Messages

1

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Olympus OMD EM5 or 6D

« on: May 22, 2013, 01:21:28 PM »

Though I was (and still am) a part of my Yearbook staff, I do not intend to do much portrait or sports photography in the future. I do not have a particular liking for telephoto lenses, nor do I relish in the beauty of bokeh (fine, I do so occasionally)...
So in general, I just want a camera that I can use daily to express myself or to document my own life, which pretty much means that I'll probably be okay with any camera.
(But I mean, good gear can't hurt, right...?) c:

So long as those are your preferences, wouldn't a Sony RX100 make more sense?  It has remarkably good image quality for a point-and-shoot and really will fit in a pocket; it's very small, even compared to the EM5.

2

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Olympus OMD EM5 or 6D

« on: May 21, 2013, 07:58:01 PM »

the EM5 is not much more portable then a 6D.
sure the 6D is bigger.. but in the end that doesn´t matter much (at least not for me) as the EM5 is not pockable either.

you need strap or a bag anyway.

No, the EM5 won't fit in most pockets, but to say it's not much more portable than a 6D (I'm assuming we're talking about bulk and weight here - obviously they're both portable in some sense) strikes me as bizarre.  Not only is there a notable difference in camera body size, but you don't take photos with the body by itself - you need lenses.  And the size and weight of M43 lenses compared to their DSLR equivalents are tiny across the board.  There's simply no comparison between the size and weight of a body + handful of lenses between the two systems, especially if you like decent zooms and telephoto lenses.  (My heaviest M43 lens is the Panasonic 100-300, but even that's just over a pound; imagine what a dslr equivalent would weigh and the space it would occupy!)

As for the rest, I hardly need to add to all the praise heaped on the EM5 in reviews etc. online, including from pros with FF gear: superb ergonomics, superb stabilization, extremely fast and accurate focusing (including focus points over the entire screen, not just lumped in the middle as with dslrs, plus there's no font/back focusing to worry about; my hunch is that with the EM5 there's a smaller focus fail rate than with any dslr, and for me that's very important), a surprisingly good sensor for its size, etc., plus a very good selection of often superlative lenses result in photos that are often hard to distinguish from those taken with a FF Canon + L lenses.   

As it happens I have both a 6D and an EM5 and I plan to keep both.  Given how good the EM5 is, why do I keep the 6D?  First, I care a lot about background blur; and as a matter of course you get more blur at any given focal length and aperture setting with a bigger sensor (which isn't to say you can't really good blur with an EM5 - that's one reason why I like the Panasonic 100-300).  Combine that with the fantastic bokeh of some some Canon lenses, and the results can be pretty irresistible (which isn't to say that M43 lenses don't have excellent bokeh). Second, I like taking photos in very low light; and while the EM5 is surprisingly good in low light (it helps that the in-body stabilization means that all their fast primes, unlike Canon's, are stabilized, which makes a big difference), no-one would deny that the 6D is better in this regard - its high ISO performance is pretty amazing.  Third (and this is more subjective), I prefer the actual physical process of taking a photo with my 6D - I much prefer looking through a large, bright optical viewfinder even though, frankly, it gives a completely misleading impression of what the photo will actually look like (e.g. on the EM5 one of the dials adjusts exposure compensation, so while you look through the viewfinder all you have to do is turn the dial and, as you do so, you immediately see its effect on exposure).  Fourth, the lowest ISO on the EM5 is 200, and if you peer closely at 100% on a good monitor you will see more noise/grain with the EM5 than with the 6D. Fifth, this may simply be habit, but I have a niggling feeling that FF photos, when everything goes right, are a bit better - but I'm far from certain that that's the case. 

A couple of other DSLR advantages: they are probably quicker overall and thus better for taking photos of action (that's not something I do, so I can't really say for sure first hand).  Plus, if you're into long telephoto primes, well, there aren't any for M43 - the longest right now is the (superlative) Olympus 75mm 1.8 (i.e. 150mm equivalent, which is pretty short by dslr standards).  But of course if you're interested in minimizing the bulk of your camera gear you won't be interested in those anyway, even assuming that as a student you could afford them!  (I have no idea how the two systems compare for flash usage - I've never used flash, including the cute little one that comes with it, on my EM5, and don't often use flash on my 6D.)

As for weather sealing, I have no idea which of the two bodies is more water etc resistant, but you should be aware that lens sealing matters here; and while I could be wrong about this I think the only two M43 lenses that are sealed are the Olympus 12-50 zoom and the Olympus 60mm macro (which is a marvelous little lens for other reasons too).  But it should be easy enough to find out online.

I have no idea what your preferences/needs are, but given the significant differences in size and weight of the two systems, the differences in price (though some Olympus primes are more expensive than their Canon counterparts), and the small differences (if any) in photo quality much of the time, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you went with the EM5.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: SL1 or Fuji X-EX1 or Sony Nex 6?? Would like your thoughts

« on: May 21, 2013, 10:27:13 AM »

I currently own a 60D with various EF lenses. I don't always want to lug that around and would like something lighter and smaller but still be able to get quality shots. While I know the SL1 can't be put in your pocket it can be thrown in a purse. All I would need is the body. My son has the Fuji which is fantastic but your talking 3x the price. Any thoughts? None of the stores around has the SL1 in yet so I can't really play with it.
Thanks !!!
thruthelense

You may be able to throw a SL1 into a purse, but how many EF lenses are small enough so that you could throw it into your purse with a lens attached?  In my case, more often than not the lens is bigger and heavier than a FF body (esp. the better EF zooms).  Saving a couple of inches and ounces by getting a smaller DSLR seems an odd way to go about weight/bulk reduction unless the only lens you want to use is the 40mm pancake.  (I recently supplemented my Canon FF gear with a mirrorless camera - not one of those you mention, but an Olympus OM-D - great ergonomic design, appealing aesthetic design + better lens selection than any similar system.) 

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Unimpressed with 6D + 24-105. Am I doing something wrong?

« on: May 20, 2013, 03:56:16 PM »

A few observations, in no particular order:

1. My OM-D, at least with the lenses I own, focuses consistently more accurately than any dslr I’ve used (whether Canon, Nikon or – especially - Pentax): provided it confirms focus, the camera accurately focuses on what I asked it to (barring something like subject movement or, if focus is very shallow, movement by me).  Regardless of aperture (and I realize M43 have an inherent advantage here), not once have I had an unpleasant surprise of the sort I occasionally get with dslrs.  I’ve no idea, obviously, whether that played a part in your comparison – how many times did you repeat the Canon photo? Were you focusing on exactly the same point with each camera?  No lens will look sharp if, for whatever reason, the focus is off (unless it accurately focuses on the wrong thing).

2. Back/front focusing isn’t an issue for mirrorless cameras, but it be the problem with the Canon combination you used ( my 6D and 24-105 are quite cooperative with each other, but yours may not have been).

3. For ergonomic reasons it’s easier to adjust exposure right when using an OM-D; and my OM-D tends to be a bit more reliable in that regard too than the dslrs I’ve used (not that I have any complaints about my 6D).  It looks to me as though the Canon photo is somewhat overexposed (esp. the top of the lamp), which reduces detail and the appearance of sharpness.  Combine that with inaccurate focus and the photo *really* won’t look sharp, no matter what lens you use.

4. Leaving aside whether any focus adjustment was needed or the lens was somehow flawed, you may have ended up with a less good copy of the 24-105.  I get the impression from reading this forum that some are sharper than others.  (I’ll assume you didn’t accidentally turn off the IS!)  I doubt that has anything to do with this particular comparison, though.

5. For some of the reasons already mentioned, and leaving aside whether what you rented is flawed, I and am no longer surprised that one can get better results (at least in some respects) with an OM-D (I was quite skeptical until I rented one).  I own a 6D and an OM-D and use both frequently (sometimes together).

6. (This has nothing to do with your specific complaint.) As you’ve noticed, the OM-D is surprisingly good in low light/high ISOs, but beyond a certain point there’s no contest.  Likewise if you like shallow depth of focus and smooth bokeh (nevertheless, even though there’s less background blurring with the OMD for any given field of view, you can still get superb bokeh, depending on the lenses you use).

7. (This has nothing to do with your complaint either.) In my experience Micro 4/3 lenses tend to be more prone to chromatic aberrations than the better Canon lenses, and you can see that in your comparison where, whatever else may be going on, there’s a little on the OM-D photo at the top of the lamp.

8. As for other lenses to show off the 6D, try a 70-300L (the range more-or-less matches your inexpensive zoom), a Canon 100L, a Canon 135L or a Sigma 35 1.4 and see what you can see, especially if you care about shallow focus and background blur (though with the latter two you won’t have image stabilization – another area where the OM-D spoils you).  And, just for kicks, throw into the mix a couple of the best M43 primes, such as the 75mm 1.8, 60mm macro, 45mm 1.8, 17mm 1.8 (all Olympus), Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4.

5

Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?

« on: May 17, 2013, 02:59:35 PM »

All interesting and thanks for everyone's thoughts.  Today I am leaning towards the 24-105 + 17-40 + "Shorty 40" (for low light situations) in my Retrospective bag.  I love my 70-200 but on past trips, based on EXIF on LR, rarely used it (this is my first trip with the 5D - my old kit was a crop with 15-85 + 10-22 + 70-200).  I did use the WA zoom for interiors.  I know that I'll miss whatever I leave home, but I've lugged a heavier kit in temps over 100F and it is no fun.

Since you're trying to keep weight down, it seems a bit odd to me to take two overlapping f/4 zooms.  How often did you use the 17-40 wider than 24?  If seldom, leave it behind.  If you hardly ever use the 70-200 because you hardly ever go beyond 70mm (as opposed to because you seldom go beyond 105mm), what about taking 17-40 + 50mm prime?

6

Lenses / Re: Standard Lens for Paris and London holiday.

« on: May 17, 2013, 12:10:11 AM »

It depends on the sorts of focal lengths you like using, how much equipment you want to carry around and for how long, and what you'll be shooting.  The days are long in both cities in the last week of May, so unless the weather's really heavily overcast you shouldn't have to worry much about low light unless you want to photograph inside churches etc., some of which are pretty dark inside even in the middle of the day.  Moreover, with your 6D you may well find that a slower lens with IS yields better results in low light than a fast lens without it, so you could lighten your bag by leaving behind fast lenses (unless you want them for other reasons). 

I can't quite tell from your post, but if you're planning on taking just one lens, would 24-70 II be versatile enough for you?  If so, go for it.  It would be too short for me.  When I was in Paris a year ago, around the same time you're going, I took my 5DII and 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS (if I had had my 70-300L I would have taken that instead), and three 1.8 primes, but except when I was in Notre Dame or wandering around after dark I never used the primes and only took with me either 24-105 or 17-40 + 70-200.  (And, as it turned out, the IS zooms generally performed better than the primes in low light (the results would have been even better had the 6D been available at the time).  The next time I go, unless I just take my Olympus OM-D gear instead, I'll take 6D + 24-105 + 70-300L (both perform really well in low light on the 6D) and leave the rest behind. 

If you're really set on the 24-70, you may want to supplement it with a 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L (I guess you could go whole hog and get the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but who wants to cart that around all day?).

7

Lenses / Re: 50 f1.4 vs 85 f1.8.....

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:30:17 PM »

I've been doing a lot of senior photo shoots, and also some general portrait work over the last few years and I was thinking that a prime lens might be in order for better DOF and results. My current photos are very nice and I have gotten many complements on the shoots. I'm just thinking that going prime is the next step. A lot of my photos are head or head & torso shots, so I could go either way, just am not sure which is a better lens as the 50 is pretty old, but people say it's still great. When comparing them on the Digital Pic website, the 85 looked to have a better result on the charts.

Thanks,

In addition to what neuroanatomist says, for head/torso shots the longer lens lets you stay farther away from your subject which, aside from resulting in rather more flattering photos, makes for a more relaxed and comfortable experience all round.

8

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:21:03 PM »

babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else).  People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience.  Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.  I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

The problem you are referring to was with initial production copies at lens rentals.  It was hardly obscure, having been posted all over the internet.   It was a result of a poor design.  Tamron did not admit to fixing it or recall any, they just mysteriously stopped sending out problem copies. 
 
This topic is covering recently purchased lenses that have IQ issues.  They are not falling apart any longer, that part is fixed.

I didn't say that initial problem was obscure.  As of December, lensrentals reported "no new problems".  Perhaps someone who's interested in buying one should ask them for an update.

9

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm F2.8 L ver 2 or 3 Prime Lens

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:48:58 AM »

It all rather depends on what body you own (FF or crop), what other lenses you own, what focal lengths matter to you, how much speed you need, how much sharpness matters (including whether the extent to which the difference in sharpness would be noticeable in the sort of photos you takes), how much being able to achieve shallow focus matters, whether weight matters, etc. 

For instance, the three primes you mention together weigh a bit more than the zoom, but you might rather travel light and carry just one or two of them all day long and achieve similar results by getting closer or farther away.  The range covered by the three primes you mention is significantly different from the zoom - does wider than 35mm not matter much, if at all, to you?  Do you regularly want to go beyond 70mm?  It might make sense to consider something else entirely - e.g. 24-105L plus a couple of primes.  Or 24-105 + 70-300L.  (Or, dare I say it, the Tamron 24-70 VC + a prime or two.)  Or....

10

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70

« on: May 14, 2013, 03:09:07 PM »

babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else).  People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience.  Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.  I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

For my part (largely worthless though this information is), I've used two copies, one via lensrentals and one I bought from amazon.  Both performed exactly as they should (I ended up returning the one I bought because it had no relevant advantage for me over my 24-105).

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 40D vs. 6D AF

« on: May 12, 2013, 04:41:20 PM »

I can't help with the body decision (I haven't used a 40D but own a 5DII and 6D; and for what I photograph don't see any advantage in the 5DIII over the 6D; you might).  I would note, though, that while the 5DIII has a ton of focus points, they're all lumped in the middle of the frame (I think this is true of all FF DSLRs, isn't it?) in an area not much different from that covered by the far fewer points on the 6D, rather than usefully spread all over it.  I'm inclined to suggest that you hold off on buying a 50mm prime until you've tried your 85mm on your new FF body - you may not feel any pressing need for a wider one (you can experiment with your 24-105).  And while the 135L is a fantastic lens, 135mm isn't much different from 105mm; for a bit more variety you might want to consider the 200 2.8, which creates images that are very similar to those taken with the 135mm but gives you extra reach.  Either way, you can't really lose.... 

12

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji x100(s) to Supplement an SLR

« on: May 12, 2013, 01:38:30 PM »

Based on what I've read about them (I've never used one) I thought the various Fujis sounded appealing, but only the ones with interchangeable lenses (I seldom use a wide angle lens, which rules out the X100/s); and at the time I was thinking about getting a small back-up camera there was nothing longer than 60mm, which is nowhere near long enough for me.  I ended up going with the Olympus OMD instead, in large part so I could best use the Olympus 75mm prime.  I suspect (but don't know for sure) that Fuji does better at very high ISOs, but the Olympus is a marvelous camera (I won't spell out why - there's enough written about it already online).  It doesn't hurt that a smallish bag containing all my M43 gear (body + 5 primes and two zooms) weighs less than, say, my 70-300L by itself, and that the excellent Panasonic 100-300mm lens is a tiny fraction of the size/weight/obtrusiveness of any DSLR equivalent; it's quite amusing to put it next to my Sigma 50-500 OS....   Nor does it hurt that the focus accuracy of this equipment surpasses any DSLRs I've used.

Anyway, I find myself using the Olympus a lot, though in part that may be just because it's the newer toy.  Some of the time I use it by itself, but at other times I take it in conjunction with my 6D or 5DII - it's an easy way to be more versatile with less weight, and with remarkably little compromise in quality (much of the time, none at all).

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you trust your camera?

« on: May 11, 2013, 03:20:32 PM »

I trust the camera more than I trust myself.   That said, I've owned and rented several different DSLRs over the past few years and my success rate is higher than warrants the number of "just in case" shots I take.  But it does vary with different body/lens combinations.  One of the factors that persuaded me to switch from my Pentax K5 to a 5DII was the superior performance mechanically of the Canon lenses I tried; a much smaller proportion of the photos I took were out of focus after I made the switch, smaller still when I added a 6D (and smaller than my experiences with Nikon D3100 and D600).  I find the fail rate of the 6D + 70-300L combination satisfyingly close to zero.  If I'm in a situation where the fail rate is likely to be higher - e.g. very shallow depth of focus such that the slightest movement by me or the subject will screw it up - then I'll take more.  (I only ever shoot hand-held; the answer might be different if I regularly used a tripod.)

[I must say, though, that my mirrorless camera - Olympus OMD - is in a completely different class in terms of accuracy than any DSLR I've used; if it thinks it has focused accurately, it has (like DSLRs it occasionally won't focus at all, but that's a different matter).  Whether this is because mirrorless focusing mechanisms are inherently more accurate, because you can place the focus point anywhere on the image, because the lenses are well designed, because of something in specifically in the design of the OMD, or some combination of these factors, I can't say; but if it weren't for habit I doubt I would be taking "just in case" shots with it except in special cases (e.g. when I'm using a macro lens).]

14

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 10, 2013, 02:30:39 PM »

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

I could not agree more, adding to the image changes it to photographic art; however, subtracting (the corner of a building, a flying bird, contrails, et cetera) is perfectly acceptable.  Obviously anything you can do it a wet darkroom, you can 'legally' do the same in photoshop.

On the off-chance your comments aren't tongue-in-cheek, what's the (relevant) difference between adding a flying bird and subtracting a flying bird? (They're both additions anyway.) And why is it obvious that the ethics of all of this are defined by what can be done in a wet darkroom?

15

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 10, 2013, 02:26:24 PM »

I find nothing wrong with these before and afters here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/10/aesthetics-versus-truth

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

If you're going to take that view, then I guess the question becomes "what's an element?"  It seems to me that a heck of a lot has been added to the first photo, including colors and perceived light.  Why aren't they elements?