p.2 #1 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Cliff L. wrote:
I watched Mark's video, too. He expressed no actual objective personal opinions about the lens or the m4/3 system - it was more like he was just reading from an advertising brochure. Better to say nothing than risk alienating his existing fanbase, I suppose.
On a related note, OM System seems to have had enough of these lenses available to provide one to every single photographer on YouTube - so they must have thousands of them ready to ship. Keep an eye on the used equipment listings at B&H - a lot of these demo units seem to end up there once the influencers are finished with them....Show more →
or OM refurb (if they do that).
I thought I might, then decided not to (because I don't use 50-200 focal length [in m4/3] and I still have a mint unused 40-150Pro too), but, last night I unpacked my mint (purchased in 2003) Olympus 4/3 50-200 lens to have a whirl with it.
It's mounted on a camera with the battery charged and card formatted. I might even take it out.
My thoughts on the 50-200Pro are it's surely as great as 'they' say it is (as are all the other Olympus/OM lenses that the reviews said were).
--I'd rather buy the OM1X --
p.2 #2 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Paul_100A wrote:
I followed Andy Rouse for a good long while.
I thought he explained the reason why he switched to FF was simply because his client(s) suddenly decided that they wanted higher resolution images. I thought he explained the reason he was upset about having to switch systems was because his client(s) had no complaints about the image quality from his current system.
Am I remembering it differently or incorrectly?
as far as me cropping with my m4/3 goes…no, i do not know that I have any more or less issues cropping files from my m4/3 equipment than anyone with FF format. I’ll say the reason being is I don’t have to crop files from a 2x crop body as much as FF has to crop files for the same result.
I crop plenty of my m4/3 files and I am very much satisfied with the results to post them online and/or print them.
the ‘FF can crop more than a 2X crop body rationale’ is silly to me. It’s not even an argument to me.
I realized that when I realized that I was shooting my FF wildlife set up in crop mode most of the time, and/or having to crop (even further in many cases) in post.
FF must crop in order to keep up with m4/3 is the way I see it because of my own experience shooting FF wildlife and m4/3 wildlife.
I’ll just add this.
A few years back, my Nikon friend (birding long before me) went full m4/3 (two OM-1s and a 150-400, plus other lenses) when he started birding with me and we were doing exactly what Imagemaster described…standing shoulder to shoulder shooting the same subject. He saw he simply couldn’t compete with m4/3 results. I wasn’t trying to compete. I was just taking pictures.
So…just a few days ago he says to me (again) that OM simply has to make a high resolution sensor camera.
I asked (again) why.
Marketing he says. They have to because other companies have high resolution sensor cameras so OM should too to stay in business.
I said no thanks to the idea of 53.3% smaller pixels on a more densely packed sensor. which means the cameras processor is simply going to be purposed to ‘Ai’ all the images to look better before even outputting from the camera…just like cellphones. No thanks.
BUT…my main point to him was that if m4/3 made a high resolution sensor then folks would simply rely/depend on cropping files (same as FF) and I suspect the image quality results would generally become poorer and poorer for m4/3.
-I’ll use my trusty 12-40mm lens to take a picture of that small bird 120 yards away and then crop it because I have so many pixels to throw away.-
same as they do with cellphones.
I’m pretty sure he said he wanted to keep using MFT but that his agent told him his sales were down because his files weren’t high enough resolution for his clients.
p.2 #3 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Cliff L. wrote:
I watched Mark's video, too. He expressed no actual objective personal opinions about the lens or the m4/3 system - it was more like he was just reading from an advertising brochure. Better to say nothing than risk alienating his existing fanbase, I suppose.
On a related note, OM System seems to have had enough of these lenses available to provide one to every single photographer on YouTube - so they must have thousands of them ready to ship. Keep an eye on the used equipment listings at B&H - a lot of these demo units seem to end up there once the influencers are finished with them....Show more →
Other than the cheaper brands and the Hasselblad handouts, the influencers don’t get to keep the gear. They can use it for a few weeks and then it’s shipped back. I don’t think these lenses will appear on the used market anytime soon, if ever, because they may be abused quite badly (even though you have to sign that you compensate the company for damage, which is something the companies generally don’t enforce - I know, I dropped a loaner Otus…).
p.2 #4 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Paul_100A wrote:
I thought I might, then decided not to (because I don't use 50-200 focal length [in m4/3] and I still have a mint unused 40-150Pro too), but, last night I unpacked my mint (purchased in 2003) Olympus 4/3 50-200 lens to have a whirl with it.
p.2 #5 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Cliff L. wrote:
I did use my 50-200 back in the day and I found it’s rendering was at the top of my all time favourite list. I just didn’t require that focal length anymore.
I often read (with no arguments against it) numerous lens’ sharpness described as ‘clinical’ meaning (to me) sharp, yeah, but not organic.
I immediately recognized some very nice rendering properties in the new (and very different optically vs 4/3 50-200) 50-200Pro.
p.2 #6 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
johnvanr wrote:
Other than the cheaper brands and the Hasselblad handouts, the influencers don’t get to keep the gear. They can use it for a few weeks and then it’s shipped back. I don’t think these lenses will appear on the used market anytime soon, if ever, because they may be abused quite badly (even though you have to sign that you compensate the company for damage, which is something the companies generally don’t enforce - I know, I dropped a loaner Otus…).
If you follow what B&H is selling in their used department, you almost always see batches of recently reviewed and newly released cameras and lenses showing up... too soon for early adopters to be returning them, so where else do you think this gear comes from?
p.2 #7 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
All I have to do is look at M4/3 images from sum1grampa and Ronny Olsson, then look at most of the images on the Canon, Nikon, and Sony Forums. Their images look better and sharper than most of the images posted on those three forums with FF cameras. Then there are the photographers that are either inept or don't believe that post-processing skills can improve most images SOOC.
I find these two have a pretty good knowledge of M4/3 without all the B.S.
p.2 #8 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…I have the ability to capture, produce, and share images with terrible image quality using any format.
I regularly see evidence of the very same abilities in others.
It was explained to me that those folks just like to take/post images for fun and something to enjoyably pass the time.
What stumps me is how vehement those same folks are regarding the continual acknowledgement of the superiority of their equipment vs all other’s.
p.2 #11 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
This is probably meaningless but I just came across a very similar image from last year to one that I took last week. Someone may find it interesting.
Gary
p.2 #12 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
sum1sgrampa wrote:
This is probably meaningless but I just came across a very similar image from last year to one that I took last week. Someone may find it interesting.
Gary
evidently, a lot of what we like about images is related more so to the camera operator's abilities than the equivalency theories.
p.2 #13 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Cliff L. wrote:
If you follow what B&H is selling in their used department, you almost always see batches of recently reviewed and newly released cameras and lenses showing up... too soon for early adopters to be returning them, so where else do you think this gear comes from?
I don’t know, but I did get loaner gear myself for a while and never kept anything or was promised anything.
p.2 #14 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Imagemaster wrote:
All I have to do is look at M4/3 images from sum1grampa and Ronny Olsson, then look at most of the images on the Canon, Nikon, and Sony Forums. Their images look better and sharper than most of the images posted on those three forums with FF cameras. Then there are the photographers that are either inept or don't believe that post-processing skills can improve most images SOOC.
I find these two have a pretty good knowledge of M4/3 without all the B.S.
If you go by some of the presentation threads here, you’d never buy some cameras. Haven’t looked recently, but the medium format thread here used to be a big turnoff for me even considering MF.
p.2 #15 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
johnvanr wrote:
If you go by some of the presentation threads here, you’d never buy some cameras. Haven’t looked recently, but the medium format thread here used to be a big turnoff for me even considering MF.
judging by presentation threads not just here at FM.
its strange though, it wasn’t long ago when I was prompted acquire a high speed FF wildlife rig for myself and the major decision making process came from viewing images here at FM (with helpful information questions/answers coming from here here too).
I now see, often, a majority of online images with poor image quality (coming from undoubtedly great equipment) that I would be simply embarrassed to share.
I really don’t know what is happening now. I guess people are more concerned with socializing on photography forums than excelling with their equipment. Perhaps simply owning the top of the line equipment is important and not using it well.
p.2 #16 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Paul_100A wrote:
evidently, a lot of what we like about images is related more so to the camera operator's abilities than the equivalency theories.
I thought I deleted this right after I posted it. I'm pretty sure I've deleted more comments after posting than I've posted when discussions like these come up. They seldom end well Although I do find this forum relatively civil
p.2 #17 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
johnvanr wrote:
I don’t know, but I did get loaner gear myself for a while and never kept anything or was promised anything.
The loaner gear for reviews all goes back to the manufacturers, and then they dispose of it - either through a big store like B&H, or through their own online store if the gear isn't too badly beaten up.
p.2 #18 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Paul_100A wrote:
judging by presentation threads not just here at FM.
its strange though, it wasn’t long ago when I was prompted acquire a high speed FF wildlife rig for myself and the major decision making process came from viewing images here at FM (with helpful information questions/answers coming from here here too).
I now see, often, a majority of online images with poor image quality (coming from undoubtedly great equipment) that I would be simply embarrassed to share.
I really don’t know what is happening now. I guess people are more concerned with socializing on photography forums than excelling with their equipment. Perhaps simply owning the top of the line equipment is important and not using it well. ...Show more →
I just looked at block of sample images from the new 50-200. Every one was a delete. I'm not saying it's a reflection on the lens because nobody puts out crap lenses anymore but I don't understand this. Why wouldn't you be putting your best foot forward if you're trying to promote new equipment.
p.2 #19 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I just looked at block of sample images from the new 50-200. Every one was a delete. I'm not saying it's a reflection on the lens because nobody puts out crap lenses anymore but I don't understand this. Why wouldn't you be putting your best foot forward if you're trying to promote new equipment.
the very first two 50-200Pro reviews I saw surprised me so much (very poor IQ) that I emailed OM about it. I have since seen much better results. It was very strange.
p.2 #20 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
sum1sgrampa wrote: I thought I deleted this right after I posted it. I'm pretty sure I've deleted more comments after posting than I've posted when discussions like these come up. They seldom end well Although I do find this forum relatively civil
I hope there is no misunderstanding from my statement Gary.
My intention was to say that I like both images (captured and presented very nicely) equally well. Credit due to the camera operator.
the fact that the two similar images came from different formats doesn’t affect my enjoyment or judgement of either…based on the application of equivalence theory (tongue in cheek).
--
I thought I deleted this right after I posted it. I'm pretty sure I've deleted more comments after posting than I've posted when discussions like these come up. They seldom end well