Reading mode: Light Dark

Daniel J. Dox in Professional Photographer on micro-Four-Thirds

Go to last post
ctlow

ctlow

Leading Member
Messages
651
Reaction score
191
There's a very favourable article on Daniel J. Cox, a professional photographer who has migrated from the usual makes to micro-Four-Thirds. It's in Professional Photographer (ppmag.com), February 2017, titled "Lightening the Load - Adopting Micro Four Thirds", by Karin Leperi.

(I think that you need to be a subscriber to read it, unfortunately.)

He says the usual things, that it's lighter and that matters more with age, and that although there may be technical differences, he can't see them and he makes very big prints. He does agree with the usual opinion that for low-light work, you still can't beat a big sensor.

I can't find where it specified a brand, but on his own web site, it seems to be a Lumix G85, although he also has an Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

Olympus has recently run, in every issue, a prominent full-page ad for the E-M1 in that magazine.

Still: good to see such an article.

Charles
 
ctlow said:
There's a very favourable article on Daniel J. Cox, a professional photographer who has migrated from the usual makes to micro-Four-Thirds. It's in Professional Photographer (ppmag.com), February 2017, titled "Lightening the Load - Adopting Micro Four Thirds", by Karin Leperi.

(I think that you need to be a subscriber to read it, unfortunately.)

He says the usual things, that it's lighter and that matters more with age, and that although there may be technical differences, he can't see them and he makes very big prints. He does agree with the usual opinion that for low-light work, you still can't beat a big sensor.

I can't find where it specified a brand, but on his own web site, it seems to be a Lumix G85, although he also has an Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

Olympus has recently run, in every issue, a prominent full-page ad for the E-M1 in that magazine.

Still: good to see such an article.

Charles

--
ctLow Photog
Click to expand...
He often posts here.
 
Last edited:
M4/3rds like any other camera format can be used professionally. Professionals use which ever camera and format at their disposal to the best of their abilities and to the needs of any paying client. M4/3rds can be used artistically and enthusiastically by pros and amateurs alike. Big prints have not been an issue in digital photography for years.

Big, not so big, small prints, images put out on digital displays any digital camera made in the last 10-15 years can fulfill. Obviously more modern cameras including m4/3rds will excel in these areas. Larger MP will give slightly more print integrity as one moves to massive sizes say 20"x30 " and up. But 99/100 persons will not see such, most of these people even under direct print to print comparisons will not see such and even if they could see any differences most will not care. Most will pick a slightly lower rez print if it was better composed and exposed over a slightly higher rez print not so well done.

As for higher ISO noise, sure we all agree 35mmFF will be technically cleaner over APS-C or m4/3rds, but nobody looking at images on screen or in print will really care to see this noise issue, even with direct side by side prints. NO NORMAL PEOPLE REALLY CARE! Even if they see a slight noise difference in side by side image/print comparisons, they just won't really care. Only anal retentive, pixel peepers and seemingly forever ballyhooing or crying out on this stuff photographers do.

DOF, again nobody really cares. If I choose to shoot say F1.4 with an equivalent FOV, 100mm lens of say a portrait of an attractive lady with nice makeup I may get slightly more DOF over 35mmFF, but I don't only want one freaking eye in focus, or see her nose blurry only to see her eyes clear. I will get a beautiful portrait of her BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THE EFF I'M DOING! This shallow DOF is a non-issue for 99/100 persons who care to even see it.

I have shot professionally going back to mid 1980's with first 35mm film SLR's, 645 MF cameras, APS-C DSLR's, APS-H DSLR's, APS-C mirrorless, and now M4/3rds. I would not exchange my Olympus EM's for any of this stuff I previously used.

Shoot whatever format and brand YOU LIKE!!! But skilled pros and skilled amateurs can are doing great things with m4/3rds.
 
You and I must have been joined at the hip and separated at birth. :-) We share exactly the same viewpoint on this whole issue, and even share the same political views, obviously. :-)

I have a four day national corporate conference coming up in March in Nashville, and I am simply thrilled that I do not have to lug around tons of heavy photo gear, thanks to m4/3's. I will have to take some portrait lighting gear as it is, but have even pared that down thanks to my new Yongnuo Yn-560's.

Whenever I shoot a conference, it's like running a marathon from 8 AM to 10 PM each day. Thanks to my Olympus gear, I don't feel like a complete zombie by bedtime. At this stage in my life, I am all about small and light. :-D
 
Do you have the 12-100 yet? I am thinking that this lens and a couple of fast primes might be good for events?
 
Actually, due to the often low light shooting situations during educational sessions, etc. my main workhorse lenses are the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the Pany 35-100mm f/2.8. I use my old Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Mk1 for large ballroom sessions. I use my Oly 9-18mm f/4-5.6 for some wide angle shooting such as dance floor shots, scene setting shots, etc. The only prime I generally take is my Bower 7.5mm fisheye.

The problem with shooting with primes is simply an issue of framing/composition. I often am shooting stationary from one or two positions, and I don't have the luxury time-wise to do much post work -- my client generally wants several daily uploads with the AV company for General Session slide shows, as well as ongoing upload to the national website.

My Pany 35-100mm is worth its weight in gold due to its optical speed, focal range, weight, and size.
 
Very well written, thank you for sharing your viewpoint, I found it insightful. :)
 
Phileas Fogg said:
M4/3rds like any other camera format can be used professionally. ...

Shoot whatever format and brand YOU LIKE!!! But skilled pros and skilled amateurs can are doing great things with m4/3rds.
Click to expand...
Phileas, and others, thanks for participating.

Overall, we all so far seem of a similar mind, which is nice and warm, if not as exciting as a vigorous, disciplined disagreement. I was speaking last evening with a fellow photographer, and reminded him that when we first met, his first words to me were, "I would like to know about your equipment." I told him that I wanted to know more about his understanding of composition and light.

I can't find Daniel J. Cox here at dpreview - could be using an obscure userID?

The Outdoor Photographer article referenced in another message is completely along the same theme, but isn't the same article as in Professional Photographer.

Charles
 
ctlow said:
There's a very favourable article on Daniel J. Cox, a professional photographer who has migrated from the usual makes to micro-Four-Thirds. It's in Professional Photographer (ppmag.com), February 2017, titled "Lightening the Load - Adopting Micro Four Thirds", by Karin Leperi.

(I think that you need to be a subscriber to read it, unfortunately.)

He says the usual things, that it's lighter and that matters more with age, and that although there may be technical differences, he can't see them and he makes very big prints. He does agree with the usual opinion that for low-light work, you still can't beat a big sensor.

I can't find where it specified a brand, but on his own web site, it seems to be a Lumix G85, although he also has an Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

Olympus has recently run, in every issue, a prominent full-page ad for the E-M1 in that magazine.

Still: good to see such an article.

Charles
Click to expand...
 
daddyo said:
Actually, due to the often low light shooting situations during educational sessions, etc. my main workhorse lenses are the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the Pany 35-100mm f/2.8. I use my old Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Mk1 for large ballroom sessions. I use my Oly 9-18mm f/4-5.6 for some wide angle shooting such as dance floor shots, scene setting shots, etc. The only prime I generally take is my Bower 7.5mm fisheye.

The problem with shooting with primes is simply an issue of framing/composition. I often am shooting stationary from one or two positions, and I don't have the luxury time-wise to do much post work -- my client generally wants several daily uploads with the AV company for General Session slide shows, as well as ongoing upload to the national website.

My Pany 35-100mm is worth its weight in gold due to its optical speed, focal range, weight, and size.
Click to expand...
 
Fogg, I totally agree with you.

Let's not deny the fact that when everyone starts out in photography, there will be a certain level of insecurity in skills and ability to craft great images. It takes time to develop good photographic skills. So it's understandable that some of us will rely or churn gear in the attempt to get good images from the professional photographers who are ambassadors or influencers of the represented companies! What else are they for other than used for marketing purposes?

As some of us grow and create better and amazing images, we realize that while having good gear is helpful, it is the person who's creating the images capture the content. The camera doesn't know what is good content and what is bad content. All it knows is how to focus a sharp image and get a good exposure and good white balance. It is up to the photographer to capture content that is appealing, not plagiarizing. I see too many people plagiarize content from great photographers with higher megapixel cameras that there isn't much new content left.

The reason why people do great with their iPhones is because they are able to capture new content. Something nobody has done before. That's why even an iPhone can be used professionally, because as long as the content is new than any camera which captured it was composed not by the camera, but by the photographer who shot it.
 
Last edited:
I see a number of posts saying negative things about this lens, but many including myself are very happy with it. I bought mine slightly used and it is very sharp. I personally think some of the negative comments are due to soft corners caused simply be extreme DOF from the image center. It works for me. Here are just a few examples from a trip this past Summer to Banff, Jasper, and Glacier National Parks:



c26f88993fea46ff9b920e60175e93ce.jpg



4f386dda01b246819fe0d73f0085618e.jpg



c1db5e13de9f42bfbaad7832dd9377f9.jpg



3b72091fff4d434ab4f3996969a2d5c8.jpg



--
God Bless,
Greg
www.imagismphotos.com
www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
www.pbase.com/daddyo
 
Type in danieljcox into the search bar and he'll show. Or type in his name the regular way and he'll show....

Bill
 
karlreed said:
ctlow said:
There's a very favourable article on Daniel J. Cox, a professional photographer who has migrated from the usual makes to micro-Four-Thirds. It's in Professional Photographer (ppmag.com), February 2017, titled "Lightening the Load - Adopting Micro Four Thirds", by Karin Leperi.

(I think that you need to be a subscriber to read it, unfortunately.)

He says the usual things, that it's lighter and that matters more with age, and that although there may be technical differences, he can't see them and he makes very big prints. He does agree with the usual opinion that for low-light work, you still can't beat a big sensor.

I can't find where it specified a brand, but on his own web site, it seems to be a Lumix G85, although he also has an Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

Olympus has recently run, in every issue, a prominent full-page ad for the E-M1 in that magazine.

Still: good to see such an article.

Charles
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Exactly....

Pixel peepers only hobby is to get to say that scientifically and in theory there is a 2 stop difference in noise etc.

Yet even when we do the comparison in merits of each format best abilities and put real world prints that are bigger than the most common needs, you can't see the difference in noise unless you take a magnifying glass and start to very carefully compare two prints very tiny details. In normal viewing situations, no difference.

It is amazing that Olympus toke a long time aim to the future for digital photography that combined all from sensor development, lenses manufacturing and digital image processing capabilities and put all fait to the future that things goes as it was foreseeable, and Olympus did hit in that. 4/3" just works as an sensor for real professional requirements. We have lenses that other systems don't and quality is just up there among best ones for the need.

Pixel peeping and theoretical differences are so out of the reality that to cure from it, people needs to start doing prints and delivering the photos that are for the purpose of the client needs.

12-100mm f/4 is now a such a lens that it is dream to use for all kind work, no matter what the out-of-focus people think real people like.

F/64 group would have lots of things to teach for out-of-focus fans about photography.
 
About traveling light. My OM kit with all lenses and two speedlights fit in one Low Pro shoulder bag. I now have all I need in one bag. Never in all my years even shooting FT pro could I go out on location and have all my gear in just one 'normal size kit bag. It was always at minimum two bags.

I get just as professional images with my EM's and for me the sheer pleasure I get when using them makes me want to take/make better photos. Ergonomics and feel of the gear is a rather personal thing. For how my mind works, my eyes see and my hands feel my OM-1 and OM-10II fit and feel like fine quality gloves. Olympus has engineered gear that works great for me. Prior to Olympus I was a lifer Canon shooter going back to 35mm film SLR's and all my Canon stuff fit and felt good too, my T-90 was always my favourite 35mm film SLR. It too worked for me and fit like a glove. My Canon DSLR's all worked well too. But my EM-1 and EM-10II are the first cameras to fit my style and needs as good to me as when I bought my first T-90 back in 1987.

How well a camera fits/feels and works for a photographer matters in how much one enjoys and wants to use it. My EM's are unsurpassed in this area for me and that makes them 'out of the park home runs' for me. In time I may add the EM-1II and I know I will love and appreciate it when that day may come.

As to politics/social ideals... remember the 'former' USSR may have had food shortages many times during its political life as a country, but it never had Vodka shortages... Why? Because people in misery found the bottle a way to blunt said misery, at least for a while.

--
Socialism, where everyone has equal rights all the time to be equally miserable.
Socialists, tell you what you want, Capitalists, sell you what you want.
 
Last edited:
We were joined at the hip at birth. :-)

Prior to going digital my MF system was Bronica and my 35mm film camera was ------ the T90. That T90 was just a superb camera. I hated to sell it, but it started collecting dust just like my Bronicas.
 
I'm one of those pros who migrated from FF dslr to M4/3 and that was one of the best decisions I have made.

Being a concert and stage photographer, I work most of the time in challenging conditions and yet, based onmy needs, M4/3 suites me more, giving me more flexibility without having to pay any panelty, not even in low light performance department compared to the FF system I had before.,

Moti

--
http://www.musicalpix.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top