I've tried the E-P5 and VF-4 - Just a couple impressions.

So I suppose every picture taken by a camera that's current generation -1 is now obsolete and crappy. I guess we'll have to go back and re-shoot WWI and WWII in order to get better results.

On the other hand, I suppose I can just take the high road here and wish you a good day with all your new fancy gear and small if not non-existent client list.

Have a good one!

MrPhotoBob said:

MrPhotoBob wrote:

MrPhotoBob said:

deckfrost wrote:

MrPhotoBob said:

photofan1986 wrote:

A professional photographer is someone who shoots for a living. Even if he/she uses an old Canon D30 or Nikon D100. Whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

no it s someone who act like one with proper tools&training for the job (the best tools available usually)

Click to expand...

That is so sad for you to say that you can only produce professional work ii you can only get your hands on a certain camera. I believe that a professional is a person who is well educated in their skills to the point that what ever challenge they are given, they can produce professional work. I have seen professional using all kinds of equipment producing professional work. To me, a professional is someone who has mastered the skills of photography with what ever equipment they are using. If just using a certain camera makes that person a professional, then becoming proficient in the skills of photography would not be needed in your work.

The ideas of "my camera is better than your camera" is the talk of a want-to-be photographer, because a true professional knows that it takes the skill in the use of what ever equipment you are using to produce professional work. I put very little emphasis on what ever camera that is used to produce professional work, and more emphasis on the work that is produced. As far as the best tool, the best tools for the job does not always mean the newest tool out. There are a lot of professionals out there who are still producing great work shooting with older film cameras.

Click to expand...

Spot on. The photog I was shooting alongside in India during holi was shooting with a single camera, a 5dmkI, and a single lens. You know what? He's been published countless number of times. At his home, he showed me the printed magazines that used his work.

BS that you need the latest and greatest, unlike some people here, most people who consume images frankly couldn't care what camera was used to take the picture so long as it's captivating.

deckfrost said:

Better to have a nice feel as it cost more than twice your e-pl5 for the exact same IQ with added size and weight.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the added weight is compensated for by a lighter wallet.

While its true that a good dslr will help you get the job done, I routinely use my omd as a second body at weddings. It performs very well and in some cases it's just plain better.

the only thing holding me back from using it exclusively is a good standard zoom (12-60 type lens). Once that is corrected ill probably use it exclusively.

Yes a good full frame camera will give you better bokeh, and better noise, they are not fool proof either.

In some cases I really feel I get much better pictures with the diminutive omd because people feel more natural in front of it.

just my two cents,

rrr_hhh said:

rrr_hhh wrote:
Why do you assume that he didn't getgroup shots or family shots ? May. Be that he got authorization to use the couple authorization to use these shots to promote his work, but may be not the family shots .. Or may be he felt those family group pictures should rather remain private.

Click to expand...

If the group shots were off a tripod, that the one place where there might possibly have been some advantage to a FF camera. Who knows, maybe he even saved his old Canon for some of those. But I doubt you would get more real world resolution (or any other noticeable IQ advantage, except where very narrow DOF is desired) than the OMD shooting handheld for most of these shots.

Rick_Hunter said:

Rick_Hunter wrote:

I was lucky enough in being allowed to use for a few minutes a silver E-P5 with the VF-4.

My quick impressions:

- The build quality is really superb, feels and looks real good.

- The new viewfinder is only marginally bigger than the VF-2 I'm currently using. It looks much bigger in the pictures because it has a more squared shape, but in reality there's little difference in size. The image you get from the VF-4 is bigger and more detailed, it's definitely an improvement. The eye sensor works quickly too.

- The controls layout beats the older pens, it's quicker and more intuitive, and the lever for changing the functions of the two main control dials really is very, very handy

- The grip is not removable (but the camera sits well in my largish sized hands and the main controls fall under my fingertips)

In general it feels a much more substantial and serious camera than my E-PL5 - I still think the body only price could be a tad lower, though. (I was told by the rep that here in Italy the body will go for 999 euros)

Click to expand...

Thank you very much. From what you said, I think this VF-4 would be even better if integrated into the body.

This camera is more expensive as it is a more niche model, one that is supposed to appeal to those who like a well built solid rangefinder type of cameras like the Leica and Fuji ones. Olympus seems to want to move this E-P? line in that direction. The only problem is this. It does not have the convenience of a built-in viewfinder. IMO it will only be partially successful as a result. It will certainly sell a fair amount due to the high-end specs but only for a short while, before others catch up with the 1/8000s, etc, including Olympus' own OM-6. I think it is still OK as a strategy (to move up market and niche) as this E-P5 for all we know has little purpose since the release of the OM-D line and to distinguish it, Olympus has to do something, but not including an EVF is not helping it to compete with the other expensive rangefinder type of cameras. The next Fuji X-Pro2, Sony NEX-7n or 8, and other models would most likely also have 1/8000s and PDAF, probably a brand new sensor and other refinements in their respective weak areas like AF, viewfinder response, etc to become very competitive. I think Olympus need to do more with the E-P7, but that is likely to be 3 years away.

The OM-D models are Olympus' main stream high-end model (sort of like the the Samsung S3 and S4, while this E-P5 is like a Note 2) and will be better value, more practical for most and will have more support (grips and other accessories), more frequent upgrades, and better prices due to the much higher volume in sales.

deckfrost said:

deckfrost wrote:

deckfrost said:

Rick_Hunter wrote:

Well, E-PL5 body costs about 600 euros here in Italy. So the E-P5 is not more than twice as much.

Click to expand...

it s in Australia.

I would not consider a e-p5 professional.I would have worried if the photograph would have come to my wedding with less than his two 1Dx.

you dont mess with a one time event for the sake of it.m4/3 are not in the race.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes.

It's the equipment, not the user.

Of course.

Ollie 2 said:

Ollie 2 wrote:

Ollie 2 said:

deckfrost wrote:

Ollie 2 said:

Rick_Hunter wrote:

Well, E-PL5 body costs about 600 euros here in Italy. So the E-P5 is not more than twice as much.

Click to expand...

it s in Australia.

I would not consider a e-p5 professional.I would have worried if the photograph would have come to my wedding with less than his two 1Dx.

you dont mess with a one time event for the sake of it.m4/3 are not in the race.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes.

It's the equipment, not the user.

Of course.

Click to expand...

quite often yes,

at with the same skill set ( which is expected from a professional ) a last gen pro SLR with great glasses will produce much nicer pics than an OMD, no question.

my main wedding portraits were done with a medium format.Our very large church/very large restaurant ( 970 guests) was pretty dark, noway we would have gotten the right pics with a OMD ( and I like it very much).We got all pics with very little or no PP, they were just great ( I even got the raw files).

You re free to get cars in the background but for my wedding, not too much, thanks, shallow DOF.There are fewer and fewer professionals and they need to have better cameras than the young nephew of the bride.

from the wedding photographer of the link:

"Don't know how describe it but I more satisfied when use relatively cheap camera and lenses while producing nice (for my taste) images than when use top equipment. All the limitations of m4\3 camera makes you think more than when shoot with FF, for example. Top cameras forgive more photographer mistakes, it relaxed me more than I need when I shoot with Canon 5dmk2.

This wedding was relatively calm, but most of the weddings I shoot are more active where the camera has to be fast enough to catch the moment, will see how it will handle such job"

Quite scary I would say.

deckfrost said:

deckfrost wrote:

deckfrost said:

Ollie 2 wrote:

deckfrost said:

deckfrost wrote:

deckfrost said:

Rick_Hunter wrote:

Well, E-PL5 body costs about 600 euros here in Italy. So the E-P5 is not more than twice as much.

Click to expand...

it s in Australia.

I would not consider a e-p5 professional.I would have worried if the photograph would have come to my wedding with less than his two 1Dx.

you dont mess with a one time event for the sake of it.m4/3 are not in the race.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes.

It's the equipment, not the user.

Of course.

Click to expand...

quite often yes,

Click to expand...

As opposed to it being a rule.

deckfrost said:

at with the same skill set ( which is expected from a professional ) a last gen pro SLR with great glasses will produce much nicer pics than an OMD, no question.

Click to expand...

But we're not talking about the same skill set. We're talking about pros, semi-pros and amateurs with great/average/lousy gear. I've seen images produced on iPhones that are (in my very humble opinion) far more successful than countless images produced on five-figure kits. Go to 500, the joint is full of them.

deckfrost said:

my main wedding portraits were done with a medium format.Our very large church/very large restaurant ( 970 guests) was pretty dark, noway we would have gotten the right pics with a OMD ( and I like it very much).We got all pics with very little or no PP, they were just great ( I even got the raw files).

Click to expand...

Why do you keep referring to your one isolated experience as though it is the measure for all similar events and as though your highly subjective opinion is categorical fact?

deckfrost said:

You re free to get cars in the background but for my wedding, not too much, thanks, shallow DOF.There are fewer and fewer professionals and they need to have better cameras than the young nephew of the bride.

Click to expand...

There it is again...

deckfrost said:

from the wedding photographer of the link:

"Don't know how describe it but I more satisfied when use relatively cheap camera and lenses while producing nice (for my taste) images than when use top equipment. All the limitations of m4\3 camera makes you think more than when shoot with FF, for example. Top cameras forgive more photographer mistakes, it relaxed me more than I need when I shoot with Canon 5dmk2.

Click to expand...

Nobody was suggesting that there is no differences between the formats.

deckfrost said:

This wedding was relatively calm, but most of the weddings I shoot are more active where the camera has to be fast enough to catch the moment, will see how it will handle such job"

Quite scary I would say.

Click to expand...

Or not, depending upon the user.

Obviously.

Ollie 2 said:

But we're not talking about the same skill set. We're talking about pros, semi-pros and amateurs with great/average/lousy gear.

Click to expand...

No we are only talking about people who called themselves professional photographer.

Amateurs can use whatever gear they are willing to spend money on.

deckfrost said:

deckfrost wrote:

deckfrost said:

But we're not talking about the same skill set. We're talking about pros, semi-pros and amateurs with great/average/lousy gear.

Click to expand...

No we are only talking about people who called themselves professional photographer.

Amateurs can use whatever gear they are willing to spend money on.

Click to expand...

So, a photographer who made a living using a non-DSLR camera would be wrong to call themselves a "professional photographer"?

Pardon my pedantry here, I'm just attempting to ascertain some definitions for clarity's sake.

Ollie 2 said:

Ollie 2 wrote:

Ollie 2 said:

deckfrost wrote:

Ollie 2 said:

But we're not talking about the same skill set. We're talking about pros, semi-pros and amateurs with great/average/lousy gear.

Click to expand...

No we are only talking about people who called themselves professional photographer.

Amateurs can use whatever gear they are willing to spend money on.

Click to expand...

So, a photographer who made a living using a non-DSLR camera would be wrong to call themselves a "professional photographer"?

Pardon my pedantry here, I'm just attempting to ascertain some definitions for clarity's sake.

Click to expand...

You can do surgery with a knife, would you expect a professional surgeon to use a knife on you ?

Professionals are expected to have the right tools/ skill set, usually dedicated&expensive which show a commitment to the trade.

But it s your right to lower your expectations.A cheap "professional" can get away with a lot and PP helps too.

Marketing/prices matter more for success than final products nowadays.

I agree: the lack of a built-in viewfinder was a fundamental strategic mistake, in my opinion. At least you can install the external finder, but it is expensive and adds bulk.

deckfrost said:

deckfrost wrote:

deckfrost said:

Ollie 2 wrote:

deckfrost said:

deckfrost wrote:

deckfrost said:

But we're not talking about the same skill set. We're talking about pros, semi-pros and amateurs with great/average/lousy gear.

Click to expand...

No we are only talking about people who called themselves professional photographer.

Amateurs can use whatever gear they are willing to spend money on.

Click to expand...

So, a photographer who made a living using a non-DSLR camera would be wrong to call themselves a "professional photographer"?

Pardon my pedantry here, I'm just attempting to ascertain some definitions for clarity's sake.

Click to expand...

You can do surgery with a knife, would you expect a professional surgeon to use a knife on you ?

Click to expand...

Poor analogy. Try taxi driver mercedes/moke and you'll be closer. Photography generally isn't a matter of life or death.

deckfrost said:

Professionals are expected to have the right tools/ skill set, usually dedicated&expensive which show a commitment to the trade.

Click to expand...

No. Professionals merely have to be capable of performing their task well enough to be paid. See: Guy with uke in restaurant vs Led Zeppelin.

deckfrost said:

But it s your right to lower your expectations.A cheap "professional" can get away with a lot and PP helps too.

Click to expand...

And it's your right to ignore English definitions in favour of maintaining a personal bias.

deckfrost said:

Marketing/prices matter more for success than final products nowadays.

Click to expand...

According to whom?

Then they can write out the invoice for the job with a quill pen.

Do you ask when you come to the restaurant how and on what pan does their cook making a meat for you? Or do you ask what scalpel does surgeon use? Couples choose wedding photographer when they see his photos or when their friends recommend them, I never heard questions on what camera do I shoot @ first talk, usually people ask about that after we sign an agreement and only if they are interested in photography. That was never a criteria.

I tend to think that in wedding photography equipment is secondary thing, the main thing is how you work with people. I switching from FF to m4/3 because it's lighter and because I can produce same or better quality with m4/3. It's just a tool.

Many, many thousands if not millions photographers has D4, 1Dx and other top equipment but theres only one Yervant, one Joe Bussink, one Jerry Ghionis:-D

Just two words for Deckfrost Damian McGillycuddy

Crock said:

Crock wrote:

Just two words for Deckfrost Damian McGillycuddy

Click to expand...

Intensive use of lighting ( with good lighting even an Iphone is great, but we are talking about wedding here = crappy/no light, need very Shallow DOF etc..)

and talent, which is rare and not easy to compare with (here).

With average talent/crappy lighting, a last gen SLR would help a lot compare to a OMD.But you can always ask your young nephew to take the pictures with his Oly.