Mike99999

Joined on Feb 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 511, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

sapporodan: Christ i am so tired of this 'Micro four thirds vs full frame bitching'.

I've been using MF3 cameras for years and yes it is worse image quality and the high ISO is worse and there is some more depth of field.

But so what?

I take photos for pleasure, it a hobby and the difference in image quality compared with my SLR is generally minimal when I am just doing everyday photography.

Its a camera system which is based on compactness and flexibility, not high image quality. Why cant you bunch of fussy people get it in your heads that not everyone cares about having the highest pixel count.

Some people just like to take photos.

Nobody is 'bitching'.

I have been using M43 and full frame side by side now for several years.

My main gripe with M43 at the moment is that the gear is becoming more expensive than full frame, and HEAVIER than full frame! That's just where I stop seeing the point.

Olympus PEN + 20/1.7 used to be my go to set up. But now, A7 + 35/2.8 is cheaper and better. That's the bottom line I'm interested in. I have no brand loyalty. I just want practical solutions.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 09:19 UTC

Wow, there is something wrong with the Mark I samples. I had to compare to the E-M5 to get a decent comparison.

My conclusion:
- E-M1 II has a slight increase in detail over the E-M5
- E-M1 II is one stop behind the D500 in terms of ISO noise
- E-M1 II is three stops behind the A7R II in terms of ISO noise

To make myself clearer: E-M1 II at ISO 800 has the same noise level as A7R II at ISO 6400.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 08:47 UTC as 29th comment | 4 replies

I'm on the fence between the D750 and A7R II (or their successors next year).

I currently own an A7 II and recently sold my Nikon D7000.

The biggest hurdle for going all in with Sony is the lack of dedicated super tele glass. I own the Sony 70-400 G2 which is a phenomenal lens. Nevertheless, the Nikon 300/4 PF and 200-500/5.6 are looking extremely tempting, especially the PF because it is so light.

Sony has been a blast regarding wide angle ~ short tele lenses. Between Batis, Loxia, and Sony-Zeiss lenses one cannot ask for more.

Nevertheless, the lack of lightweight 300mm, 400mm, and 500mm glass for Sony FE is a major obstacle to leaving Nikon behind for good.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 08:55 UTC as 49th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Gazeomon: $2000 for a Mft camera?! Body only?! For about that money there is better gear around.

@Photo Aficionado: that is a ridiculous statement. It is like saying it's ok to pay $200 for a hamburger because some hamburgers don't have tomatoes.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 06:57 UTC
In reply to:

M W B G: Lets hate it. It is not of a brand we own so I hate it.

I own 2 Olympus cameras and several lenses. I hate this camera. It is an incremental update and wildly overpriced. Most of all it is still the same crippled Sony sensor in it.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 06:54 UTC

Bye bye Olympus Micro Four Thirds!

It was fun in the E-P1, E-P2, and E-M5 days.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 06:47 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

eliehbk: Goo times when an FF camera costs 1700 and a micro43 sells for 2000 in times when all consumer electronics are falling in price.

I paid $1,400 for my A7 II a few weeks after release.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 13:29 UTC

Photography FAIL of the century.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 10:00 UTC as 99th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

stanic042: 2000 dollar camera with tiny sensor and battery life under 500 clicks? no, thanks

correction: tiny quarter-frame sensor with same poor IQ as the E-M5 from 5 years ago.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 09:58 UTC
In reply to:

Gklidas: Really expensive! For the same price I can buy a full frame camera Pentax K1.

@jorginho: LOL size and weight. The new Olympus lenses are consistently bigger and heavier than their full frame counterparts.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 09:56 UTC
In reply to:

eno2: The image quality is fantastic and ISO 6400 is extremely clean!

I'm sorry, but I have to reply to this nonsense.

The ISO 6400 samples provided here are mush. Towards the edges of the frame, it looks like a blurred image. There is no sharpness or detail to speak of. High-ISO performance is abysmal here.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 09:55 UTC
On article Olympus E-M1 Mark II Iceland sample gallery (83 comments in total)

Wow, just wow. $2,000 for images that look like they were taken with a compact. Underwhelming.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 09:33 UTC as 23rd comment | 6 replies

$2,000

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 09:31 UTC as 149th comment | 5 replies

Oh boy... dictionaries will have to be rewritten as that Surface Dial gives new dimensions to the word "useless."

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 11:37 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

Daft Punk: I still remember when Microsoft was the evil empire and Apple was the plucky minority offering resistance.

Now the too have swapped roles.

Who would have thought it?

That new surface looks like a lovely piece of kit..

Have you ever owned a Surface? If you would, you'd know what you are saying is nonsense. No roles were swapped. Microsoft is still broken.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 11:34 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2197 comments in total)
In reply to:

GarysInSoCal: CERTAIN DEATH to any decent (or even great) DSLR is 'very limited lens selection'. Sorry Fuji... hello Nikon D500!

@VisualFX: "What lens do they lack that you "think you need"?"

Something similar to the Nikon 300/4 PF (lightweight) and 200-500/5.6 (affordable range).

The Fuji 100-400 is a piece of junk.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2016 at 20:28 UTC
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

Everythingis1: I'm starting to believe that either a lot of people who use this website are idiots, or there are just a huge amount of paid marketers constantly trash talking everything about their competitors on the most popular websites. It just doesn't make any sense for their to be so much non-nonsensical trash talk about freeking digital cameras.

Paid trolls are a thing now. Fuji is leading the pack.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2016 at 09:22 UTC
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

tom1234567: There is just no way the Sony a6500 is worth a £100 more than the Fuji X-T2.

Tom G

"bang for buck APS-C lens system"

Crop lenses are per definition not "bang for buck" because their resale value drops much quicker than full frame lenses. In the long term, they are significantly more expensive.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 16:08 UTC
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

tom1234567: There is just no way the Sony a6500 is worth a £100 more than the Fuji X-T2.

Tom G

IBIS is priceless. I'd even get Olympus over Fuji.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 16:04 UTC
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

thoth22: Entertaining buffer test by steve huff - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMn4dkLVNxg

Steve gets paid by referral commission. If he berates a product nobody is going to click his link and buy it. You just have to read into how positive he is and look at his sample photos.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 16:00 UTC
Total: 511, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »