buongustaio: any news about the sooo much craved body that would better handle top-pro 4/3 lenses?17mm aside, this is all i'm asking from this stand :)
Yes. And will there be a new 4/3 DSLR for that matter? (an E-5 or an E-620 successor?)
InTheMist: That's an impressive lens on the XZ-2. I just wish it had a viewfinder.
And no, I don't mean a 'stacker' viewfinder.
Well, most lenses on DSLRs are nothing new. Some are decades old designs. Doesn't change the fact whether they're good or not.
Pentax K-30 looks very nice, and very compact for a camera with full features. No new Ricoh GXR cameras (or modules)?
It's interesting the E-PL5 does not auto rotate its screen in self-portrait mode. Don't know if that's an early firmware bug or whatever. The sushi conveyor is fun.
XZ-2 is nicer than expected. Almost bought an XZ-1 just because I expected XZ-2 would be an evolutionary update rather than something new. The new type of hybrid lens dial is the killer feature here, something that matters more to a pro who wants a travel camera or simply an everywhere camera. It's interesting this more pro-oriented feature is on a camera with a smaller sensor than Sony RX-100 or even the FF RX-1.
Anybody else noticed lower end E-PM1's silver matches kit lenses's silver (and 45mm's silver) and higher end E-PL5's silver matches premium lenses's (12mm and 17mm's) silver? I expect 17mm's price to be US$100-200 less than 12mm because of an easier to design focal length, but the build quality, more often used focal length, and clutch MF look promising so that might command a premium.
Yes on the comment on M with viewfinder, but I bet some people who buys rangefinder style cameras don't get the idea of a rangefinder anyways, and that's actually a big share of the market.
Anyways, too many judgmental comments on the report. Not sure that's what a news report like this should be. I personally expect more from Paul Smith, but I wouldn't say that if I were just doing my job as a journalist, whose job is about integrity and objectivity.
They managed to put Andreas Gursky's work on display.... Wonder what type of photography they're promoting. Yes, conspicuous absence of S, which is a medium format camera, but Gursky might find that format too small.
narddogg81: olympus should just become a third party lens manufacturer. i would buy their lenses, dont want to buy their cameras.
I also wish they would make lenses for third party. For example, I would love to use Zuiko lenses on Penta K-30.
However see how many contribution Olympus has made for modern DSLR concept.
LiveView for DSLR (comprehensive and sensible implementation, not just "we also have it". There are things like magnified MF check, WB preview, aspect ratio shooting, real time histogram, spirit level indicator, multiple exposure overlay, etc., some are implemented long before competitors caught up)First effective sensor dust reduction technologyIn-body image stabilizationMiniaturization (especially with current OM-D)Weather proof as a "system" (entire list of 4/3 HG and SHG lenses are weather proof, to accompany E-x flagship line of camera body. Underwater housing for even the entry level E-620). When they released OM-D, they also released weather proof flash, lens adapter and grip, so the entire "system" is WR.
3a: i may sound naive, why does Olympus lenses (say 300 F2.8), which just have to cover half the image circle of a Full frame counterpart be this heavy (i guess 400gm more than nikon) and this costly (almost 1000+$ more) ?i guess if Olympus had invested in making smaller and lower cost lenses (with similar quality), once they stopped making Film cameras, they would have been a more popular brand now.i guess i made the right choice of moving from E-30 to D300s, even-though i was not dissatisfied with E-30.
Yes, 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS-C sensor. In fact, its squarer format means the image circle requirement is even less. However, with Super High Grade lenses (like 300mm f/2.8 you mentioned), Olympus takes the go-for-the-broke approach and delivers some of the near perfect lenses without considering much on the design constraints (e.g., size, cost to produce, material choices). They have the largest lens to sensor size ratio of any format for the sake of achieving absolutely best performance. For those who want something that competes well with other brands' offerings, HG is very good already. But SHG lenses are some of the near perfect lenses in every regard. SHG zoom lenses can beat most prime lenses easily.
If you just want some "smaller and lower cost lenses" as you said, you can just buy the standard grade lenses from Olympus, or m4/3 lenses. They're very similar in grade with competitors. HG lenses will exceed your expectation already.
citizenlouie: I don't know, the second tip was shoot color for visual accuracy and realism.... None of the photos shown are visually accurate and real by my definition.... Of course these 70's photos were shot on film so it cannot be as accurate as digital on this respect, but now we have digital, which we've spent hours on tuning color profile and monitor (and if you print your own photos, tune your printer), we can (try) to get to as close to 100% accurate color and tonality as possible. The result can be very /underwhelming/ for modern viewers, who are used to super saturated color and high contrast that totally devoid of any sense of realism. I've been doing things in vein of "what my eyes see is what my photos look like" and most people just find them boring, often remarks like "underexposed" or "doesn't pop" or even "no apparent subject." Well, it's nice to do photo realism (I deeply believe in it), but realism doesn't sell.
That's my philosophy also. I think that's Ansel Adams's philosophy, too.
amicus70: Art lays in the eye of the viewer.
I think it's out of discussion, that some of the pictures are a good handwork: right exposure etc (like the one shown here on dpr).
But I miss something special about the photography, too. Especially the pictures of streets - if they where mine I would have deleted them, because I couldn't find a trigger in them. They are just pics from the street, to much things in them to look at. You don't know where the core of the picture is, what he want to tell us with it. A picture of a half eaten burger with fries? The pics look like snapshots, just taken without thinking.
I don't like them, but if you... why not?
Yeah, there are many styles, and we should not too focused on styles alone.
I have seen some other photos I like more than others, but if everyone agrees on one style, then why so many artists with different schools of thought?
To JackM. I know what you're saying. Though to me real is beautiful. It's a document of a point in time. If it's a gloomy day, the photo should reflect it. If it's a colorful day, then so should the photo. If the scene doesn't worth a photo, then don't take it. Beauty can come from something humble or something romantic. The key is to document the subject with proper technique, rather than to romanticize it. Any subject has a quality one can bring out. Whether that's a quality most people like is another issue.
Though I gave in a little bit, and now started to PP my work toward popular trend, but I do still mix a few real photos with "look at me" ones. The result so far has been pretty predictable. I do hope to send the message across that realism would be the time-tested beauty and won't go out of style as people's taste changes. Time stamp on the photo should be the scene itself, rather than the date you finished your PP.
I don't know, the second tip was shoot color for visual accuracy and realism.... None of the photos shown are visually accurate and real by my definition.... Of course these 70's photos were shot on film so it cannot be as accurate as digital on this respect, but now we have digital, which we've spent hours on tuning color profile and monitor (and if you print your own photos, tune your printer), we can (try) to get to as close to 100% accurate color and tonality as possible. The result can be very /underwhelming/ for modern viewers, who are used to super saturated color and high contrast that totally devoid of any sense of realism. I've been doing things in vein of "what my eyes see is what my photos look like" and most people just find them boring, often remarks like "underexposed" or "doesn't pop" or even "no apparent subject." Well, it's nice to do photo realism (I deeply believe in it), but realism doesn't sell.
Oh, to those of you who think you need better time management. You can do the "Day 1" scout work while you're waiting for the right time for your reshoot work. If you don't have time this year, do it in another year. Things like Yosemite's firefall only happens when the condition is right at the end of February, so lots of photographers gathered at the foot of the fall could be in for a major disappoint if nothing happens that year. A pro doesn't nag and get defeated. Just come back another year, what's the big deal? If you can't deal with disappointment and has no patience, it's hard to be a landscape photographer for long (and that's only the beginning. Nobody always applaud at your years of effort at the end also, so yeah, learn to deal with it).
vin 13: The most important factor about photographing landscapes in the West of Ireland is luck with the weather. Assuming you know what you're doing of course.
I'm all for planning ahead, though I think this guy is thinking too much! From experience, I believe that you need to be prepared to get the shot at any time (at your chosen time of day), going back and getting ideal conditions is a luxury that usually can't be afforded.
Everyone meets this kind of disappointment. That only makes the job more admirable, don't you think?
Yesterday I went to Point Reyes National Seashore with the intent to shoot just ONE scene (reshot something I had done a year or two ago). It's two-hour drive from where I live, so I had to do weather research before I waste money and contribute to global warming. Weather Channel said it's sunny, but it's not. Dense fog, no visibility whatsoever. And it's not 8 miles/hour wind, but more like hurricane like gutsy wind (I was about to be blown off air). Impossible shooting condition. I shot some random stuff so I wouldn't waste my trip for nothing before I left. After I drove off liker some miles away, sun came out. Did a U-turn and reshot the whole thing (several dozen bracket shots of different settings just to be safe). If nothing came out right, do it again. That's typical, and that's how you learn.... No pain, no gain.
aardvark7: With regard to aesthetic merits, each to his own and one can't argue.As to success, that goes hand in hand with individual taste too.
However, the essence of this article seems to have been missed by all but one who commented.
The author talks of perserverance and illustrates that by mentioning the number of visits to a site. To me, this is not perserverance, but rather making use of the opportunity.
99.9% of all photographers will not have the luxury to make such trips, even if they had the desire. It may be too expensive or they have other calls on their time. It is simply not an option and the only way they get 'the shot' is by lucky chance of being there at the appropriate time in the first place.
Any time the subject comes up as to the most important thing in photography, I always say 'Opportunity' and this article demonstrates exactly that.
Give most the opportunity and even a basic camera and there would be bucketloads of quality shots. Most simply don't get the chance.
Nobody forces you to be a pro landscape photographer. If you don't have time, then don't do it. Serious amateurs and pros will do this. You don't have time, then do a P&S landscape for fun instead. Are people going to laugh at you for doing that? But if you want to sell your art work, like all art form, you will spend years if not decades to first, learn your tools, then know your medium, and then shoots repeatedly, experiment and refine your skill until you're okay with the result. You may spend your lifetime perfecting your art. If you can't or don't have such dedication, don't be an artist. Nobody asks you to be one. Nobody can tell you what to prioritize.
I hear a lot people talking about which photo is better, but totally missed the purpose of this blog: landscape is not depend on luck, but careful composition and some perseverance to re-shoot until it's perfect. Many shots we see are not done in one day, but several days of work and sometimes several years of continuous reshoots until the final output is perfect.
I personally think the final result is better, because the background and foreground are not clustered. Each artist has the freedom to their own interpretation of the scene, but technique wise (the objective portion of the photography), what the author did was correct. Personally I would make the composition tighter (subjective part).
Looks good to me!
Joe Cool: He should've just shot headshots as planned instead of instead of trying to force shots that he didn't have the equipment for.
I believe that's what he was doing.... The name is just for the work flow (so it's easier to identify the person).
Lots of "pros" are very unprepared for their jobs, so it's nothing new....
He was being honest, that's a positive.
I believe he messed up (just an opinion), but for an interesting effect. It is a great challenge to the conventional portrait photography and it's a very creative thing to do, just not for the right circumstance. I've seen worse mug shots taken for the Olympic team, btw, and those shots follow conventional portrait style. They're just UGLY. Worse, I wouldn't able to recognize the athlete based on his/her portrait (isn't that what those photos are suppose to do?). This shot on the other hand is very funny and shows exactly what Klamer's goal was: interesting and shows individuality. Verdict. portfolio-worthy photo, but unsuitable for the purpose.
MattBrisVegas: One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive? I can't help but compare this 75mm f/1.8 for $900 to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $430 (both today's prices at B&H). The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?
Several reasons. One is what Marvin Clapp said, telecentric design. Second is low volume, like T3 said. I'll add more.
Size: It's not easy to create smaller lenses with the same amount of performance.
Aperture: 7-blade circular aperture design is common in m4/3 lenses. That design is usually found only in high-end Canon and Nikon. 9-blade circular is standard on all 4/3 high grade and up lenses (there are exceptions). That's why Olympus lenses have far superior bokeh.
Design: 4/3 and m4/3 lenses are created ground up for the sensor size they're for. R&D cost is higher. Most cheap Nikon and Canon lenses are designed for 35mm FF format, so their R&D cost is already amortized.
Resolution: Don't know about m4/3, but 4/3 lenses have almost the twice the resolution of FF lenses, because it has smaller sensor, so it needs that much resolution to compensate for sharpness. That means the glass have to be higher quality. Lots of ED glasses are used.
Nice, a photo shows how it performs with a Panasonic camera. :-) WB is incorrect. Nose is out of focus.