Photographer's Corner - equipment

[explanade]

Why would you expect the micro 4/3 to have better IQ than APS-C?

 

[tulak]

Why would you expect the micro 4/3 to have better IQ than APS-C?

And FF will have better IQ than APS-C?

It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

IQ also depends on the lens. I was unimpressed by the APS-C alternatives. I'm looking for a "fun" camera to use and everything I've read about the Olympus leads me to believe that I'll enjoy using it, something that was missing for me with the D3300. The alternative would have been the A6000 with the Sony 16-70mm f/4 lens, but that would be more expensive with a lens that's not as good (IMO). Plus, the A6000 body layout was less appealing (no touchscreen for AF, dials too far to the right, no gps, etc).

So I'll agree with you that an APS-C is a better sensor than an m43, but there's more to a camera than the sensor.

 

[photoguy]

The 12-40 looks like a very nice lens and is tiny (in comparison my 24-105L f/4 is nearly double the weight). If I shot 4/3 I'd be tempted to get it.

 

[explanade]

So you're saying there are better lens available for the Olympus than the Nikon?

 

[tulak]

So you're saying there are better lens available for the Olympus than the Nikon?

I never said that and I'm not sure what you're trying to figure out.

I'm sure the Nikon has some excellent lenses. The difference is that equivalent or better Nikon lens will be bigger and heavier.

I read a lot about the 12-40mm lens for the Olympus. It's a big and heavy lens when compared to other m43 lenses, which a lot of m43 users complain about. But it's all about perspective. Size-wise, the 12-40mm lens on an EM10 body has slightly less length than a D3300 with the 18-55mm kit lens. And I'm pretty sure the 12-40mm setup will perform much better.

The only downside is that it will be a bit heavier than my old setup. I may or may not keep this lens long term. What I'm trying to figure out is my ideal setup and since I've done the multiple lenses thing in the past, I'm looking forward to having one high quality lens with a solid body.

 

[explanade]

There are expensive Zeiss lenses for the Sony.

Also adapters to use with any lenses, though manual focusing.

I checked out the A6000 the other day. Not really pocketable but definitely small.

One thing puzzling is that the kit lens didn't seem to have a filter thread.

Costco is selling a two lens bundle for $650. So tempting but all kinds of rumors of an imminent A6100 or A7000.

 

[tulak]

There are expensive Zeiss lenses for the Sony.

Also adapters to use with any lenses, though manual focusing.

I checked out the A6000 the other day. Not really pocketable but definitely small.

One thing puzzling is that the kit lens didn't seem to have a filter thread.

Costco is selling a two lens bundle for $650. So tempting but all kinds of rumors of an imminent A6100 or A7000.

The expensive Zeiss lens is the one I mentioned earlier. From what I've read it's a nice lens, but not worth the cost.

The Costco bundle is sold out. There was also a price increase for both the A6000 body and kit. This puzzled me at first, because when I started looking at mirrorless cameras both the EM10 and A6000 bodies were selling for $450. The A6000 body is now selling for $550.

 

[walkinwood]

The expensive Zeiss lens is the one I mentioned earlier. From what I've read it's a nice lens, but not worth the cost.

The Costco bundle is sold out. There was also a price increase for both the A6000 body and kit. This puzzled me at first, because when I started looking at mirrorless cameras both the EM10 and A6000 bodies were selling for $450. The A6000 body is now selling for $550.

You're a patient person!

In the end, a camera system purchase is a very personal decision and is based on many attributes. As long as you're happy!

Personally - I got the A6000 and am happy with it. It did look at the camera/lens combo that you bought, but decided that I wanted the shorter DoF that comes with the APC sensors - though sometimes, I curse that when my pictures aren't as sharp as I want them to be.

Hope you enjoy the camera!

Esplanade: the 16-50 kit lens that came with my a6000 does have a filter thread.

 

[tulak]

You're a patient person!

In the end, a camera system purchase is a very personal decision and is based on many attributes. As long as you're happy!

Personally - I got the A6000 and am happy with it. It did look at the camera/lens combo that you bought, but decided that I wanted the shorter DoF that comes with the APC sensors - though sometimes, I curse that when my pictures aren't as sharp as I want them to be.

Hope you enjoy the camera!

Esplanade: the 16-50 kit lens that came with my a6000 does have a filter thread.

It's more like paralysis by analysis. I went through a lot of analysis and my family members were tired of hearing about cameras/lenses, so I finally had to make a choice.

 

[audreyh1]

Check out our new photo and video editing workstation. It's the new iMac with 27 inch 14.7 megapixel display, 5120 pixels across. Here we are comparing it to our previous editing platform, a MacBook pro retina with a 5.2 megapixel display, 2880 pixels across. Both images are shown at 100%.

We've been waiting a long time for the large screens to go "retina" - i.e. high res. Up until late last year you couldn't get a larger retina display than our 15.4" laptop screens.

The iMac has the computer built into the back of the display - so no separate computer "box".

Apple just dropped the entry level price of the 5K iMac $500 - now $1999 with 8GB ram and 1TB drive.

 

[folivier]

After using a Canon 20D, 1D3, 5D2 with f2.8 lenses from 15mm through 300mm I got tired of lugging all of that around and have been using an Olympus EM1 with 12-40 f2.8 (24-80 equivalent) and find that while it is not quite as good image quality as the 5D2 it is close enough. Focus speed is pretty good. I'm very pleased with it. Also I'm thinking of getting a smaller mirror less and can use the same lens.

 

[photoguy]

Apple just dropped the entry level price of the 5K iMac $500 - now $1999 with 8GB ram and 1TB drive.

I'm in awe of Apple's supply chain. Dell's 5k monitor alone goes for $2008.99 on amazon right now.

 

[explanade]

I'd wait at least for Skylake processors, so probably a year from now.

 

[RonBoyd]

Your Phone Isn’t The Only Camera You Need

Phone cameras have made photography everyone’s hobby. But even owners of the fanciest smartphones would recognize the many genres of disappointing phone-ography: The blurry runaway toddler. The lifeless landscape. The grainy candlelit dinner. The ghoulish flash portrait.

 

[folivier]

A few years ago while my son was in high school sports I had a small hobby/business of sports photography. Made a few bucks but it gave me the funds to own high end pro camera gear.
Yes equipment does make a difference but there is much more to a great photograph than a quick snapshot. Kinda like pots and pans, doesn't matter how much you spend on them they help but won't cook by themselves!

 

[Chuckanut]

Here is a recent table showing the lenses available for the various mirrorless camera systems. As you can see some are very well filled out (m4/3 for example) while other systems have a lot of holes to fill.

For current mirrorless owners, it’ll give you an idea of how your system stacks up against the others, plus remind you of what you’ve got available. For those thinking about purchasing a mirrorless camera, this allows you to quickly compare the potential systems for suitability.

Current Lens Availability | Sans Mirror — mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

 

[explanade]

Your Phone Isn’t The Only Camera You Need

Well the columnist does admit at the end that there are situations when you just want to pull out the iPhone, not a bigger camera.

I've complemented shooting with my D750 on my travels with some iPhone panos and videos, including time lapse and super slow-mo.

I don't print anything so probably can't see the difference but they look good even on my retina display MacBook Pro.

I once saw a museum exhibit of photos taken by people from the '40s to around the '80s. What it showed is that as cameras became more affordable and smaller, people took pictures of subjects they didn't used to, like inside their homes.

Before cameras were affordable, people went to studios to have portraits taken so it was mostly these posed, studio pictures. But once people got the equipment, you got more impromptu, intimate photos.

I actually went to Best Buy to look at the A6000 this past weekend. Also checked out some smaller point and shoots too, figuring they will be an improvement on my iPhone. Their sensors are not that much bigger than the one in my iPhone 6 Plus but they of course have much better optics.

However, while they're pocketable, they're still at least twice as thick as my iPhone and probably double the weight. I just don't see myself carrying it around with me everywhere like my phone, since the utility is limited to just taking pictures.

It's just another device that I could lose, get stolen or damaged.

Now, I may consider a phone that is 1-1.5 inch thick, just to get bigger sensor and better optics but it's unlikely such a device will be made.

Reality is, more people are taking pics with phones by a huge margin now. So it draws a lot of software support, with apps. which do some interesting things to get around the limitations of the phone cameras. But more importantly, decades from now, people will look at archives of Flickr and other sharing sites and smart phone photos will represent a lot of the photography being done today.

 

[RonBoyd]

reality is, more people are taking pics with phones by a huge margin now...

 

[explanade]

True of all digital cameras. You can take virtually unlimited number of photos, compared to film.

It may also be that the number far exceeds the ability to consume, whether it's viewing on a computer screen or printing them out.

 

[Ronstar]

Just downloaded Lightroom 6 and installed on 2 computers. Took a while to do, but have each set up to access my library on an external drive.

Now Lightroom Mobile has caught my interest. Anyone using Lightroom on a mobile device?

 

[RonBoyd]

TBH, I have only used it to sync a small number of images (I don't wish to pay for Cloud Space). And only did this once, to show a friend, on my Blackberry Passport, some moon shots and sunset pictures taken with the 15--600mm lens. That was pretty handy but was an isolated instance. (Notice the "150-600 Test Shots" collection listed.)

In fact, it was so long ago (6 weeks?) that I forgot how to access that particular function. I had to search online to "relearn" the secret. What was Adobe thinking to hide the new options under the logo in the upper left (that is visible only if one has the top toolbar active.)



Clicking on that logo activates a drop-down menu to open Sync with Lightroom mobile, Address Lookup, and Face Detection.

But to answer your question, I don't believe I will ever use the program to process images. I need the accuracy that a large screen offers for that activity.

 

[Ronstar]

I don't want to pay for cloud space either. I really haven't researched the mobile app much, but I get the feeling that some $ outlay is needed since it's shown as a trial on my desktop.

Like you, I wouldn't want to process on a mobile device, but it would be cool to call up some images to show someone.

 

[explanade]

That's one reason why I've held off on migrating from Aperture to Lightroom.

I haven't investigated the photosharing options that Adobe offers.

But under Apple's ecosystem, I just select the images I want to share and the email addresses of the people I want to share with and if they accept, the images go into their devices.

I have only about 1000 or so images I'm sharing with iCloud Photo Streams and I didn't have to buy any more storage beyond the 5 GB that everyone gets.

Though I have heard that their storage costs are much higher than services like Dropbox and others.

I can almost as easily share on Picasa, though I'm not sure how much storage they give you.

Never really looked into Google Plus because I hate the forced social network integration.

I guess though that photo-specific services like Flickr, Smugmug and others are more popular, though I don't think they give you much storage either.

I don't share photos widely, in fact I use it as a mechanism to propagate some photos from my main library to my other devices.

 

[RonBoyd]

That's one reason why I've held off on migrating from Aperture to Lightroom.

I guessing that you are referring to the use of Adobe's Cloud service. First, I don't use anyone's "Cloud" except for the "free" space. I prefer to store my files locally and certainly wouldn't consider renting space. Secondly, I have around 100,000 images in my Lightroom Catalog occupying about 2 TB. (Why just since Mar 15th, I have ~1,800 images from my newest camera that takes up over 22 GB.) The cost to rent space for that would probably exceed my total annual budget.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the use of Lightroom and Cloud storage are not dependent on one another... or even that closely related.

I haven't investigated the photosharing options that Adobe offers.

Along the same line... sharing files is not really a Lightroom function. LR, however, does a good job of helping that process along with its "Export" function, its "publish Services" function, and its "Book Module."

Lightroom leaves it completely up to you what you do with the images after they are processed... or, for that matter, even before .

 

[explanade]

I'm not talking about uploading my entire library.

I don't have 100k images but I have no interest in uploading it all.

Just saying it's easy to create a stream right within Aperture to share/propagate some set of photos from each album.

I'm sure you can do something similar with Lightroom using plugins or some helper apps.