon D500 with 300/4 PF seems like an infinitely better proposition.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 11:36 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

Poor IQ as the sample gallery shows.

M43 was fun when top-of-the-line bodies were $600 and with fun little lenses like the 20/1.7 and 45/1.8. Those days are clearly over. You'd have to be a madman to dump your money into this system now.

If you need high-speed pro-level crop then the Nikon D500 is a phenomenal tool. This Panasonic is clearly out of its depth in this segment.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 11:32 UTC as 20th comment | 6 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (145 comments in total)

Wow, this Leica lens really is a let-down. These could have been shot with an RX100.

The low light shots are unacceptable at this price point.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 11:28 UTC as 12th comment
Total: 589, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »