samfan: It would be funny if it wasn't coming from a legendary SLR manufacturer that still offers 4/3 DSLR lenses.
Yes I know Olympus has usually made smaller (D)SLRs than the others but still. First they leave their 4/3 customers hanging, now it looks like they're making fun of them...
OM-2n owner here. We can never praise Maitani-san enough.
Olympus will never learn. Anything about gear needs a tone that's akin to addressing to the UN General Assembly. Or a funeral.There's no room for humour when the topic is photographic equipment.
SFXR: This is useless without a crop factor.
This is useless period.
bigdaddave: Not sure why these are on a photo site, but it's amazing to think these pictures were taken with a useless, banding-ridden DR-limited Canon 5D mark 2.
Yes, bigdaddave, I have 'actually' seen the name of this site and it is DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY REVIEW (sorry for the shouting). I don't know what part of 'photography' you've missed, but the concept of 'photography' is, however hard it might be for you to comprehend it, much broader than gear.
Why bring gear into the discussion? That's way off the mark!This said I too applaud DPR for showing us this. The US have a great tradition of gathering public awareness of social issues through photography. Think Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Lewis Hine et al. It's quite moving to think photography has a role in building a better society.
Not enough. I want it to bring me my breakfast when I'm doing long astrophotography sessions.
BarnET: That 7-14mm looks VERY complicated.
I'm saying there's nothing complicated in using a lens - any lens - on a digital camera.
Gotta love the "equivalence" bunch...
Never mind, the camera will do all the work for you.
SeeRoy: These are daft focal lengths for MFT application since they more or less duplicate existing, reasonably priced equivalents (in many cases faster) from other brands - notably Olympus and Panasonic themselves.Why "deceptively pleasing"? Are they in reality repulsive? Do explain.
Never mind. I only said these lenses didn't correlate to classic focal lengths on m4/3, as they do on APS-C. Then a posse of offended nerds gathered to bash me. Oh well...
Bhima, get help.
Oh, I see now. At 50mm the woman's face is horribly distorted! Oh wait... that's not distortion. Her face is really like that. She's a bit on the ugly side, isn't she?On the other hand, the telephotos do a great job bringing the backstage to the fore. Yeah, I'd say 50mm is terrible for portraits.Next time you feel like commenting, just count to 10 and don't. You brought nothing useful to an useless argument. What was the point?
The second picture you link to can hardly be qualified as a 'portrait', except for the car... and the first one was taken several metres away from the subject. I fail to see what you were trying to prove with these links. You've gone way off the mark. All I said was that the Sigmas didn't correlate to the classic wide, normal and telephoto focal lengths when used on m4/3 cameras. What was so offensive about that? Why did everyone trip over and get defensive? Jeez...
I don't know why portraiture was brought to the argument. It's not the only kind of photography that exists, you know. You can get closer to a car, a lighthouse or whatever you want to photograph.The kind of deformation you mention is more a matter of perspective than of distortion caused by the lens properties. And you'd be unwise if you thought telephoto lenses don't produce distortion: they do. Of the 'pincushion' kind, which can make a face longer and thinner than it actually is. Besides, when you use a normal (or standard) lens in a portrait, you can include background details that help provide some context to the picture. Of course, if you like the Karsh or Jane Bown style of portraiture, you'll want to isolate a face from all its surroundings. In that case you'll be better off using an 85mm lens. (I'd advise against longer lenses for portraits, unless you're going to photograph fat people and want to flatter them...)
No, standard lenses don't have any distortion. You must have some crappy lenses if you get distortion from a 50mm lens. This argument is getting ridiculous. I'm debating with people who know nothing about photography but "dig" gear. Sheesh!
Mr. Anderson, I assume you are disabled and/or have no legs. Want a less 'roomy' view? Get closer to the subject! It's that easy. 'Thinking inside the box' is better than not thinking at all.Marty, no one seems to understand that. It's OK. A bloke who uses zooms has some weird theories about focal lengths... glad this is a broad church.
I agree, but not for the same reasons. The equivalent focal lengths are neither fish nor fowl. 38mm is too wide for standard, too long for wide-angle; 60mm is too long for standard; 120mm is too long for a portrait lens and too short for typical long telephoto applications. It's clear these lenses were designed for APS-C, where they replicate the classic wide, standard and telephoto focal lengths.
Altruisto: Technically ok but no "vision" , no "personal touch". Though everything has been already photographed , there's "uniqueness" in the true artistic photos that convey the photograph universe. I'm sorry to say that there's no such a thing in these photos. They look like technical photos in "gear review websites". Oh, Goodness!With all the good amateur photographers revolving around Dpreview, why choosing this one, and why no series of photos instead of this constellation of different takes?
Prixnobeldefoot, that's true but if you only get praise for your pictures, it will become difficult for you to find out where your weaknesses are. You'll incur the same mistakes over and over again because you'll think that's fine. Criticism should thus be welcome. I understand Steve Badger is quite new to photography, and we know how easy it is to get carried away by technique when we're beginners. He will understand the pictures showcased are all about forn and lack emotional content (save for #7); he will work to get that area covered. If so he could become a very fine photographer. There's nothing inherently wrong about using technique: Ernst Haas was technically minded and that didn't stop him from achieving greatness.
I agree with Altruisto. Marvellous landscapes almost reaching technical perfection... what's new about it? There are zillions of pictures like these ones out there! Where's the will to convey something new, or to express a personal viewpoint? It's fair to except picture #7, though: that picture says something about life and stimulates imagination (to a certain degree at least).Oh, by the way - horizon in #4 is unlevelled.
Digitall: Something that torments me and wonder why that NASA does not keep these objects to the museum itself, or has more units?Or is in need of money to fund projects?:)
Neither. They just wanted to have fun reading our comments.