Mike99999

Joined on Feb 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 555, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fotopizza: I don`t understand all those complaints, for example, regarding sensor size. Sure you can increase it- and then you will hear people complaining "what a bad camera, now it`s not as small as a MFT anymore...". If you really travel a lot: air travel, small planes, some train in western china, or a canoe on an african river, a small SYSTEM comes in handy. And a system consists of camera body AND lenses, and lens size and weight goes up rapidly. A camera with these performance specs in terms of speed is unknown to the APS-C DSLR world, and even if there a cam, the system (!) size and weight would be much higher. So you turn to full frame, like a D5 for speed, performance and sturdiness. Sure, you get around 2 stops better noise performance- which isn`t such an advantage when your average print size is A3. But look at the system (!) size and weight- a nice FF 600mm lens (or 800mm) is just huge and heavy. MFT is a great compromise: A fast, portable, sturdy (travel) system with acceptable IQ.

Crop is not reach.

Stop perpetuating this myth. You can use a Nikon 300/4 and crop the image in half just the same.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: Some day they'll get there, but for now it's just a shame that high ISO quality and resolution is a fair bit behind APS-C and full frame 35mm. Those are the only two 'cons' in my opinion. The price is fine, were it not for the two cons I mentioned (for me anyway). Just my personal thoughts/choice/preference. Well, there might be one other con. I can beat my FF Nikon files to death (D750) in post-processing and they still show very, very little to no degradation but my Olympus m4/3 files need a gentle touch in post (raw files) or they'll fall apart quickly.

@razadaz: the size/weight/price difference between the D750 and E-M1 II is too insignificant to warrant such a hit in image quality.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 12:43 UTC

Tiny sensors are so 2012.

I have never seen so many disgruntled M43 users. $500 more expensive than the A7 Mark II? No thanks...

Nikon tried to play the framerate card with the Nikon 1 and look how that worked out for them.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 12:39 UTC as 87th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: EM1-2 image detail looksvery much as good as the APS-C images, at least up to ISO 1600. Olympus has done a nice job.

I disagree. Olympus has made the wrong choice relying on Sony sensors. Sony has made sure this sensor does not pose any competitive threats to any of their own cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 09:25 UTC
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 31st 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 130th 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 38th 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 150th 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 (2216 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
Total: 555, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »