Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: zxcvbob on July 03, 2014, 06:11:10 PM
-
Wife wants to goto Hawaii next January. That'll be my excuse to buy a decent digital camera. (I need the excuse to justify it to me, not her) I have a cheap ($40 but I got a good deal) digital camera now, and lots of 35mm cameras, and a couple of cheap medium formats (Olympus folder and a Ricoh Diacord) I have a thing about mechanical cameras that will work even if the battery dies. Pentax MX, Canonet, Canon FTb, etc.
I've pretty much been out of photography for about 10 years.
I am not impressed with high "megapixels", I want something with decent lenses, a large-ish sensor, and a viewfinder. And a big plus if I can use some of my old Canon FD or Pentax K lenses. Is M 4/3 the way to go? And if so, Olympus or Panasonic? (Leica is out of my league, but in my fantasy world I might have a Leica lens or two) I'm kind of leaning toward Olympus OM-D mirrorless, no particular model.
-
Ive used and loved micro 4/3 gear for over 2 years. I have a Panasonic G3 with 20mm 1.7, 45-150, 9mm fisheye, and an adapter for Canon FD lenses.
I can expand on this later when I'm not using my phone.
Chris
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
-
I am not impressed with high "megapixels", I want something with decent lenses, a large-ish sensor, and a viewfinder. And a big plus if I can use some of my old Canon FD or Pentax K lenses. Is M 4/3 the way to go? And if so, Olympus or Panasonic? (Leica is out of my league, but in my fantasy world I might have a Leica lens or two) I'm kind of leaning toward Olympus OM-D mirrorless, no particular model.
The main strength of the M4/3 system is compact size and flexibility. If you want the absolute best image quality, you're probably going to want a Canikon DSLR and their best lenses. That said, you won't notice the difference unless you're having large (bigger than 8x10) prints made and viewing them up close (less than 2' away). If you're not a "pixel peeper", the M4/3 gear will more than satisfy. Also, if you're using Canikon kit lenses and the better lenses from the M4/3 offerings, the difference narrows to zilch.
I bought into the system because I found myself leaving my Nikon DSLR at home because of the size, but not being satisfied digital P&S cameras. M4/3 is small enough to fit in a jacket pocket if you use one of the smaller lenses. I did that while walking London a few years ago. Also, the ability to use nearly any lens with an adapter was a draw. I had some older Canon lenses and wanted to try out various other lenses from Leica, Nikon, etc. Adapters are cheap (or can be, don't get suckered into the premium adapters). If you're interested in using adapted lenses, get a body that does "Focus Peaking", it'll make manually focusing much easier.
One thing I like about my G3 is that digital noise looks very much like high-iso film grain to my eyes. It makes me more likely to use higher ISO settings where I would avoid that with my Nikon DSLRs. With the 20mm f1.7 lens, this camera is a great low light tool. That lens has a bad rep for being slow in low light, but I don't notice it. In general the M4/3 cameras perform well in low light and focus quickly. I have no problem chasing my kids with my G3.
I like my G3, but if I were buying one today, I'd go with one of the Olympus OM-D bodies or the Panasonic GX-7. I consider a viewfinder a requirement and many M4/3 cameras are viewscreen-only (the Panasonic GM1 is a jewel if you don't need a viewfinder).
Pics:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ZdNJE8h9GhgE9CCGV7DHCFIWPUZUW6gvpdxa_HRUHdk?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Hhoffkxq7X6Fe2omL6xTCoO05Xi2Z8V3GJ8vKP5my_Y?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/P5s2vfSS962WwGukKLnHmoO05Xi2Z8V3GJ8vKP5my_Y?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xhU3UZd337i5QVAWbKCPPSW67BPruweh2aH7QsPeN8o?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/uZsXoIOi7ghaan-CJqKiIyW67BPruweh2aH7QsPeN8o?feat=directlink
http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g405/allencb/P1050711_zps918d0d04.jpg
http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g405/allencb/P1040259_zps52215fe3.jpg
Chris
-
All recent digital cameras have amazing image quality, and that includes many phones. Phones are also also the ultimate in compact, convenient and WITH YOU when you need them. Have you stepped back and thought about why exactly you want a dedicated digital camera?
Interchangeable lenses is a feature that pleases camera geeks but is highly overrated for non-specialized photography. Are you going to carry around a case of lenses and change every photo? Some people actually do.
90% of my best pictures are taken with a Canon QL17GIII or Olympus XA4...whichever I had with me. Funny how that works.
If I were you I would buy a couple rolls of Provia, Ektar, and Tmax from B&H, take my facebook shots with my smartphone and some real photographs with the MX. If I was interested in digital cameras I would look hard at the X100s.
-
Megapixel counts are a myth. You can have awesome image quality from a 6MP older DSLR, and crappy image quality from a 16MP point & shoot.
It's the glass, and how that sensor handles the incoming light rays. A lens the size of your pinky fingernail ain't gonna cut it, and requires some extra help post-processing.
I'm still firmly into the DSLR camp, right now I'm ok with staying at 12MP, plenty enough for poster-sized images that I frame and hang at home and work.
Having said that, the technology is advancing for Micro 4/3 and mirrorless.
I'd love to see Nikon or Canon make a DSLR clones sans mirror, with either a Micro 4/3 or APSC sensor, that'll make use of either line's DSLR lenses.
I know there are adapters, but they kill either the autofocus or metering, and those are things I'd much rather have.
Olympus is doing a bang-up job with their mirrorless OM-D Micro 4/3 series. I've played with one at the National Camera Exchange store in Maple Grove, Minnesota. Very nice!
-
I'd love to see Nikon or Canon make a DSLR clones sans mirror, with either a Micro 4/3 or APSC sensor, that'll make use of either line's DSLR lenses.
That's a lot of nice glass, but one of the big draws for mirrorless for me was the smaller hardware footprint. The Sony MILC cameras have APSC sensors and equivalent lenses and are too big (with lens, the bodies are tiny). I have three lenses for my Panasonic G3, a 9mm F8 fixed aperture fisheye lens for WA and fun stuff, a 20mm f1.7 for most things, and a 45-150mm zoom for distance shots or isolating nearby subjects. I have a Peak Design strap and a Peak Design Capture (quick release) Camera Clip that allows me to attach the camera to a backpack strap. I don't need a bag, but can carry nearly all of that in the pockets of a pair of cargo shorts. That means I'm more likely to have the camera with me when I need it.
I know there are adapters, but they kill either the autofocus or metering, and those are things I'd much rather have.
You lose AF for AF lenses, but metering still works. On my Panasonic G3, I set it to Aperture-Priority mode, and manage the aperture from the lens while the camera controls the shutter speed (or I go full manual and do it all). I still get meter functionality. I've only used adapters with manual lenses, so the lack of AF was a given. :)
My G3 provides viewfinder magnification for manual focusing, but it's a bit awkward. Newer G-series cameras and others do Focus Peaking, which changes the color of the in-focus area (Sony did it with their mirrorless compacts years ago). That would make manual operation simple IMO.
Olympus is doing a bang-up job with their mirrorless OM-D Micro 4/3 series. I've played with one at the National Camera Exchange store in Maple Grove, Minnesota. Very nice!
Yup. Panasonic has some nice cameras and lenses as well. I would be torn between an OM-D and the new Panasonic GX-7.
There are some really nice M4/3 lenses out there now and more nice ones on the way. If you're ok with manual focus, there are some fantastic manual lenses from Leica (via adapter) or Voigtlander (native mount), but they're spendy.
Interchangeable lenses is a feature that pleases camera geeks but is highly overrated for non-specialized photography. Are you going to carry around a case of lenses and change every photo? Some people actually do.
Define "non-specialized photography". I frequently run into situations where the lens of a fixed lens camera was not the right tool for the job. Either too slow in terms of F-stop or the wrong focal length or both. While my 20mm 1.7 lens (equiv to 50mm "normal" lens in 35mm film terms) pretty much lives on my G3, I do swap it out fairly often. The nice thing about M4/3 is that you can toss an extra lens in your pockets for added flexibility and leave the big bag in the car.
Chris
-
Non specialized means not something like macro or birding, where SLRs win easily. OP mentioned vacationing. That means snapshots, scenery, people in environments.
A normal lens or something in the neighborhood is all you need for almost all photography. Throw a lens on there and forget about it and live your vacation and take some pics. Don't be all nerdy fishing around in you bag for the perfect lens...the picture you are trying to take is probably boring anyway; you probably just missed 3 better pictures that suit the lens on the camera while you were distracted *expletive deleted* with your camera.
Pictures are where you find them. You might think you will miss pictures because you won't have the right lens, but in practice you miss an infinite number of pictures anyway. There are plenty of pictures regardless of what lens you have. The problem is recognizing the good ones and having a bag of lenses won't help, and will probably make it worse. When I have a 50mm, pictures that require a 28mm don't matter; I don’t see them anyway. Many famous and prolific photographers have shot their entire career with one lens. Winogrand used a 28, as famous for shooting dozens of frames of film at once trying to catch fleeting opportunities, then spend several minutes reloading that godawful leica with the bottom loading. When asked if he was worried about missing opportunities when reloading his Leica, he said "there are no pictures when I am reloading".
-
A normal lens or something in the neighborhood is all you need for almost all photography. Throw a lens on there and forget about it and live your vacation and take some pics. Don't be all nerdy fishing around in you bag for the perfect lens...the picture you are trying to take is probably boring anyway; you probably just missed 3 better pictures that suit the lens on the camera while you were distracted *expletive deleted* with your camera.
Pictures are where you find them. You might think you will miss pictures because you won't have the right lens, but in practice you miss an infinite number of pictures anyway. There are plenty of pictures regardless of what lens you have. The problem is recognizing the good ones and having a bag of lenses won't help, and will probably make it worse. When I have a 50mm, pictures that require a 28mm don't matter; I don’t see them anyway. Many famous and prolific photographers have shot their entire career with one lens. Winogrand used a 28, as famous for shooting dozens of frames of film at once trying to catch fleeting opportunities, then spend several minutes reloading that godawful leica with the bottom loading. When asked if he was worried about missing opportunities when reloading his Leica, he said "there are no pictures when I am reloading".
Agree completely with this. When I'm out with my family on vacation, I tend to take my "normal" lens and *maybe* pocket another lens (increasingly the 9mm semi-fisheye as it's great for catching fast shots with very wide perspectives), but I'm thinking ahead for lens changes and not trying to swap them back and forth.
I took your initial comment to mean "nobody needs X" as in "nobody needs more than 10rounds of ammo", etc. I like having the flexibility of an ILC, but I don't take full advantage of it (ie changing lenses frequently, carrying a bag full of gear, etc) very often. When doing the vacation thing, I'll take my entire kit, but seldom leave the hotel room with more than the camera and a single lens. The lens might change though, depending on my destination. When we were at OBX recently, I generally left the 20mm "normal" lens on the camera, but switched to my 9mm semi-fisheye for kite flying at Jockey's Ridge because it allowed me to grab quick snaps without much effort, allowed me to grab a lot of scenery with my kids and their kites, and do so while being with them rather than X yards away as I would have to do with the 20mm lens. When I went to the UK a couple years ago, I only carried the G3 and 20mm lens. I missed shots because I didn't have a wide angle or tele lens. I focused the shots that suited the 20mm lens and enjoyed the experience of being there the rest of the time.
I compare it to having a gun safe full of guns. You don't carry all of your guns when you go hunting, you choose the best tool and "make do" even if the situation changes. If I went squirrel hunting with a .410 and came across a trophy deer, I'd just have to let the deer walk.
That said, even if I only planned to own a single lens, I wouldn't get a fixed lens camera as my primary. Most fixed lens cameras have crappy optics and sensors, and aren't very flexible in terms of exposure control. The few that don't fall into this category are as expensive and large as my M4/3 camera, so there's no benefit to buying them. The 20mm lens on my G3 is one of the better lenses in terms of optical quality (subjective and objective) I've owned. I doubt I could get that in a fixed lens camera.
Chris
-
Good point. I have to say Micro 4/3 cameras look awesome. I remember when the concept came out it looked like the future, a fresh design that made sense for digital. I was sure it was going to wipe the floor with the inferior SLRS, with their tacked-on sensors sized off an obsolete film format jammed into barely changed film SLR bodies, a design that makes no sense when you have a sensor to directly read focus, composition and so on, with their squinty undersize viewfinders on top of it all, and not just to maintain lens compatibility, because they made special lenses anyway. Sadly, I was simply underestimating photographer ignorance plus brand loyalty and inertia. I did not buy the "large sensor" marketing propaganda, but that doesn't mean everyone else didn't.
-
Are you going to carry around a case of lenses and change every photo? Some people actually do.
I generally carried the classic Minolta "beercan" 70-210 f/4, the Sony 18-whatever f/2.something and a Minolta 50mm f/1.4 with my Alpha 200. A couple NDs and some polarizers (2 CPs make a variable ND) and you can get a lot of versatility in a normal size DSLR bag. I added a Cokin holder and set of BW filters when I was carrying either of the Maxxums too.
90% of the time, I can predict the lens based on the environment, and classic Minolta AF glass is dirt cheap and good enough to make use of a 10MP cropped sensor. Bonus; Sony stabilization is in the body, so anything that fits is stabilized.
-
With Olympus (image stabilization is in-camera) does the IS work with old manual-focus lenses? I would think so... I'm thinking mostly about a Canon or Pentax 135 prime lens, which would be a kind-of long telephoto in M43 format. For most pix, I want a normal lens or slightly-wide-angle and just shoot everything with that. Whatever lens comes in the kit should be fine.
I used to do a lot of landscape and nature photography; not sure what I do now :) Sometimes it was fun to just use the old TLR and not even take a light meter along, and work with its limitations.
My first digital camera was a Toshiba that looked about like an old Instamatic. Only had 4 megapixels, but it had good Canon glass and the pictures would blow up to 8x10" just fine.
-
Wife wants to goto Hawaii next January.
If you're going to Hawaii, you need at least one serious panoramic camera.
http://mottweilerstudio.com/design/the-art-of-the-camera/p-90/
Yeah, I wouldn't pay their price for it, but a decent woodworker with a basic knowledge of cameras and a couple spools of waste 120 film should be able to innovate from the idea. Looks like this one is only 6x9cm, but the older designs were 6x12cm. The curved film plane eliminates the edge distortion and vignetting that pinholes tend to cause, and of course a well made pinhole means the whole scene is in focus.
-
I looked around for someplace that has OM-D's (any model) in stock so I could fondle one, and couldn't find anything. So I ordered one sight-unseen from Amazon. The $200 special discount from Olympus ends tomorrow, so it seemed like a good time to pull the trigger. Very likely the old discount price will become the new list price, with a new discount next month for "back to school" or something, but you never know.
I got the E-M5 (body only, silver) plus a Panasonic 14-42mm lens (model HFS014042). I even paid the $8 Amazon Prime expedited shipping to get it here tomorrow instead of Monday. Just under $900 for everything.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51L%2BRnKGb8L._SCLZZZZZZZ__SY115_SX115_.jpg&hash=2bbb132a1a0f26bd9a1be722b44e19f3cc6d5ec7)
New toy for the weekend.
-
Panasonic uses (used too use? - Just checked, still use) Leica lenses. You can't get much better glass than that.
Russ
-
Get the 9mm BCL. It's inexpensive and fun. The Panasonic 20mm F1.8 is 95% of the Leica 25mm lens and a fraction of the price.
Chris
-
9mm? I have no idea what to do with a lens that wide. I am considering the 15mm cap lens.
I suspect the lens I bought is Leica-designed and made in China. My next serious lens will be a normal or slightly-wide prime lens. Something in the 18mm to 25mm range, and kind of fast.
-
I started with the Canon crops and several years ago bought a Panny GF1 and the 20mm lens. I like it a whole lot. Lately I went full frame Canon (6D) and love the look, DOF, and low light. The Panny is still great and the retro looks from Fuji and Olympus seem fantastic.
-
9mm? I have no idea what to do with a lens that wide. I am considering the 15mm cap lens.
I suspect the lens I bought is Leica-designed and made in China. My next serious lens will be a normal or slightly-wide prime lens. Something in the 18mm to 25mm range, and kind of fast.
The 9mm isn't that wide in M4/3. It's similar to 18mm in film. Get it and the 15mm. Combined, you've still spent less than you would for a single lens of any other design. :)
Chris
-
I think I miss the smell of Dektol :'(
-
I think I miss the smell of Dektol :'(
It's still available. Mix some up and sniff away.
Chris
-
I may still have some but it'd be pushing 20 years old. Another victim of my Attention Deficit Hobby Disorder.
-
I think I miss the smell of Dektol
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1464726-Kodak-Dektol-Paper-Developer-to-make-1-Gallon
I think I still have about 3/4 of a bottle of Rodinal somewhere in storage.
-
Back to the OP...
I'm firmly in the DSLR camp for the creative potential, control flexibility, and post-processability. I have a Canon t4i and a stable of L-series lenses. I lurvs me some fast glass and tons of control options. That said, my grab-n-go camera is a Canon P&S I won as a door prize a couple years back. Easily pocketable, plenty of wide-zoom leeway, and excellent image quality. Newer versions of the same camera will also shoot 30fps 1080p video. Good combination of function and usability. Impressive optics quality, too.
I know you're wanting to go 4/3, but I'd encourage you to consider a good P&S. It would do everything you want and more. Plus, non-photog family members can easily use it.
Brad
-
I have a G.E. point & shoot camera that I bought on sale at Menard's for $40 last year. It takes surprisingly good pictures, I just don't take many pics.
I needed a new toy to get back into it. I used to really enjoy photography, but I never quite made the step to buying an enlarger and doing my own printing. I did buy an enlarger *lens* :) It lives on an ancient Canon FD bellows. I intend to dust that off (you don't want to know how much dust) and get a M4/3 adapter for it.
-
Prepare to be shocked at supply prices comoared to what it was ten or fifteen years ago. Yikes.
Brad
-
I think Amazon may have sold me a "gray market" lens. I have contacted them and Panasonic, and awaiting their replies. The lens came in a plain white box with no logo, just a computer-printed barcode label. The instruction manual, lens bag, and warranty card were missing. (the warranty card is the big flag, IMHO) The lens was protected by kind of a Tyvek slightly-padded bag that was rolling around loose in the box. The lens hood was in a plastic bag. Both seem to be fine. I'm not going to get too upset about it for a $135 lens like I would the camera or a $900 lens.
I'm having fun trying to figure out the camera features. I took a handheld picture in dim light at (I think) 1/5 second shutter speed and ASA 1000 (or do we call it ISO now?) and it looked sharp on the little display on the back of the camera. I haven't tried blowing it up and looking at the pixels.
-
It just occurred to me that you bought the lens separately from the camera (the fact that it's a Panny lens should have been a clue!). I'd send it back and buy one on the used market. I recently sold my version of that lens for $40. They're inexpensive and everywhere. Better yet, get the Panny 12-32 that comes with the new GM1. Not only is that lens better, it is much smaller. Expensive though at around $300.
Chris
-
The camera wasn't sold with the lens, I bought them separately because I wanted the Panny lens, and it cost the same or less as a camera + Oly 14-42 combo.
-
Camera bags have gotten expensive. :'( I wonder if a padded lunchbox would work, plus it wouldn't scream "EXPENSIVE CAMERA STUFF!" http://www.ebay.com/itm/Red-LL-Bean-Insulated-School-Work-Travel-Lunch-Box-Bag-Used-/111410447553?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19f09484c1
I'd have to make some dividers for it.
I also found an ugly old binoculars case with stains on the leather that looked promising, but don't know if it's wide enough.
I may have to check out the Dollar Store... And Goodwill...
-
I use a Maxpedition shoulder bag. Works as a camera bag and is my "possibles" bag when I go hunting.
Chris
-
Diaper bag is even more "stealth". Not necessarily cheap though.
-
Diaper bag is even more "stealth". Not necessarily cheap though.
Wandering around with a diaper bag and no kid might get you looked at funny, though...
-
I bought a Subzero lunch tote yesterday at The Salvation Army thrift store. Fifty cents. :) It needs a good washing, then I should probably line it with some 1/2" foam and some fake velvet. Maybe put in some dividers.
Here's my first pic that doesn't totally suck: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xbDjtjGH1USNE4NLFq_9tUcmhr-b9LYMO48mdpN-CnI?feat=directlink
Papa eagle (or maybe it's Mama) and fledgling, taken next to the Zumbro River in Minnesota. The nest is to the right. I used a M.Zuiko 40-150 zoom lens, set at 150mm.
-
I bought a Subzero lunch tote yesterday at The Salvation Army thrift store. Fifty cents. :) It needs a good washing, then I should probably line it with some 1/2" foam and some fake velvet. Maybe put in some dividers.
I had a cheap SLR bag with a bad zipper. I cut the top flap off and dropped the rest in a lime green dollar store insulated lunch bag, and it was a near perfect fit. Carried that thing all over the place, and it really seemed to do a better job of keeping the camera cool in Texas summer than any of the solid black camera bags on the market. As a bonus, it was pretty water resistant; it could leak at the zipper, but the rest of the bag had a plastic liner and fairly dense nylon on the outside, so it would take a hell of a rain to get more than a drop or two into the bag.