Lars Johnsson wrote:
To say that the review is useless or no good because he made grammar & spelling mistakes is just ridiculous.
Yeah I would say it's just about entirely useless.
It's a bit like DPR when they site the specs of a new camera and there are 3 or 4 specifications that you know (from the manufacturer and other reviewers) they got wrong. It casts doubt over the entire review! With DPR it's easy cuz I already KNOW they're tards! So they're only useful for some very general opinions and the pictures of the product - or to know something has been moved from rumor to something that will actually ship. That's it. They've screwed themselves out of any credibility beyond that (repeatedly!).
Same goes for these guys! Testing and commenting on precision equipment requires a level of technical writing that doesn't allow for much if any error. If great errors exist then they just don't have what it takes and the whole article is trashed as a result. Unless you don't mind the propagation of misinformation all over the place and for the entire life of said article it just has to be that way. Thiose guys got some real basic information totally wrong just cuz they couldn't be arsed to RTFM. Plus there were "spelling and grammatical errors all over the place". Whoops! Red Flag, they're totally out! I won't even go there to read what they have to say. They're tards!
FlyPenFly wrote:
Do you guys think the sensor would be as good or better than say a Nikon D5100 or even a NEX-C3?
even on identical technology it would be behind 1.5x APSC by 0.72 of a stop,
but fortunately there is more to a camera than that, and as always the noise is about equal on the same DoF.
most people seem a little surprised by its high ISO ability,
but it remains to be seen what low ISO looks like
Lars Johnsson wrote:
So when you reed it. Do you think they liked or didn't liked the high ISO jpgs Do you belive it was a positive comment
It was a negative comment about the high iso pics, but they made a note that "maybe" it will be better with careful NR and raw.
You have to assume that the strong NR in the camera jpgs is there because the files are not that good without NR. I don't belive Olympus would have a strong NR if the files already where very good or perfect without it
If they wrote a "review" of the D800 that said "we found significant noise reduction in the jpegs at higher ISOs" would you also read that as "complaining about the high ISO"
They just stated that the OOC jpegs showed a lot of noise reduction at higher ISO, with the comment that this is a pre-production sample, and that you usually get better results out of raw files anyway. Whether you take that as "complaining about higher ISO" or not is up to you. I think we sometimes read what we want to read.
Feb 19, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Bifurcator wrote:
Yeah I would say it's just about entirely useless.
It's a bit like DPR when they site the specs of a new camera and there are 3 or 4 specifications that you know (from the manufacturer and other reviewers) they got wrong. It casts doubt over the entire review! With DPR it's easy cuz I already KNOW they're tards! So they're only useful for some very general opinions and the pictures of the product - or to know something has been moved from rumor to something that will actually ship. That's it. They've screwed themselves out of any credibility beyond that (repeatedly!).
Same goes for these guys! Testing and commenting on precision equipment requires a level of technical writing that doesn't allow for much if any error. If great errors exist then they just don't have what it takes and the whole article is trashed as a result. Unless you don't mind the propagation of misinformation all over the place and for the entire life of said article it just has to be that way. Thiose guys got some real basic information totally wrong just cuz they couldn't be arsed to RTFM. Plus there were "spelling and grammatical errors all over the place". Whoops! Red Flag, they're totally out! I won't even go there to read what they have to say. They're tards!
Lars Johnsson wrote:
To say that the review is useless or no good because he made grammar & spelling mistakes is just ridiculous.
Well, first off nobody said that it was just because of "grammar & spelling mistakes", so not sure where you are getting this from. I pointed out the poor grammar and spelling along with them clearly not having taken the time to read up on the camera they were supposedly "reviewing" since they didn't a) even know what "live time" is actually called, and b) completely erroneously stated that you can't get the exposure progression view in bulb mode. Oh yeah, and this gem: "the autofocus was very fast when locked". What the heck does that even MEAN?
Since these guys are publishing a magazine and have an active photo site, and Olympus hands them a new camera to review, it is a damned insult both to Olympus and to their readers to first of all not take the time to learn about the equipment, not even bother to mention significant things (they mention "9 fps is good for action" but not that you don't get autofocus in that mode...) then not find the time to actually review it with any amount of effort ("unfortunately I didn't have time to test AF-C with my tele lens"), then on top of that publish this drivel with grammar and spelling so poor that a fifth grader would be ashamed of themselves.
Frankly, I see better on the dpreview FORUMS than this crap. Sorry.
Feb 19, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
pingflood wrote:
Well, first off nobody said that it was just because of "grammar & spelling mistakes", so not sure where you are getting this from. I pointed out the poor grammar and spelling along with them clearly not having taken the time to read up on the camera they were supposedly "reviewing" since they didn't a) even know what "live time" is actually called, and b) completely erroneously stated that you can't get the exposure progression view in bulb mode. Oh yeah, and this gem: "the autofocus was very fast when locked". What the heck does that even MEAN?
Since these guys are publishing a magazine and have an active photo site, and Olympus hands them a new camera to review, it is a damned insult both to Olympus and to their readers to first of all not take the time to learn about the equipment, not even bother to mention significant things (they mention "9 fps is good for action" but not that you don't get autofocus in that mode...) then not find the time to actually review it with any amount of effort ("unfortunately I didn't have time to test AF-C with my tele lens"), then on top of that publish this drivel with grammar and spelling so poor that a fifth grader would be ashamed of themselves.
Frankly, I see better on the dpreview FORUMS than this crap. Sorry....Show more →
You are wrong. He say it's 9 fps with locked AF and 4,2 with AF. Read the article before you whine about it. There is even another chapter about what kind of AF it has with the 4,2 fps
Here is a copy of the original text
1.Seriebildstagningen ligger på 9 bilder per sekund med låst autofokus och 4,2 bilder/s med följande autofokus.
2.Det behövs för att E-M5 ska kunna ge 4,2 bilder per sekund med följande autofokus eftersom man använder kontrastavkännande teknik.
(Deleted this part since I am just wasting space in this thread responding to Lars, anyone who wants can go read the article themselves and see what was actually written; the "another chapter" he quotes from is a press release report from a week ago that isn't part of this writeup)
On to better things: anyone manage to save the raw files that was posted earlier on Focus Numérique? They were accessible when I first looked at it but now they appear to be unavailable. Saw a few processed examples from them online and the IQ at least at lower ISO looked outstanding. Hoping to see some high ISO shots processed; ran some GX1 files through here and was pretty pleased with 3200/6400 so expecting the E-M5 to do even better. Certainly no D800 but then again it is a little smaller.
edit: Here is one processed from a raw file from the E-M5, at ISO 400 I believe. Someone posted it on another forum but can't remember if it was posted in this thread.
"We have here another very fine and impressive lens, and one that is fully capable of holding its own against APS-C cameras and also against certain full-frame models"
Feb 19, 2012 at 03:08 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Most of the quote (part2) was from today. And he say in todays article that you should read the link to part 1. pingflood know of course he is wrong. And if the review had praised the new camera he would really love the site that wrote it...............
From todays review where he also say it has 4,2 fps with AF
Troligen har sensorn sitt ursprung från Panasonic men med den främsta skillnaden att Olympus snabbat upp utläsningen från sensorn till 240 gånger per sekund för att ge en snabbare autofokus. Det behövs för att E-M5 ska kunna ge 4,2 bilder per sekund med följande autofokus eftersom man använder kontrastavkännande teknik.
Oh, so while yet unresolved it is at least under debate as to whether or not they're actually tards. OK, sorry I jumped the gun there Lars. PingFlood is Swedish tho - so shouldn't he know?
pingflood wrote:
Well, first off nobody said that it was just because of "grammar & spelling mistakes", so not sure where you are getting this from. I pointed out the poor grammar and spelling along with them clearly not having taken the time to read up on the camera they were supposedly "reviewing" since they didn't a) even know what "live time" is actually called, and b) completely erroneously stated that you can't get the exposure progression view in bulb mode. Oh yeah, and this gem: "the autofocus was very fast when locked". What the heck does that even MEAN?
Since these guys are publishing a magazine and have an active photo site, and Olympus hands them a new camera to review, it is a damned insult both to Olympus and to their readers to first of all not take the time to learn about the equipment, not even bother to mention significant things (they mention "9 fps is good for action" but not that you don't get autofocus in that mode...) then not find the time to actually review it with any amount of effort ("unfortunately I didn't have time to test AF-C with my tele lens"), then on top of that publish this drivel with grammar and spelling so poor that a fifth grader would be ashamed of themselves.
Frankly, I see better on the dpreview FORUMS than this crap. Sorry....Show more →
He actually explain what "låst" locked" AF is. And that the camera have 9 /fps with "låst" AF and 4,2 /fps with AF
Låst AF = No AF
So I don't understand why you don't get that?
M Fröderberg that wrote the article is not my favorite reviewer. But to give him that much shit as you do is really unfair. He is a professional photographer. He is also Editor in Chief for two photo-papers/magazine and the website where the review come from. It seems like you are very biased because he didn't liked the new camera as much as you probably do
"We have here another very fine and impressive lens, and one that is fully capable of holding its own against APS-C cameras and also against certain full-frame models"
wjmeyer wrote:
If you or others still don't comprehend what I'm trying to get across, then I challenge you to use the previous posts' bulleted points and tell me how you can make your "boring" images better without changing any of the variables I've listed. I don't think you can, which is why I'm implying that it is indeed your technique
wolfloid wrote:
How about changing the concept in your head.
Most boring photos are just boring conceptions in the first place.
Well yes, exactly wolfloid, that is what I mean, but the concept has to be then created physically and in order to do that you will need to adjust for the points that I mentioned. Have you ever felt very "inspired" and yet still managed to take not so great images, and then other times you may feel uninspired and yet come away with an image that is amazing? Not even the best artists create something inspiring everytime they set out to do their work, but the point is... they must "do" their work and in order to "do" our work we need tools and we need to understand how to use those tools and apply them to our vision/inspiration/concept, etc. I think we're on the same page.
Bifurcator wrote:
I think you got it mostly right. The only thing you seem to be missing which might be the difference, is that all your nine sentences infer the sovereign "I" as the main and controlling character. A lot of the "deep and memorable" photographs I see which were later explained by the photographer, include a sense of participation, spontaneity and submersion in the event - as opposed to the mechanical control of one who might be deliberately "setting up" a shot. One can get all 9 of those things spot on yet the photograph may still suck! Inversely one can get all 9 of those things wrong and come up with what's being described here as a "deep and memorable" photograph. Right? ...Show more →
Oh yes, yes, I would absolutely agree, we must be an active participant, but since we cannot take a picture of what we see in our eye/mind, then we must use a tool in order to do that and having a proper understanding of that tool (the camera and lens in this case) we may have a difficult time getting an image that matches our vision. As to your last remark about getting evertything wrong mechanically and yet still coming out with a memorable photograph, I absolutely agree, but that typically ends up being a result of pure chance
I paid $395 from B&H, and on GF1, it's pretty impressive, which it's a reason why I also interested in OM-D and willing to wait for few more months, rather than get the GF1's replacement GX1 now.
Ok I'm seriously considering an m4:3 kit, just not sure if OMD is the best option.
Can someone tell me which one is considered the best built-in EVF in the m4:3 world?
Also, do all Panasonic m4:3 cameras have the variable aspect sensor?
(ie the actual sensor is slightly larger than the image circle and the camera doesnt just crop if you select 3:2, but it changes aspect ratio and the diagonal stays the same)
Do you belive it was a positive comment
