Mike99999

Joined on Feb 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 622, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1393 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo_rb: How I wish when the 4/3 format was being developed, they would have made the sensor a teeny bit bigger...say APS-Cish.

@Interestingness: one can take award winning, income earning, magazine worthy, big print compatible photos with an iPhone. That still doesn't mean this camera is 2 grand well spent. Not when there are so many better options.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 15:34 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1393 comments in total)

No thanks, Olympus.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 15:31 UTC as 323rd comment
In reply to:

FuhTeng: I'm looking forward to the D500 to EM1 II comparison tests. And comparing the EM1 II to the XT2 and GH5 and a6500, but mainly, the D500 versus EM1 II.

Since the Nikon 300/4 weighs 750 grams, and the Olympus 300/4 1500 grams, the decision is already made for me: I'll go with the Nikon D500.

Nikon also offers an excellent 200-500/5.6 which Olympus does not. The Nikon has a stop better ISO performance to boot. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

YetiYeti: Scrolling down this list of comments, and even DPreview - how costly E-M1II is. All over the web these days.

E-M1 II is kind of Canon 1DX. Some E-M1 features are better (speed, weight), some worse (hi ISO) than 1Ds, for some we are still to find out (CAF).

If you don't need all these new E-M1II features, here is E-M5 instead, much cheaper.
Same as with Canon.
If you don't need all those 1DX features, here is 5D instead, much cheaper.

Price difference between both Canons is similar as between both Olympuses.
Performance difference between both Canons is similar as between both Olympuses.
Even naming scheme is same with both manufacturers.

What's not to understand?
Go bug Canon that 1DX is too costly.

"E-M1 II is kind of Canon 1DX"

Yeah, Nikon did a crop version of their D5 and it is over 3 times cheaper. The D500 is a D5 with APS-C sensor and it costs $1,800 instead of $6,500.

The E-M1 has an even smaller crop, so, if you ask me, it should be half of $1,800, more like $900. The problem is M43 does not offer economy of scales, while APS-C does. You pay a premium for using a niche product.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

jl_smith: A little exercise:

Get your favorite camera and compile a list of lenses you like to use by focal length. Put them in a camera bag.

Do a similar exercise for m43.

There are always tradeoffs--m43's main advantage is size. Why gripe about 'small sensor'? News flash -- this is a smaller sensor camera, but still capable of great images.

I had an EM1, 35-100/2.8 Panasonic, 7-14/4 Panasonic, 45/1.8, 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 all fit in a tiny Retro 5 messenger bag, with probably room to spare. Try this with literally any other non-m43 system (besides Nikon 1).

I do this exercise quite regularly as I own both Olympus/Panasonic and Sony FE.

Lately, Sony wins for me as the 35/2.8 and the Loxia lenses are quite small. Instead of traveling with 5 mediocre lenses I prefer to take 2-3 excellent ones, e.g. Loxia 21 and Loxia 50.

The only lens I can't seem to replace is the Olympus 75/1.8. I'd buy a small + modern full frame 150/4 in a heartbeat.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

Mike99999: 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.

@Sigma82: because I've been an Olympus user since the PEN E-P2. What us M43 users want to see is a bump in sensor performance, not a bump in price pushing it beyond the cost of full frame.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: GET OVER IT!
M43 has more "professional" options than any other format out there now. From low end to high end, large to small. It's available and yet people complain.
I hope you realize these features you have been asking for--and Oly delivering--costs money. Those saying m43 is not a real system/sensor/camera/ whatever do not realize there are many who make money without a problem in the system.
Professional is defined by the person making money and the work they produce, not the tools used to get there.
M43 has matured significantly in the last couple years and have done a great job filling all gaps in the line.

Please back up your claims with statistics. I, for one, have never seen a "professional" using Olympus. I only see Canon, Nikon, and on rare occasions a Sony.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 14:03 UTC
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
Total: 622, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »