taking better pics
KariIceland: My opinion on the last years "winner of the year" the OM-D as an OM-D owner myself and having purchased it AFTER seeing that article:I have owned this camera for almost a year now and in NO way did it deserve camera of the YEAR, neither does this camera, the X100s or X-pro 1Deserved last years win in my opinion & this year?Who knows who deserves the win but NOT this that is for certain.
Hi KariIceland, do you happen to have some facts to add to your unsubstantiated gut reaction?
showmeyourpics: I have been around advanced technology and been a part-time pro photographer for a bunch of years shooting nature, travel, events and basic product. In addition to my pro-level gear, I have been carrying a compact camera almost everywhere I go. I recently replaced my Canon G12 with a Nikon P7800. With a UHS-1 card, I have been shooting landscapes, people and simple studio photography with these conclusions. Composing with an LCD is not OK to me. You cannot see any meaningful details, are distracted by the surroundings, and the shooting stance is very unstable. The EVF of the P7800 is not perfect but is still a great improvement over no viewfinder or the optical versions of the Canon G's. The range of the zoom is unique in this category and the lens is quite bright. Raw + jpeg write speed is about 1.5sec/frame, 0.5 sec/frame slower that dpreview’s favorite camera and not an issue for me. Operations are quick once you learnt them. I truly believe that this camera is getting a bad rap.
No it is not. I am all for letting people choose what they like and if at least sometime you prefer composing with the LCD, you are not going to get an argument from me. I do it too in some situations, specifically when I cannot put my eye to the viewfinder (i.e. ground-level closeups, overhead shooting, etc.) Two issues are irrefutable though. Firstly, the view offered by a pentaprim, pentamirror or EV finder is more detailed and, consequently, superior for precise composition than the one offered by a typical 3" LCD (my 7" studio monitor is a whole different bowl of wax, also because subjects stay still). Secondly, shooting with a weight at the end of your extended arms is mush more unstable than pressing the camera to your face. These are scientific facts, not personal preferences.
Too bad, the more I use mine the more I like it. It really pays to go through the manual and learn settings and operations because once you have done it it's a lot of fun to make the camera jump through hoops. I am getting some remarkable pics in tough light conditions. With the camera's IQ and resolution, I have no trouble making truly good 16x24" pics (on art paper with the Epson 3800). I am not trying to put down the other camera models which are all great (and everyone has the right to decide which one is best for them), just giving Caesar (the P7800) what belongs to him.
I have been around advanced technology and been a part-time pro photographer for a bunch of years shooting nature, travel, events and basic product. In addition to my pro-level gear, I have been carrying a compact camera almost everywhere I go. I recently replaced my Canon G12 with a Nikon P7800. With a UHS-1 card, I have been shooting landscapes, people and simple studio photography with these conclusions. Composing with an LCD is not OK to me. You cannot see any meaningful details, are distracted by the surroundings, and the shooting stance is very unstable. The EVF of the P7800 is not perfect but is still a great improvement over no viewfinder or the optical versions of the Canon G's. The range of the zoom is unique in this category and the lens is quite bright. Raw + jpeg write speed is about 1.5sec/frame, 0.5 sec/frame slower that dpreview’s favorite camera and not an issue for me. Operations are quick once you learnt them. I truly believe that this camera is getting a bad rap.
I did try it, loved it, bought it and am having a jolly good time using it. The EVF could be better but is a huge improvement over the typical optical viewfinders (I had the G12 for 2 years). With a $24 8MP UHS-1 card, write time for 12MP Raw + jpeg is about 1.5sec/frame or 9sec for a 6 frame sequence. I don't understand the issue of interface sluggishness. Yesterday, I photographed the sunset jumping from 5 frame exposure bracketing for HDR rendering to manual series of 5 shots for panorama stitching, everything without taking my eye off the EVF and/or appreciable complications. The articulated LCD with Manual Frame Area is great for basic product photography. The lens range up to 200mm is definitely a unique plus for me.
BTW, I am a part-time pro with over 40 years of experience with all kind of film and digital gear shooting many different subjects. I normally work with pro-level equipment but carry the P7800 with me everywhere to be ready for any unexpected photo opportunity
maxola67: So is there anybody to explain to me why this camera considered as pro?Two moments why it couldn't be pro:- too small shots-per-a-charged battery value(aka CIPA measuremens)- articulating screen - how can you provide REALl water/dust resistance with such screen?
Hi, no such thing as a clear answer here. I've been a part-time pro for a bunch of years, often photographing in challenging environmental conditions such as very low and high temperatures, very wet, dry and windy, very bright and dark, while exploring, rock climbing, caving, and winter mountaineering from sea level deserts to 16,000' mountains. I make and sell fine art prints up to 24x36". I never had weatherized gear before my Pentax K5 (which IMO is another pro level camera) but I took care of it and it NEVER failed me. The E-M1 is solidly built, weatherized, with a great EVF and IQ and such a vast feature set to rival cameras that are commonly accepted as pro models. If portability is paramount, then the E-M1 outperforms them all. Less powerful batteries are the inevitable price to pay for reduced size. Unless Olympus is outright lying to us, the screen is not a weather-resistance issue.
More than in camera bodies, I have a serious investment in DA and DA* lenses and is encouraging to see that, no matter who's behind Pentax, they keep developing their APS-C system. We'll have to wait for the in-depth reviews but on paper the K3 is another winner for Pentax. I mostly work outdoors in often challenging conditions, my budget has very well defined boundaries, I don't need super telephoto lenses and print up to 24x36". Under these premises, Pentax offers me top quality sensors, all metal weatherized bodies, beautiful viewfinders, full sets of features, great ergonomics and a good choice of excellent lenses for unbeatable prices. For a long time in digital photography terms, my K5 had a record-setting sensor whose quality was in full frame territory. The K3 seems to continue this tradition.
thx1138: Camera specs look good, camera itself looks good. How about dpreview rather than just do studio tests put the AF of cameras to the test against each other for action work. Specs are one thing, results are all that matter. How does it compare against D7100, 70D, 7D, A58 etc shooting birds in flight, sports etc.
The only way I'm going to even begin to consider a Pentax is for there to be demonstrable proof it's clearly superior to the Canon and Nikon offerings and even then it needs to have the glass to back it up. Only appealing glass I see for wildlife say, from Pentax is a very expensive 560 f/5.6 with no IS.
We do understand
Love the pics, all of them, and don't care what you wanna call them. I am looking at the vision of four artists who have the right to interpret their images as their creativity sees fit. The only thing I am expecting from them is to be honest about the nature of their pictures. Let's keep in mind that fine arts' reason to be, photography included, is beauty and enjoyment. Digital photography can provide a tremendous amount of sharpness and detail. With some subjects this is a plus, with many others it is quite tiresome to the human eye. Landscapes and portraits fall into the latter category.A "simplification" of a Raw file tends to make a photo look somewhat like a painting. Lastly, processing and filtering can salvage a lousy photo but not turn it into a beautiful one. These pictures were great right off the camera.
Stitzer23: As long as they actually do look like that when I come visit, I'm ok with them.
Very probably they will not, light is ephemeral.I am a part-time pro and photograph the leaves in New England. There are places that I photographed one year and have not been able to recognize ever since.
I don't see how Olympus could catch up to Nikon and Canon in the larger sensors sector, but they keep doing a heck of a good job creating market differentiation with very portable and feature-rich, reasonably priced cameras supported by a strong array of good lenses. Like the FIAT 500, these cameras also look very cute. I come from military electronic engineering and quality management, and can split a technical hair in 16. I am also up to my neck in fine art photography to satisfy the right side of my brain. When I pick up a camera like this, I can't help being in awe of what they are able to pack into such a small body. I surely can mention some stuff that I would like and is not there, but the thought of the photographic possibilities that they offer is overwhelming. It makes me feel like dropping everything and run out to take the best pictures I can.
GrahamJohn: Can't wait for you folks to start offloading your E-M5's so I can pick up a second body cheap.
Words of truth. I got my Pentax K5 for $830 as soon as the K30 showed up. Also, I buy grade A refurbished without a problem. Feature per feature, the E-M5 is still a masterpiece of portability.
mr_landscape: Absolutely useless camera. Who needs all these millions of options on a camera with such tiny sensor. Nikon lives in a stone age. This model line is a 100% dead end.
I use a number of different cameras including an absolutely useless Canon G12. I participate in fine art and gallery shows and regularly sell G12 open edition12x16" prints mounted and matted in 16x20" for $75.00 a piece. I guess you are going to tell me that this only happens because my clients are a bunch of idiots and don't understand what a caveman of a photographer I am.
Waiting for a full review, here are some thoughts about this camera. I often use pro-level APS-C and M4/3 camera systems but carry my Canon G12 with me almost everywhere I go and manage to regularly take some good pics often in tough conditions. As found by imaging resource, shooting Raw up to ISO400 I get top quality 16x20" prints (which I sell on a regular base). Quality for web publication and PowerPoint presentations (I teach) is great. IQ-wise, the P7800 should be similar. Do you need to take action and high ISO pictures? Do you need to print at fine-art quality larger than 16x20"? If yes, this camera is not for you. For general travel, landscape, nature, moderate macro and family photography, these cameras are a marvel of technology with very convenient size, weight and price. Many pros use them and I cannot explain why more amateurs don't. By maintaining the articulated LCD, sporting a longer, brighter lens and adding a decent EVF, the P7800 could be a truly worthy upgrade.
MrScorpio: Stupid article since it do not say what the displayed articles were for. More frustrating than informative IMO.
Venomous dear Mr. Scorpio. BTW, it's "does", not "do", and you should never finish a sentence with a preposition.
I've been photographing for 50 years now (what?! I started when I was VERY young!). I recognize all these items and still own most of them. I remember with great fondness the nights in the darkroom developing/printing b&w and then Cibachrome. I also used to produce double-projector, fade in/out slide presentations with synchronized music and voice. I began playing with digital cameras in 2000 and converted completely in 2004. All the good memories and love for film are still there. I gave it up because, as a fine art photographer, the quality of my prints is my main priority. I have seen Canon comparison color prints of the same subject done state-of-the-art on film and in digital and the difference is significant in favor of digital (processing power and personal interpretation freedom are awesome). I also love the choice of lovely inkjet substrates including canvas which I can frame without glass (I still do all by myself from shooting to processing, printing and framing). Just me.
Once again, the best camera is always the one you have with you. It often ends up being something that is easy to schlep around and fun to use. There is a never-ending supply of photographic subjects in the world for any camera system, smart phones included. i. e., try working in manual with an advanced compact for a while. Complex, expensive systems are very powerful but it's easy to trick yourself into thinking that that's all that it takes. A $10,000 Dx body and humongous tele will not get you amazing bird pics unless you firstly learn animal behavior and know exactly where and when to be (Frans Lanting shoots wild birds portraits with a wide angle lens). My part-time pro humble suggestion is: work with a compact system, participate in good workshops, be active in your photo club, learn how to properly process your pics in a decent piece of software (i.e. PS Elements), and print your very best pics with a good tabletop printer.
While I believe that we are entitled to spend our own time and money as we see fit, it is a pity if our choices give us grief instead of happiness. As a photographer, I subscribe to Duong's recommendation to create some specific projects that produce concrete deliverables - prints, presentations, web publications etc. -. While to me it's perfectly OK to be a photo gear collector, if you are a practitioner these projects help you keep some perspective. Mainly an outdoor photographer, I began with modest gear, spending uncountable nights developing my film and printing b&w's and then Cibachromes. Today, I use 3 different digi camera systems (light, lighter and lightest), Photoshop and a 24" printer to make fine art prints. I do spend significant fun time drooling on pics and articles of new equipment but love my cameras dearly and am always in awe of what they can do for me. Thanks DPR for these articles, they are food for thought (and some healthy debates).
Hi, a few more words about this. Technology-wise, all current brand name cameras are good for most photography. The true difference is in the lenses. Photography-wise, and no-one is talking about it, do yourself a big favor and invest your money in some reputable workshops. You go to great places, get to meet some truly cool people (with whom you can stay in contact and share your passion), and can count on some real breakthrough improvements in your photography.
I am a seasoned part-time pro and do some teaching, and these are some of my views about this subject. If you are a pro, your gear selection should be driven by your market and your budget. If you are an amateur purchasing gear with your honestly earned money, you have to answer to no-one about your choices. If you own lots of equipment but do little with it, you are a collector, not a photographer. If you do take pictures but you love the technology more than the output, you are a technician, not an artist (John Paul Caponigro). If you state that you are a photographer, I firstly want to see your pics. If they are lousy, I can't care less about your gear. My main career is in electronic engineering and I do love cool technology but my photography begins with a vision. My gear is there to help me translate it into a compelling print. After 40 successful years in the trade, I find my Pentak K5 system + Photoshop + Epson Pro printers to be way more powerful than my own creativity.