Mike99999

Joined on Feb 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 618, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 15th 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 24th 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 16th comment
On article Canon EF-M 22mm F2 STM sample gallery (172 comments in total)

I love this type of lens.

The often overlooked Canon 22/2 is significantly sharper than the Panasonic 20/1.7, which is also a fun little lens. The Panasonic needs to be stopped down for sharp corners, while the Canon is tack sharp wide open.

My all-time favorite is the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. Even though it is slightly longer physically, it feels just as convenient when on the move. Better colors and better bokeh, and also tack sharp wide open.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 15:16 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Canon EF-M 22mm F2 STM sample gallery (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: Best pancake lens ever produced in history.

I prefer the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8, though it is arguably not a pancake, still very small.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 15:11 UTC
On article Canon EF-M 22mm F2 STM sample gallery (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

G1Houston: Remind me of the Panasonic 20/1.8 for the m3/4 system, which is lovely and the key reason that has kept me in the m3/4 team ...

The Panasonic 20/1.7 is clearly SOFTER than this Canon. Shockingly so.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 15:10 UTC
On article Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 sample gallery (214 comments in total)

$6,500 for this broken image quality. Unbelievable how some people fool themselves...

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 15:07 UTC as 90th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

tef68: Why does so many want to point out the equivalense between mft and ff? This has been debated numerous times before and is getting old and boring.
Maybe i should comment on ff lenses and euivalense to mft, i'm shure i will be popular then.

Calculating equivalence to MFT is what got me to switch to FF.

I mean, any f/4 FF zoom behaves the same as an f/2 zoom on M43. f/4 zooms for FF are cheap, small and light. I was sold!

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: So how much does Zeiss 85mm f2.4 Loxia cost?

Great, that other absurdly priced lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 16:14 UTC
In reply to:

sonnycsc: DPR forumers as per usual ranting and complaining as the 'experts' that they are. So what that these lenses are big and pricey? Which system doesn't have them? MFT also has smaller alternatives like the 17/f1.8, 25/f1.8 and 45/f1.8 which are solid lenses. This PRO line of glass is for those who will actually use them for their work, not moan about how they compare to bricks on online forums. Go outside and use what you already have! It's all fine that you're voicing your opinions, as long as they stay as your subjective opinions and not pretending to be the voice of the community.

"Which system doesn't have them?"

I don't think there is another system which so blatantly rips off its users. f/2.4 equivalent crop lenses at these absurd prices is a new mark in the camera industry.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 16:01 UTC
On article What you need to know about Sony's a7R III (614 comments in total)
In reply to:

legokangpalla: Why is it names A7RIII instead of A9R like A7II -> A9?
Is there going to be an A9R?

Where do you get A7II -> A9?

The first is an entry-level full frame, the second a professional sports camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 15:57 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoCGI: Sony executives most be colour blind. They try and try to produce the best "technical" camera but continue not paying attention to the widely acknowledged fact they have the worst colours of any camera. (not to mention their automatic while balance is crappy too).
Its a real shame because they do produce amazing cameras but when you compare their colours with Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Fuji..well, you get a big dissapointment.
They don't learn, unfortunately. Have they ever wonder why Apple and others pay so much attention to the colour of the photos on their mobile devices and the quality of the screen on which we see them?
Yep. First impression do count. That's why many leave Sony and return to Nikon, Fuji or whatever when they realise their Sony camera may be "technically perfect or close to it" but results are simply not appealing.

"when you compare their colours with Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Fuji"

As a Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic owner I call a load of crap on this statement. For sure Olympus has the worst color sensitivity of the bunch. Nikon obviously the best, but Sony is quite close.

"And I am speaking from personal dissapointment"

Yeah, I get it, you just want the overprocessed JPEG look from Olympus and Fuji. Just learn how to configure your RAW processor?

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 09:29 UTC
On article Sony announces lightweight FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS lens (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: 663 gram is lightweight?
I guess full frame not for me

The quarter frame Olympus Zuiko 12-35mm f/2 SWD is 900 grams and only covers 24-70mm f/4 equivalent.

The half frame Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 is 655 grams and only covers 24-85mm f/4 equivalent.

Lightweight is relative. If you can accept slower glass then there are always lighter options.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 08:42 UTC
On article Sony announces lightweight FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS lens (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

vinrouge0: G logo on lens but text states not a 'G Master'. I'm in on this one I think

"G" stands for "high-performance class optics" similar to Canon L.

"M" stands for "More Money".

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 07:29 UTC
Total: 618, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »