Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: RFPhotography on September 10, 2013, 07:23:42 am

Title: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 10, 2013, 07:23:42 am
http://fstoppers.com/olympus-announces-new-flagship-professional-dslr-om-d-e-m1

Quite the alphabet soup for a name.  Is this a significant product?  I know they say it's targeted toward 'professionals'.  Are people going to migrate from Canikon?  Will it prevent many from going to Canikon because other Oly products aren't good enough?
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 10, 2013, 10:22:11 am
Is this a significant product?  

for some owners of 43 glass it is some solace - PDAF on sensor will make their lenses to focus somewhat better/faster, albeit all testers noted that is not a speed that dSLRs achieve (we are not talking about very lowly entry level dSLRs - but rather 7D/1D type of cameras)

otherwise it is evolutionary (many enhancements though) camera vs E-M5

1) design is less retro-idiotic, grip present, more buttons
2) shutter is better (1/8000, etc)
3) weather-resistance is better (at least formally)
4) EVF is better
5) AA less

etc, etc



Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 10, 2013, 10:39:57 am
...  design is less retro-idiotic, grip present...

One man's "retro-idiotic" is another man's pinnacle of classical elegance (bar the hump).

The new design (grip) makes it the ugliest camera I've seen recently, too similar to many super-zoom p&s and low-level DSLRs.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 10, 2013, 11:02:59 am
One man's "retro-idiotic" is another man's pinnacle of classical elegance (bar the hump).

well, even you have something to "bar"...

The new design (grip) makes it the ugliest camera I've seen recently, too similar to many super-zoom p&s and low-level DSLRs.

the ugliest is E-M5, no contest... there is nothing wrong to move from ergonomical nightmare that E-M5 is towards a normal usability (that is w/ grip, w/ bigger buttons and many of them and bigger body)... hopefully E-M1 mkII will get there (and w/ articulated LCD)
Title: New Camera from Olympus: what I want the reviews to look at
Post by: BJL on September 10, 2013, 12:11:15 pm
I do not care for marketing fuzz-word like "Pro", so am curious only about how much it adds beyond the OM-D E-M5 I already have, particularly in relation to the $1400 official price.
The headline promise is of course on-sensor PDAF for (a) better AF tracking [C-AF] with all lenses, and (b) better AF period with "legacy" Four Thirds SLR lenses. [Edit: and the new EVF, as already in the E-P5, VF-4, and reportedly also in the Fujifilm X100S.]

However, there are a few other promised improvements that I would love to see put to the test by a good hands-on reviewer like Michael:
- An EVF that adjusts to ambient light levels, hopefully reducing the "dazzling" problem that some have reported when using an EVF in low-light.
- Higher 6.5 fps with AF for each frame in C-AF mode (more important to me than its 10fps with AF only done before the first frame.)
- "Freezeproofing": usability at down to 14ºF/-10C. The coming Antarctic trips would be a perfect test location!
- A combination of two dials with buttons that modify their functions, to put lots of settings quickly at hand.
- Focus peaking.
- New smaller focus area options: to quote the PR: "Small Target AF for pinpoint shooting, or Super Spot AF for capturing even smaller subjects and specifying a small area focus location during macro shooting."
- WiFi and apps allowing remote operation with, for example, the iPhones that are to be announced on the same day.

Other changes that might interest some people but are not so important to me:
- A higher 1/8000s maximum shutter speed and a lower 100 ISO minimum sensitivity setting.
- No OLPF ("anti-aliasing filter")
- Microphone socket.
- X-sync flash socket.
- In-camera HDR.

P. S. If I had this camera, I would use it with some heavy Four Thirds lenses like the 50-200/2.8-3.5, so the deeper grip seems an excellent ergonomic change: do you guys complaining about the new grip buy cameras to look at or to use?
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 10, 2013, 12:38:37 pm
PS: anybody saw a manual (link to .PDF) posted anywhere ?
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 10, 2013, 12:39:38 pm
... do you guys complaining about the new grip buy cameras to look at or to use?

Both.

The question is utterly ridiculous. You are throwing out millennia of human quest for beauty and elegance. Everywhere you look, from women to art, from watches to cars, from buildings to parks, mankind has been striving to find or create beauty. If it comes married to function, even better. It is funny that the question comes from photographers, who are, as artists, striving themselves to create that beauty, harmony, balance in their work, and yet do not see the need to have that all around them.
Title: function follows in second place behind behind form for you?
Post by: BJL on September 10, 2013, 02:25:09 pm
Both.

The question is utterly ridiculous. ... Everywhere you look, from women to art ... mankind has been striving to find or create beauty. If it comes married to function, even better.
What I find ridiculous is:
1) The multiple comments I have read criticizing the grip _solely_ on appearances, without making _any_ mention of the functional reason for it being far deeper than those of the previous Olympus MFT bodies, which were designed for use with small, light lenses.

2) The order you put things in there, as if beauty is the primary goal, and good functionality is secondary: "a bonus if you can get it too."

3) Forgetting that good aesthetic criteria usually have their origins in functional criteria, with what are originally visual cues of "suitability for purpose" becoming abstracted as "visual virtues". For example, a camera with a big heavy lens and no good place to hold it when carrying (like an E-M5 with 50-200/2.8-3.5) is ugly to me, perhaps because the sight makes mw cringe slightly as I imagine the discomfort of carrying it; conversely, the sight of a camera that I recognize as being a pleasure to hold and use attracts me.

4) Comparing photographic tools to women.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 10, 2013, 02:41:30 pm
... 1) The multiple comments I have read criticizing the grip _solely_ on appearances, without making _any_ mention of the functional reason for it being far deeper than those of the previous Olympus MFT bodies, which were designed for use with small, light lenses...

Bingo! That is the very reason I love EM-5 (and the original OM-1). What was the the main reason for the demise of the original 4/3 pro model (E-5)? Size (and price). It was almost the same size as a DSLR, and the lenses were, though smaller a bit, still often more expensive. What attracts to EM-5 are lenses like 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, not gigantic (for the body) zooms with a DOF equivalent of 5.6.

So, yes, you are right, one needs such an ugly, out-of-place (esthetically) grip IF you want to use it with such monsters, but then again, the combo defies the purpose of switching to m4/3.

Quote
... 2) The order you put things in there, as if beauty is the primary goal, and good functionality is secondary: "a bonus if you can get it too."...

Not my order, that is how the world has been working for millennia, beauty over function. Otherwise, you would not have the concept of "trophy wife" (yes, I did it again... comparing to women, that is :))
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: AFairley on September 10, 2013, 03:10:55 pm
I believe the grip will make the camera fall to hand very nicely, a place where the E-M5 does fall a little short, particularly with a heavier lens on it.  The new camera and lens look like a very nice casual shooting combination, great for travel as long as you're not stalking the very very big print.  The downside is the pricing -- not actually unreasonable when you consider the quality of the gear, but it will make it much harder to market to the folks who don't "get" the m4/3 format.  Olympus is finally returning the niche it occupied with the OM series -- spanking good quality in a really compact form factor.  Now if they would just tone down that "viewfinder" hump.  I would definitely be looking to buy if I still wasn't trying to dig myself out from under my 800E/24-70 purchase.

Having said that, I'm curious to see how it stacks up against the Panasonic GX-7, which has a better form factor work working the street, IMO.

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 10, 2013, 03:23:24 pm
... Having said that, I'm curious to see how it stacks up against the Panasonic GX-7...

Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus: what I want the reviews to look at
Post by: Telecaster on September 10, 2013, 03:39:33 pm
If I had this camera, I would use it with some heavy Four Thirds lenses like the 50-200/2.8-3.5, so the deeper grip seems an excellent ergonomic change...

Yup. I recently bought a 50-200mm with this in mind. For me it'll be a specialty lens, unlike the much more compact & lighter (& slower) Panasonic 45-200mm. But handy to have, just the same, when speed and higher IQ at larger apertures are important.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Telecaster on September 10, 2013, 04:41:39 pm
Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7

I don't see that. What I do see is a bit of extra USM applied to E-M5 files, both JPEG and RAW. Dunno if this is in-camera or from DPR. Otherwise the E-M5, GX7 and E-M1 files look pretty much the same, allowing for real-world variables & tolerances.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 10, 2013, 04:53:47 pm
What attracts to EM-5 are lenses like 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, not gigantic (for the body) zooms with a DOF equivalent of 5.6.

not exactly, for example P 30-100/2.8 is quite compact zoom...

here is what I use indoors (flash RC is optical - onboard flash controls 2 externals)

(http://imageshack.us/a/img46/9108/0vio.jpg)
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 10, 2013, 06:10:10 pm

Not my order, that is how the world has been working for millennia, beauty over function. Otherwise, you would not have the concept of "trophy wife" (yes, I did it again... comparing to women, that is :))


Yes, but the 'trophy wife' is usually the second or third.  So the 'function wife' was chosen first.  And the men are often older, sometimes beyond their ability to 'function', although modern pharma has taken care of that too.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 10, 2013, 08:00:48 pm
I haven't used the omd 1 yet, but I consider 4/3 professional.  I know I've made money with them, especially the GH3.  

I don't think were at the exact point where physical sensor dimension isn't a factor, but we're close and when I use the m43 cameras I never think of them as cropped anything.  I just double the focal length, know what lens to use then shoot.

Whatever is in the viewfinder, lcd screen and computer is all that matters and I've shot my omd side by side th 1dx and in most instances there is not a great deal of difference, for most imagery to me I like the 43 better because their not glass smooth.

In regards to size, the omd1 really is very close to the same size as the omd 5, much smaller than a 5d3, tiny compared to a 1dx, but in a lot of ways more useable, especially with the 5 axis image stablization, price, lens size and the ability to carry a huge kit in a shoulder messenger bag.

My only three gripes with the omd1 is the lack of a better video file to exceed or even match the gh3, headphone sound sampling out and an easier menu system for setting button functions.

My one real upside of the omd 1 is the legacy 43 lenses.  If you've ever used those f2 lenses, like the 150 you'll know what I mean.  

Oh yea, also the oly always seems oversharpened out of camera, but finding the right preset in c-1, lightroom or the best Irdient Developer will fix that easily and give you a look that makes you wonder why a 1dx costs 6 grand.

Now I guess where the rubber meets the road, will I buy it?  Maybe, probably, but next will be the blackmagic 4/3 video camera (if they solve the battery issue and can format cards in camera) because the footage I've seen from that camera is very pretty and ready to edit right out of camera.

Personally though, I've never seen a more capable camera than the gh3's for the money, but olympus has a history and some style to it that the panasonic's lack.  Actually it's in the top sale of Amazon cameras today, the first time every for a olympus camera and one of the highest priced in the top 100.

Maybe more people have been anticipating it than the naysayers thought.

My suggestions to anyone wanting to try 43 is to rent one and put it in a paying gig.  I think lens rentals or borrow lens will rent them.  The oly 43 primes and the leica 43 25mm are to be seen to understand how sharp and good they are.



IMO

BC
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 10, 2013, 08:38:57 pm
Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7

Yep, I rarely check samples these days, but I did for the new Olympus.

And it did indeed strike me that even at base ISO there was a certain plastic look and lack of micro details compared to its competitors, the gap being particularly large compared to the D7100 at base ISO.

I almost looks like these samples are slightly out of focus.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 10, 2013, 09:29:46 pm
I disagree.  I think the omd samples look a little overly sharp, though most dslrs like the d7100 and the 5d2 at 400 iso look soft, so we all have a different take.

Once again, you have to try these cameras yourself before making blanket statements as the dp review samples depend a lot on in camera jpeg processing and the omd has about 8 trillion settings.

Few people have tried the omd1 yet.

IMO

BC
Title: New Camera from Olympus: some of us like "less big" long telephotos
Post by: BJL on September 10, 2013, 10:01:04 pm
Now we almost entirely agree; pardon my heavy editing of your words:
That is the very reason I love EM-5 ... What attracts to EM-5 are lenses like 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, not gigantic (for the body) zooms with a DOF equivalent of 5.6.

So, yes, you are right, one needs such a... grip IF you want to use it with such monsters, but then again, the combo defies the purpose of switching to m4/3.
Yes, most m4/3 users, most of the time will be using relatively small light lenses, and so that majority is best served by one of the many smaller bodies like the E-M5. But for some of us, the greatest advantage of a smaller format is in the telephoto regime, where the lenses are substantially smaller and lighter than would be needed in larger formats, but are still somewhat weighty. My favorite 4/3 lens is the 50-200, doing what would need an even longer lens in APS-C or 35mm.  I also love the m4/3 75-300, "the hand-holdable 150-600 zoom I never had for my film cameras", and that is already weighty enough that carrying it by the E-M5 grip is uncomfortable.

So a minority of m4/3 users will benefit from this body and its design ... and it is clearly featured and priced to appeal to that minority.

I think we agree that for other m4/3 users, a more dainty PDAF model is also to be hoped for!
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 10, 2013, 10:30:20 pm
Actually, EM-5 has a very elegant grip itself (though those who do not remember OM-1 motor drive may not appreciate what makes this grip so retro-elegant). It is not part of the body, though, but comes with a battery holder as well, making it quite holdable for larger lenses and people with bigger palms.

What bothers me with the EM-1 integrated grip is not that there is one, but that it looks soooo out of place on the EM-5 body, like a Frankenstein contraption. Take for example, GH3: large grip as well, but fully integrated with the rest of the body in terms of lines and overall feel.

EM-1 grip looks like a victory of the marketing department over design guys. It looks like the design department refused to ruin the original design and resigned en masse in protest. Marketing guys said: "Fine, go, we can do it without you," googled the cheapest plastic gizmos factory in China, ordered the grip and glued it to the body. End of story ;)
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: ned on September 10, 2013, 11:11:08 pm
I can't see how the EM-1 image samples would be worse than any other m4/3 camera, there should be raw files available soon so I would hold judgement on image quality. My first impression of the grip was that they carved it out a piece of black styrofoam and shoved in on the side of the existing E-5 with the palm of their hand. Looking at a few more of the images the grip wouldn't hold me back from buying it, which I don't think I will. I have the EM-5 for when film is impracticable  ;D

I'll rent one just to confirm to myself that C-AF can't move the big glass in my super telephoto. The EM-5 rattlesnakes really bad with it.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5455/9612108206_15467c4dd8_b.jpg)

Another complaint I have heard was the OMD line is too small to use with big lenses. My OM350mmf2.8 worked fine with the OM cameras, and they were small. Don't remember hearing any complaints about that   :-\  (E-5 Mounted)

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3829/9612108466_20014eea54_b.jpg)
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 11, 2013, 12:59:01 am
I disagree.  I think the omd samples look a little overly sharp, though most dslrs like the d7100 and the 5d2 at 400 iso look soft, so we all have a different take.

Looking at these results: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/9

It depends where in the image you look in fact. I was looking at the lower left corner where the D7100 is IMHO sharper, but the upper right corner shows the OMD as being sharper indeed.

But I still feel that the new Olympus is pretty much soft accross the image. again, it may be a focus accuracy issue.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 11, 2013, 10:32:54 am
What bothers me with the EM-1 integrated grip is not that there is one, but that it looks soooo out of place on the EM-5 body, like a Frankenstein contraption. Take for example, GH3: large grip as well, but fully integrated with the rest of the body in terms of lines and overall feel.

that's true, GH3 has a nicer grip and hump integrations w/ the body... I think some designers in Olympus were too much into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhedron 's

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus: some of us like "less big" long telephotos
Post by: Telecaster on September 11, 2013, 01:37:42 pm
My favorite 4/3 lens is the 50-200, doing what would need an even longer lens in APS-C or 35mm.

Just for kicks I've included a pic showing, side-by-side, the Oly 50-200 and a 35mm format equivalent, the 1st version of the Nikon 80-400. Bulk-wise there actually isn't much difference between them. The Oly, however, weighs about 1 lb. less than the Nikon...and is, of course, faster.

-Dave-

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus: some of us like "less big" long telephotos
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 11, 2013, 04:42:01 pm
.and is, of course, faster.
and is of course covering 4 times less sensor area... do you want to pry some 1.x-2.x lens from P&S camera and put it nearby...it will be, of course, faster
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus: some of us like "less big" long telephotos
Post by: Telecaster on September 11, 2013, 05:46:28 pm
and is of course covering 4 times less sensor area...

Sorry, dude, I refuse to take the bait.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus: some of us like "less big" long telephotos
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 11, 2013, 06:47:23 pm
Sorry, dude, I refuse to take the bait.

-Dave-

damn !
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 12, 2013, 09:10:58 am
I think digital camera development is interesting.

When I bought my first two 1ds Canons, which I think were the first film quality digital cameras made, in the fact that shot quickly, had little if no artifacts and went to around 600 to 800 iso cleanly.  Probably higher today with modern processing.

Anyway, at the time I could see all the companies large and small selling new cameras like those vendors on Canal street selling watches.

I told my studio manager at the time, if I was smart (obviously I'm not), I would buy 2 more 1ds, put them in a safe and only pull them out when I wore out the originals.  I thought at the time I would save a lot of money, concentrate more on photography and business and not be caught up in the mad rush for more pixels, detail, iso, etc. etc. etc.

Well now it's been 10 Canons later, approx. $30,000, A leaf Valeo, Leaf Aptus ($30,000), Two phase one backs ($36,000) A nikon d2x (when the 1ds Canons had issues ), $5,000, Nikon D3, D7000 oh I don't know 7 grand, and now onto video cameras (won't even count the Canons, REDs, etc.), but up to the 43 systems I owned, in still cameras along, there is over $100,000 in camera capture devices alone, not including lenses a trillion upgrades on software and enough apple computers to make me a Apple reseller.

Funny thing is with the 43 cameras I've come kind of full circle.  The OMD and the GH3 for stills shoot about the same quality file as the 1ds2.  In comparing them to my latest Canon 1dx they are about a stop slower in noise, about 15% less detail (if that). so I assume they equal a 1ds1 or 1ds2 and yes they work professionally because I've shot a lot of images with them lately, nobody has said a word, I've been paid, life goes on.

So where are we today, where we weren't 10 years ago?  Well, first thing is these cameras are smaller.  I've never been a fan of small cameras, because we carry over 300 lbs of equipment, even on planes, so what's a bag or two?  (well actually a lot with overage fees, one bag 4 countries can equal 900).   But these cameras really aren't that small, about the size of 35mm film cameras, so it's not iike their tiny, its just professional 35mm cameras are huge.

Next the Canon 1ds didn't shoot professional video.   You have to look long and hard to find any motion camera at any price that does what the gh3 will do and with the black magic 43 camera that's just a plus for this format.

They all have some form of articulating viewfinder which doubles as a waist level finder.  The 43 ratio is perfect for vertical and in the gh3's case you really don't miss an ovf, in fact your hard pressed to know it's not an ovf in most instances.  Maybe the omd1 will do the same.

Then price.  For two canon 1ds new at the time I paid close to $13,000.   The complete 43 kit with three bodies, 7 lenses, sound, chargers, extra batteries, is around 6 grand.

But bottom line in still image quality, (f you call quality pixel size, detail and noise qualitiy  . . . I don't)  I'm pretty close to where I was 10 years ago.

Funny.

Now to put this in perspective to the omd1.  It seems like it will be a good camera and well worth the money.  The only disappointment is the video quality, the slow roll out of lenses and the fact the zooms are 2.8 instead of f2.  They also took away some of the jewel like quality of the grip and battery holder.  The omd 5 really is a pretty camera.

So in reality the omd1 fixes some things the 5 needed like a little better higher iso, some fixed f zoom lenses, better viewfinders and track focusing, (what the omd 5 wouldn't do), but also in reality what olympus made was a Panasonic gh3 without the video.


IMO

BC




Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 12, 2013, 09:46:56 am

But bottom line in still image quality, (f you call quality pixel size, detail and noise qualitiy  . . . I don't)  I'm pretty close to where I was 10 years ago.



Is that really a positive?  With all the developments in digital imaging technology to say that you're 'pretty close' to where you were 10 years ago?  I'd suggest that's a pretty big condemnation of the digital imaging industry.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree that the state of play hasn't advanced significantly in the last decade.  Even comparing a 4/3 sensor of today to a full frame or APS-H (I can't tell if you're talking about the 1D or 1Ds).
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 12, 2013, 10:03:50 am
Is that really a positive?  With all the developments in digital imaging technology to say that you're 'pretty close' to where you were 10 years ago?  I'd suggest that's a pretty big condemnation of the digital imaging industry.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree that the state of play hasn't advanced significantly in the last decade.  Even comparing a 4/3 sensor of today to a full frame or APS-H (I can't tell if you're talking about the 1D or 1Ds).

What I'm saying is take a 1ds or 1ds2, take a photo, process it, then do that with the gh3 or omd1 or 5, rinse and repeat and you have essentially the same quality and once again in quality I mean bit depth, detail, noise.

Now if you come from a manufacturer standpoint there have been great leaps, but from the user step back and think about it.

1.  Medium format is still working of legacy cameras that were designed 15 years ago (except the Leica S).  There main selling point is pixel count.

2.  35mm ovf cameras are still the same shape, form factor and lens sets as 10 years ago or in the film era, except film cameras had better ovf that you could manually focus, todays' modern dslrs don't.

The only real difference in 10 or so years and incremental improvements in pixel density, noise levels and higher iso.  Probably higher iso is the biggest leap.

The real point is with digital capture few clients care what camera you put on set, because most are good enough for any use, even aps c and 43.

Honestly (and I've done this) my ancient 1ds (which I rarely use) or my ghetto p21+ and p30+ digital backs are still useable today because processing suites have become so much better.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: eronald on September 12, 2013, 10:55:58 am
I agree with James. Part of the problem is that the guys who made the 1Ds were clearly Canon's "A Team" and it was sold at cost, and the next models were made for profit. The other problem is that in the quest for high ISOs the filter CFAs were changed, so that the higher color precision in the electronics is offset by worse filter discrimination. Last not least the current gen cameras have 20MP, the 1Ds had 10. As an upshot, I'd say that we've gained about 1 1/2 stops DR and ISO from my 1Ds to my Nikon D4; frankly I think the 1Ds is quite competitive with todays models, on image quality.

Edmund

What I'm saying is take a 1ds or 1ds2, take a photo, process it, then do that with the gh3 or omd1 or 5, rinse and repeat and you have essentially the same quality and once again in quality I mean bit depth, detail, noise.

Now if you come from a manufacturer standpoint there have been great leaps, but from the user step back and think about it.

1.  Medium format is still working of legacy cameras that were designed 15 years ago (except the Leica S).  There main selling point is pixel count.

2.  35mm ovf cameras are still the same shape, form factor and lens sets as 10 years ago or in the film era, except film cameras had better ovf that you could manually focus, todays' modern dslrs don't.

The only real difference in 10 or so years and incremental improvements in pixel density, noise levels and higher iso.  Probably higher iso is the biggest leap.

The real point is with digital capture few clients care what camera you put on set, because most are good enough for any use, even aps c and 43.

Honestly (and I've done this) my ancient 1ds (which I rarely use) or my ghetto p21+ and p30+ digital backs are still useable today because processing suites have become so much better.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 12, 2013, 11:06:53 am
What I'm saying is take a 1ds or 1ds2, take a photo, process it, then do that with the gh3 or omd1 or 5, rinse and repeat and you have essentially the same quality and once again in quality I mean bit depth, detail, noise.

I know what you were saying.  I'm saying I think that's a very negative view of the state of digital imaging and I'm not at all convinced that it's accurate.

Quote
Now if you come from a manufacturer standpoint there have been great leaps, but from the user step back and think about it.

1.  Medium format is still working of legacy cameras that were designed 15 years ago (except the Leica S).  There main selling point is pixel count.

Pixel size more than pixel count.  And bit depth.  And the 'look' of MF.  Many MF backs can record in full 16 bit.  The Pentax has only a few more pixels than the D800 but has a very different look to the file and, for some, is preferable.  

Quote
2.  35mm ovf cameras are still the same shape, form factor and lens sets as 10 years ago or in the film era, except film cameras had better ovf that you could manually focus, todays' modern dslrs don't.

Huh?  You can't focus today's DSLRs manually?  Because the viewfinder isn't good enough?  I mean, I have difficulty focusing manually but that's because my eyes are shit.  Not because the viewfinder isn't good enough.  I can still focus manually with a split viewfinder.  But split viewfinders have been gone in SLR cameras for far longer than 10 years.  My, long since sold, EOS 620 didn't have a split viewfinder.  Cameras today have other aids for manual focus though.  My Nikons have a built-in rangefinder that tells me when I have focus with manual lenses.  No electronics necessary.

Quote
The only real difference in 10 or so years and incremental improvements in pixel density, noise levels and higher iso.  Probably higher iso is the biggest leap.

But those differences in noise via vastly improved processing chips and the addition, and continued improvement of, microlenses on sensors has resulted in leaps in dynamic range as well.  Significantly less noise.  Far greater dynamic range.  Much better high ISO performance.  Vastly improved resolution through greater pixel density.

Quote
The real point is with digital capture few clients care what camera you put on set, because most are good enough for any use, even aps c and 43.

No argument there.  As long as the job gets done the client is generally happy.

Quote
Honestly (and I've done this) my ancient 1ds (which I rarely use) or my ghetto p21+ and p30+ digital backs are still useable today because processing suites have become so much better.

Again, no issue with that.  But just because a 10 year old camera can do the job doesn't mean it produces images as good as a current model.  And processing software can't overcome all of the shortcomings of the older technology.  It's like saying a '57 Impala is as good as a '13 Impala.  Both will get you from A to B.  But the '13 Impala is a much, much better car.  The '57 might be considered to be a better looking car, but by all other measures it's vastly inferior.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: petermfiore on September 12, 2013, 11:11:21 am


The new design (grip) makes it the ugliest camera I've seen recently, too similar to many super-zoom p&s and low-level DSLRs.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so, but I love ugly cameras.

Peter
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 12, 2013, 11:40:49 am
I think most of what I'm saying is positive.

You can take an old camera, or digital back that sells for pennies on the dollar and go shot professionally, if you have the talent and the ability to get the gig and be sure nobody is going to say that file won't work.

Also what cost $24,000 in the first 1ds days with cameras and lenses is now in 43 around $7,000 AND you can shoot tremendous film like motion imagery.

In fact I bought the 1ds2 because it shot a little faster, the 3 because, well I don't know why, the 1dx because I tested them and thought the 1dx and the 1ds3 were identical for stills, but I could shoot 10fps stills for cut frame video.  The color of the 1dx out of camera, it's too weird too orange, though I can fix it.

If you don't believe me on any of this, that's fine, but I have and continue to do the things I've described.

Now in regards to the OMD 1.  I don't get it.  I understand improving the focus, the ability to use the older 43 lenses.  But what don't get is the incremental upgrades from every maker.

There is no technical reason that the omd 1 could not have had two sound imports, a headphone jack, shoot a 72mbs intra file making great use of their amazing image stabilization.

Actually there is probably no reason it couldn't be hacked to shoot a raw video file like the canon 5d2,3 whatever.

In other words they could make a better gh3 and that is the stuff that stumps me.

And if you don't care about shooting motion, then fine, but the commercial and editorial world does.

Terry Richardson just shot a medium production quality video of that strange Milley chick that got something like a million views a day.  In three days it probably will surpass all of the views of his print work in the last three years, so yea video does matter.

The point I'm making is buying the latest and greatest is fine if YOU enjoy it, or YOU need it, but most of the time you don't need it.

What I would love to see is the entrepreneurial guys at black magic and RED have Canon's budget for 6 months.  Then you'd probably see cameras the size of your Iphone that worked like an arriflex.

Now the real question is why 43?  For me because first it was the video of the gh3 which has yet to disappoint, secondly and a pleasant surprise was how good the still quality is for these little cameras.

They kind of look like 35mm film which I like, because they are not glass smooth past 400.

Since I go from city to city, studio to studio, (today I'm in London) I can put one messenger bag on the plane, one tripod in a suitcase and have a camera system I can virtually use on any gig.

For heavy production, yes we bring a lot of stuff, but if I want to shoot an editorial here today, I can.  

But I see this in a very different way.  I'm not a casual photographer or a guy that turns two shots a day.  If that was so I'd never have to buy another camera again.

We push tons of data, right now I'm looking at about 7 terabytes with motion and stills, to be spread out over 16 videos, don't know how many web and print placements.

At that volume, at that post production speed and requirements, they want professional imagery, but nobody is counting a little noise in a shadow or if somebody's eyelash is slightly blurred in a group of 15 subjects.

Others will disagree, others have that right.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 12, 2013, 11:41:22 am
... Many MF backs can record in full 16 bit...

Oh, no, not again!

Quote
...Huh?  You can't focus today's DSLRs manually?  Because the viewfinder isn't good enough?...

Oh, man, you really do not know what you are talking about. Or, to be precise, you do not know what James was talking about.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 12, 2013, 11:53:26 am
Huh?  You can't focus today's DSLRs manually?  Because the viewfinder isn't good enough?  I mean, I have difficulty focusing manually but that's because my eyes are shit.  Not because the viewfinder isn't good enough.  I can still focus manually with a split viewfinder.  But split viewfinders have been gone in SLR cameras for far longer than 10 years.  My, long since sold, EOS 620 didn't have a split viewfinder.  Cameras today have other aids for manual focus though.  My Nikons have a built-in rangefinder that tells me when I have focus with manual lenses.  No electronics necessary.
Trying to do manual focusing with my modern Canons is no way as easy as my old OM cameras, which despite the camera being half the size they have a viewfinder that is cinematic in size compared to my FF Canon's 'TV' viewfinder.
Just tried using both with same lenses and the OM is certainly easier to focus manually despite screen not being as bright and that was with out even using the excellent focusing aids at centre of screen, that are no longer present.

Part of the issue is that the Canon screens give an effective aperture of around f3.6. If I take a pic at f1.4 on my canon, it looks extremely different to the viewfinder image and thus focusing accuracy is going to be way off too. The ground glass view via my OMs is much closer to the final image.
It's a bit sad that a viewfinder in a camera whose design is about 40 years older and half the size be can so much better than a modern FF camera.
The 1Dx does have a larger viewfinder than the 5Ds I like to use, but that camera is even more enormous. Makes my Pentax 6x7 seem dainty!  :o
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 12, 2013, 12:20:44 pm
You can take an old camera, or digital back that sells for pennies on the dollar and go shot professionally, if you have the talent and the ability to get the gig and be sure nobody is going to say that file won't work.
This ⬆


Quote
Now in regards to the OMD 1.  I don't get it.  I understand improving the focus, the ability to use the older 43 lenses.  But what don't get is the incremental upgrades from every maker.

There is no technical reason that the omd 1 could not have had two sound imports, a headphone jack, shoot a 72mbs intra file making great use of their amazing image stabilization.

Actually there is probably no reason it couldn't be hacked to shoot a raw video file like the canon 5d2,3 whatever.

In other words they could make a better gh3 and that is the stuff that stumps me.
Tiny little incremental upgrades and crippling things to price points is what pissed Jim Jannard off so much and why he started RED.

Quote
What I would love to see is the entrepreneurial guys at black magic and RED have Canon's budget for 6 months.  Then you'd probably see cameras the size of your Iphone that worked like an arriflex.
Jannard is not exactly short of cash though....

Quote
And if you don't care about shooting motion, then fine, but the commercial and editorial world does.
Terry Richardson just shot a medium production quality video of that strange Milley chick that got something like a million views a day.  In three days it probably will surpass all of the views of his print work in the last three years, so yea video does matter.
Views are high because she is the current teen idol de jour and she gets naked in it.
She seems to be trying to prove she is an adult, not a little Disney moppet and is trying to be as provocative as possible. Failing miserably to be sexy though, as she simply comes across as desperate and trying too hard. Sticking your tongue out at every possibly opportunity or licking a grubby hammer is more pathetic than sexy.


Quote
Now the real question is why 43?  For me because first it was the video of the gh3 which has yet to disappoint, secondly and a pleasant surprise was how good the still quality is for these little cameras.

They kind of look like 35mm film which I like, because they are not glass smooth past 400.

Since I go from city to city, studio to studio, (today I'm in London) I can put one messenger bag on the plane, one tripod in a suitcase and have a camera system I can virtually use on any gig.
I have to say I'm getting increasingly fed up of carrying MF weight kit and would love to have a system that was as light and as compact as my old OMs. But although I'm happy to use small sensor cameras for doing street photography, I like the look of FF too much for it to replace my Canon kit entirely.
One of the first things I did when I starting shooting digital was to make my images look like film. I hate the plastic/video look too.
Digressing - I recall a thread on here a while back where some folks were saying how much better film was than digital as it had a certain magic something. I posted some B+W images and they were held up as examples demonstrating their point about film being better than digital. Amused me no end to point out they were in fact taken on a pocket digital camera.  ;D
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 12, 2013, 12:46:44 pm
I understand that Milley thing because standard folk just can't get enough of a celebrity and the words nude in the same sentence.

Yes it's pathetic.

But understand I have no agenda.  I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.

I'm also not getting involved in the 14 or 16 bit thing . . . ok . . . but,

I've used my R1's to block a shot with continuous light and they held more range than a p30+.  Did it a lot of times and same result.  Obviously they don't have the sharpness but they do have more dr or whatver anyone wants to call it.

Anyway, the only point I'm making is things have not changed that much, unless your including instigram and facebook and my second point is I'm sure the OMD1 is a good camera, but why intentionally hobble it?

When RED or BlackMagic have an issue it's not by design and they work feverishly to fix it.  In RED's case they charge you for it but they do fix it.

In the other world of big name cameras they just sell you another 15% for 100% of the costs.

That's the difference.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 12, 2013, 02:51:52 pm

...... and my second point is I'm sure the OMD1 is a good camera, but why intentionally hobble it?
So they can sell you a less hobbled camera next year and the year after and the year after that......
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 12, 2013, 03:09:53 pm
Oh, no, not again!

What?

Quote
Oh, man, you really do not know what you are talking about. Or, to be precise, you do not know what James was talking about.

If I wasn't addressing his point it's because his point wasn't clear.  As I said, it's not even clear whether he's talking about a multiple 1D cameras or a 1Ds or multiple 1Ds cameras.  If he's talking about jjj's point then I still say bullshit.  If James or Cooter or Russell or whomever wants to type in express himself in intelligible English, then maybe his points can be addressed more precisely.  The simple point is, manual focusing is not that difficult with a DSLR.

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 12, 2013, 03:18:01 pm
What?

16 Bit Myth (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60672.0)
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 12, 2013, 04:08:57 pm
Yeah, OK.  Thought I might get away with it.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 12, 2013, 05:12:21 pm
If I wasn't addressing his point it's because his point wasn't clear.  As I said, it's not even clear whether he's talking about a multiple 1D cameras or a 1Ds or multiple 1Ds cameras.  If he's talking about jjj's point then I still say bullshit.  If James or Cooter or Russell or whomever wants to type in express himself in intelligible English, then maybe his points can be addressed more precisely.  The simple point is, manual focusing is not that difficult with a DSLR.
it's much harder than with an ancient film camera in my experience, which is what James said. Just tested it to confirm it and a modern Canon is not as good as a 40 year old Olympus design. Which is a pain because my old manual Olympus lenses are lovely and sharp, but sadly a bit tricky to use on my Canon.
Not sure why you struggle to understand James's posts either, I certainly knew what James meant when he was talking about his 1Ds cameras.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Telecaster on September 12, 2013, 05:29:42 pm
I don't think I'm having any trouble getting what BC is saying. For all the techie jiggery-pokery of the past dozen years, images are still images. I look at transparencies I shot a couple weeks ago with my little Aria SLR and 35 & 50mm lenses, then I look at stuff from a couple days ago with the E-M5, then I look at last evening's thunderstorm shots with the Pentax 645D, then I look at Kodachromes my dad took on a 1950s fishing trip in the Canadian wilderness. They're all basically the same thing. I look at Super 8 footage (now on DVD) of me & my mom from 1963, Hi-8 video I shot in Singapore in the 1990s and then GH3 video of me playing guitar last week. Again all basically the same thing.

I've re-processed Canon 10D RAW files taken in 2003/4 and often have been surprised by how much better the tonality is with the latest software. Less spatial resolution than current cameras, sure, but IMO that's not such a big deal. Noisier than current cameras at high ISOs too...for the most part also not a big deal. With re-processing the files look like photos now rather than Handycam stills. They're of a piece with the EM-5 and 645D files, even of a piece with the Provia I'm using now and the Kodachrome my dad used.

I've included two photos, one taken in 1984 on Kodachrome 64 and the other last month with the E-M5. Both are nothing special...just record shots of my on-going fascination with the Moon. Both basically the same thing.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 12, 2013, 06:00:10 pm
it's much harder than with an ancient film camera in my experience, which is what James said. Just tested it to confirm it and a modern Canon is not as good as a 40 year old Olympus design. Which is a pain because my old manual Olympus lenses are lovely and sharp, but sadly a bit tricky to use on my Canon.
Not sure why you struggle to understand James's posts either, I certainly knew what James meant when he was talking about his 1Ds cameras.

Well, if that's what he was saying then that's what I thought too and I addressed it.  I don't know what Slobodan is going on about.  The only film camera I have now is a Fuji MF rangefinder with a split viewfinder.  Finding the split zone is difficult.  You have to hold the camera just so.  It's far easier and quicker with both of my digital Nikons.  None of my Canon film SLRs had great viewfinders.  I have used a couple old Nikon rangefinders that were decent.  But the only cameras I found pretty easy to focus were my Crown Graphic 4x5, my C220, C330 and my RZ.

As far as understanding what James was saying, I guess you understand forumease  better than me.  Then again, I don't understand textease either.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 12, 2013, 07:41:59 pm
Well, if that's what he was saying then that's what I thought too and I addressed it.  I don't know what Slobodan is going on about.  The only film camera I have now is a Fuji MF rangefinder with a split viewfinder.  Finding the split zone is difficult.  You have to hold the camera just so.  It's far easier and quicker with both of my digital Nikons.  None of my Canon film SLRs had great viewfinders.  I have used a couple old Nikon rangefinders that were decent.  But the only cameras I found pretty easy to focus were my Crown Graphic 4x5, my C220, C330 and my RZ.
Comparing a rangefinder to a reflex camera was not the comparison being made.
Not a fan of them myself, as I sometimes forget to focus.
As for Slobodan, he was just pointing out that you misread/miscontrued James' posts.

Quote
As far as understanding what James was saying, I guess you understand forumease  better than me.  Then again, I don't understand textease either.
It's txtspeak actually.  :P
And not sure why you think James' writing is 'forumease', he has his own style which is distinct from others on here. We're hardly likely to mistake his posts for ones by say Isaac, Schewe, Roy or Rob C, who are all quite different from each other.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 12, 2013, 09:08:58 pm
As for Slobodan, he was just pointing out that you misread/miscontrued James' posts.

No, I don't think I did.  What I did was disagree.  That's my experience.  Just as your 'tested just now' is your experience.  Which is why it's difficult to make such a definitive statement.

Quote
It's txtspeak actually.  :P

Either way it's still gibberish.


And not sure why you think James' writing is 'forumease', he has his own style which is distinct from others on here. We're hardly likely to mistake his posts for ones by say Isaac, Schewe, Roy or Rob C, who are all quite different from each other.

[/quote]

No, likely not.  But I'm able to comprehend their comments just fine.  But hey, I thought his name was Cooter or Russell or something that starts with a B, so....

Dave, if that's what James was saying then I don't disagree.  I don't think that's what he was saying.  I already made an analogy with cars. 

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: BJL on September 12, 2013, 09:11:04 pm
Hey, does anyone have any comments on the new OMD EM1 camera from Olympus? I thought this thread would be about it, but apparently not.

I have just looked at and read about the camera controls, particularly those operable with the fingers of the right hand, and my conclusion is that the extra space at top-right provided by the deeper grip greatly expands the range of controls that fall quickly under the fingers (one more dial, several more buttons), which to me is another ergonomic advantage, at least for us "control freak" photographers.

This is particularly so when combined with the information available in the EVF, which makes it even more useful  to be able to adjust controls "by touch", with camera to eye. The greater amount of "heads-up" information compared to an OVF also makes the secondary top-panel screen of higher-end SLRs unnecessary, allowing for more controls in less space.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: eronald on September 13, 2013, 05:34:26 am
Hey, does anyone have any comments on the new OMD EM1 camera from Olympus?

Nice replacement for the 5. Too much money ($2000 in Europe)

Edmund
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 13, 2013, 05:44:00 am
No, I don't think I did.  What I did was disagree.  That's my experience.  Just as your 'tested just now' is your experience.  Which is why it's difficult to make such a definitive statement.
Either way it's still gibberish.
Only in your opinion, where you compared apples and oranges.


Quote
But hey, I thought his name was Cooter or Russell or something that starts with a B, so....
if you look at bcooter's website, RusselRutherford, it clearly states that it shows the work of James Russell and Anne Rutherford. Ann being the producer/stylist.
And if you've been on forum for a while which the number of your posts indicate, bcooter originally used his own name.

Quote
Dave, if that's what James was saying then I don't disagree.  I don't think that's what he was saying.  I already made an analogy with cars. 
Which missed the point. The more correct car analogy would be driving to visit some relatives, who when they open the door to let you in are simply pleased to see you and don't care whether you got there in a '57 or '13 model vehicle.
Clients don't hire cameras, they employ photographers.

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 13, 2013, 07:39:03 am
Hey, does anyone have any comments on the new OMD EM1 camera from Olympus? I thought this thread would be about it, but apparently not.

I think it's exactly what most people expected.  Less unique in looks, more standard and I guess more acceptable.

It's seems to be a better camera than the 5, if only for the ability to track focus and probably will have a better viewfinder.

The only thing not mentioned is the insane menu system.  On the gh3 if you make a setting, don't like it return to the menu it takes you back to where you were.  On the omd 5 it takes you from start and with 86 layers of settings is maddening.

The next thing with the 5 is set on manual the two dials.  you can change direction, or function but they both change direction and it's non intuitive. In other words if you set it for apaeture to brighten the scene by moving one dial to the left, if you move the shutter dial to the left it gets darker.  I never, ever will get the hang of that and honestly there might be a fix, but finding it in the menu is difficult.

In other words the two dials should be in sync so one way for both dials goes brighter, the other way darker.

Another point is though most functions are user definable which is fine if you remember what f5, f2 etc. stands for.   On the gh3 there are three buttons by the shutter you use all the time, wb, iso and +-, for compensation.  These are very intuitive and marked as the function they do.  

I can keep comparing a omd 5 and a gh3 (which probably doesn't pertain to the omd 1 (at least not in all functions), but to me looking at the omd 1 as Edmund says in Europe $2,000 for a omd1 is high considering a gh3 is $500 less and does much, much, much better video.

I think it comes down to what you are going to use the camera for.  For stills and video the gh3 is amazing, For focus either track or touch, stills and video the gh3 is so good.

But for stills only the OMD might be a little better, I know the build quality will be more refined, but not as special as the omd5.

Once again, not to beat a dead horse, but the hobbling of the video is surprising.  It's like Panasonic says we'll do the video Olympus you do the stills.

IMO

BC


Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2013, 09:40:52 am
Only in your opinion, where you compared apples and oranges.

We'll agree to disagree.

Quote
if you look at bcooter's website, RusselRutherford, it clearly states that it shows the work of James Russell and Anne Rutherford. Ann being the producer/stylist.
And if you've been on forum for a while which the number of your posts indicate, bcooter originally used his own name.

I don't look at every website in a sig line.  And no, I was not aware that James originally used his own name so a false assumption on your part. 


Quote
Which missed the point. The more correct car analogy would be driving to visit some relatives, who when they open the door to let you in are simply pleased to see you and don't care whether you got there in a '57 or '13 model vehicle.
Clients don't hire cameras, they employ photographers.

Again, we'll agree to disagree because we were addressing different points.  I was addressing the point that technology has advanced and the advances in technology have made for much improved image quality.  I agreed that, to paraphrase another commenter, a picture is a picture in that they are all photographs.  That said, if I were to show up to a client's site with an old film camera and tell the client that it'll be, potentially, a few weeks before they get to see anything because I need to get the film processed then scan it which is a tedious and time-consuming process, then do the editing I think the client would likely send me packing and hire someone else.  Clients hire photographers, yes.  But in today's 'give it to me yesterday' mindset, they also hire fast turnaround.  The better analogy would be to say that a customer buying a print may not care what camera it was taken with.  They may care about the printing method, that is a different issue altogether; however.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 13, 2013, 09:53:35 am

The next thing with the 5 is set on manual the two dials.  you can change direction, or function but they both change direction and it's non intuitive. In other words if you set it for apaeture to brighten the scene by moving one dial to the left, if you move the shutter dial to the left it gets darker.  I never, ever will get the hang of that and honestly there might be a fix, but finding it in the menu is difficult.

In other words the two dials should be in sync so one way for both dials goes brighter, the other way darker.
I think in another OM thread when you mentioned this niggle, I think someone mentioned there was a way to alter that in the menus.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 13, 2013, 10:08:45 am
We'll agree to disagree.

I don't look at every website in a sig line.  And no, I was not aware that James originally used his own name so a false assumption on your part. 


Again, we'll agree to disagree because we were addressing different points.  I was addressing the point that technology has advanced and the advances in technology have made for much improved image quality.  I agreed that, to paraphrase another commenter, a picture is a picture in that they are all photographs.  That said, if I were to show up to a client's site with an old film camera and tell the client that it'll be, potentially, a few weeks before they get to see anything because I need to get the film processed then scan it which is a tedious and time-consuming process, then do the editing I think the client would likely send me packing and hire someone else.  Clients hire photographers, yes.  But in today's 'give it to me yesterday' mindset, they also hire fast turnaround.  The better analogy would be to say that a customer buying a print may not care what camera it was taken with.  They may care about the printing method, that is a different issue altogether; however.
Here's a suggestion, try talking about the same thing as the rest of us instead of misreading posts, making various erroneous assumptions and irrelevant analogies. As then a more sensible conversation could be had.
Here's a clue for you, no-one suggested using film instead of digital for pro work. Another one - digital cameras have been good enough for many years now, the main difference being they are a heck of a lot cheaper to get the same high end quality. What hasn't changed is how manufacturers deliberately hobble cameras.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Telecaster on September 13, 2013, 02:58:23 pm
I have just looked at and read about the camera controls, particularly those operable with the fingers of the right hand, and my conclusion is that the extra space at top-right provided by the deeper grip greatly expands the range of controls that fall quickly under the fingers (one more dial, several more buttons), which to me is another ergonomic advantage, at least for us "control freak" photographers.

This is particularly so when combined with the information available in the EVF, which makes it even more useful  to be able to adjust controls "by touch", with camera to eye. The greater amount of "heads-up" information compared to an OVF also makes the secondary top-panel screen of higher-end SLRs unnecessary, allowing for more controls in less space.

Yep, it was the control placement--coupled with the fact that better leaked promo pics showed the camera wasn't a balsawood mockup--that changed my take on the E-M1 from meh to yeah. The function button up top next to the shutter release is key for me, as it is on the E-M5...I use it to switch on/off the EVF mag for manual focusing. Index finger on the func., middle on the shutter. Took a day or two to adjust, now feels so natural that I find myself using my middle finger on other cameras too. Better than using it at them, I guess.  :D

I just love the versatility of EVFs. Bring on the New, baby!

-Dave-
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 13, 2013, 06:02:06 pm
Yep, it was the control placement--coupled with the fact that better leaked promo pics showed the camera wasn't a balsawood mockup--that changed my take on the E-M1 from meh to yeah. The function button up top next to the shutter release is key for me, as it is on the E-M5...I use it to switch on/off the EVF mag for manual focusing. Index finger on the func., middle on the shutter. Took a day or two to adjust, now feels so natural that I find myself using my middle finger on other cameras too. Better than using it at them, I guess.  :D

I just love the versatility of EVFs. Bring on the New, baby!

-Dave-

Dave you got a good attitude man.

BC
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2013, 06:34:05 pm
Here's a suggestion, try talking about the same thing as the rest of us instead of misreading posts, making various erroneous assumptions and irrelevant analogies. As then a more sensible conversation could be had.
Here's a clue for you, no-one suggested using film instead of digital for pro work. Another one - digital cameras have been good enough for many years now, the main difference being they are a heck of a lot cheaper to get the same high end quality. What hasn't changed is how manufacturers deliberately hobble cameras.

Oh, fuck me, get over yourself.  My reply was in direct response to your 'clients don't hire cameras' comment.  If you don't have the ability to think laterally, that's not my problem.  I never said digital cameras aren't 'good enough', nor that they haven't been for some time.  In actuality, I made basically that same statement in post #31.  Perhaps if you actually read and weren't so intent on just being a c*&$ (or, since you're in the UK, I'll put in local parlance - a complete git) you may have seen that.  I do, still, not agree that image quality is only as good as it was 10+ years ago.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: OldRoy on September 14, 2013, 07:39:15 am
I've been using the E M5 (as we must now call it) since shortly after its introduction. I also have a now little-used D700 and a decent set of very expensive, very heavy lenses.

I can live with the shortcomings of the E M5's EVF. I've learned to live with the limitations of CDAF. So the E M1 looks like something that I'll pass on. No doubt it's very nice but doesn't seem to offer sufficient advantages to make it worthwhile trading in the E M5 at a thumping great loss. If money were no object, sure, I'd get it. None of the early previews I've seen make any comment as to whether the dog's dinner OS of the E M5 has been improved in the new camera. It'd be the first thing I'd check out if I was reviewing the camera. How could you avoid it being the first thing you'd look at?

The new Olympus 12-40 2.8 looks like a superb (large, heavy, expensive) lens (Ming Thein has done a pre-release review). I can't help thinking that bulky lenses like this are somewhat opposed to the spirit of M4/3. Whilst I have four decent M4/3 primes the derided 12-50 kit lens tends to spend a lot more time on the camera. I've noticed that, other things being equal, what I point the combo at tends to influence the results more significantly that which lens I'm using.

It's a relief to be off the new model acquisition roller-coaster. But I sometimes wish I was rich enough to stay on it.

Roy
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 14, 2013, 09:12:11 am
Oh, fuck me, get over yourself.  My reply was in direct response to your 'clients don't hire cameras' comment.  If you don't have the ability to think laterally, that's not my problem.  I never said digital cameras aren't 'good enough', nor that they haven't been for some time.  In actuality, I made basically that same statement in post #31.  Perhaps if you actually read and weren't so intent on just being a c*&$ (or, since you're in the UK, I'll put in local parlance - a complete git) you may have seen that.  I do, still, not agree that image quality is only as good as it was 10+ years ago.
Seems you are remarkably offensive too, as well as being unable to read people's posts correctly.
BTW, thinking laterally does not mean bad analogies or talking at cross purposes. Such as your wittering on about rangefinder cameras when others are talking very specifically about reflex cameras or the the irrelevant nonsense about film when discussing digital quality. Besides if it would take you weeks to produce some film images, maybe it's because you struggle to read instructions on film packet too. Who knows. ???
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 14, 2013, 09:24:12 am
I have just looked at and read about the camera controls, particularly those operable with the fingers of the right hand, and my conclusion is that the extra space at top-right provided by the deeper grip greatly expands the range of controls that fall quickly under the fingers (one more dial, several more buttons), which to me is another ergonomic advantage, at least for us "control freak" photographers.
After just playing with my old OM cameras that the EM5 is based on, both with and without the grip/motordrive. I noticed that unlike newer digital camera, it didn't need the grip and is probably nicer without it. I think this is because the camera is so small and light it can get away with it, whereas my 5Ds are so big  and chunky you really need the extra grip.
This does as you have pointed out, have the added benefit of giving more real estate to the more numerous button and dials that are needed these days. So I will be interested to try the new camera out, but it was the size of the EM5 that attracted me most so I hope it doesn't make the new camera too big for me.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 14, 2013, 09:35:15 am
On the gh3 there are three buttons by the shutter you use all the time, wb, iso and +-, for compensation.  These are very intuitive and marked as the function they do.  

except I do not use WB (always UniWB) and I do not film movies - so for me Panasonic has 2 useless buttons on top that I can't reprogramm... and more so I can't disable WB button (which I press by error once in a while)
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 14, 2013, 10:32:03 am
except I do not use WB (always UniWB) and I do not film movies - so for me Panasonic has 2 useless buttons on top that I can't reprogramm... and more so I can't disable WB button (which I press by error once in a while)

Like I said, cameras are personal.  What I like others loathe, and vice-versa.

I dig the little olympus, the 5 probably would like the 3, the pana to me is just easier (and a whole lot more normal looking).  Still, I can shoot with both, get paid, life keeps clicking.

But on the subject of quality.  That is so subjective.  I'm not saying cameras haven't improved, in some ways they have, but find me a photographer that wouldn't love the viewfinder of an Nikon FM or a OM1 film camera, in today's digital world and well, I think anybody would be surprised at how much we gave up with digital.

You know, a few years ago I had a gig in Brazil and Mexico.  Knew I needed low light and a faster camera so I bought a 1d mark 3, (not 1ds) which was just 10 mpx.

This gig was for a big coffee table book and the publisher was just crazy tech centric about not interpolating, having all the detail they could get, etc. etc., so I bought the 1d3, did a test, uprezzed the crap out of it, stripped out the metadata and shipped it.  They loved it, thought it was from a medium format camera and shot the gig, the book was pretty.

So quality is as much perception as reality.

This is a small take from that book.

(http://www.russellrutherford.com/lifestyle/pictures/rr_life_0128.jpg)



IMO

BC
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 14, 2013, 01:27:32 pm
Like I said, cameras are personal.
what is person about Panasonic not allowing to reprogram the buttons ? note that nobody is asking to remove them, change their location or size or how their are labeled - let them be, just allow to assign different functions to those who want... video button is an utter example - you can disable it (that is for those who do not film movies, only stills) - but why in the world you can't in addition to disabling it let it do something useful for stills functions ?
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 14, 2013, 03:01:36 pm
You know, a few years ago I had a gig in Brazil and Mexico.  Knew I needed low light and a faster camera so I bought a 1d mark 3, (not 1ds) which was just 10 mpx.

This gig was for a big coffee table book and the publisher was just crazy tech centric about not interpolating, having all the detail they could get, etc. etc., so I bought the 1d3, did a test, uprezzed the crap out of it, stripped out the metadata and shipped it.  They loved it, thought it was from a medium format camera and shot the gig, the book was pretty.

So quality is as much perception as reality.
Reminds me of the times I've had arguments about the idiotic [and based on misinformation] everthing must be printed at '300dpi rule'. I've found I needed 600dpi for small reproductions and 150dpi was great for larger print jobs.

I did some testing a long while back of files uprezed via ACR vs specialist enlarging software such as Genuine Fractals. Not only did ACR best GF, but much to my surprise the 8MP file uprezed to 18MP or thereabout looked better than the original file. Just had a root around and found a jpeg of the comparison.




Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Telecaster on September 14, 2013, 03:58:23 pm
I was off the new model acquisition rollercoaster for 5 1/2 years before buying an E-M5 back in March. Nasty nerve compression side-effects mostly kept me from using the cameras I already had, much less any new ones I might have bought. Tricky spinal surgery finally got rid of the nerve nasties, and this left me with (beyond a near-euphroric sense of elation that has yet to diminish...likely the source of the good attitude BC says I have   ;D ) six years of photo gear budget to spend in six months. Which I have largely done! So now it's time to roam about my locale, travel to other locales and snap snap snap. No new cameras next year, maybe none in 2015 either unless something truly compelling shows up.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 14, 2013, 04:16:47 pm
Glad to hear you've got yourself sorted out Dave. Hopefully you'll also have a nice fresh set of eyes to go with all your new kit.   :)
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Telecaster on September 14, 2013, 04:39:00 pm
Reminds me of the times I've had arguments about the idiotic [and based on misinformation] everthing must be printed at '300dpi rule'. I've found I needed 600dpi for small reproductions and 150dpi was great for larger print jobs.

I did some testing a long while back of files uprezed via ACR vs specialist enlarging software such as Genuine Fractals. Not only did ACR best GF, but much to my surprise the 8MP file uprezed to 18MP or thereabout looked better than the original file.

I remember shortly after getting the Canon 20D in 2004...I was looking on-screen at a portion of a photo I'd just printed, probably at 8x12". Pixel peeping is what I was doing to be honest. I noticed there was detail in the file that wasn't showing up in the print. So I made a bigger print...12x18", about as big as my then printer could go. Now I could see the detail but not as clearly as on-screen. So I split the file into quarters, up-resed one of 'em either in ACR or Photoshop proper (don't remember if ACR did good (or any) up-resing back then), USMed accordingly and printed that at 8x12". Finally the print matched the on-screen version detail-wise...and besides that it still looked good, not degraded, at least to my c. 2004 eyes.

Nowadays I'm probably more demanding, but not to the extent where I really need the E-M5's 16mp, much less my Pentax's 40mp. Tonality and dynamic range are what I love about the 645D and what I'm amazed are so good with the E-M5 too. Of course at the same time I'll take more of everything...   :D

As for a fresh set of eyes...we'll see about that.   ;)  A fresh set of glasses...that I can do, no problem.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: eronald on September 14, 2013, 04:39:28 pm
Glad to hear you've got yourself sorted out Dave. Hopefully you'll also have a nice fresh set of eyes to go with all your new kit.   :)

Good news to hear good news :)

Edmund
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 14, 2013, 05:38:33 pm
... But bottom line in still image quality... I'm pretty close to where I was 10 years ago...

I tend to agree with the that statement.

Sure, there have been advances in IQ in the meantime - if you are a 400% pixel-peeper. For real photographers, not so much.

I recently had my first art fair. I had 20+ canvases, 20x30. Here is a breakdown of cameras used:

Canon 20D   (8 Mpx)    52%
Canon 40D   (10 Mpx)   22%
Canon 60D   (18 Mpx)   17%
Canon G10   (15 Mpx)   9%

In terms of ISO, slightly more than a half were shot between 80-320, but the rest were between 400 and 1600. As you can figure out, 8 Mpx prints at that size at 116 ppi. Usually even less, after minor cropping. No interpolation, nothing special, standard Lightroom output to print.

At 20x30 canvas, none of the above mattered. All shots appeared the same, even in close inspection. By "same" I mean equally sharp, no noise, etc.

I am sure that if I invited Schewe to print them on paper, printer and ink of his choice, he would be able to produce superior prints. But without a reference point (and a loupe), canvas looked simply gorgeous.


Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: bcooter on September 14, 2013, 07:01:17 pm


Canon 20D   (8 Mpx)    52%
Canon 40D   (10 Mpx)   22%
Canon 60D   (18 Mpx)   17%
Canon G10   (15 Mpx)   9%


Slobodan,

Your right.  It's not about the tech as much as the image.  Of course photography is art aided by science, but we've put ourselves on this hampster wheel of everytime it stops we buy something.

Dave, now he does have a good attitude, because he waited now he can buy and he's buying because he wants to, not because he feels he has to.   Wanting to, for pleasure is a much better deal than feeling you have to because some camera tester, or client's pre production house decides on some arbitrary number that is "right".

There is no right.  Heck back in the film days, right before I went to digital, I shot a lot of kodak epr.  I think I rated it out at around 50 asa and for 50 asa it was grainy as hell, but pretty.

epr
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/lifestyle/pictures/rr_life_0122.jpg)

I'm not telling anyone to buy or not to buy anything.  I'm 100% sure the omd1 is a better functioning camera than the omd 5, if you need or want the few extra things it does.

I really do wish the incremental change thing would stop.  It gets old and costly and doesn't add to my life or work.  If a camera like the GH3 allows me to do some things better than those huge REDs I use and doesn't break the bank, then cool, I'm there and almost happy to buy it.  

But for olympus or anyone to hold back features we know are just some coding additions, then I don't dig it.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: eronald on September 14, 2013, 07:14:11 pm
James,

 Maybe the message is find something you like on the used market.
 The only thing I can do with exactly one camera is track my 2 year old around the room @ ISO 6400 indoors. (D4).
 Anything else, I find just about every camera I have old or new can do, old often better than new.

Edmund
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: BJL on September 14, 2013, 07:49:41 pm
I've been using the E M5 (as we must now call it) since shortly after its introduction. I also have a now little-used D700 and a decent set of very expensive, very heavy lenses.

I can live with the shortcomings of the E M5's EVF. I've learned to live with the limitations of CDAF. So the E M1 looks like something that I'll pass on. No doubt it's very nice but doesn't seem to offer sufficient advantages to make it worthwhile trading in the E M5 at a thumping great loss. If money were no object, sure, I'd get it. None of the early previews I've seen make any comment as to whether the dog's dinner OS of the E M5 has been improved in the new camera. It'd be the first thing I'd check out if I was reviewing the camera. How could you avoid it being the first thing you'd look at?

The new Olympus 12-40 2.8 looks like a superb (large, heavy, expensive) lens (Ming Thein has done a pre-release review). I can't help thinking that bulky lenses like this are somewhat opposed to the spirit of M4/3. Whilst I have four decent M4/3 primes the derided 12-50 kit lens tends to spend a lot more time on the camera. I've noticed that, other things being equal, what I point the combo at tends to influence the results more significantly that which lens I'm using.

It's a relief to be off the new model acquisition roller-coaster. But I sometimes wish I was rich enough to stay on it.
Roy, I agree with virtually everything you say ... starting with the fact that the model names of cameras in the OMD series are EM5 and EM1: bcooter please take note!

One tactic in resisting the upgrade "arms race" is to realize that new models are mostly not aimed at people who already have the immediate previous model, but more at those with an earlier model, three or four or more years old, or to increase the temptation for people to upgrade from lower level models. Which unfortunately does not stop me fantasizing about _adding_ an EM1, to carry a big lens on it and a small lens like the 12-50 on the EM5!
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: RFPhotography on September 15, 2013, 01:10:40 am
I tend to agree with the that statement.

Sure, there have been advances in IQ in the meantime - if you are a 400% pixel-peeper. For real photographers, not so much.

I recently had my first art fair. I had 20+ canvases, 20x30. Here is a breakdown of cameras used:

Canon 20D   (8 Mpx)    52%
Canon 40D   (10 Mpx)   22%
Canon 60D   (18 Mpx)   17%
Canon G10   (15 Mpx)   9%

In terms of ISO, slightly more than a half were shot between 80-320, but the rest were between 400 and 1600. As you can figure out, 8 Mpx prints at that size at 116 ppi. Usually even less, after minor cropping. No interpolation, nothing special, standard Lightroom output to print.

At 20x30 canvas, none of the above mattered. All shots appeared the same, even in close inspection. By "same" I mean equally sharp, no noise, etc.

I am sure that if I invited Schewe to print them on paper, printer and ink of his choice, he would be able to produce superior prints. But without a reference point (and a loupe), canvas looked simply gorgeous.

But the underlined part isn't the biggest component.  Canvas should really be the underlined part.  Media matters.  Canvas, due to its heavy texture, is capable of reproducing images at lower resolution that look good.  It's a low resolution medium.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Glenn NK on September 15, 2013, 03:50:23 pm
Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7

Yes, and I'm hoping that this is a result of some poorly done test shots.

Other than that, the DPR review is quite positive.

Glenn
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: tkarlmann on September 18, 2013, 12:35:52 am
Has anyone noticed over at DP Review how the IQ is actually inferior to any competitor, including EM-5 and GX-7

Not true.  I looked at both GX7 and e-M1.  The lack of the AA filter, I think, gives an edge to the E-M1 photos.  Blacks are darker.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: tkarlmann on September 18, 2013, 12:39:47 am
not exactly, for example P 30-100/2.8 is quite compact zoom...

here is what I use indoors (flash RC is optical - onboard flash controls 2 externals)

(http://imageshack.us/a/img46/9108/0vio.jpg)

Do you mind sharing?  Where did you get the flash bracket?  How does this setup work / why do you need 2 external flashes so close together?  What type photography are you doing?
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 18, 2013, 01:01:21 pm
Do you mind sharing?  Where did you get the flash bracket?  How does this setup work / why do you need 2 external flashes so close together?  What type photography are you doing?

http://www.custombrackets.com + arca clamp

I typically rotate both flash heads to fire somewhat towards behind me (bounce off walls/ceiling), 2 flashes allow lower output from each - faster recharge - less heating w/o going to serious flashes like from Quantum or more power when necessary... this is for situations when I really need to carry both camera and flashes in hands together... not for a studio or other situations when I can just arrange off camera light and keep only a camera alone in hands.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: fike on September 19, 2013, 09:28:18 am
But the underlined part isn't the biggest component.  Canvas should really be the underlined part.  Media matters.  Canvas, due to its heavy texture, is capable of reproducing images at lower resolution that look good.  It's a low resolution medium.

I totally agree that canvas is a bit of equalizer in the equation.  That isn't a negative statement. For some images, I love the texture of the canvas media, but  fine detail isn't reproduced as well so the difference between camera of different resolutions isn't as apparent.

The willingness of Olympus to stand pat at 16MP is one of the things I like about them.  they don't seem to be compelled to turn-it-up-to-eleven.

On the other hand, for wildlife and bird work, resolution is king.  You always are cropping and you always want more resolution because the little critters rarely come and perch on your studio portrait stool under perfect light.  This is the only area where I have found the MFT system to be noticeably inferior (so far) to traditional DSLR.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 19, 2013, 10:11:56 am
On the other hand, for wildlife and bird work, resolution is king.  You always are cropping and you always want more resolution because the little critters rarely come and perch on your studio portrait stool under perfect light.  This is the only area where I have found the MFT system to be noticeably inferior (so far) to traditional DSLR.
But I'd imagine carrying a 200mm MFT lens up a mountain is a darn sight easier than a 400mm Canikon lens    :)  Swings+roundabouts.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: fike on September 19, 2013, 10:25:56 am
But I'd imagine carrying a 200mm MFT lens up a mountain is a darn sight easier than a 400mm Canikon lens    :)  Swings+roundabouts.

yes but.

I have yet to see very many excellent wildlife photos taken on MFT.  There is lots of nice wildlife snapshots out there, but very little excellence in wildlife on MFT.

For me, my keeper ratio of MFT to 7D is something like 1 to 10....I have one MFT wildlife photo that I consider excellent for every 10 excellent images I have made with the 7D.  I am still trying, but have had little success. 

There are two main reasons for this disparity: 1) a lack of excellent telephoto options on MFT, and 2) focus points are too big on E-M5.  (note I am not actually complaining about focus speed)

I am hoping that the smaller focus points on the E-M1 might start to change that ratio though even with the four thirds lenses available on the new body there still won't be a great telephoto selection (the 300 f/2.8 is a bit to pricey) and the 50-200 (in the same price range as the ubiquitous 100-400) isn't quite long enough even on MFT. They really need a high-quality 300 f/4.  That would probably slot in between $1K and $2K and would maintain the MFT size-advantage.  Unfortunately, the Panasonic and Olympus MFT telephotos (75-300 and 100-400) aren't quite up-to-snuff to me. 

On a related note...that 50-200 remains tempting to me, and with its excellent reputation for sharpness, I wonder how it might stack with a 1.4x teleconverter.  That might get into a range that would be effective for wildlife...probably with compromised focus speed and sharpness though.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: jjj on September 19, 2013, 01:09:32 pm
yes but.
I have yet to see very many excellent wildlife photos taken on MFT.  There is lots of nice wildlife snapshots out there, but very little excellence in wildlife on MFT.
Not surprising really as MFT is still a very new format and SLR type cameras such as the two Olympus models that are likely to be used for that sort of thing are even younger. One you can't even buy yet. And lenses are still appearing.

Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: tkarlmann on September 22, 2013, 04:56:03 am
http://www.custombrackets.com + arca clamp

I typically rotate both flash heads to fire somewhat towards behind me (bounce off walls/ceiling), 2 flashes allow lower output from each - faster recharge - less heating w/o going to serious flashes like from Quantum or more power when necessary... this is for situations when I really need to carry both camera and flashes in hands together... not for a studio or other situations when I can just arrange off camera light and keep only a camera alone in hands.

Thanks for the Bracket info.  I guess I went the Quantum route.  I don't like Quantum's latest 'interface units' for digital -- do not seem to work as well as Nikon's flash.  But those Quantum heads are really great for off-camera light -- I've got 3 or 4 of them -- all sorts of reflectors, I have the X2's I think.
Title: Wildlife often benefits often smaller pixels, not directly from more of them
Post by: BJL on September 22, 2013, 09:54:44 am

The willingness of Olympus to stand pat at 16MP is one of the things I like about them.  they don't seem to be compelled to turn-it-up-to-eleven.

On the other hand, for wildlife and bird work, resolution is king.  You always are cropping and you always want more resolution because the little critters rarely come and perch on your studio portrait stool under perfect light.
I slightly disagree: the benefit for wildlife photography that you attribute to the cropping latitude given by more pixels is more specifically the benefit of smaller pixels, and thus high angular resolution from a given focal length. The other way to improve resolution on a given small/distant subject is of course longer focal lengths.

If you stay with one format, the pursuit of smaller pixels does indeed mean needing more of them; often a surfeit of pixels followed by heavy cropping. But what I like about using a smaller format system like 4/3" for wildlife is that you usually get those smaller pixels even though the pixel count before cropping is a bit lower, and so a somewhat shorter focal length gets the job done. In particular,
Nikon One at 14MP > MFT 16MP > highest current APS-C resolution > any current 35mm format camera
for the wildlife reach of a given focal length.

So what MFT currently somewhat lacks, and Nikon One severely lacks, is good long telephoto lenses that are native to the system and AF well with it. I am fairly happy with the Olympus 75-300 (”150-600 in my coat pocket") but brighter long telephoto options would be nice, which is why I am hoping that MFT PDAF will revive my 50-200.
Title: Re: Wildlife often benefits often smaller pixels, not directly from more of them
Post by: fike on September 22, 2013, 11:38:48 am
I slightly disagree: the benefit for wildlife photography that you attribute to the cropping latitude given by more pixels is more specifically the benefit of smaller pixels, and thus high angular resolution from a given focal length. The other way to improve resolution on a given small/distant subject is of course longer focal lengths.

If you stay with one format, the pursuit of smaller pixels does indeed mean needing more of them; often a surfeit of pixels followed by heavy cropping. But what I like about using a smaller format system like 4/3" for wildlife is that you usually get those smaller pixels even though the pixel count before cropping is a bit lower, and so a somewhat shorter focal length gets the job done. In particular,
Nikon One at 14MP > MFT 16MP > highest current APS-C resolution > any current 35mm format camera
for the wildlife reach of a given focal length.

So what MFT currently somewhat lacks, and Nikon One severely lacks, is good long telephoto lenses that are native to the system and AF well with it. I am fairly happy with the Olympus 75-300 (”150-600 in my coat pocket") but brighter long telephoto options would be nice, which is why I am hoping that MFT PDAF will revive my 50-200.

All you say is absolutely true.  Right now the best compromise for me with wildlife photography is the 7D with a 100-400.  That may change with the E-M1.  I too have the 75-300, but I find it to have subpar sharpness above 250mm and that couple with the problematically large focus points in the E-M5 has meant I haven't had many keepers with it. Canon has a small and excellent 300 f/4 that would balance well on an OM-D, but without autofocus is a bit impractical for wildlife.  I am not very good at manual focus. I do it occasionally for static subjects like macro, but for birds (BIF), it is really not easy.
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: Vladimirovich on September 22, 2013, 11:44:51 am
The willingness of Olympus to stand pat at 16MP is one of the things I like about them.  they don't seem to be compelled to turn-it-up-to-eleven.
it is not a willingness, it is a simple unavailability of > 16mp sensor... you shall be old enough to remember "willingness" of Olympus "to stand pat at 12mp" which disappeared the moment Sony made 16mp in a proper size... so it will be till the moment when somebody offers them a decent 20/24mp sensor in 43/m43 size.

http://www.lenstip.com/116.1-article-Interview_with_Akira_Watanabe_Manager_-_the_main_Olympus_E-P1_designer.html

"...

KM: Olympus has declared an end to the megapixel race. Does it mean we will have 12 MPix in Micro 4/3 for a long time? Is there any chances we will see a lower megapixel range? A matrix with 8-10 MPix could improve dynamic range, reduce noise, increase speed and increase sensitivity. Who decides on the amount of pixels?

AW: I have not said we will stop the pixel race nor stop at 12M, but I think pixel count is now less important than before, since we have already exceeded 10M pixels and satisfying most of the applications in terms of resolution that normal customers require.

..."

see, they were not standing there even then ;D
Title: Re: New Camera from Olympus
Post by: ned on September 22, 2013, 03:53:09 pm
As i got better with my bird photography I worried less and less about cropping. Some of that can be mitigated by understanding how to get closer. I've found that if you have to crop too much, it probably wasn't a great shot anyway. A high percentage of my bird work the last year and a half or so has been photographing the ducks in our area. In doing so I've gotten to know the E-5's auto focus system quite well as well as the cameras noise profile. I basically didn't shoot over ISO400 due to the underwing shadow noise creeping in. Much over ISO800 and the light has faded so I really didn't do a lot up there.

Not concerned with the EM-1's noise but the C-AF system and the small focus point setup will be something I check out when I can rent one. Would have liked it if the EM-1's screen could flip around for protection, my equipment is not babied out in the field. I owned the Olympus OM350mmf2.8 lens and used with the OM cameras I never complained about the size of the camera, you just hold it by the lens.

The Zuiko 300mmf2.8 is such a quality lens optically and physically it deserves a great camera behind it.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7326/9573905224_cee2dae1d8_o.jpg)