Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: enthill on October 13, 2013, 01:00:06 pm
-
Newbie here. I am looking to buy a camera that is fun and easy to use. Something that takes good pictures and is versatile. I only take pictures of day to day stuff, family, events at he school where I teach (including yearbook), vacation photos etc. I only view the pictures on computer or make small prints for a photo album (but would like to make some bigger prints for house decoration). Cameras that come to mind are the Fuji X20 and the Sony Rx100. My question really isn't however about what specific camera I should chose so much as will these cameras provide "good enough" image quality or do i need at least a micro 4/3s sensor? To be more specific, I understand that noise creeps in at lower iso's on the smaller sensor cameras but is that noise detectable at normal viewing or only when cropped? What size prints, given decent lighting and lower iso values, could I expect to make with those cameras before noise becomes an issue? Many questions! Any guidance would be appreciated!
-
I have 24x30 prints made (on canvas) from my p&s Canon G10 (which is from 2008, with a 1/1.7" sensor, vs. the whole 1" sensor of the Sony Rx100 you have in mind). No interpolation, no special software, just careful post-processing in Lightroom. Absolutely good enough. Actually, gorgeous. As a matter of fact, barely distinguishable at that size (and canvas) from, say, an 18 Mpx APS-C camera I also have. With the modern software we have these days, noise concern is overrated.
-
Thank you Slobodan. I am very pleased that you were able to get those results, with careful post processing as you suggest. I suspect that this noise issue is a bit overblown too, although I am far from an expert. I wonder if others feel the same too? I have to remind myself of these things so that I can simply buy the equipment I need and nothing more.
-
It's no longer a matter of non-bargain-basement cameras producing clearly unacceptable results at high ISO numbers, but merely a matter of how much detail smearing happens due to the automatic noise reduction that takes place when shooting in low light without a flash. With megapixel counts now routinely over the 10 MP mark, you're almost never going to run into detail smearing that remains visible when a picture is sized down for monitor viewing, and only rarely when sized down for small printing. Which only leaves the question of the occasional wall-hanging-sized print. So here's what you do:
Review sites have albums of full-size sample shots taken with each camera that's reviewed. Scads more may be available on photo sharing sites that allow searches by camera make/model and allow posting of full-size JPEGs. Select the camera you're most interested in for all other considerations other than image quality, then download a variety of sample shots at various ISOs from that camera. Print a few of them at album size and at the wall-hanging size you have in mind. If they work for you, that's really all that matters. This saves you trying to wade through the morass of conflicting opinions you'll inevitably get when you post a question on the web that involves a judgment call.
Tip: whether you do your own printing with a letter-size inkjet or get your prints made at a kiosk, you may not want to spring for one or more custom-printed wall-hanging-sized prints just to do a test shot. What you do is size the picture for wall hanging in software, then cut out (crop) just a portion of the picture that will fit on to a smaller print size, then print that.
-
Thank you Dale! What you suggest sounds eminently practical! Exactly the advice I was seeking. As you suggest, making some example prints at the desired size should help make my decision clearer. I have read in a few reviews before how different camera manufacturers handle noise reduction. By the way, is noise reduction some algorithm that kicks in at specific low light circumstances (low light, no flash) or is it applied to a certain degree in all shots?
-
Automatic noise reduction is a problem only if you shoot jpegs. Shoot RAW. If not, switch to RAW for low light shots or shots with deep shadows.
-
Got it! Thanks again!
-
Are there any other considerations I should make before purchasing a camera based on IQ?
Disclaimer: I am a newbie to this forum and also to photography. Just trying to acquire some knowledge before investing in a better camera.
-
I dare to suggest something rather controversial: the last thing you should pay attention getting a camera is IQ.
How come? Today's cameras are, even at the lower end, better than 99% of photographers. What you should pay attention to instead is how you feel about a camera, how it feels in your hands, do you prefer menus or dials, do you prefer to compose on the back screen or in the viewfinder (and if so, should it be optical or electronic one), etc.
Another reason IQ should be the least of your concerns is that you, and the people around you, are going to judge your photos based on EQ not IQ. That is, emotional impact.
-
Another reason IQ should be the least of your concerns is that you, and the people around you, are going to judge your photos based on EQ not IQ. That is, emotional impact.
Emotional impact is highly dependant upon the quality of an image...
Buy the camera that produces the hightest quality for the style of photography most important to the photographer, and then learn to use it as a tool. How it "feels" for the first several weeks or even months has nothing at all to do with the quality of the images, or the emotional impact, it can produce after the camera operator has learned how to use it.
-
Thanks for the different perspectives Slobodan and Floyd. I imagine that both points have elements of truth. A good photographer probably doesn't need the best equipment but it surely must help some.
One last inquiry. I prefer shooting black and white. Are there cameras that produce better black and white photos right from camera or is achieving good b&w photos simply a matter of post processing with the proper software? And if the latter, what is the best software available?
-
Thanks for the different perspectives Slobodan and Floyd. I imagine that both points have elements of truth. A good photographer probably doesn't need the best equipment but it surely must help some.
The biggest differences in cameras amount to which different types of photography they are best for. I commonly use two different but fairly similar cameras. The difference is somewhat enhanced by typically having two distinctly different lenses mounted. The point is that I rarely have much trouble deciding which to use for any given shoot. The camera I use 3 out of 4 times costs half as much as the "backup". They are both Nikon DSLRs. I use the best camera for the work at hand.
One last inquiry. I prefer shooting black and white. Are there cameras that produce better black and white photos right from camera or is achieving good b&w photos simply a matter of post processing with the proper software? And if the latter, what is the best software available?
Generally all DSLR's shoot color and all BW images are thus the result of software rather than hardware. That is, the RAW image is made using the same Color Filter Array and data recording hardware that produces color images. The BW image is desaturated using software. You can virtually always do better with post processing.
There are some serious exceptions to the above. Leica makes at least a couple of DSLRs that do not have the CFA for color, and directly produce monochrome images.
I have no experience with a monochrome digital camera, but would not recommend one for a very specific reason. With a CFA it becomes quite reasonable (and more so as the pixel count goes up) to produce high quality BW that emulates virtually any BW film. That cannot be done unless color information is recorded.
-
There are some serious exceptions to the above. Leica makes at least a couple of DSLRs that do not have the CFA for color, and directly produce monochrome images.
Leica makes one camera model that produces only monochrome images and it's a rangefinder, not a DLSR.
-
Hi,
There is something to it...
Best regards
Erik
I dare to suggest something rather controversial: the last thing you should pay attention getting a camera is IQ.
How come? Today's cameras are, even at the lower end, better than 99% of photographers. What you should pay attention to instead is how you feel about a camera, how it feels in your hands, do you prefer menus or dials, do you prefer to compose on the back screen or in the viewfinder (and if so, should it be optical or electronic one), etc.
Another reason IQ should be the least of your concerns is that you, and the people around you, are going to judge your photos based on EQ not IQ. That is, emotional impact.
-
I came to the right forum! The decision seems clearer now.
In my mind I have two cameras competing for my attention:
The Fuji X20 and the Panasonic Gx7. Gonna try and rent them both and do some comparisons.
Thanks to all!
-
I dare to suggest something rather controversial: the last thing you should pay attention getting a camera is IQ.
How come? Today's cameras are, even at the lower end, better than 99% of photographers. What you should pay attention to instead is how you feel about a camera, how it feels in your hands, do you prefer menus or dials, do you prefer to compose on the back screen or in the viewfinder (and if so, should it be optical or electronic one), etc.
Another reason IQ should be the least of your concerns is that you, and the people around you, are going to judge your photos based on EQ not IQ. That is, emotional impact.
Absolutely right!
Jim
-
Agreed Jim. Slobodan's insight really steered my thinking in the right direction. Based on his comment I'm now most likely to spend at least half of what I was prepared to on a new camera.
-
If all your shots are going to be handheld, the Olympus offering with 4 (5?) way stabilization is very helpful. There are VR and other mfg offering stabilization, and for candids that would really help, keeping you on the subject rather than fretting about settings.
I agree with the others about IQ being a bit over hyped.
Photography is about the shooter and his skill much more than the gear. The old guys who are revered had really crappy equipment compared to some of the stuff available today.
-
Photography is about the shooter and his skill much more than the gear. The old guys who are revered had really crappy equipment compared to some of the stuff available today.
Photography is about producing photographs. If you have crappy equipment, you'd better be as good as "the old guys"! If you aren't that good, it might make a lot more sense to buy the best equipment available (which is exactly what every single one of "the old guys" did) because the difference isn't in how it "feels" so much as it is how easy it is or isn't to produce high quality photos with less operator skill.
Buy a "feel good" camera, and you can walk around profiling how good you feel!
Buy a camera that produces the best images for the type of photography you want to do, and you can show off your great photography.
-
Buy a camera that produces the best images for the type of photography you want to do, and you can show off your great photography.
Unless its user interface rubs your fur the wrong way. I get my best photos when using a camera that I like using.
-
Don't in any way want to put you off the X20, but just be aware the optical finder only has 85% coverage. I tried living with an 85% finder once, never got the hang of it, but had to use it in bright daylight. Given how may people are snapping up the X20, however, this is probably only an issue for me. I suppose you could work something up in post-processing to automatically crop away the extra 15% image area you'll get in the output file in order to regain the composition you were expecting. IAC: X20 owners will probably chime in to explain why it's not even a problem in the first place.
As for the GX7, here's an off-beat look at it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ru_zhAPC78E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ru_zhAPC78E)
-
Photography is about producing photographs. If you have crappy equipment, you'd better be as good as "the old guys"! If you aren't that good, it might make a lot more sense to buy the best equipment available (which is exactly what every single one of "the old guys" did) because the difference isn't in how it "feels" so much as it is how easy it is or isn't to produce high quality photos with less operator skill.
Buy a "feel good" camera, and you can walk around profiling how good you feel!
Buy a camera that produces the best images for the type of photography you want to do, and you can show off your great photography.
Yes but Floyd - Slobodan's comment, and I totally agree with him, is that just about any reasonable camera these days has good enough IQ for most photographers. Therefore the question comes down to which 'feels' best. And here we are not talking about how it looks, just as a tool how easy it is to use. For me, having good simple controls and being able to 'see' the image through whatever viewing system the camera has, are the most important points.
Jim
-
After looking at the cameras you mention I opted for a Panasonic Lumix LX7. 24mm wide end at f/1.4 and 90mm long end at f/2.3. Fast lens, clean images and the zoom range of 24-90 works for me.
Having the option of manual operation, RAW images and exposures to a couple minutes makes it nice in use for night skies to kids and running dogs.
-
I came to the right forum! The decision seems clearer now.
In my mind I have two cameras competing for my attention:
The Fuji X20 and the Panasonic Gx7. Gonna try and rent them both and do some comparisons.
Renting is great idea. These are two very different cameras -- a small-sensor p+s with a fixed zoom, and a larger-sensor interchangeable lens camera that can take any of a very large number of zoom and prime lenses. In general, I would expect the Panasonic is going to be better at everything other than compact size over the X20. If you were to choose, say, and XE1 with the 18-55 Fuji lens, that would be a possibly more fair comparison (and it's a very nice camera.) I own both a complete Fuji system and a complete Panny micro 4/3 system, and they have different strengths and weaknesses. I have not used an X20, but people who have like it.
Good luck and happy shooting.
-
Yes but Floyd - Slobodan's comment, and I totally agree with him, is that just about any reasonable camera these days has good enough IQ for most photographers.
I don't agree with that at all, just to start with, but if someone truely believes that their knowledge of photography is so utterly limited (I'll grant that mine was... when I was ten years old) that the right camera won't make a difference, then in fact it won't.
But if you want to do architectual photography, a low end Point & Shoot isn't going to get it. And if you are gifted a Hasselblad, but need to carry a camera in your shirt pocket, it won't get the job done either. The first consdideration is the quality of the camera for the specific type of photography it will be used for.
Therefore the question comes down to which 'feels' best. And here we are not talking about how it looks, just as a tool how easy it is to use. For me, having good simple controls and being able to 'see' the image through whatever viewing system the camera has, are the most important points.
Those are important characteristics. But do you actually think that a newbie buying an otherwise unfamiliar camera can determine which is best by handling cameras at the local photo strore? What I'm saying is that is a recipe for a long term disaster, not a solution. The one that "feels" right turns out to be what is purchased, and then further investments in lenses and accessories locks a person into that brand for years to come. All based on "it felt good". But studying the characteristics, the functionality, the design philosophy, etc etc and making decisions based on that plus such things as the dynamic range, the ISO coverage, lenses available, and everything else the is "IQ" is, I beieve much more important. And it is my contention that what "feels" right to most people is "what I'm used to", not what actually works best. If you are used to Brand X, it feels better than Brand Y... even if Brand Y is a significantly better match for the photography you want to do.
There is no substitute for experience, but it does need to be understood too! I totally disagree with the idea of going to the camera shop, trying several models, and deciding based on "feel". Renting a camera and using it for at least enough time to become familiar with how it works is a minimum.
-
Newbie here. I am looking to buy a camera that is fun and easy to use. Something that takes good pictures and is versatile. I only take pictures of day to day stuff, family, events at he school where I teach (including yearbook), vacation photos etc. I only view the pictures on computer or make small prints for a photo album (but would like to make some bigger prints for house decoration). Cameras that come to mind are the Fuji X20 and the Sony Rx100. My question really isn't however about what specific camera I should chose so much as will these cameras provide "good enough" image quality or do i need at least a micro 4/3s sensor? To be more specific, I understand that noise creeps in at lower iso's on the smaller sensor cameras but is that noise detectable at normal viewing or only when cropped? What size prints, given decent lighting and lower iso values, could I expect to make with those cameras before noise becomes an issue? Many questions! Any guidance would be appreciated!
From your description you want a camera that can take pictures of people indoors. So the type of camera that I suggest you need is one that you can put a decent off the camera flash on. So my suggestion is an entry level Nikon or Canon DSLR and and maybe one of the flashes (http://mpex.com/strobist/flash.html). Something to think about…
Cheers,
-
Hi,
I have an RX100.
I can make decent A2 size prints at short and medium focal lengths, I guess. Just made a few and they were OK. Long end is a bit weak.
I seldom use high ISO, so I cannot say.
This is ISO 3200 on RX100: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/RX100/i-Xf3bwPn/0/O/_DSC0050.jpg (it is a large image with black sky at Budapest airport).
Best regards
Erik
Newbie here. I am looking to buy a camera that is fun and easy to use. Something that takes good pictures and is versatile. I only take pictures of day to day stuff, family, events at he school where I teach (including yearbook), vacation photos etc. I only view the pictures on computer or make small prints for a photo album (but would like to make some bigger prints for house decoration). Cameras that come to mind are the Fuji X20 and the Sony Rx100. My question really isn't however about what specific camera I should chose so much as will these cameras provide "good enough" image quality or do i need at least a micro 4/3s sensor? To be more specific, I understand that noise creeps in at lower iso's on the smaller sensor cameras but is that noise detectable at normal viewing or only when cropped? What size prints, given decent lighting and lower iso values, could I expect to make with those cameras before noise becomes an issue? Many questions! Any guidance would be appreciated!
-
I don't agree with that at all, just to start with, but if someone truely believes that their knowledge of photography is so utterly limited (I'll grant that mine was... when I was ten years old) that the right camera won't make a difference, then in fact it won't.
But if you want to do architectual photography, a low end Point & Shoot isn't going to get it. And if you are gifted a Hasselblad, but need to carry a camera in your shirt pocket, it won't get the job done either. The first consdideration is the quality of the camera for the specific type of photography it will be used for.
Those are important characteristics. But do you actually think that a newbie buying an otherwise unfamiliar camera can determine which is best by handling cameras at the local photo strore? What I'm saying is that is a recipe for a long term disaster, not a solution. The one that "feels" right turns out to be what is purchased, and then further investments in lenses and accessories locks a person into that brand for years to come. All based on "it felt good". But studying the characteristics, the functionality, the design philosophy, etc etc and making decisions based on that plus such things as the dynamic range, the ISO coverage, lenses available, and everything else the is "IQ" is, I beieve much more important. And it is my contention that what "feels" right to most people is "what I'm used to", not what actually works best. If you are used to Brand X, it feels better than Brand Y... even if Brand Y is a significantly better match for the photography you want to do.
There is no substitute for experience, but it does need to be understood too! I totally disagree with the idea of going to the camera shop, trying several models, and deciding based on "feel". Renting a camera and using it for at least enough time to become familiar with how it works is a minimum.
Well, I did say for 'most photographers', and 99% are not going to be doing commercial architectural photography. I can categorically say that for most of my photography, including a lot of my professional work, a Panasonic micro four-thirds camera with a couple of decent prime lenses is good enough. And I'm comparing it to a 1DS mk3 with L series lenses. As good? No. Good enough? Yes.
And I agree that if you can borrow a camera it is always better than just handling in the shop. But I feel sorry for all the photographers who ask me which is the best camera to replace their two-year old model so that they can get better pictures. They could save themselves a lot of money by realising that their vision and skill are the limiting factors, not the camera or lens.
If the OP gets into really serious work or becomes a professional then he might well need the absolute best money can buy. But in the meantime that is my opinion.
Jim
-
....But I feel sorry for all the photographers who ask me which is the best camera to replace their two-year old model so that they can get better pictures. They could save themselves a lot of money by realising that their vision and skill are the limiting factors, not the camera or lens....
Yes, totally agree. This is a conversation that I have all the time -- most people have been convinced through relentless advertising that if they just had a "real good camera, like yours" they would take much better photos.
Vision and skill can be improved through study and practice, which take time and effort. Most people don't want to put in the time and effort, they want the quick fix of a real good camera. :)
None of this applies to people who want to put in (or have put in) the time and effort, but they need to start someplace, and at that starting point, pretty much any camera will do. IMHO.
-
To the OP, some specific advice. Buy any 2-4 year old Olympus camera, Pen, PL series, E-520, doesn't matter which one. It will set you back at most $400 or so, probably less. Use it for 6 months and read all the forums you can, but ignore the brand fight threads. By then you'll have a much better idea of what you really need or really want, assuming that the combo you bought doesn't deliver (because it just might). At that point, even if you're on the verge of being a world-class architectural commercial photographer, you're still be able to sell your camera for 50%-75% of your purchase price and you'll be free to buy whatever you then need. Switching brands will not affect you in any bad way, people do it all the time, you won't be locked in. Don't spend too much searching for your ideal camera, the time will be better spent taking pictures.
-
And I agree that if you can borrow a camera it is always better than just handling in the shop. But I feel sorry for all the photographers who ask me which is the best camera to replace their two-year old model so that they can get better pictures. They could save themselves a lot of money by realising that their vision and skill are the limiting factors, not the camera or lens.
If the OP gets into really serious work or becomes a professional then he might well need the absolute best money can buy. But in the meantime that is my opinion.
You're equating "best" to "most expensive". The best camera for some specific job does not necessarily cost more money than lesser capable alternatives. The point is to get the most appropriate camera for the type of photography intended.
Likewise it is not generally true that a photographer's "vision and skill are the limiting factors". It's an equal match between those limits and limited equipment. In any specific case it might be either the photographer or the equipment.
It's often said that a great photographer, given poor equipment, will absolutely be able to produce great images... which is very true; but only because that photographer will know what kind of a picture the specific equipment can do and won't waste time at something else. When the need is for a specific type of photography, no matter how good the photographer is it still requires a camera that can do that specific type of photography. And the better the camera, the better the results will be...
Very good photographers do tend to have very expensive cameras. Their intent is not so much to have a camera that is "better" at some specific thing though, as opposed to being good at many different things. When you say that "for most of my photography [...] a Panasonic micro four-thirds camera [...] is good enough [...]comparing it to a 1DS mk3" you are specifically saying that there are things you need to do that the 1DS apparently does better. If those things are an important minority of your work, you'll buy a 1DS.
Most of my work is done with a camera that cost about half of what the camera I do the rest of my work with. If I could only have one, the camera I actually use the least would be chosen because it is significantly more versatile.
-
To the OP, some specific advice. Buy any 2-4 year old Olympus camera, Pen, PL series, E-520, doesn't matter which one. It will set you back at most $400 or so, probably less. Use it for 6 months and read all the forums you can, but ignore the brand fight threads. By then you'll have a much better idea of what you really need or really want, assuming that the combo you bought doesn't deliver (because it just might). At that point, even if you're on the verge of being a world-class architectural commercial photographer, you're still be able to sell your camera for 50%-75% of your purchase price and you'll be free to buy whatever you then need. Switching brands will not affect you in any bad way, people do it all the time, you won't be locked in. Don't spend too much searching for your ideal camera, the time will be better spent taking pictures.
The above is really good advice. The specific brand/camera isn't important, it's the philosophy that for a relatively low price you can buy a "throw away" educational tool. Do not buy lenses and accessories for that tool. Just use it for the purpose of, and until, learning what equipment will be worth investing real money in owning.
-
But if you want to do architectual photography, a low end Point & Shoot isn't going to get it. And if you are gifted a Hasselblad, but need to carry a camera in your shirt pocket, it won't get the job done either. The first consdideration is the quality of the camera for the specific type of photography it will be used for.
Well going by the original question about a camera and it's intended use, the quality of most compact cameras will indeed be just fine. So no need to worry about fitting a Hasselblad in a shirt pocket. :)
Those are important characteristics. But do you actually think that a newbie buying an otherwise unfamiliar camera can determine which is best by handling cameras at the local photo strore? What I'm saying is that is a recipe for a long term disaster, not a solution. The one that "feels" right turns out to be what is purchased, and then further investments in lenses and accessories locks a person into that brand for years to come. All based on "it felt good".
Not necessarily. When I got my first SLR [OM2n] I read lots of magazines and had a play with various models in shops and one simply stood out above all the others, because it just felt right [for me]. Sometimes it's very obvious an item is not for you. Proved to be a very good choice in the end and not just because I got used to it. I have no brand loyalty as such but even now many cameras later, it is still a very nicely designed camera and even has a bigger viewfinder than my current expensive DSLR that is twice the size - not exactly progress since the OMs were designed 40 years earlier. I did however have some camera experience as before the SLR I used a very cheap Russian rangefinder camera [with very different handling] and Robert's suggestion above may be worth considering. Get a cheap second hand decent camera to get a better sense of what one needs and then buy a more expensive new one - if you still feel you need to.
But studying the characteristics, the functionality, the design philosophy, etc etc and making decisions based on that plus such things as the dynamic range, the ISO coverage, lenses available, and everything else the is "IQ" is, I beieve much more important.
To you, not necessarily to other people. I'd rather use a delightful handling camera than a pain in the arse camera than had say a few more MP. And in fact I use my pocket camera which is way inferior in image quality to my FF DSLR at times because a) it's better for some types of work; b) although it is inferior in quality it is in a nice way that suits street photography [it's main use]. And how you shoot/exposure/process the image is way, way more important than the camera, particularly as these days cameras are usually very good indeed in the price range being looked at. Which was Slobodan's point.
And it is my contention that what "feels" right to most people is "what I'm used to", not what actually works best. If you are used to Brand X, it feels better than Brand Y... even if Brand Y is a significantly better match for the photography you want to do.
People certainly are very biased towards what is familiar rather than what is 'best', just look at people complaining about the difficulty of using OSX/Windows if they use the other brand and then falsely claim superiority of one based on ignorance of the other. The difference in functional ability with different brands of same type of cameras isn't that big these days, it certainly used to be, but now it's more personal preference as to which make you go for. And there is no bias here as it's a new user.
There is no substitute for experience, but it does need to be understood too! I totally disagree with the idea of going to the camera shop, trying several models, and deciding based on "feel". Renting a camera and using it for at least enough time to become familiar with how it works is a minimum.
That's the best way certainly. Though I have no idea where I could even rent the sort of cameras being considered. Big pro cameras no problem, but not other kinds, so until then playing with cameras in a shop is a good thing to do. Plus renting a camera for long enough to get used to it is probably a significant chunk of what it would cost to buy.
And to be able to really judge the 'best' image quality of various cameras will take far longer than judging how nice one is to use by feel.
-
I can categorically say that for most of my photography, including a lot of my professional work, a Panasonic micro four-thirds camera with a couple of decent prime lenses is good enough. And I'm comparing it to a 1DS mk3 with L series lenses. As good? No. Good enough? Yes.
Once they are framed and on the wall, I can't see any difference between 17x22 prints from my E-M5 and my D800E with primo Nikon glass, until I get within about a foot. I want to say the the tonality of the D800E prints might be a little smoother, but I haven't done a direct comparison and it might just be the halo effect from using kit that's 3 times as expensive as the Oly.
And I will add the the difference between the Sony RX100 at mid-wide focal lengths and the Oly is about the same as the difference between the Oly and the Nikon. You can get 17x22s that are perfectly fine at normal viewing distances out of the RX100 -- I know because I've had them on the wall next to the Nikon prints.
-
The conversation has definitely developed since last time checking in. I appreciate all the advice. I can't add anything of value but will consider many of the points made. My instinct tells me to spend less money on the gear and more time on learning the craft.
-
...My instinct tells me to spend less money on the gear and more time on learning the craft.
Amen, brother! :)
-
Hi,
I have 70x100 cm print on my wall shot by a Sony Alpha (10 MP). I normally print A2 size and I feel that that size prints are OK from 12 MP. My best pictures may have been taken with the Sony Alpha 700 (12 MP), being a freak I did update to full frame bodies (24MP). A2-s from 24MP are a bit better quality, mostly.
A couple of months ago I added a used Hasselblad with a P45+ back, that comes in at 39 MP. I have some crops that would print around A1 in full size and there is an advantage but much less than you would believe. I asked a friend who was working at a professional lab for his opinion. He first looked at the crops and found that one print was slightly darker. After a while he felt one of the images was "warmer", more yellowish. Fixing on small detail he found the Hasselblad image to be sharper. Once you have "learned" the image you can see the difference, but if you flip the images a number of times, don't look for known clues I cannot guess which is which.
Shooting high res is fun and my have some benefits. But the difference is smaller than you would believe.
Best regards
Erik
Once they are framed and on the wall, I can't see any difference between 17x22 prints from my E-M5 and my D800E with primo Nikon glass, until I get within about a foot. I want to say the the tonality of the D800E prints might be a little smoother, but I haven't done a direct comparison and it might just be the halo effect from using kit that's 3 times as expensive as the Oly.
And I will add the the difference between the Sony RX100 at mid-wide focal lengths and the Oly is about the same as the difference between the Oly and the Nikon. You can get 17x22s that are perfectly fine at normal viewing distances out of the RX100 -- I know because I've had them on the wall next to the Nikon prints.
-
The conversation has definitely developed since last time checking in. I appreciate all the advice. I can't add anything of value but will consider many of the points made. My instinct tells me to spend less money on the gear and more time on learning the craft.
One of the skills that I think you should investigate before you buy any camera is bounce flash photography (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bounce+flash+photography&oq=bounce&gs_l=youtube.1.0.35i39j0l6j0i3j0l2.10449.13519.0.17080.6.6.0.0.0.0.447.1779.2-4j0j2.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.ddEiA6oKZ2o).
I'm not a big fan of using a flash but the type of photography that you want to do I'd be heading that way. A Nikon D3200 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856049-REG/Nikon_25492_D3200_DSLR_Camera_With.html) and a Bolt VS-510N Wireless TTL Shoe Mount Flash for Nikon Cameras which is on the same page would be a good starting point to get you thinking.
I just bought a Lumix GX7 so I have nothing against compact cameras. However if I'm asked to take photos indoors I'll reach for my 5D mark II and speedlite every tiime.
Anyway, something to think about…
Cheers,
-
The conversation has definitely developed since last time checking in. I appreciate all the advice. I can't add anything of value but will consider many of the points made. My instinct tells me to spend less money on the gear and more time on learning the craft.
I certainly agree with the approach to developing one's craft rather than one's collection of (fine) gear.
With the bodies made in the last few years, I think I would have to look pretty hard to find a bad one. :D
Spend a little while at DPR - they delve into the features quite thoroughly. And their image comparisons can be useful for PP'ers.
Glenn