|
leeharrisx
Lives in
barcelona, Spain
Works as a
Photographer
Has a website at
www.leeharris.eu
Joined on
Jun 20, 2012
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |
| Janiskoski by Kaappo from My best photo of the week. | Steam Season by cjf2 from Mamiya C330 challenge | Firefighter by FVDS from The Fire brigade | Autumn Light by F5Nikon from 2020 |
PortraitLover: after many years of always giving m43 a chance, i have concluded that its only for landscape users . for portrait shooters, this format is just a no no.
the issues written about low light quality and IQ are all real, lowlight in the m43 world means anything indoor and not studio.
Just remember for FF : a 50 F1.8 = USD 120
For m43 : a 25 1.2 cost USD 1200 and yet gives you a F2.4 dof.
Thats a 10x difference in price and at f1.2 m43, the quality of light won't give you the same clean image indoor as even a F1.8 on FF, neither will the size.
Oh no! I am a professional photographer who shoots loads of portraits and makes money, but thank you for enlightening me that despite my success I have actually been failing the whole time. I am now investigating if the earth might really be flat and thinking of becoming a vaccine denier as well, again thank you for your irrefutable logic.
ogl: 35mm camera equivalent 20-50/3.4....
F1.7 is f1.7 is f1.7 is f1.7 is f1.7 is f1.7 is f1.7 is f1.7...
DOF is a by product, these comments are so bloody boring.
Julio Sánchez: but a optical viewfinder is a optical viewfinder and for me the only problem with a DSLR is wheight.
Optical view finders were essentially better in the past before TTL, autofocus, etc started to leach the incoming light. Digital viewfinders just keep getting better and better.
GEONYC: Just to get the true message out there. The Leica lenses on the Panasonice are not made by Leica, but by Panasonic in Thailand. They could be much less expensive.
Like $899
Better than which Oly lenses? I have used both companies lenses and have seen no evidence of this
Elliot H: for too many, price is high at half the price
Really? Half the price? I love some of the insightful comments posted here, I took a quick look at the list your other posts and it seems that's all you do; precise erudite comments...
Maaggix: don't like Olympus camera DNA
Fascinating comment, really, really fascinating.
stevez: I too am surprised at how large this lens is. Considering that its almost identical in size, weight and dimension as my Nikkor 300mm AFS f4, I can't help but think that Olympus might be considering a full frame mirrorless down the road. Another thought is that the lens was designed with an overly large image circle in order to assure excellent edge to edge sharpness. Hmmmm?
F4 is F4 no matter what the bloody format! You are conflating DOF characteristic with lens 'speed,' so following your logic an independent light meter would only work with one format and having worked with an RZ67 and trad 35mm cameras in the past I know that is complete nonsense!
(unknown member): It's micro 4/3, so you can forget about shallow DOF.
If that doesn't bother you, then this format could work.
Non starter for me, unless it can fit in my pocket.
Nonsense. plenty of shallow dof actually, oh what do I know? I just use them to shoot portraits for a living...
sdribetahi: Does just adding two wheels and customization buttons make a camera 'pro'? It still doesn't give you the option of shallow DOF, or AF of FAST moving objects. Anyone can add buttons to a p&s as well. Doesn't make it pro.
Oh for the love of god… DOF really? If that is your sole criteria of pro go buy a MF camera or better still a LF one! You will then be in DOF nirvana, it will of course be so blurry (apart from that dust mote on the tip of that eyelash) that should you ever print it at 2x 3 metres as you no doubt always do (because hell that is why you need and paid for all those pixels right?) you will then find yourself staring at something that will probably just be a muddy mess of tones and colours; something viewed at 100 pixels on your computer might look pleasingly soft, print it for real and large it will most likely look like crap.
Tim the Grey: Ah nuts. Just as I'd started to mentally, and emotionally, switch from 4/3 Olympus, to Nikon, they do this...
Damn you, Olympus! Darn you all to Heck!!!
I WANT one.
Anybody want a nice, clean, D700?
I disagree, I consider my photos to have a very natural look when I choose to lay off too much PP. As to DOF that argument is tosh! I shoot portraits with the 45 and 75 mm and the DOF is perfect for such commercial portraits PLUS what a lot of people don't realise is that most fool frame shooters need to use maybe f2.8/4 to have a similar usable image and the flash output is then 2-4x more than what I need shooting at f1.8, often the difference between getting away with a strobe and having to use at least mono bloc which costs a damn sight more money.
PerL: Looks nice, more ergonomic than OM-D, but high price compared to high end APS-C competition which has true OVFs, probably better AF-C and upgrade path to FF.
TRUE OVF? Errr the point is that OVFs are a shadow of what they used to be in the old manual film cameras (the old Om1n was a joy to use). your modern DSLRs have dingy ones in comparison, the EM5 view finder is great to use (and can be enhanced for low light) apparently this new one is even better, Face facts, OVFs are on the way out, heavy, expensive and usually requiring a complicated mechanical element. And anyway with these MILC cameras you still have an OVF, it's called your eye.
René van Elst: I own the OM-D and the Panasonic 20 mm. Great results - at 1600 ISO there is no problem at all.
the problem does exist at 6400 for me, i am using faster shutter speeds.
I did a theatre shoot last night using the 20mm and 45 mm at 6400 ISO and RAW, definitely see banding, on pics shot with 20mm. I did a similar job a few weeks ago, same conditions, but shot jpegs and do not see the same problem.
Oh, and the problem seems to only exist in the shadow underexposed areas, I have to shoot more images tonight, if I use the 20mm I may try a slight over exposure as a test.