5 hours ago
 |
itsastickup
Lives in
United Kingdom
Joined on
Jun 15, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
I'm seriously not understanding why people are comparing this APS-C camera to m4/3.
m4/3 still has serious bokeh issues: too much depth of field even with large apertures. Unless you go off-piste, you can't get a normal lens with any kind of decent ability to obliterate the background. And no, I don't want t a Nokton 25/.95, or whatever it's called. APS-C isn;t as great as FF of course, but it's still workable.
You also don't get Canon's bokeh king zooms. I looked at other systems and either they have not enough OOF bokeh or like Sony and Nikon they have have poor bokeh zooms.
There is no system out there that does what Canon APS-C cameras do.
Of course, if you don't care for such a thing as very limited bokeh then it's a non-issue, but it's still an issue for the rest of us and so it's not correct to directly compare this system to m4/3. There is no direct comparison (yet).
The reason I won't buy Canon is because of their woeful dynamic range. Yet they are the only ones who produce zoom lenses with decent bokeh which is also on my prerequisite list.
sigh!
jkokich: Secrets? SECRETS?! Is there enough light to see the person? Take the picture!!!
That's for snaps not portraits.
The whole point of Canon zooms was the great bokeh.
R.I.P. Canon.
No bokeh no buy.
itsastickup: This camera is so nearly the same as its big brother in essentials, by all accounts, that it seems to me that dpreview has wasted valuable resources doing a full review.
And it's not the first time. Occasionally us bottom feeders complain about the length of time we have to wait; I reckon some management/marketing decisions are the reason for that.
Kudos to management for favouring a photographers camera, however.
C- : Could do less in order to do more.
And yes, I know I'm a grump, to answer those who actually go and look at people's previous posts.
But I am a jolly kind of grump, really. Just not today... or yesterday. And probably not tomorrow.
This camera is so nearly the same as its big brother in essentials, by all accounts, that it seems to me that dpreview has wasted valuable resources doing a full review.
And it's not the first time. Occasionally us bottom feeders complain about the length of time we have to wait; I reckon some management/marketing decisions are the reason for that.
Kudos to management for favouring a photographers camera, however.
C- : Could do less in order to do more.
RichRMA: The removal of the low-pass filter is a good idea. Apart from the minor resolution changes, what it does is (if you've compared the D800/e) remove a kind of veiled look to images that the filter imparts. Almost like reducing spherical aberration present in the lens. Images look "cleaner" and less diffuse at larger print or viewing sizes.
The only thing I would have done would have been to round the grip, make it a little larger, so it was more like the D300, which is a much more comfortable camera to hold than the D7000.
There's always going to be some chump in a striped shirt; and while the aliasing may not happen so close-up any longer, it will happen further away. And let's just think about the striped features of a city.
Landscape photographers may not be affected, but human and urban will.
RichRMA: The removal of the low-pass filter is a good idea. Apart from the minor resolution changes, what it does is (if you've compared the D800/e) remove a kind of veiled look to images that the filter imparts. Almost like reducing spherical aberration present in the lens. Images look "cleaner" and less diffuse at larger print or viewing sizes.
The only thing I would have done would have been to round the grip, make it a little larger, so it was more like the D300, which is a much more comfortable camera to hold than the D7000.
...and introduces unavoidable aliasing. Nikon are insane. A low-pass filter is a prerequisite except for that small number of pixel peepers and perhaps one or two scientific applications. With so many pixels there is really no need for this.
Perhaps the technology really does solve the problem of aliasing but it seems ot me that it is an insurmountable digital barrier. The Fuji X-pro 1 was supposed to have done that also, and does not.
This is one camera I won't be buying and is a very disturbing development.
GreenmanToo: Translation: We at iFixit reserve the right to downgrade to oblivion, any device that frustrates our business model whereby we sell parts and repair services for DIY enthusiasts.
Additionally, not withstanding the gain in device reliability due to sealed components and the design restraints imposed by the need to make devices thinner, lighter and more mobile, we consider that repairs and mods should be possible using an oily rag, a hammer and the detailed guides we sell to the public.
Accordingly, we have classified iPads, MacBooks, iPhones, Surface PCs and all other devices with sealed/glued components as detrimental to our 'last milleniun' thinking and business prospects.
Not quite fair, there.
A car's headlights, huh?
In any case, an excellent pic.
itsastickup: Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.
And paying a lot of money for it too.
No bokeh no buy.
Ropo16, bokeh and the liking of a lot of it is a matter of taste not technicalities. It's got nothing to do with professionalism. You use it according to the situation. But it is needed by some photographers, and this rules out the m4/3 for the timebeing.
Sure, some people hate bokeh, my brother for example, but people who employ me know what they will get.
For my photography I need maybe half of my pics with lots of bokeh. Having said that I agree that too much is too much and usually shoot at f2 and above. But that's still a lot more bokeh than these lenses can provide.
itsastickup: Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.
And paying a lot of money for it too.
No bokeh no buy.
Thanks for that, Scott. Rather I consider myself a lobbyist for a decent normal or just-wide thin DOF m4/3 lens. There really isn't one other than by going off piste and accepting compromise. This is the one area that m4/3 is seriously lacking and why I simply cannot contemplate these otherwise very attractive cameras.
And there's not enough negativity in the world, so I'm just doing my bit. :)
35mm equiv is fine for portraits but obviously not head-n-shoulder shots. Anything between 35 and 55mm equiv is just what I use for my portraiture, other than weddings. In the FF world I inhabit, fast 35mm lenses have plenty of OOF/Bokeh.
itsastickup: Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.
And paying a lot of money for it too.
No bokeh no buy.
I use bokeh, as many do, as shorthand for out of focus areas. Yes, I know, technically it is the quality of the OOF, but these days it is interchangeable.
Longer focal lengths are fine for wedding style pics or newspaper candids, but not for intimate portraits.
itsastickup: Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.
And paying a lot of money for it too.
No bokeh no buy.
Well, obviously there is enough for you, but for my purposes (contextual portraits) there is really no usable bokeh.
Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.
And paying a lot of money for it too.
No bokeh no buy.
This isn't a practical demonstration of a bokeh capable lens. The background is too far away to count and the loss of sharpness is grave.
There needs to be decent bokeh from backgrounds that are much closer.
itsastickup: What I want is massive dynamic range. I am still using film cameras for exactly this reason. There's only so far you can go with NDGrads, HDR etc.
The dynamic range reported by DxO is entirely bogus. Yes, technically you can get 14 stops, but in practice it's more like 9.
With film there is no problem at all. Even the limited range Neopan 400 smashes the Nikon d7000 which has a supposedly high DR.
What I want is massive dynamic range. I am still using film cameras for exactly this reason. There's only so far you can go with NDGrads, HDR etc.
itsastickup: still waiting for the 25mm f1.0
No bokeh no buy.
Granted, there's some bokeh, but seriously, folks, no where near enough. I would be happy with the equivalent of 50/2 on FF but wide open one generally gets deistracting rings and other nonsense, which is why we need a larger aperture to allow us to close-down a little bit to get rid of those rings.
For serious bokeh portraits (I don't mean head-n-shoulders for which a decent lens is now available) you need a lot of OOF background, and soft and creamy.
still waiting for the 25mm f1.0
No bokeh no buy.