Comments for Admiring Light http://admiringlight.com/blog Photography Reviews, Photos, News and Musings Sun, 01 Mar 2015 13:15:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1 Comment on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR by miXed zone: XF 16-55 review at admiringhlight, Silkypix 4.1.00 vs Lightroom RAF, R. Simko’s favorite X-shots & more! | Fuji Rumors http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-16-55mm-f2-8-r-lm-wr/#comment-223363 Sun, 01 Mar 2015 13:15:25 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?p=4705#comment-223363 […] at soundimageplus / Review at Photographyblog / Samples at mapcamera / Full Review at admiringlight / samples at thephoblographer / review at dcfever (translation) […]

]]>
Comment on About by craig carlson http://admiringlight.com/blog/about/#comment-223322 Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:42:21 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?page_id=40#comment-223322 Jordan,
I hope i can bother you with a question you probably get a hundred times a day. I’m a long time user of APSC sensor-sized DSLRs, both canon and nikon but haven’t yet bought into either systems lens in any big way. I’m drawn to the olympus models (the OM5- mark II), for their lens options, reportedly great color and metering, and their small size and carry ability. (your pictures from them look fantastic). But i’m hesitant to go micro 4/3rds because of the concerns over smaller sensors being noisier when i use higher ISOs.

But people say the sony sensor used in the OM5 Mark i and II models is pretty impressive. Could you give a sense for how the noise compares between the Oly’s and APSC canons and nikons? On websites like DPReview, when comparing camera’s pictures, it would appear the olympuses are competing pretty well with the APSC canon and nikons. I had the nikon D7000 and sold it to get a nikon d7100. but i was pretty disappointed with the noise and artifacts in the D7100’s files..The big websites rave about the D7100’s image quality. But i found the D7000 better…i would go buy another D7000 if Nikon offered some wide prime lens. So, i wonder whether i would find an olympus a good system camera to go for. I’d welcome your thoughts. Thanks, Craig

]]>
Comment on Review Index by Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR - Admiring Light http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-index/#comment-223197 Fri, 27 Feb 2015 04:27:23 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?page_id=2106#comment-223197 […] Review Index […]

]]>
Comment on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR by Jordan Steele http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-50-140mm-f2-8-r-lm-ois-wr/#comment-223126 Thu, 26 Feb 2015 04:34:49 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?p=4341#comment-223126 I think the Fuji’s bokeh is a bit nicer simply because it lacks the onion-ring structure that the aspherical Olympus lens imparts. However, I think that choosing between the two lenses is probably best done considering usage scenarios rather than optical quality, as they are both stellar lenses. The Fuji is probably slightly better overall, but it not enough to sway a decision for most people. The Fuji can provide better subject isolation due to use on the larger format, while the Olympus covers a narrower field of view. Whichever of those is more important would influence my decision, as well as which system you tend to use more often.

]]>
Comment on Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 vs 18-55mm f/2.8-4 by Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR - Admiring Light http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-16-55mm-f2-8-vs-18-55mm-f2-8-4/#comment-223120 Thu, 26 Feb 2015 03:20:43 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?p=4681#comment-223120 […] Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 vs 18-55mm f/2.8-4 […]

]]>
Comment on Shooting in the Cold by Mike http://admiringlight.com/blog/shooting-cold/#comment-223084 Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:47:41 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?p=4690#comment-223084 Great ideas. This might actually get me out into the cold in NE Ohio.

]]>
Comment on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR by Starre70 http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-50-140mm-f2-8-r-lm-ois-wr/#comment-223067 Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:16:44 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?p=4341#comment-223067 Jordan, do you prefer the bokeh of the Fuji at to long end (@140) over the bokeh of the Olympus 40-150/2.8 (@150)?

I have both a Fuji XT1 and an Olympus EM1 and really doubting which constant zoomlens to get

]]>
Comment on Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 vs 18-55mm f/2.8-4 by Jordan Steele http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-16-55mm-f2-8-vs-18-55mm-f2-8-4/#comment-223021 Tue, 24 Feb 2015 20:15:34 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?p=4681#comment-223021 I’ll have to disagree with you there. The 18-55 and 16-55 differ only by 2mm total in range, and only by one stop at the long end of the zoom range (and zero at the wide end). They cover a very similar range and a very similar speed. The 18-135, while weathersealed and similar in size to the 16-55, fills a very different niche: it’s a super zoom with the same difference as the 18-55 on the wide end, plus a big difference on the long end, it’s also nearly a stop slower at the wide end and two stops slower at its extreme end. It’s a very different lens, while the 16-55 and 18-55 are both fast standard zooms.

While I don’t own the 18-135 (and therefore couldn’t compare directly), having shot with it during my review period with the lens, I can tell you that optically they are further apart too, as the 16-55 is notably better in the overlapping range (I find the 18-55 better than the 18-135 as well in the overlapping range, though this is to be expected when one is a 3x zoom and the other is a 7.5x zoom.

]]>
Comment on Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 vs 18-55mm f/2.8-4 by Bill Palmer http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-16-55mm-f2-8-vs-18-55mm-f2-8-4/#comment-223018 Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:11:09 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?p=4681#comment-223018 Interesting test, Jordan, but I fear you are comparing apples and oranges. I would have thought that the natural comparison would be between the 16-55 and the 18-135. Both are bulky WR lenses and, focal lengths aside, have more in common than the 18-55 and 16-55. Certainly if you look at it from the point of view of the type of photography you might want to do, it makes more sense. For bad weather for example I would bolt the 18-135 to the X-T1 and shoot away, but for travel use and general walking around I would reach for my 18-55. I have both, but would be more likely to replace the 18-135 than the 18-55 with the 16-55 than vice-versa.

]]>
Comment on Sony A7 II vs. Sony A6000 – Landscape Use by Mike http://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-a7-ii-vs-sony-a6000-landscape-use/#comment-223009 Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:36:42 +0000 http://admiringlight.com/blog/?p=4529#comment-223009 Thanks Jordan. This is exactly what I’ve been thinking but with your tests, it reinforces my thoughts.

]]>