Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: G1-traveling light  (Read 22203 times)
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2009, 03:18:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tonysmith
I would appreciate if you could explain why you think a short and long lens combo would be better - it might guide my choice.
Thanks
Tony

It's just the way I shoot, mainly the subjects. On the short end, I frequently need to get photos of structures that have things in the way if I don't get between those things and the structure. Example - trees in front of a house. So a very wide angle would help, and I don't want to do any stitching. For people who don't mind that, no problem. Another major interest is small items such as birds, which requires a long zoom. I've been able to use a 420mm (35mm eq.) zoom handheld with image stabliization under average lighting, so the 280mm (35mm eq.) zoom of the GH1 kit lens just isn't enough.

Looking over the product description, it appears that the kit lens for the GH1 will be a very good lens, which means a large part of your investment is in that lens, so that makes the GH1 a problem sell for people who don't want the kit lens.
Logged
Daniel Browning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2009, 07:09:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
I held my former digicam quite steadily with my elbows and upper arms firmly braced against my body as I composed on the LCD; my upper arms were in fact more solidly pressed down and into my chest than with an SLR, due to the lower camera position.

Agreed. Tilt/swivel LCD allow me to shoot at much slower shutter speeds (relative to field of view) than I can with optical viewfinders. I'm looking for a good shoulder-based support system to get the fixed LCD of my 5D2 into a position where I can use liveview for critical focus, which is probably something I wouldn't bother with if it had a moving LCD.
Logged

--Daniel
tonysmith
Guest
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2009, 07:24:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
It's just the way I shoot, mainly the subjects. On the short end, I frequently need to get photos of structures that have things in the way if I don't get between those things and the structure. Example - trees in front of a house. So a very wide angle would help, and I don't want to do any stitching. For people who don't mind that, no problem. Another major interest is small items such as birds, which requires a long zoom. I've been able to use a 420mm (35mm eq.) zoom handheld with image stabliization under average lighting, so the 280mm (35mm eq.) zoom of the GH1 kit lens just isn't enough.

Looking over the product description, it appears that the kit lens for the GH1 will be a very good lens, which means a large part of your investment is in that lens, so that makes the GH1 a problem sell for people who don't want the kit lens.

Thanks for explaining.

I mostly use a 24mm to 135 mm zoom which has been fine for most of my needs, so the GH1 kit would be an improvement for me. Glad to hear you expect it to be a very good lens.

Tony

Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2009, 01:27:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Camp
You should be aware that Sean Reid (paid site) reviewed the G1 with Leica primes, and found that they do not perform very well around the edges of the photo -- the fall off is quite dramatic in his examples. You'd have to read the site to understand why (I don't want to steal Sean's review from him) but it's a serious problem. Essentially, the very best Leica lenses do not perform as well as the Panasonics , except in the center of the sensor.

JC

Thanks for poiting out John, Obviously not what I wanted to hear, but hey I won't blame you or Sean for Leica not designing their 40 year old M lenses to fail on digital micro 4/3rds.  

I guess I will have to buy a M8 or go back to film  
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
jeremyrh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2009, 03:02:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Ah, the unsteady arms-length LCD camera shooting complaint again:

I held my former digicam quite steadily with my elbows and upper arms firmly braced against my body as I composed on the LCD; my upper arms were in fact more solidly pressed down and into my chest than with an SLR, due to the lower camera position.

I am mystified why so many people suggest that it is necessary to wave an "LCD camera" around at arms length, just because this is done by some snap-shooters who do not think about technique, and by long-sighted people I suppose.
From your description, I'm not clear if you are talking about a tilt/swivel LCD - which the LX3, G10, the upcoming Olympus mft, and other natural competitors to the G1 do not, as far as I know, have - or if by some contortions you are using a regular LCD, but inevitably leaving it about 2 inches from your eyeballs.

For myself, I find it difficult or uncomfortable to focus on a small screen held close to my eyes, and no amount of thinking about my technique will change that - hence my preference for a viewfinder, be it optical or electronic. If you have another preferred technique, feel free to continue using it.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2009, 01:37:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I was doing this with a non-tiltable LCD, with it about eight inches from my eyes. Where did you get the idea that it would be only 2" from my eyes? It is my upper arms (armpits to elbows) that are firmly against my torso, while the lower arms angle out a bit to have the camera far enough from my eyes for me to focus on the LCD. But the forearms are still nearly vertical, allowing them to be stable while keeping all arm muscles fairly relaxed, avoiding the shake associated with horizontal arm position.

If anyone wishes to declare this to be significantly less stable than traditional SLR holding, please actually try it first. I have gone so far as to test it at various low shutter speeds to confirm that this methods gives good results.

P. S. I never "brace" an SLR against my forehead or eye-socket (does anyone?); I support cameras entirely from below with my hands, and that is good enough to get sharp images at distinctly slower than the 1/f guideline, with 35mm film.
Logged
jeremyrh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2009, 03:04:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
I was doing this with a non-tiltable LCD, with it about eight inches from my eyes. Where did you get the idea that it would be only 2" from my eyes? It is my upper arms (armpits to elbows) that are firmly against my torso, while the lower arms angle out a bit to have the camera far enough from my eyes for me to focus on the LCD. But the forearms are still nearly vertical, allowing them to be stable while keeping all arm muscles fairly relaxed, avoiding the shake associated with horizontal arm position.
Like I said - if that works for you, keep doing it. It doesn't work for me. How about you choose your camera according to your criteria, and I choose mine?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2009, 04:33:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jeremyrh
Like I said - if that works for you, keep doing it. It doesn't work for me.
Have you actually experimented much with various options for holding a camera steady while composing on the LCD? Your original post described such a severely sub-optimal "snap shooter" approach that it seemed you had not gone beyond looking at what snap-shooters often do. If you have tried other methods besides the "unbraced" approach, why only mention it in your complaint, instead of addressing other more sensible approaches to steady camera holding?
Logged
jeremyrh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2009, 12:51:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Have you actually experimented much with various options for holding a camera steady while composing on the LCD? Your original post described such a severely sub-optimal "snap shooter" approach that it seemed you had not gone beyond looking at what snap-shooters often do. If you have tried other methods besides the "unbraced" approach, why only mention it in your complaint, instead of addressing other more sensible approaches to steady camera holding?
I don't find it comfortable to lean back in the way you describe, and I don't find it comfortable to attempt to focus on things near my face. Not having double-jointed elbows, or forearms a metre long, that imposes certain restrictions on how I hold a camera.

But mostly, I don't understand why you find it so difficult to accept that not everyone is the same as you, and may have different preferences. You seem to be on some sort of crusade for LCD orthodoxy. Enjoy the ride - I won't be coming along.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2009, 05:23:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Have you actually experimented much with various options for holding a camera steady while composing on the LCD? Your original post described such a severely sub-optimal "snap shooter" approach that it seemed you had not gone beyond looking at what snap-shooters often do. If you have tried other methods besides the "unbraced" approach, why only mention it in your complaint, instead of addressing other more sensible approaches to steady camera holding?

I have experimented.

I used a camera with both EVF and LCD views while shooting (Panasonic FZ5) and shot a target while (as closely as possible) maintaining constant camera/target distance.  IS off for all shots.

I shot ten shots with the camera braced against my fact while using the EVF and ten shots holding the camera at a comfortable distance from my face and shooting from the LCD.  (5 EVF, 5 LCD, 5 EVF, ....)

There was no appreciable difference between the sharpness/fuzziness of the images.  IMO.

I'm reasonably convinced by these results (since I started with a 'to the face'/EVF bias).

Two other people on DPR ran roughly the same test and obtained the same results.

A better study (more subjects, more trials, more objective measurement system) might make for an interesting undergrad research project.





Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2009, 05:48:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Bobtrips
I have experimented.
I used a camera with both EVF and LCD views while shooting (Panasonic FZ5) and shot a target while (as closely as possible) maintaining constant camera/target distance.  IS off for all shots.
I shot ten shots with the camera braced against my fact while using the EVF and ten shots holding the camera at a comfortable distance from my face and shooting from the LCD.  (5 EVF, 5 LCD, 5 EVF, ....)
There was no appreciable difference between the sharpness/fuzziness of the images.  IMO.
I'm reasonably convinced by these results (since I started with a 'to the face'/EVF bias).
Two other people on DPR ran roughly the same test and obtained the same results.
A better study (more subjects, more trials, more objective measurement system) might make for an interesting undergrad research project.

The digicam screens help sell the cameras to the general public (GP), who see the instant results on screen ("Polaroid effect"). Viewfinders on all cameras I've owned that had viewfinders were always superior for framing. Too bad that serious users now have to pay for those screens on cameras when we don't need them.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2009, 09:53:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
The digicam screens help sell the cameras to the general public (GP), who see the instant results on screen ("Polaroid effect"). Viewfinders on all cameras I've owned that had viewfinders were always superior for framing. Too bad that serious users now have to pay for those screens on cameras when we don't need them.

Right.

What serious photographer would ever want to check to see if they actually got the shot they were after before getting back to their computer?

Let's get some LCD free cameras, guess at what pushing menu buttons do, and save that $5.

After all, anyone who might want to sit down at lunch at take a look at what they shot during the morning - how can anyone like that call themselves a photographer?

;o)
Logged
lensfactory
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2009, 10:06:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
The digicam screens help sell the cameras to the general public (GP), who see the instant results on screen ("Polaroid effect"). Viewfinders on all cameras I've owned that had viewfinders were always superior for framing. Too bad that serious users now have to pay for those screens on cameras when we don't need them.

That's the whole point, getting that feedback. An optical viewfinder  is of no great advantage if it isn't large,bright and coupled with the lens. Not easy to fit on a small camera...and mostly unnecessary. I add a voigtlander viewfinder on the shoe of my LX3 which corresponds to 24mm and though useful, not completely necessary.
I hardly think it is just the general public that wants the "polaroid effect". Serious users are quite happy they don't have to go back to shooting polaroids to get that instant feedback.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2009, 10:06:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Bob, thanks for the experimental data.


Jeremy,
Quote from: jeremyrh
I don't find it comfortable to lean back in the way you describe, and I don't find it comfortable to attempt to focus on things near my face. Not having double-jointed elbows, or forearms a metre long, that imposes certain restrictions on how I hold a camera.

But mostly, I don't understand why you find it so difficult to accept that not everyone is the same as you, and may have different preferences. You seem to be on some sort of crusade for LCD orthodoxy. Enjoy the ride - I won't be coming along.
I do not lean back, and never said that I did. On the other I recognize that some people cannot handle the focusing distance required. In fact, that might apply to the majority of photographers past a certain age, which I am approaching!

So on your second point, I am not at all arguing that composing on the LCD is a viable approach for everyone, and indeed for various reasons, I prefer my future EVIL cameras to come with both a "one-eyed VF" (EVF) and a "two-eyed VF"  in the form of an articulated LCD, as Panasonic's do so far, but the tiny first Olympus model apparently will not.

I was solely refuting what seemed to be yet another claim that composing on the LCD inherently requires the use of an unstable arms-away-from-the-body method of camera holding
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2009, 10:06:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Bobtrips
Right.

What serious photographer would ever want to check to see if they actually got the shot they were after before getting back to their computer?

Let's get some LCD free cameras, guess at what pushing menu buttons do, and save that $5.

After all, anyone who might want to sit down at lunch at take a look at what they shot during the morning - how can anyone like that call themselves a photographer?

;o)

Note that with the G1 you can see all that stuff in the EVF.
Logged
lensfactory
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2009, 10:13:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
I was solely refuting what seemed to be yet another claim that composing on the LCD inherently requires the use of an unstable arms-away-from-the-body method of camera holding

Besides...a plus of the LCD is that you can brace the camera against things and tilt the camera to compose. I have done this many times shooting in low light. Not possible most of the times if you'd have to keep your eye on the camera.
BTW....I think the general consensus of those with newer DSLR's with liveview say they love it...find it very useful for a variety of reasons.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2009, 10:16:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lensfactory
Besides...a plus of the LCD is that you can brace the camera against things and tilt the camera to compose. I have done this many times shooting in low light. Not possible most of the times if you'd have to keep your eye on the camera.
BTW....I think the general consensus of those with newer DSLR's with liveview say they love it...find it very useful for a variety of reasons.
I like to shoot the G1 at waist level.  Seems pretty stable that way.
Logged
jeremyrh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2009, 10:57:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Jeremy,

I do not lean back, and never said that I did. On the other I recognize that some people cannot handle the focusing distance required. In fact, that might apply to the majority of photographers past a certain age, which I am approaching!

So on your second point, I am not at all arguing that composing on the LCD is a viable approach for everyone, and indeed for various reasons, I prefer my future EVIL cameras to come with both a "one-eyed VF" (EVF) and a "two-eyed VF"  in the form of an articulated LCD, as Panasonic's do so far, but the tiny first Olympus model apparently will not.

I was solely refuting what seemed to be yet another claim that composing on the LCD inherently requires the use of an unstable arms-away-from-the-body method of camera holding

Fine, but I specdifically did not make that claim. I said
" for me it is really a show-stopper to not have a viewfinder (plus, it's ugly). Squinting at a screen and holding the camera un-braced in 2 hands is just not workable for me. "
Note the words "for me"

For the rest, it isn't really worth bothering with. If your forearms are vertical and your head is 8" from the camera then you must be leaning back. For my focussing distance that would amount to standing at about 45 degrees :-(

Let's leave it here - I don't want to get into a bad-tempered exchange. (Anyway - I agree that the LCD can be very useful, especially for shots of flowers etc, or candid shots, and with the G1 tilt/swivel you can get extra bracing by holding it at "twin lens reflex" height and keeping the strap taut.)
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2009, 11:43:55 AM »
ReplyReply

My comments have consisted almost entirely of describing how I do it, not criticizing anyone else's choices. The only criticism I made was this:
"I am mystified why so many people suggest that it is necessary to wave an "LCD camera" around at arms length". I stand by that, because many people have explicitly made that false claim, and your comment to did at least suggest it.

Quote from: jeremyrh
If your forearms are vertical and your head is 8" from the camera then you must be leaning back.
I said "near vertical", not "vertical"; near enough that very little muscle tension is needed, unlike horizontal holding, so the arms are quite relaxed and steady.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 11:45:25 AM by BJL » Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2009, 11:19:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I had a chance to play with a G1 a few days ago. I haven't purchased one just yet, but I must say I was quite intrigued by the EVF. It's nothing like an optical finder, nor indeed like the LCD. It all seems very "Blade Runner", but not particularly unpleasant. Different from what I expected, but not bad at all.

In practice I would mostly be wanting to use it with the coming 20mm f1.7, and would probably put a Voigtlander optical finder on the top.


Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad