Phileas Fogg

Phileas Fogg

Lives in Canada Greater Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Joined on Jul 28, 2004

Comments

Total: 80, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Georgeee: Thanks DPreview for the first impression review. Looking forward to seeing the full review, which I regard as the "official review" of a camera product. You guys did great job to quickly publish a review when Canon 5D IV was out.

For photo, full frame always has advantage on image quality. that's physics.
For video, no need for that big sensor, so m4/3 can really compete with others and to be the best. Panasonic made smart choice in that regard.

Georgee says,

"For photo, full frame always has advantage on image quality. that's physics."
---------------
And in reality of the day, virtually nobody cares! and virtually nobody will notice this technical advantage in real world use, even if they could via side by side image/print analysis virtually nobody will really care.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 02:53 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: again stupid expensive price! ooh...

thx1138,

I DENIGRATE NO OTHER CAMERAS!!! I only point out that GH5 and EM-1MKII are as PRO GRADE as any from CaNikon, is that hard for you to accept?

Fact is these are TWO great values in cameras and for skilled or working pros who need all the durability, build, ability and general imagery that any skilled photographer and even working pros can need, but at a lesser cost and a smaller footprint with less weight.

I never said CaNikon TOTL Pro cameras were bad but that VALUE of GH4/EM-1MKII is GREATER! There is no arguing this.

OBTW Corolla vs Ferrari is MOOT. Maybe use this logic a 2000lb, 350 hp Turbo 4 cyl. race coupe vs 4000lb, 500hp V-8 race coupe. Both will be very competitive to each other but are very different cars.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 02:41 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: again stupid expensive price! ooh...

DavidNJ100

No the GH5 and EM-1MKII is on par with Pro grade TOTL cameras . These have all the functions, build, durability and abilty for any skilled photographer to take anywhere and shoot anything on the planet that the CaNikon TOTL cameras can.

The gibberish about equivalency is that. Say I shoot an image at 200mm (FOV of 400mm)at F4.0 at say 1/1000 sec. is the same exposure as a D5 or 1DXMKIII shooting at 400mm at f4.0 at say 1/1000 sec. PERIOD STOP!

I upload, then maybe email, then also print my image just the same as the CaNikons will. My image will be just as usable and saleable as the CaNikons, PERIOD STOP!

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 02:36 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: again stupid expensive price! ooh...

For the price of ONE 1-DXMKII or D5 one can buy THREE GH-5 or EM-1MKII. Shoot the same subjects and at any place on Earth the Pro CaNikons can go and have TWO back up bodies to only the ONE 1-DXMKII or D5 gives you for the same $$$$.

The CaNikon's will need to spend $12,000+ to get the same size kit in numbers. For $12,000 I can FLY most anywhere on Earth to then shoot with the GH-5 or EM-1MKII (3 body) kit.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 21:17 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: Body is headed toward the ridiculous proportions (given they housed a 4/3rds size sensor) of the old Olympus E-3/5 DSLR's and we know how that went.

OlyPent.

GH5/EM-1MKII even with grips and lenses are still a fraction of the size of High to Topline CaNikon Pro grade cameras and lenses.

I shoot EM-1 with battery grip and it's a fraction of the size and weight that my 1DMKII was prior to buying into m4/3rds. If I want to go tiny(er) I have my EM-10MKII as my backup body and my more unobtrusive camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

lacix: ..but, bigger and heavier than the FF A7R2?

Not with any comparable FOV lens choices. Sony A series are great cameras but the lenses they use are still notably bigger and heavier as to m4/3rds choices.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 21:05 UTC

Looks like a sweet PRO grade micro 4/3rds based camera. This camera along with Oly EM-1MKII are worthy competitors and are as every bit PROFESSIONAL GRADE as any working pro (or advanced amateur) may really need. There would be NO paid gig I'd do that I would not feel 100% perfectly good in using the GH5 or EM-1MKII, PERIOD STOP!

This camera lacks nothing a working pro may need, BTW I'm not talking about the soon be seen troll, faux wannabe, look at me with 3-4 D-5s or 1DXMKII's hanging off my neck. Yes I'm talking about real working photographers who like me CHOSE to move from Canon (my case) or Nikon DSLR's to m4/3rds and for myself as a pro going back to the mid 1980's I have no regrets and a total pleasure and joy in my case using as my main camera an EM-1.

If/when I choose to add a new flagship m4/3rds camera to my kit It's going to be tough choice for me between GH5 and EM-1MKII. The joy of competition I guess. :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 19:36 UTC as 135th comment
In reply to:

CaPi: Am I the only one to see the humor in this? :)
I find that hilarious

entoman,

I condemn nobody's choices in gear. I only condemn the ignorance of the original author of the story.

Pro photographersa use whatever gear you like, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Sigma, Leica WHAT HAVE YOU! If you are going pro, learn to be good and be professional with what ever gear you employ. SELL YOURSELF AND YOUR IMAGERY not what B.S. gear you may have to a client.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

superwave: Stupid suggestion. The trend is sony mirrorless.

armandino,

To me my Olympus m4/3s gear MAKE ME want to shoot with them. I'm not saying I did not want nor enjoy my previous Canon DSLR's and before digital my 35mm Canon SLR's or 645MF stuff. But for me, I love the way my Olys work and feel to and for me. I love how they sort of make my lust for good images flow. It's hard for me to better describe such. Olympus m4/3rds gear just are magic to me and my way of thinking and shooting.

BTW going back to oh about age 10-11 I was a LIFER CANON FAN! BIGLY! :-) I have nothing against Canon or even Nikon which though I never have shot with today but Olympus just works for me now. :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:34 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Better advice is just to pick a photographer with an extensive portfolio that appeals to you. If they've taken the kind of pictures you want in the past, they obviously know what gear to use for that.

That said, I'd bet most photographers with an extensive portfolio use Canon or Nikon FF....

BING BING BING BING BING BING WE HAVE A WINNER! :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: So Olympus EM1 Mark II & Panasonic GH5 don't produce professional results 🤔

crashpc, I've NEVER ruined any events I ever photographed professionally going back 30 damn years. I did not take on jobs I was not ready for especially in my early days. I LEARNED and HONED MY CRAFT! I never promised to any clients, bridal or whomever stuff I worried I could not skillfully do. I always had enough gear including back ups and learned to use it all INSTINCTIVELY!

So be it then with 645 MF or Canon 35mm film gear to Canon DSLR's to now Olympus m4/3rds. I KNOW WHAT THE EFF I'M DOING. So m4/3rds allows me to be as good, skilled and professional as any Canikon 35mm FF stuff can.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: So Olympus EM1 Mark II & Panasonic GH5 don't produce professional results 🤔

crashpc.

No brides really give a crap about what cameras you have. THEY want to see your imagery, see if your style is for them and to meet and learn about your attitude to see if you and they mix well enough. All this above your general pricing and product choices.

THAT'S IT!!!

P.S. ONCE IN A LIFETIME matters only about how good the photographer is, not what camera gear he/she has. Any competent pro will have appropriate gear and enough back up gear to do the job they SOLD to the client to get the job.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:05 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: A FF camera format prints big...excuse me but 1dxII and D5 or the A7s may have a quibble with this with their low resolution sensors.

Most weddings today rarely see images bigger than 8x10 in prints. A 2MP camera will give you a good 8x10. Photographers were printing and happily selling to satisfied customers 20x 30x or larger images with 8 to 10MP cameras a decade ago.

Post process well enough, print well enough and any 12-16-18MP cameras can make great 30x 40x image ALL FREAKING DAY LONG!!! 24MP + is great but not a necessity to great prints even large ones. 99% of all clients WILL NOT see nor care for any minor differences. But many clients can tell a good photographer's work from a lesser able photographer's work REGARDLESS OF THE CAMERA GEAR USED!!!

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: So Olympus EM1 Mark II & Panasonic GH5 don't produce professional results 🤔

Quarter to Doom, YEP! Odd how pros like myself were able to get great indoor and dimly lit shots in church's back in my film days. HOW DID I DO IT!?!?! LOL!!!

Of course any m4/3rds cameras can get great and fully salable images even shooting in dimly lit buildings. Only ignorant posers miss this point.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 19:47 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: So Olympus EM1 Mark II & Panasonic GH5 don't produce professional results 🤔

crashpc, trolling along in your idiocy. You have displayed by your posts that you have no clue what it takes to be a skilled and professional photographer. I've already used my m4/3rds gear professionally and NOBODY has complained and the results are as good as I can get when I used Canon DSLR's and are as salable as any Canikon stuff.

BUT YOU KEEP TROLLIN AWAY. It shows you for the ignorant troll you are.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 19:41 UTC

Typical blather by a person who thinks they know what they say but by such blather displays total ignorance.

This nonsense only aids in brides and grooms to maybe make improper choices of their photography.

FULL FORMAT CAMERA ???

If you erroneously feel a wedding photographer should shoot 35mm Full Frame, then get it right! But you'd only verify your ignorance.

I have shot professionally in one capacity or another since the mid 1980's. I used 645 MF and 35mm Film cameras for wedding and portraiture from then to 2004. I shot from 2004 to 2016 Canon APS-C and APS-H crop body DSLR's. None of my wedding and portrait clients ever complained for me not having a 35mm FF camera.

Today Tiffani I shoot exclusively Olympus m4/3rds cameras and my opinion which is much better than yours Tiffani as I have been a pro shooter for 30 damn years, my Olympus m4/rds cameras can give me as good imagery and results than any Canikon cameras.

I suggest that you correct you editorial.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 19:34 UTC as 333rd comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (159 comments in total)

The E-10 was with a Canon 10D the first digital cameras I bought and used (2004). I enjoyed the E-10 for it's feel and uniqueness. At 4MP it took nice pics, a great lens optimized by Oly for the camera. Being a fixed lens Oly only offer a couple of option with wide and a tele adapters but in daily use the camera was a joy to use.

Iso performance was limited by it sensor design but meh it still had nice imagery. The split beam idea was cool. The optical viewfinder was a bit tunnel vision but meh ok.

The 10D I had did have more versatility being a true DSLR and a new body (2003 vs E-10 a 2000 model) but I enjoyed pulling the E-10 out of the camera bag just as much over all. Sadly the shutter did eventually fail. But give it is a 17 year old camera I'd probably enjoy pulling one out to play with today much as I did back in the day.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 17:56 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

MariusM: It's like watching cancer spread.

No we are not. This leftist, anti-human, anti-development brainwashing needs to stop.

Today with over 7 billion humans on Earth, in virtually all places short of a few parts of the world where people live in backwards cultures/religions that have kept those areas human and economic development back, the poorest persons today live better than 9/10ths of the people did in 1916 when the Earth only had 2 billion humans.

The air is cleaner on average, water less polluted, Humans are as we have been in recent decades improving reforestation. We use fossil fuels more efficiently and are better at land management in general today than 100 years ago. Technological development has improved crop yields now feeding 7B. 100 years ago more people per capita starved.

I'm not saying it all peaches and cream, but what holds back things is backwards cultures/religions, too much political interfering of govt. and not consistent regs overall, plus sciences being politicized, among other things.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 14:33 UTC
On article TIME releases 100 most influential images of all time (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

nikonf2as: What TIME, and America, has perhaps forgotten is that there is another world out there; people who don't share North America's insular world view, and it's recording of. We're quite scared of your ignorance - this "100 most influential" is truthful (in a cliched way) about the brutality and banality of US stupidity, yes; but - my point - there's a black hole where life could have been celebrated from others - no Diane Arbus, no Robert Frank, no Minor White, no Ed Ruscha, no Berenice Abbott - and that's just some of the alternative US options. Of course TIME haven't been able to show these photographers as they are not part of their canon - so, why say "all time"? When what they actually mean is "some pics, some of a flippant nature, from our archive. Buy our book and feel good about Stephen Bannon - maybe we'll get some more pics of world chaos under his leadership".

Yes the USA can look inward all too often. I guess that is the luxury of being a global super power and the nation that benefited most post WWII. But by extension of the many great things, people, ideals, products and services the USA led the world with, saw much of it all spread in one form or another abroad.

No it was not all singularly the USA, but its westernized peers for a point of fact hopped on its coat tails and leveraged it to add their own levels of greatness to the developed world too.

Yes, I often roll my eyes at how it seems all too many in general US society seem oblivious to the world outside it, given the USA influences the world more than any other. I laugh at how often Americans of all stripes seem to disregard its closest and IMO best neighbour in Canada. Then I stop and figure, well we don't rock boats so it's probably better that they often fail to notice us I guess.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 21:40 UTC
On article TIME releases 100 most influential images of all time (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: Unfortunately most of these images haven't has much influence since man seems to continue his brutality against fellow man.

Yes man kind has been and can be brutal as you say to man but lets not close our eyes to the fact that man has done more to better more peoples lives over the last say 100 years than in all previous recorded human history.

As flawed as man is and our ideals and ways may be at times, the ways of the Western developed world have proven to be the best ways of all time.

In proportion to population size, more people live or have the choice to live a better life in modern western ideals than at any other time in human history.

Any non-western developed ideals and cultures have proven to be lesser in quality and in value to human life and its general benefit. These all have proven more unjust, less fair, more violent and less progressive than most anything the western developed world has done.

Yes, we can do better, no we should not rest our laurels to do better for more people and our planet. But the ideals fostered in the western developed world have proven best for all.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 21:27 UTC
Total: 80, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »