gianstam: I' m pretty amazed that people discuss about DOF equivalence in these focal lengths
Yes, almost all Olympus lenses (since 4/3 days) are performing their best at or near wide open. I don't think this one will be an exception. With m4/3 lenses, they tend to perform their best at f/4 (f/8 equivalent), rather than 4/3 lenses's f/5.6-6.3 range, so yeah, m4/3 lenses are at their best wide open. Don't know what's the reason. Maybe it's the sensor size format reason, or because those m4/3 lenses I used have max aperture of f/1.8.
I agree with you. Yes, samples are nice, but real world experience will be better, especially when people's shooting style tend to differ a little. Not everyone likes to shoot wide open.
BarnET: Sharpest in the line-up?Well i don't see it not compared to samples of the 75mm F1.8 at least
It'll be unfair to compare with 75mm since 75mm is easier to design.
The bokeh is pretty good for such sharp lens. And I'd say it finally is up the quality of 4/3 lenses (4/3 lens' bokeh tend to be much more sublime compared to m4/3). Sharpness usually comes with a busy bokeh, unfortunately. If you have a lens that's both sharp and has smooth bokeh, that's extraordinary, not the norm. You should appreciate such lens more, rather than put down other lenses as lesser.
BTW, if you think this bokeh is "common" 3rd grade consumer... then many of Canon L lenses would qualify as such.... Just go see some sample photos. And of course, the ability of the photographer matters too, when it comes to isolation decision.
Yes. Most of those people are theorists, not practitioners. The first useful aperture at such long focal length is f/8 for depth of field purpose (@35mm equivalent). The extra light at f/4 aperture is nice for handheld. But DoF wise, f/8 is extremely shallow already (and at closer subject-to-focal plane, it might be too shallow).
In the specs it says Extending Zoom.... This is a fixed focal lens.
Ian: "...there’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing really as professional photographers..."-Marisa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo, May 2013
So does this news mean that there are in fact "professional photographers"?
I couldn't resist...
The term is "serious amateur," if you don't make a living out of your photos but still very good at what you're doing. Inventing a new term when there is already one will just confuse people further.
As mentioned before, there is nothing wrong being a non-pro. And I've seen "pros" on the job who was totally clueless and think all those equipments and having hired assistants around them made them pro. Don't be so hung up by the title.
And yes, like Tim Gander said, be professional about your work. That's always a good thing and respect the laws of your jurisdiction. That and ethics are parts of professional conduct, too.
Well, I want to point out something about copyright comment on the Photo 9. Yes, you do need model release, and it's not misconstrued. That's one of the lessons you learn when you take your photography class (and property release, for that matter). The tabloid is in constant legal fight (and they don't mind paying that if they believe they can earn more money selling the paper or blackmail the celebrity in question. It's not the norm of a proper photography practice!). Let's not forget those people paparazzi shot are "public" figures. Their legal right to their image is much more limited to that of regular individuals like us or the cosplay models. Because court judge would definitely ask how much privacy does the person in the photo expects, and that will affect the outcome of the law suit. Lesson... model release is a yes because it's respectful, if not legal.
Edgar_in_Indy: This doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of the CC images, if not to use them? Of course it's going to cost money to make a print, and the bigger and fancier the print, the more it will cost.
As long as Flickr wasn't charging extra for a CC image, I don't see what the problem was. Now people just have less choices for their art.
If I'm a photographer who agreed to have my work on CC available for free use, then I would be flattered if people chose to pay to have it made into large wall-art.
(But I don't know much about Creative Commons, so if my understanding is flawed, I hope somebody will clarify it for me.)
There are many types of CC license agreement. Not all CC License gives any user the use the photo without restriction. CC only makes licensing easier, but one still needs to respect copyright!
nerd2: I've been using 'crop' bodies for almost a decade, but still I hate olympus and its delusional marketing strategy which plagues many people.
To be equivalent to FF counterparts, smaller format body/lens should be:
a) FASTER to achieve the same total light and same DOF.b) SHARPER to achieve the same sharpness.c) has the similar MP count.
For example, to compete with A7 plus 24-70 f4 lens, one needs a 24MP m43 body and 12-35 f2 lens that is TWICE sharper than 24-70 f4. Of course most lenses (even $100 kit lenses) are now very good and can be used for professional purpose, but that does not justify Oly to charge the same money for inferior lenses.
Olympus lenses are twice as sharp. Look at the Olympus's MTF chart, they're normalized using TWICE the resolution (20 lines and 60 lines, instead of Canikon's 10 lines and 30 lines). It is specifically stated by Olympus engineers that in order to be competitive (they're fully aware their sensors are smaller), they have made their lenses TWICE the resolution, which is how their 4/3 lenses are made, and why regular 4/3 lenses have the largest lens size per sensor size ratio (i.e., they built their lenses significantly larger than the minimum requirement to reduce vignette and to gather significantly more light). They go by the same Zeiss Otus philosophy of no compromise optics. Some SHG lenses (Super High Grade) are made to order, individually inspected, just like Leica lenses, not mass produced. This is why SHG 4/3 lenses are quite a bit more expensive than m4/3 lenses.
Please research before you complain....
gmke: The more I think about it, the more ridiculous the question becomes. Why buy an LX100 when you can have a GX7? An apple or orange, it rests on a questionable assumption, on purpose perhaps, that since the cameras are built around the same sensor, they are category siblings. They are not siblings. This one is a small lens story and the most appropriate question is, Why buy an RX100-iii when you can get an LX100? The paragraphs that come out of that question are far more interesting. The GX7 plays in the same league as the GH3 and OM-D cameras. The main difference is the location of the viewfinder. Take your pick. The styling matters not one bit. They ARE siblings. Take away the viewfinder and you get a tweener with an identity crisis.
Okay, this is too close to real life for comfort. ;) I thought this is supposed to be a lalaland for gearheads.
Just kidding of course....
samfan: Geez, what's your problem guys, so they asked a fashion designer to make a bag and put a white camera inside it. Big deal. It's just a white camera in a white bag. Something you can buy for your wife as a gift if you you know she doesn't appreciate the standard big black cameras. (And while I don't know SmC's work she's probably known enough that the bag itself would cost as much when bought separately.)
It's not like they had to pull firmware programmers or lens designers from their work on your dreamed out Canon MILC to make this.
If you cuts the popular mass with a truth that incises like a surgical scalpel, you would soon find yourself surrounded by them, and be whacked with their axe..., and a very dull one.
Jim Salvas: I've been using this for two days and it is a very well-designed app. It's responsive and everything works seamlessly.
I understand why Olympus has made this available only on the E-M1. The E-M1 is positioned as Olympus' professional-grade model and since tethered shooting appeals mostly to pros the app further helps differentiate this top of the line model.
O.I. Share App (for Android and iOS) can be used for all other newer cameras with WiFi built-in. It's just WiFi does not provide enough bandwidth for high-end tethering, so the cabled solution like this is better for the flagship model marketed as Pro camera. But non-pros can still do it with some basic functions (maybe not multiple flash control, but you can do that in-camera using LiveView).
Jon H Laake: Can the flash tilt for bouncing?
I doubt it. If it can bounce, it will be the most useless thing in the world.... Do you realize how much power the flash must have to be able to lit just a normal size room with 10 ft ceiling with bounce flash? Not from this flash!
This is more useful to me than a drone camera. I like the fact it tracks my position instead of me having to control just one more equipment. Always hate off-the-camera flash, because the need to carry one more tripod. (imagine this and do a 4-hour hiking). This should be interesting, if affordable then I might get one. Great new use of drone. Wish I could have thought of that.
citizenlouie: CC is fine for professionals who can expense their subscription fee. For vast majority of photographers who upgrade their cameras every two years, and Lightroom's current price at $80, the max a person would shell out for an annual subscription of CC is $40. For people like me who can only afford to upgrade the camera around 5 years, the CC is only valued at $16/year, not the $99/year Adobe is charging.
This means most people would either stop upgrading to newer cameras that Lightroom 5 can no longer support or stop using Lightroom all together. It looks like I would be using my current cameras until they break. This move would indirectly slow the camera sales by a bit, and probably start making people with new cameras more likely to accept out-of-camera JPEGs, instead of processing RAWs using a software.
My set up has been Olympus Viewer + LR, so I don't need to run the RAWs through one more software in the workflow. I've used DxO as part of the workflow, but I gave up on it since OV does everything better. What OV is lacking is cataloging and user-interface. That's where LR comes in. I select my photos using LR as loupe and then only if it requires extra process, I export them into OV, because OV loads photos slowly. I mostly use LR for cataloging reason (batch tag, add location info, etc., and exports output to website and local storage). I do like some parts of LR, that's why I can overlook its quirks (and LR has tons of weird bugs). It has value to me, but not $99/year is all I am saying. Especially I still have CS5 which I only use a fraction of its features. Choosing gears (and software is part of the gears) is a lot of compromise between requirements and budget. This isn't a fantasy talk where everyone always have the latest gears as if money isn't a consideration.
CC is fine for professionals who can expense their subscription fee. For vast majority of photographers who upgrade their cameras every two years, and Lightroom's current price at $80, the max a person would shell out for an annual subscription of CC is $40. For people like me who can only afford to upgrade the camera around 5 years, the CC is only valued at $16/year, not the $99/year Adobe is charging.
Lee Jay: "The large apparent size of a moon low on the horizon is partially an optical illusion."
"The longer lens you can get, the better. "
Filling the frame with the moon will require about 2500mm equivalent.
"With a big lens and a subject at such a distance even a small amount of motion results in an out of focus photo. "
Not "out of focus", motion blurred. They are different.
"The moon is very bright, even during an eclipse."
At totality, it will be very dark.
"...the moon is bright white"
The moon is a dark charcoal gray.
"Even a little bit of ground light can ruin a shot of the moon."
That's just total baloney. The moon (except during totality) is far, far brighter than the worst light pollution.
"Bring a flashlight with a red bulb or gel."
You don't need good dark-adaptation for the moon.
"Shoot with manual focus. The moon is tricky to focus on and it’s best to rely on your eyes instead of the camera’s autofocus."
That's almost total baloney too.
While most of your response is spot-on (the article is filled with incorrect information), but some of your info is wrong also. Like another person already pointed out to you, ground light WILL affect resolution of your photo due to stray light (that's why you need to use a lens hood).
And yes, use manual focus. AF will always off by a little bit, especially when the bright subject in a pitch dark environment like the moon will fool the AF very efficiently due to extremely high dynamic range.
General rule of thumb, be very prepared. Test the exposure before the actual event. Every camera will be a little different, so the only way for super accurate exposure is test it out. This is digital age, you can test shoot as many shots as you like without becoming expensive. The most expensive shot is the one that's incorrectly exposed when the time comes. Keep in mind, this is lunar eclipse..., so the final exposure will be different from the test shots, so use your judgement.
Smart social satire. :)
Lots of people missed the point. This isn't just about cloning-in/out issue. This is about "trust" issue. If the photographer had submitted the unaltered photo, and then asked if photoshopping, in this very instance, was appropriate, then proceeded with proper guideline, then he wouldn't be fired. This is all about trust. How can anyone trust the integrity of his photos again?
Quote from the review:
"This means that you can't both get the corners and centre of the frame at the same time, and in turn explains the striking drop-off in sharpness of the test data towards the corners - in effect they're slightly out of focus."
This is a classical design philosophy for "film" camera lenses. Since photographic film is not flat like sensor, so by designing it this way, the corner would be sharp. DPR's test photos also back this assumption up. Corners are soft because they're out of focus. This is why a "brick wall" type of test shots are important (and make sure focal plane is parallel to the subject plane) for testing big aperture lens.
That's why "all digital" design philosophy of Olympus's 4/3 DSLR lenses (not m4/3) uses expensive telecentric design. Alternative strategy is, change the layout of the the sensor, so it's "bend" like a film, which what Fuji uses.
LarryLatchkey: Wow, a lot of luminance noise at higher iso (studio scene)! really grainy… but that way it seems to keep considerably more low contrast details than competitors, even entry-level D-SLRs.
Olympus will be forced to lower the price of its M4/3 cameras soon, because this one comes with a nicer kit lens & (to my taste) better IQ at exactly half the price of an E-M5 or an E-P5! Even the E-PL5 is more expensive.
Plus, I actually find the A1 feels more comfortable in your hand than the Olympuses. (is that the correct plural of Olympus? ^^ )
The correct sentence should be:
Plus I actually find the A1 fells more comfortable in your hand than the Olympus'. (notice the apostrophe at the end)
Because it IS used as a possessive. It's a contraction of "Olympus's cameras" like harrisoncac suggested. You know, the OP could avoid the confusing sentence structure by complete the entire sentence, which should be:
Plus, I actually find the A1 feels more comfortable in your hand than Olympus' cameras (notice "the" is omitted if the entire sentence is spelled out).
What is being compared as more comfortable? (Fuji) A1 vs Olympus's cameras OR A1 (camera model) vs Olympus (the brand). Be careful with subject parallel agreement....