Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-04-2014, 09:08 AM   #81
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 5,575
Below is a link to what I think is a thoughtful article by Thom Hogan and several cameras that really did improve his photography. I must admit to being prejudiced since one of them is from the Olympus micro 4/3 system, which has certainly helped me for the same reasons it helped Thom.

Answering My Own Question | byThom | Thom Hogan
__________________

__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-04-2014, 10:23 AM   #82
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,007
Yeah I'm thinking about the OMDs but hate the idea of a smaller sensor, with poorer low light.

I'm watching how the Sony A7/A7R does. It's about the same size and weight as my D7000 but has essentially the D800 sensor (the A7R does).

There's no lens collection though. Hoping Nikon or Canon does a full frame smaller-body (mirror less would be fine though it would need an electronic viewfinder).

Any new camera I buy must have Wifi integrated and some GPS option (like the current Nikons which have a well-supported accessory data port).
__________________

__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 04:29 PM   #83
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 247
I have had a Sony NEX-6 for about a year after moving from a Nikon DSLR. The NEX-6 is a full APS-C sensor.

I wouldn't go back to an SLR. Main advantages of the mirrorless are very fast sequential shooting (10fps), small size, outstanding electronic viewfinder, better controls than the Nikon. I can also use my old film Pentax lenses and my Nikon lenses in manual mode with inexpensive adaptors. Biggest disadvantages are shorter battery life and somewhat slower focusing.
__________________
Surfdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 06:54 PM   #84
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 5,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
Yeah I'm thinking about the OMDs but hate the idea of a smaller sensor, with poorer low light.

You might be surprised at the quality of the OMD Image. it might be worth some trial shots.

Most love the small size and low weight of a complete system. My 45mm lens (90mm in full frame) is an f1.7 and smaller than a normal 50 mm lens. The 75mm (150mm equivalent) is also a f1.7 and also very much smaller. Optically they are great.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 09:07 AM   #85
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 5,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
You might be surprised at the quality of the OMD Image. it might be worth some trial shots.

Most love the small size and low weight of a complete system. My 45mm lens (90mm in full frame) is an f1.7 and smaller than a normal 50 mm lens. The 75mm (150mm equivalent) is also a f1.7 and also very much smaller. Optically they are great.
Actually, they are f 1.8 lenses. Just to be accurate.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 09:12 AM   #86
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 5,575
I recently found this quote from Michael Reichmann's website and wondered what others think about it.

Quote:
Now, in early 2014, I don't believe that there are significant differences in image quality between major cameras and camera brands with roughly similar MP count sensors. Yes, one might have better high ISO capability, another might have more or less pleasing colour rendition important if you shoot JPGs. But, other than megapixel count, which at more than 16MP is of little importance to anyone who doesn't make gallery-sized prints, it's my belief that IQ difference between cameras with sensors of MFT size or larger, is of less importance than how they handle, and of course, most important of all, individual lens quality.
So, while reading DxO test numbers, and some reviewer's and user's comments on various camera's image quality can be of interest, I find that how easily (or badly) a camera responds in one's hands plays a bigger role in how pleasurable and valuable a tool it might be, than does a quarter stop ISO difference or a small difference in dynamic range measure. Your mileage may differ.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 09:43 AM   #87
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,007
I know a lot of people talk up ergonomics but that doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

I figure I just have to learn the controls, however they're laid out.

But the bigger deal is that you have to go through a camera's menu system and each camera is different.

That is why I'm looking to see if cameras with Wifi will let you control settings from an app. Even better if you can save macros or a set of different settings commands from such apps, so you don't have to figure out and remember how to access little-used settings.
__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 10:14 AM   #88
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Westcliffe
Posts: 228
Given the resolution at which we mostly look at photos, yes the photographer has always been more important than the gear.

That said, you never know when you'll get a shot that calls for a "gallery size print" so I always have the beast and never replaced my point and shoot after it broke years ago.
__________________
Mr. Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 07:36 PM   #89
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 5,575
I can understand not wanting another P&S. In my case I found that the new Micro 4/3 systems gave me the small light equipment I needed with no loss of image quality that would be noticed other than by the 'pixel peepers.'

My Olympus PL-5 with one of those wonderful Olympus prime lenses can make a gallery sized print that looks good. What it can't do is weigh me down to the point that I don't take it on hikes and all day walk-abouts in interesting cities.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Photographer's Corner - equipment
Old 03-04-2014, 08:18 PM   #90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Photographer's Corner - equipment

Don't get much call for gallery sized prints anymore lol. Don't have my RB67 anymore, either.

I read up on the mirrorless craze going around, considered ditching my DSLR, but then realized I don't really have any gripes with it. Carrying it around on a chest rig seems normal and it's not in my way, and all my actions with are natural - no menus I have to flip through. Almost got caught up in something just because others thought it was a good idea.

I think if I ever get another digital camera, it'll be medium format. Would like to afford a scanning back for the 4x5, but I don't use it enough anymore to justify the expense.

Did get a Wein safe-sync today, hooked up the old flashes and they work like a charm - it will fire the hotshoe and PC connection simultaneously, and cut the trigger voltages down to 6v, so the camera is protected. Tomorrow the studio flashes come out of storage.

Got the time, now that I'm retired - maybe I can make some money with the gear, again. But no weddings - nie weider...
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 08:23 PM   #91
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
"Given the resolution at which we mostly look at photos, yes the photographer has always been more important than the gear."

+1

But the higher resolutions, especially in uncompressed modes, permit more smooth post-production work - and sometimes offer more options without a reduction in quality.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 09:32 PM   #92
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,275
What exactly does "gallery size" mean?
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 08:18 AM   #93
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Westcliffe
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
What exactly does "gallery size" mean?
What it means to me is 16 x 20 and up.
__________________
Mr. Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 08:53 AM   #94
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
What Mr Paul said - anything that hangs for [professional quality] display purposes in a museum or gallery is going to be larger, and probably require(d) a larger negative than a 35mm format. I'm not sure what type of digital resolution is required for that level of quality, but probably something better than the pro-consumer models mentioned here. A scanning back for my 4x5 would work, but only in limited applications with static subjects, I'd think.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 09:38 AM   #95
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,007
I don't print anything so a smaller format may be worth investigating.

However, even Micro 4/3 is not truly pocketable, so I would still need to carry a bag, especially if you have any kind of zoom lens that stick out.

I used to have a compact and I would put it in my coat pocket but a few times, it dinged against doors so pockets are not the best places.
__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 09:55 AM   #96
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Westcliffe
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
What Mr Paul said - anything that hangs for [professional quality] display purposes in a museum or gallery is going to be larger, and probably require(d) a larger negative than a 35mm format. I'm not sure what type of digital resolution is required for that level of quality, but probably something better than the pro-consumer models mentioned here. A scanning back for my 4x5 would work, but only in limited applications with static subjects, I'd think.
When I worked at the Denver Museum of Natural History, the museum director went on a trip to China with his new OM-1 and came back having decided he was a photographer. He was the reason the photo dept got everything we asked for so when he told us to produce an exhibit for the museum of his photos we said "ummmm ... ok." We printed and framed the shots up to 30 x 40 and man it was embarrassing to say the least. I don't think he used a shutter speed faster than 1/30 on a single shot.

That said, I've gone up to 20 x 24 with some of my 5DMKII shots and the results are quite pleasing. I think I could go bigger on a select few shots that are very sharp.
__________________
Mr. Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 10:24 AM   #97
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Paul View Post
What it means to me is 16 x 20 and up.
Ok that makes sense. I asked because sometimes I've also seen very small photo prints in galleries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
What Mr Paul said - anything that hangs for [professional quality] display purposes in a museum or gallery is going to be larger, and probably require(d) a larger negative than a 35mm format. I'm not sure what type of digital resolution is required for that level of quality, but probably something better than the pro-consumer models mentioned here. A scanning back for my 4x5 would work, but only in limited applications with static subjects, I'd think.
Are you referring to landscape photos? Even for landscape, 16x24 is quite reasonable for most mid-range dslrs (assuming proper technique) from a single frame.

Scanning backs are interesting. At one point I thought about getting one but I think stitching is probably easier (and the way most people have gone).
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 11:31 AM   #98
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,007
What proper technique?

Tripod and mirror lockup for the sharpest focus? Stopped down for the sharpest image from a particular lens?
__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 02:50 PM   #99
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 15,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
What proper technique?

Tripod and mirror lockup for the sharpest focus? Stopped down for the sharpest image from a particular lens?
That, and having the composition nailed in the camera, not by cropping.

In the higher end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 pixel densities are now pushing up close to what used to be only for medium format cameras.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Photographer's Corner - equipment
Old 03-05-2014, 03:35 PM   #100
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Photographer's Corner - equipment

"Are you referring to landscape photos? Even for landscape, 16x24 is quite reasonable for most mid-range dslrs (assuming proper technique) from a single frame. "

Not referring specially to landscape - just any shot where the subject is static. Could be commercial, fashion, etc. Define 'quite reasonable'. Quite reasonable for an amateur, for a gallery or museum, a fine art shot? What you consider reasonable another may not. I tend to be extremely critical; 'quite reasonable' sounds like 'not as good as it could be'. Not meant to criticize others, just explaining my own personal outlook.

Framing the composition in camera is always a good idea, but not always attainable; and post production always leaves artifacts that reduce quality, no matter how minimal. Yes, there is the crowd which claims they want the perfect shot/exposure and would never deign to PS, but I generally ignore them. It is a rare shot indeed that would not benefit from post production adjustment, no matter how skillful the photographer. A negative - or in the case of digital, a 'positive' isn't the finished product: it is merely the detail from which the finished image is created. More often than not, IMO, a picture that looks good in camera does not possess the necessary detail to make a final image that 'pops'. The ones that do often don't look pleasing in camera. Not always, but often.

For [film] work In which I was paid, I always shot 6x7 or larger. 35mm was never quite good enough for me. In wedding and portraits, the package price covers expenses, but the large sized ala carte sales brought in the gravy; and customers weren't going to pay a lot of money for a large image unless it shined. Even on 5x7s, the difference between an image created with a 35mm and a 6x7 were painfully obvious.

And there was no point in doing all the labor if I wasn't going to make an acceptably large amount of money.
__________________

__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hogan mirrorless


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:30 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.