Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Camera from Olympus  (Read 18920 times)
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2013, 08:35:15 AM »
ReplyReply

On the gh3 there are three buttons by the shutter you use all the time, wb, iso and +-, for compensation.  These are very intuitive and marked as the function they do.  

except I do not use WB (always UniWB) and I do not film movies - so for me Panasonic has 2 useless buttons on top that I can't reprogramm... and more so I can't disable WB button (which I press by error once in a while)
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1117


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2013, 09:32:03 AM »
ReplyReply

except I do not use WB (always UniWB) and I do not film movies - so for me Panasonic has 2 useless buttons on top that I can't reprogramm... and more so I can't disable WB button (which I press by error once in a while)

Like I said, cameras are personal.  What I like others loathe, and vice-versa.

I dig the little olympus, the 5 probably would like the 3, the pana to me is just easier (and a whole lot more normal looking).  Still, I can shoot with both, get paid, life keeps clicking.

But on the subject of quality.  That is so subjective.  I'm not saying cameras haven't improved, in some ways they have, but find me a photographer that wouldn't love the viewfinder of an Nikon FM or a OM1 film camera, in today's digital world and well, I think anybody would be surprised at how much we gave up with digital.

You know, a few years ago I had a gig in Brazil and Mexico.  Knew I needed low light and a faster camera so I bought a 1d mark 3, (not 1ds) which was just 10 mpx.

This gig was for a big coffee table book and the publisher was just crazy tech centric about not interpolating, having all the detail they could get, etc. etc., so I bought the 1d3, did a test, uprezzed the crap out of it, stripped out the metadata and shipped it.  They loved it, thought it was from a medium format camera and shot the gig, the book was pretty.

So quality is as much perception as reality.

This is a small take from that book.





IMO

BC
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 09:45:58 AM by bcooter » Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2013, 12:27:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Like I said, cameras are personal.
what is person about Panasonic not allowing to reprogram the buttons ? note that nobody is asking to remove them, change their location or size or how their are labeled - let them be, just allow to assign different functions to those who want... video button is an utter example - you can disable it (that is for those who do not film movies, only stills) - but why in the world you can't in addition to disabling it let it do something useful for stills functions ?
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3382



WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2013, 02:01:36 PM »
ReplyReply

You know, a few years ago I had a gig in Brazil and Mexico.  Knew I needed low light and a faster camera so I bought a 1d mark 3, (not 1ds) which was just 10 mpx.

This gig was for a big coffee table book and the publisher was just crazy tech centric about not interpolating, having all the detail they could get, etc. etc., so I bought the 1d3, did a test, uprezzed the crap out of it, stripped out the metadata and shipped it.  They loved it, thought it was from a medium format camera and shot the gig, the book was pretty.

So quality is as much perception as reality.
Reminds me of the times I've had arguments about the idiotic [and based on misinformation] everthing must be printed at '300dpi rule'. I've found I needed 600dpi for small reproductions and 150dpi was great for larger print jobs.

I did some testing a long while back of files uprezed via ACR vs specialist enlarging software such as Genuine Fractals. Not only did ACR best GF, but much to my surprise the 8MP file uprezed to 18MP or thereabout looked better than the original file. Just had a root around and found a jpeg of the comparison.




Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 810



« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2013, 02:58:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I was off the new model acquisition rollercoaster for 5 1/2 years before buying an E-M5 back in March. Nasty nerve compression side-effects mostly kept me from using the cameras I already had, much less any new ones I might have bought. Tricky spinal surgery finally got rid of the nerve nasties, and this left me with (beyond a near-euphroric sense of elation that has yet to diminish...likely the source of the good attitude BC says I have   Grin ) six years of photo gear budget to spend in six months. Which I have largely done! So now it's time to roam about my locale, travel to other locales and snap snap snap. No new cameras next year, maybe none in 2015 either unless something truly compelling shows up.

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

Posts: 3382



WWW
« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2013, 03:16:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad to hear you've got yourself sorted out Dave. Hopefully you'll also have a nice fresh set of eyes to go with all your new kit.   Smiley
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 810



« Reply #66 on: September 14, 2013, 03:39:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Reminds me of the times I've had arguments about the idiotic [and based on misinformation] everthing must be printed at '300dpi rule'. I've found I needed 600dpi for small reproductions and 150dpi was great for larger print jobs.

I did some testing a long while back of files uprezed via ACR vs specialist enlarging software such as Genuine Fractals. Not only did ACR best GF, but much to my surprise the 8MP file uprezed to 18MP or thereabout looked better than the original file.

I remember shortly after getting the Canon 20D in 2004...I was looking on-screen at a portion of a photo I'd just printed, probably at 8x12". Pixel peeping is what I was doing to be honest. I noticed there was detail in the file that wasn't showing up in the print. So I made a bigger print...12x18", about as big as my then printer could go. Now I could see the detail but not as clearly as on-screen. So I split the file into quarters, up-resed one of 'em either in ACR or Photoshop proper (don't remember if ACR did good (or any) up-resing back then), USMed accordingly and printed that at 8x12". Finally the print matched the on-screen version detail-wise...and besides that it still looked good, not degraded, at least to my c. 2004 eyes.

Nowadays I'm probably more demanding, but not to the extent where I really need the E-M5's 16mp, much less my Pentax's 40mp. Tonality and dynamic range are what I love about the 645D and what I'm amazed are so good with the E-M5 too. Of course at the same time I'll take more of everything...   Cheesy

As for a fresh set of eyes...we'll see about that.   Wink  A fresh set of glasses...that I can do, no problem.

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

Posts: 4018



« Reply #67 on: September 14, 2013, 03:39:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad to hear you've got yourself sorted out Dave. Hopefully you'll also have a nice fresh set of eyes to go with all your new kit.   Smiley

Good news to hear good news Smiley

Edmund
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5866


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2013, 04:38:33 PM »
ReplyReply

... But bottom line in still image quality... I'm pretty close to where I was 10 years ago...

I tend to agree with the that statement.

Sure, there have been advances in IQ in the meantime - if you are a 400% pixel-peeper. For real photographers, not so much.

I recently had my first art fair. I had 20+ canvases, 20x30. Here is a breakdown of cameras used:

Canon 20D   (8 Mpx)    52%
Canon 40D   (10 Mpx)   22%
Canon 60D   (18 Mpx)   17%
Canon G10   (15 Mpx)   9%

In terms of ISO, slightly more than a half were shot between 80-320, but the rest were between 400 and 1600. As you can figure out, 8 Mpx prints at that size at 116 ppi. Usually even less, after minor cropping. No interpolation, nothing special, standard Lightroom output to print.

At 20x30 canvas, none of the above mattered. All shots appeared the same, even in close inspection. By "same" I mean equally sharp, no noise, etc.

I am sure that if I invited Schewe to print them on paper, printer and ink of his choice, he would be able to produce superior prints. But without a reference point (and a loupe), canvas looked simply gorgeous.


Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1117


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 14, 2013, 06:01:17 PM »
ReplyReply



Canon 20D   (8 Mpx)    52%
Canon 40D   (10 Mpx)   22%
Canon 60D   (18 Mpx)   17%
Canon G10   (15 Mpx)   9%


Slobodan,

Your right.  It's not about the tech as much as the image.  Of course photography is art aided by science, but we've put ourselves on this hampster wheel of everytime it stops we buy something.

Dave, now he does have a good attitude, because he waited now he can buy and he's buying because he wants to, not because he feels he has to.   Wanting to, for pleasure is a much better deal than feeling you have to because some camera tester, or client's pre production house decides on some arbitrary number that is "right".

There is no right.  Heck back in the film days, right before I went to digital, I shot a lot of kodak epr.  I think I rated it out at around 50 asa and for 50 asa it was grainy as hell, but pretty.

epr


I'm not telling anyone to buy or not to buy anything.  I'm 100% sure the omd1 is a better functioning camera than the omd 5, if you need or want the few extra things it does.

I really do wish the incremental change thing would stop.  It gets old and costly and doesn't add to my life or work.  If a camera like the GH3 allows me to do some things better than those huge REDs I use and doesn't break the bank, then cool, I'm there and almost happy to buy it.  

But for olympus or anyone to hold back features we know are just some coding additions, then I don't dig it.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 06:03:09 PM by bcooter » Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4018



« Reply #70 on: September 14, 2013, 06:14:11 PM »
ReplyReply

James,

 Maybe the message is find something you like on the used market.
 The only thing I can do with exactly one camera is track my 2 year old around the room @ ISO 6400 indoors. (D4).
 Anything else, I find just about every camera I have old or new can do, old often better than new.

Edmund
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #71 on: September 14, 2013, 06:49:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been using the E M5 (as we must now call it) since shortly after its introduction. I also have a now little-used D700 and a decent set of very expensive, very heavy lenses.

I can live with the shortcomings of the E M5's EVF. I've learned to live with the limitations of CDAF. So the E M1 looks like something that I'll pass on. No doubt it's very nice but doesn't seem to offer sufficient advantages to make it worthwhile trading in the E M5 at a thumping great loss. If money were no object, sure, I'd get it. None of the early previews I've seen make any comment as to whether the dog's dinner OS of the E M5 has been improved in the new camera. It'd be the first thing I'd check out if I was reviewing the camera. How could you avoid it being the first thing you'd look at?

The new Olympus 12-40 2.8 looks like a superb (large, heavy, expensive) lens (Ming Thein has done a pre-release review). I can't help thinking that bulky lenses like this are somewhat opposed to the spirit of M4/3. Whilst I have four decent M4/3 primes the derided 12-50 kit lens tends to spend a lot more time on the camera. I've noticed that, other things being equal, what I point the combo at tends to influence the results more significantly that which lens I'm using.

It's a relief to be off the new model acquisition roller-coaster. But I sometimes wish I was rich enough to stay on it.
Roy, I agree with virtually everything you say ... starting with the fact that the model names of cameras in the OMD series are EM5 and EM1: bcooter please take note!

One tactic in resisting the upgrade "arms race" is to realize that new models are mostly not aimed at people who already have the immediate previous model, but more at those with an earlier model, three or four or more years old, or to increase the temptation for people to upgrade from lower level models. Which unfortunately does not stop me fantasizing about _adding_ an EM1, to carry a big lens on it and a small lens like the 12-50 on the EM5!
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #72 on: September 15, 2013, 12:10:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I tend to agree with the that statement.

Sure, there have been advances in IQ in the meantime - if you are a 400% pixel-peeper. For real photographers, not so much.

I recently had my first art fair. I had 20+ canvases, 20x30. Here is a breakdown of cameras used:

Canon 20D   (8 Mpx)    52%
Canon 40D   (10 Mpx)   22%
Canon 60D   (18 Mpx)   17%
Canon G10   (15 Mpx)   9%

In terms of ISO, slightly more than a half were shot between 80-320, but the rest were between 400 and 1600. As you can figure out, 8 Mpx prints at that size at 116 ppi. Usually even less, after minor cropping. No interpolation, nothing special, standard Lightroom output to print.

At 20x30 canvas, none of the above mattered. All shots appeared the same, even in close inspection. By "same" I mean equally sharp, no noise, etc.

I am sure that if I invited Schewe to print them on paper, printer and ink of his choice, he would be able to produce superior prints. But without a reference point (and a loupe), canvas looked simply gorgeous.

But the underlined part isn't the biggest component.  Canvas should really be the underlined part.  Media matters.  Canvas, due to its heavy texture, is capable of reproducing images at lower resolution that look good.  It's a low resolution medium.
Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #73 on: September 15, 2013, 02:50:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7

Yes, and I'm hoping that this is a result of some poorly done test shots.

Other than that, the DPR review is quite positive.

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
tkarlmann
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #74 on: September 17, 2013, 11:35:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7

Not true.  I looked at both GX7 and e-M1.  The lack of the AA filter, I think, gives an edge to the E-M1 photos.  Blacks are darker.
Logged
tkarlmann
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #75 on: September 17, 2013, 11:39:47 PM »
ReplyReply

not exactly, for example P 30-100/2.8 is quite compact zoom...

here is what I use indoors (flash RC is optical - onboard flash controls 2 externals)



Do you mind sharing?  Where did you get the flash bracket?  How does this setup work / why do you need 2 external flashes so close together?  What type photography are you doing?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 05:16:21 AM by tkarlmann » Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #76 on: September 18, 2013, 12:01:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you mind sharing?  Where did you get the flash bracket?  How does this setup work / why do you need 2 external flashes so close together?  What type photography are you doing?

http://www.custombrackets.com + arca clamp

I typically rotate both flash heads to fire somewhat towards behind me (bounce off walls/ceiling), 2 flashes allow lower output from each - faster recharge - less heating w/o going to serious flashes like from Quantum or more power when necessary... this is for situations when I really need to carry both camera and flashes in hands together... not for a studio or other situations when I can just arrange off camera light and keep only a camera alone in hands.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 19, 2013, 08:28:18 AM »
ReplyReply

But the underlined part isn't the biggest component.  Canvas should really be the underlined part.  Media matters.  Canvas, due to its heavy texture, is capable of reproducing images at lower resolution that look good.  It's a low resolution medium.

I totally agree that canvas is a bit of equalizer in the equation.  That isn't a negative statement. For some images, I love the texture of the canvas media, but  fine detail isn't reproduced as well so the difference between camera of different resolutions isn't as apparent.

The willingness of Olympus to stand pat at 16MP is one of the things I like about them.  they don't seem to be compelled to turn-it-up-to-eleven.

On the other hand, for wildlife and bird work, resolution is king.  You always are cropping and you always want more resolution because the little critters rarely come and perch on your studio portrait stool under perfect light.  This is the only area where I have found the MFT system to be noticeably inferior (so far) to traditional DSLR.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 3382



WWW
« Reply #78 on: September 19, 2013, 09:11:56 AM »
ReplyReply

On the other hand, for wildlife and bird work, resolution is king.  You always are cropping and you always want more resolution because the little critters rarely come and perch on your studio portrait stool under perfect light.  This is the only area where I have found the MFT system to be noticeably inferior (so far) to traditional DSLR.
But I'd imagine carrying a 200mm MFT lens up a mountain is a darn sight easier than a 400mm Canikon lens    Smiley  Swings+roundabouts.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 19, 2013, 09:25:56 AM »
ReplyReply

But I'd imagine carrying a 200mm MFT lens up a mountain is a darn sight easier than a 400mm Canikon lens    Smiley  Swings+roundabouts.

yes but.

I have yet to see very many excellent wildlife photos taken on MFT.  There is lots of nice wildlife snapshots out there, but very little excellence in wildlife on MFT.

For me, my keeper ratio of MFT to 7D is something like 1 to 10....I have one MFT wildlife photo that I consider excellent for every 10 excellent images I have made with the 7D.  I am still trying, but have had little success. 

There are two main reasons for this disparity: 1) a lack of excellent telephoto options on MFT, and 2) focus points are too big on E-M5.  (note I am not actually complaining about focus speed)

I am hoping that the smaller focus points on the E-M1 might start to change that ratio though even with the four thirds lenses available on the new body there still won't be a great telephoto selection (the 300 f/2.8 is a bit to pricey) and the 50-200 (in the same price range as the ubiquitous 100-400) isn't quite long enough even on MFT. They really need a high-quality 300 f/4.  That would probably slot in between $1K and $2K and would maintain the MFT size-advantage.  Unfortunately, the Panasonic and Olympus MFT telephotos (75-300 and 100-400) aren't quite up-to-snuff to me. 

On a related note...that 50-200 remains tempting to me, and with its excellent reputation for sharpness, I wonder how it might stack with a 1.4x teleconverter.  That might get into a range that would be effective for wildlife...probably with compromised focus speed and sharpness though.
Logged

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

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad