SalmanH: Reading all the full frame fan boy comments here it would appear that there is little more to good photography than shallow depth of field. In reality a lot of the time shallow depth of field merely hides bad or lazy composition, making a poor photo look a little better.
And I believe nothing in that article contradicts what we are talking about. In a given situation, with same framing, focal length, distance, etc., the depth of field is smaller the larger the sensor/film.
The sensor size does influence the lens choices you make regarding the field of view. Thus the changes in lenses to compensate for FoV reasons change the focal length variable in the DoF equation.
AlexRuiz: Here is my own experience for what it’s worth, as the EM-5 and EM-1 are fairly similar.
In early 2013 I purchased 2 cameras, a D600 and an EM-5. The D600 I bought with my fingers crossed based on all the baggage and negative reviews about oil spots and stuff. The EM-5 I excitingly purchased based on the extremely positive reviews.
Almost a year later, the D600 never had any oil spot issues (or whatever) and it has surpassed my expectations. The image quality is just superb. Regarding the EM-5, I found all those overwhelmingly positive reviews to contain a fair amount of exaggeration. While being a good camera, the EM-5 image quality is not as great as many would want you to believe; definitely not on par with the D600.
Verdict: I take the D600 any day of the week and will be keeping it indefinitely. The EM-5 will be sold (as will be the pana 14mm f2.5 and pana 20mm f1.7). Anyone interested let me know.
I use Canon DSLRs (as well as m43) but I share your view. It is a nice camera for a smaller camera, but the size is it's only real advantage, and anyone who says they would not LIKE DSLR benefits in that same size body - if physically possible - is kidding themselves.
I can just see all the EOS-M system bashers grinding their teeth in fury now. "But I said the M system was no good. Why didn't Canon listen to me?"
(The M system is not for me, but that's another issue.)
SalmanH, the ABILITY to have shallow depth of field is not the same as making it compulsory. I believe most cameras that allow it still stop down to f22. This appears to be something the m43 devotees have a problem understanding. Street photography is rarely my cup of tea either, but you can substitute sports photography or much other action photography.
I use both formats, as well as even smaller sensors. But if you do not see how shallow focus can be used to isolate subjects in often cluttered situations, particularly in street photography, it is not the "fanboys" of whom you speak who have the lack of photographic knowledge. I have spent a lot of money on my m43 system, including the EM-1, and bought the 75 mm f1.8 just yesterday but I still find it funny how the true zealots have to trash every camera and sensor that is (a) bigger and (b) smaller. Lucky all m43 cameras are not blue, or blue would be a vital prerequisite to photography. Still, I guess as long as "good enough is good enough" many will be fine. I really do wonder about this "short man in a bar" syndrome I see exhibited far too much here. Just accept that it is what it is, without the silly "death of DSLR" nonsense.
GaryJP: I have spent the last couple of days shooting an open air rock music festival. The first day, and night, I took out the Olympus. It is without a doubt my favourite M4/3 camera. But let's not keep pretending it does the job as well as a DSLR. It does not. I had far too many missed-focus shots, and the focus was slow, particularly in low light. I have used my 5D Mark III after that first session and the difference is night and day. There are situations where it is okay, but even an entry level APS-C DSLR would have outperformed it in these specific circumstances.
"I had a Canon 5D Mark III and sold it after shooting this camera." More fool you. But you seem to have decided to "show off" your Olympus instead. When I consider my EM 1 outperforms the 5D for MY uses I will use it more. Until then, not.
DogsareGodsgifttous: Let's step back a moment. The majority of cameras out there today are capable of taking amazing photographs- especially those above the "point and shoot" category but even those can be superb-just look at the Canon G series cameras. It's not so much the equipment, it's the photographer and the LIGHTING, VIEWPOINT, FOCAL POINT, and INTERESTING SUBJECT that makes the photo. The fundamental elements of photography make the photo-not the equipment. That being said- this Olympus OM-D E-M1 camera is a superbly designed and highly professional camera - easily as good as other high end cameras for taking outstanding shots-Canon, Nikon, Fuji, etc. Given any high quality camera- a good photographer will use their photography skills and patience to take great photos- regardless of whether or not they have the "big shot" camera to show off to everyone.....
And you were doing so well until the last sentence.
Sorry John, got my cameras mixed up. Using the 12-40 mm PRO on the EM-1. Interested in your use of the 75 1.8. Have you tried the Panasonic Lumix G X VARIO 35-100mm f/2.8? Just wondering if that's a good alternative to the 75 at around the same price.
@John, I am using the new 24-70 Pro. And the 45 - 200 Lumix. I will probably get the f2.8 telephoto when it comes out, and hope that makes the difference
@Stu, there are people who say everything, but overhyping the EM-1 is buillshit in my opinion and helps no one, least of all people who actually need the shot.
I have spent the last couple of days shooting an open air rock music festival. The first day, and night, I took out the Olympus. It is without a doubt my favourite M4/3 camera. But let's not keep pretending it does the job as well as a DSLR. It does not. I had far too many missed-focus shots, and the focus was slow, particularly in low light. I have used my 5D Mark III after that first session and the difference is night and day. There are situations where it is okay, but even an entry level APS-C DSLR would have outperformed it in these specific circumstances.
Bob Meyer: I have to laugh at all the criticism of Adobe. If you don't like it, don't sign up. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
I have to laugh at those people who say it's "wrong," especially those who tell me what is good for me. It's neither right nor wrong. It's a business decision. If it generates more income for Adobe it's "right" for the company and it's shareholders. Adobe isn't in business to make you happy; it's in business to make money. And what's "right or wrong" for you doesn't matter to me; I'll make up my own mind, thank you.
The only real problem I have with this deal is that it's bait and switch. After 1 year Adobe jacks the price back up to their normal rate, anf you're screwed.
" Adobe isn't in business to make you happy;" I am sorry, but that is a losing attitude for any company to have to its customers.
I have to laugh at people who criticise other people for criticising.
Meanwhile, these special offers do not suggest the Borg is working as well as Adobe had hoped.
David Rossberg: This is a great deal, Adobe finally did something reasonable and ppl are still complaining.
Then you should have no reason to be angry if Adobe offered a CHOICE. In your answers to pumeco, you duck this. The reason to suck people into subscription models is that the software is mature and no new breakthroughs, likely to pull people into upgrading, are likely. And that is no bargain.
JohnyP: Of course they are doing this because they care about the photographers... and not because no one needs their overpriced, cloud locked software.
It was a bad deal then and it is till a bad deal.
This rather does suggest that early adopters got screwed. Adobe does not care.
Richard Townsend: Never trust Adobe again.
It's not just that once you stop paying you can't use the software.
From Adobe's Terms and Conditions:
6.4 Adobe may modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Services or Materials, or any portion thereof, with or without notice. You agree that Adobe shall not be liable to you or anyone else if we do so.
So they can permanently discontinue the service at any time and there's nothing you can do about it!
CS6 can handle my current cameras fine and I've now purchased Capture One Pro 7, so no new Adobe products for me.
You don't need "lawyer speak" crap for something that is guaranteed to never happen.
GaryJP: They are not reducing their prices or expanding this offer out of kindness. Think, people.
I am not renting my software.
And there is where their supporters' argument fails. There is no reason not to allow the option if you really think the renting is an automatic better alternative for the customer.
Meanwhile, maybe you could consider THIS car ...
A brickable vehicle . Adobe may cross market
They are not reducing their prices or expanding this offer out of kindness. Think, people.
Seems the Adobe shills are getting aggressive. They reduce this price because they have to. Not because they are kind.
grock: I was kind of curious to see this pictures, but I mostly clicked on this article to see all the complaints about this post. And you guys did not disappoint. I never understand who bothers to take the time to write a comment just to say "who cares?" or "this is old news." I know there's no talk of megapixels and dials in these photos, and they're only interesting if you like photography and pop culture history, but if you don't want to look at them, why do you want to comment about how much you don't want to look at them?
Yeah. The disgruntled go to an awful lot of effort just to write "Meh".
slante999: Spanish newspapers, including the Barcelona newspaper El Periódico de Catalunya sent reporters to Espejo who returned with photographs showing an almost perfect match between the present day skyline and the background of Capa's photographs.
The question is whether there is any such "almost perfect match" near Cerro Muriano. The location of Capa's photographs of Cerro Muriano refugees on the same roll/batch of film has been identified and suggests he was in that area.