Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New olympus body coming up question  (Read 13376 times)
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2013, 02:46:27 PM »
ReplyReply

That is not so true. The current OM-D sensor performs better than any Canon DSLR with APS-C sensor, so the new Olympus will.

That is "damning with faint praise."

APS-C Canon's sensors aren't anything worth bragging about.  Every current Nikon APS-C sensor has better IQ than my beloved MFT--Sony too.  We may debate the value of the small differences between the Nikon/Sony sensors versus the Olympus MFT sensor, but there is no debate about the basic measurements of sensitivity, dynamic range and color depth--Olympus loses.  Embarrassed
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
gerafotografija
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224



WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2013, 03:16:57 PM »
ReplyReply

..., but there is no debate about the basic measurements of sensitivity, dynamic range and color depth--Olympus loses.  Embarrassed

I still like the OMD output, and find it very usable, but I totally agree. All it takes is looking at a few files. There is noise at base ISO, the "high-ISO" processing seems to start at 400, and I get noticeable watercolor effects above 800. There is room for improvement.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2013, 04:12:52 PM »
ReplyReply

That is "damning with faint praise."

APS-C Canon's sensors aren't anything worth bragging about. Every current Nikon APS-C sensor has better IQ than my beloved MFT--Sony too.  We may debate the value of the small differences between the Nikon/Sony sensors versus the Olympus MFT sensor, but there is no debate about the basic measurements of sensitivity, dynamic range and color depth--Olympus loses.  Embarrassed

I have no idea of what is damning with faint praise, but I gave a counterexample to prove that "DSLR is better IQ than Olympus [OM-D]" is not always true, which is what one would think of John's comment. In particular it is false for most Canon DSLR users, and you'll agree that most Canon DSLR users are a big portion of the market. Your opinion about Canon's sensors is irrelevant here, I was talking about facts, not about opinions.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 04:21:29 PM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2013, 04:25:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I have no idea of what is damning with faint praise, ...

Sorry to use an English idiom.  It means that you are making a compliment that when fully considered isn't really that impressive.  It would be like telling a woman that she was as beautiful as Angela Merkel...despite Merkel's other notable accomplishments, that comparison would not be one most women would appreciate. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damning_with_faint_praise

Back to cameras...while Canon does have a substantial market share, their sensor technology is indisputably inferior to Sony's.  So to say the Olympus MFT sensors are as good as a Canon APS-C is not that impressive a compliment. 
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 21, 2013, 05:15:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Back to cameras...while Canon does have a substantial market share, their sensor technology is indisputably inferior to Sony's.  So to say the Olympus MFT sensors are as good as a Canon APS-C is not that impressive a compliment.  

Never intended to be impressive though, just wanted to prevent people reading John from thinking that all DSLR's have better IQ than the Olympus. It is not only one or two, thousands of DSLR users have worse IQ than OM-D users, and many seem happy with that.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 05:18:29 PM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2013, 06:21:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Never intended to be impressive though, just wanted to prevent people reading John from thinking that all DSLR's have better IQ than the Olympus. It is not only one or two, thousands of DSLR users have worse IQ than OM-D users, and many seem happy with that.

I was actually talking about full-frame DSLRs, not APS-C. I also think APS-C cameras are in-between cameras, just like the new OLy. That is, for *practical* purposes, they are as large as FF DSLRs, and use lenses that are as large as FF DSLRs, but don't have the image quality of FF cameras. On the other hand, while they are much bigger than m4/3 cameras, especially as systems, the image quality is not *that* much better. So they're in-between. The one good aspect of APS-C cameras is that they're generally cheaper...but the price of FF cameras has been dropping. The D800  is some $5,000 cheaper (less than half) of the cost of the first DSLRs.

I know there are people here who will disagree, but, the GH3 aside (because of its video abilities) I think m4/3 has one key advantage over DSLRs: size. That's size and weight of both high-quality cameras like the up-coming GX7, and size of system. You can quite literally carry a full m4/3 system with two GX bodies in a briefcase. Top-end FF DSLRs have several advantages over the small m4/3 models: image quality, the optical viewfinder, bigger batteries, ergonomics, more extensive systems, ect.

This is considering cameras for use in making prints. If I were only going to show my work on the net , I might be tempted by a compact camera with a  long zoom.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2013, 08:31:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I also think the new Oly is ugly, but I have a feeling that it will handle very, very well.
If, as we both expect, the E-M1 handles very well then by [my] definition, it is beautiful. People who judge the appearances of tools in isolation from their functioning risk ending up as Hasselblad Lunar owners.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2013, 12:29:19 AM »
ReplyReply


I know there are people here who will disagree, .....snip........

Yea they will and I had no doubt that this discussion would turn away from the Olympus and to different sensor formats.

If this was the medium format section they'd compare the d800, if it is the general camera section, they'd compare brands of 35, or rangefinders vs. mirrors or something.

I don't get it, but I really spent my career thinking image quality was about a pretty or compelling image.

The reason I bought the mft system was for the video.  To get to a smaller and lighter footprint than the RED 1's I use and to make my life a little easier.

Funny thing is it turns out I am still using the R1's more because of the backend post work and the GH3's less, but the panasonic really shoots great motion imagery.

I just bought the omd because I wanted to and now I like it and like what I shoot with it.

But image quality, DR, pixel depth, file size, detail etc. etc. etc.   I dunno if that matters that much to me because the OMD is already as good as a 1ds which I used time to time and also a P21+ (which I love)  and all for different reasons and it's not to have detail in eyes, 4 blocks away, or go to 1 billion iso, or noiseless, pixeless, lifeless skin,  though honestly I don't think any camera goes to that high an iso without something suffering.  

Also where does this iso thing come from?  I just shot the OMD and the D1x with profoto flash today, same equivelent lens, 45mm on the omd, 90mm on the 1dx and what is right at 200 iso on the omd is almost 400 iso on the 1dx.

I tried it a few times to be sure, but really . . . is that important?  I mean I craft photography and if the light sucks I fix it, if I can't fix it I do something else, but even the R1 which has a billion stops of DR I crush down to try to make look like film.

Anyway, one thing I've noticed is the omd is less overpowering than a 1dx or a larger camera. Don't just measure them, but put them in use, they are much different and to a subject, even professional talent much less imposing.  I think it shows a difference, but that could always be wishful thinking.

Honestly all that matters to me is a pretty photograph and a week ago I was looking at the AIGA archives.

http://designarchives.aiga.org/#/entries/photography/_/grid/relevance/asc/112/112/90

(for search just type in photography).

Some of the work from friends past and present and noticed how I could almost tell what was film, what was new digital, because new digital was as smooth as a baby's bottom and film looked kind of  . . . you know........ like film.

Film looked important to me.

Anyway, I also went off track.

I'm not saying the omd is film like, or perfect, in fact it's a major pita sometimes, but I dig using it.  Will use it on a gig tomorrow and Friday.

Actually one thing I've noticed about going through those older AIGA archive images is today, we use the term "great" way too often.


IMO

BC


« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 12:49:29 AM by bcooter » Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2013, 02:23:27 AM »
ReplyReply

If, as we both expect, the E-M1 handles very well then by [my] definition, it is beautiful. People who judge the appearances of tools in isolation from their functioning risk ending up as Hasselblad Lunar owners.

If the beauty of a car, house, dressing, meal, smartphone,... is an added value beyond its practical function, why should a camera be different?. People liking their cameras feel more comfortable with them, enjoy them more and surely that translates into more and better pictures taken.
Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2013, 09:03:19 AM »
ReplyReply

This is the lunar



This is the omd



To me this is a modern dslr



IMO
BC
Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 22, 2013, 10:48:52 AM »
ReplyReply

This is the lunar



This is the omd



To me this is a modern dslr



IMO
BC

Nice comparison BC.

I bought the OM-D for fun, not because I needed it.  I looked at it and did remind me of days gone by, of 35 cameras like the OM or a Minolta, or an FM-2. It felt really good in my hand.  My only regret is I did not get the black and silver.

But boy are you right about the menus Smiley

All told I really do love shooting that thing, not for work because it does not fit my profile for that well, but just for fun.  And quite frankly after shooting for over 30 years to live, shooting for fun again is..well..fun.

I just might buy that black and silver...just because.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Martin Ranger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 22, 2013, 11:29:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyway, one thing I've noticed is the omd is less overpowering than a 1dx or a larger camera. Don't just measure them, but put them in use, they are much different and to a subject, even professional talent much less imposing.  I think it shows a difference, but that could always be wishful thinking.

I have noticed the same with the X-E1. The subjects seem more relaxed and comfortable, prefessional and non-professional alike. Particularly with portraits, the smaller cameras seem to get less in the way between me and my subjects. Also, no-one has ever told me my camera was "super-cute" when working with the Nikons  Smiley
Logged

Martin Ranger
Seattle, WA

www.martinrangerimages.com
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2013, 01:59:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Depending on what you are trying to do, a camera that looks less intimidating may be an advantage or a disadvantage. I find that people take me less seriously when I am shooting with the OM-D (compared to shooting the giant 7D and 24-105).  If you are shooting an event where you need to direct people and look "in-charge," I think a big DSLR may be a better tool.  If you are shooting street photography, I think the OM-D ends up being superior for the reasons mentioned above.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 24, 2013, 04:43:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Depending on what you are trying to do, a camera that looks less intimidating may be an advantage or a disadvantage. I find that people take me less seriously when I am shooting with the OM-D (compared to shooting the giant 7D and 24-105).  If you are shooting an event where you need to direct people and look "in-charge," I think a big DSLR may be a better tool.  If you are shooting street photography, I think the OM-D ends up being superior for the reasons mentioned above.

I like industrial strength cameras.  The RED 1 being my favorite, as it feels military grade, works for me without a glitch under some really hellish situations.

Still, I like these panasonic and olympus mft cameras.  I didn't chose them for size, though the gh3 is really a perfect sized 35mm camera (IMO). 

I chose them for use, as we shoot ever project motion and stills, with priorities shifting per creative brief.

 The gh3 is the most capable camera I've ever used.  It shoots video with quality that just doesn't match it's specs.  Yesterday in very harsh 12 stop different light, it held areas that it shouldn't, didn't bloom and I really use these gh3s without a thought.

The olympus omd, I have mixed thoughts on.  It's pretty, shoots a very good still, but I know it will never be second nature to me.  It's just a little off, a little not there for really heavy duty work.

In a given day I will touch and block out two RED 1's, two Gh3's and a Canon 1dx.   All of these cameras are intuitive to me and I don't have to think to find a setting.  The OMD is different because the menus are so complicated and layered, the buttons so elegent but tiny, that I never feel secure when I shoot it under pressure. 

Messing around it's great.  The still image is great.   The motion image is challanged.

The new OMD I hope will be a gh3 in olympus skin.   At least it has the look of good build quality, slightly larger dials and a mic import slot, two sd cards and I hope more video settings.  I know the newer photos posted make the camera look much better with elegant design and I love nice design.



I read these rumors all the time that some mirrorless cameras are not meeting sales expectations and will be financially challanged. 

I hope not, because these cameras have a great place in professional world and I don't think about sensor dimensions anymore.   Whether it's a 16x9, 2:1, 4:3, 2:3 ratio, just doesn't enter my head as long as there is a lens set to match.  In other words f2.8 is the minimum fast lens for micro four thirds, though they really should be 2.0 or 1.4.

Since the start of digital it seems that we've been slowly getting back to where we were with film, but unfortunately in increments. 

What is needed from any brand, any format is a varied lens set, controls that are intuitive, viewfinders that allow you to manually or autofocus with confidence. 

Digital capture has always seemed to cloud the basics, from frame size, viewfinders, just good cameras that will work and last.

One reasons I stick with the Canon systems isn't because I own lenses, or because I think they have more detail, but because I know them and they tend to work like film cameras except for one glaring fault, you can't really manually focus the lenses on moving subjects because it seems all ovf 35mm cameras have a different and strange viewfinder.

The thing I like about the mirrorless cameras, especially the gh3 is I can look through the finder, focus and shoot.  I can do this with the RED 1's, my older contax with phase backs, but other cameras . . . no.

I think mirrorless offers us the possiblities to do things like we never did before, or at minimum as well as we did before.



IMO

BC



Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #54 on: August 24, 2013, 07:25:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I know the newer photos posted make the camera look much better with elegant design ...
...
What is needed from any brand, any format is a varied lens set, controls that are intuitive, viewfinders that allow you to manually or autofocus with confidence.  

Lots of good comments there.

Firstly, for those who care, the internet forum consensus seems to be that the E-M1 looks better with its clothes on: the lens and body look like an utterly functional pair.

Secondly, your three criteria for a good system make a lot of sense to me.

Thirdly, the second image shows that the knob at the (photographers's) left has an HDR setting: any comments or speculation?

Fourthly, is that 12-40 the widest ratio of focal lengths for a constant f/2.8 wide-to-telephoto lens? I do not know of a 24-80/2.8. Hopefully, Olympus has pushed lens design forward but without the bravura excesses of its constant f/2 zoom designs for Four Thirds SLRs, which made them crazy expensive.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 07:33:37 PM by BJL » Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #55 on: August 24, 2013, 08:09:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Thirdly, the second image shows that the knob at the (photographers's) left has an HDR setting: any comments or speculation?

suggest RTFM. for example e-pm2 or e-pl5 manuals or proper review of such cameras
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #56 on: August 24, 2013, 08:16:23 PM »
ReplyReply

The new OMD I hope will be a gh3 in olympus skin. 
no articulating LCD... it is sad because Olymus could just use E-x series design scaled down to remove mirror, etc... w/ proper dials in-body (instead on top of it) leaving more space for Fn buttons, with articulating LCD, etc.
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866



« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2013, 04:33:32 PM »
ReplyReply

The E-M1 does look better, properly finished, in these latest pics. I'm sold now...bought an Olympus 4/3 50-200mm to go with the upcoming 12-40mm. A nice, relatively fast two-lens combo. Hope the camera's PD-AF is up to the task with the 50-200. It should be a more suitable host to the fast Voigtländer lenses too. Just got the new 42.5/0.95 and it's a bit overbearing (as is the 17.5mm) on the E-M5.

I believe the E-M1's rear LCD does articulate if not fully in the manner of the GH cameras. We shall see...maybe the video footage briefly available showed this and I've forgotten the details.

Lotsa stuff happening in the m43 world...fun! Wish that Blackmagic Pocket Cinecam would show up, though.

-Dave-
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2013, 05:54:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe the E-M1's rear LCD does articulate if not fully in the manner of the GH cameras.

that does not show any capability to articulate, only tilt

Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2013, 06:10:58 PM »
ReplyReply

The E-M1 does look better, properly finished, in these latest pics.
...
I believe the E-M1's rear LCD does articulate if not fully in the manner of the GH cameras.
We seem to agree on the facts if not the words: it tilts like on the E-M5, but cannot twist on a hinge at the left. So it is less capable for verticals, but for horizontals, I prefer having the screen stay under the other controls, rather than sticking out at the left. So I am sure there will be debate about which is better, depending on peoples' usage patterns and tastes.

As to looking better: I am wondering now if this shows that a well posed and lit marketing still can make the subject look more desirable than a few frame grabs from a journalist's video!?
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad