Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: jeremyrh on December 31, 2013, 10:06:50 am
-
As a new owner of the Oly OMD EM1, I have to say I love this camera, which seems to me to show the difference between a camera made by a camera company and one made by an electronics giant.
But .. the menus and customisation options are really a nightmare!! Some of the buttons are programmable, and some not (despite what the manual says, e.g. the 4-way dial) and some buttons have wide choice of optimisation possibility and others just a few options. I found this document useful: http://www.biofos.com/mft/omd_em1_settings.html and followed the suggestion to assign parameter "sets" to the mode dial, since I never use iAuto and similar features.
-
Not the most controversial/unexpected camera of the year award has to be said ::) :P
2012 has been quite an interesting year in some ways, being based in Europe though I see relatively few of these ILC models in actual use for some reason EU buyers are not that interested in them.
-
My favorite quote from this article: "content is king and usability is its mistress."
-
Ironically enough, I just stumbled across a Yahoo Finance news item titled "5 Disappearing Brands in 2014" and guess what is on the list:
Olympus Cameras
Another brand that could go belly up is Olympus Cameras, as smartphones replace traditional cameras. The brand hasn’t generated a profit from their camera business in three years. And this fiscal year, the company expects worldwide camera sales to drop by nearly 50% to 2.7 million units.
Somehow, reminds me of phrases "nice guy finishes last," "barbarians at the gate," and the demise of Borders (always had comfier armchairs than Barnes and Noble). If it does happen, it will be, arguably, one of the saddest stories in camera history.
-
Ironically enough, I just stumbled across a Yahoo Finance news item titled "5 Disappearing Brands in 2014" and guess what is on the list:
Interesting article in the NYT ..
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/12/29/business/29reuters-japan-cameras.html?_r=0
-
Interesting article in the NYT ..
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/12/29/business/29reuters-japan-cameras.html?_r=0
I'm involved in a discussion of this article on another forum; suffice to say that it is an article notable for its flawed logic, its confusion of "mirrorless" with "compact" cameras, odd comments about brand awareness (the writer doesn't seem to know Panasonic is actually *larger* than Sony or Nikon or Canon), western perspective (mirrorless is in trouble because it doesn't sell as well as DSLRs in the US and Europe, although the writer concedes that a third of the interchangeable lens cameras sold in Japan were mirrorless, not bad for a young camera style.) The idea that mirrorless is in trouble seems to derive form the fact that Nikon's mirrorless is in trouble...but the author doesn't seem to distinguish between Nikon's systems and the others...and so on. One of the main sources for the article was an analyst for Credit Suisse, who slams Panasonic and likes Sony, which brings up the question, does this particular merchant bank have a business relationship with Sony?
I write this not in defense of any particular system, but because I spent 20 years as a fairly serious reporter and this article is a piece of junk, full of holes, specious reasoning and suspect motives, and it pisses me off to see it in the Times. Rule of thumb: You can no longer trust anything from Reuters or AP.
-
Our good fortune is that we have articles from Michael -- trusted, enjoyed, and appreciated. His article on the OMD-EM1 was a welcome year-end commentary. Happy New Year to all! --Barbara
-
Michael Johnston of The Online Photographer also chose this as his camera-of-the-year.
Regards,
Dale
-
Well so far Olympus has attracted the plaudits of reviewers and commentators but the proof of the pudding is in the eating ie sales and increased lens sales. And this Grinchs opinion is that the "5" hits my price/performance sweet spot the "1" is overpriced by $200 to $250 for its place in the market.
No doubt a good camera but Olympus probably should have priced the camera somewhere about the Sony Nex 7 level. I suspect amongst the Olympus buying public the question being asked is what extra to me is the OM-D E-M 1 over the E-M 5 ?
-
My perhaps jaundiced definition of prognostication: an attempt to will a desired outcome into being by forcefully stating it to as broad an audience as possible. That the attempts are often factually and/or logically deficient stems from their basis in ideology & emotionalism rather than evidence & analysis.
Note that I'm not claiming the above applies to either article cited here. I haven't read them. I'd also say my definition does apply to the quarterly financial statements of pretty much every camera company in existence, including Olympus and Panasonic. ;)
-Dave-
-
It is indeed a nice camera, and overall a very good proposition as part of a very complete system. Today, one should decide which camera to buy not because of minute differences in IQ, but based on ergonomics and the overall purposes of one's photography.
Here in Portugal, Olympus is actually a very well known brand, and there are many cameras and lenses in major photo stores. Much more visible than, say, Fujifilm... for my landscape work, I have now settled on a Fuji with the wonderful 14mm lens. For portrait, I also use Fuji with a Voigtlander 75 f1.8 VM lens.
From what I see in my travels, Europe and the world, these "compact system" cameras still have a long way to go to carve a significant proportion of the market share.
-
2014 will probably suffer more decline in sales. Some makers are looking more vulnerable than others.
Not Canon, purely because they have their fingers in a lot of pies not just cameras, they can take a hit and they have widespread adoption.
Nikon are probably big enough to ride it out, but most of their business is purely cameras.
Olympus seem to make more profit from their medical division, and Pentax are a bit small to weather a prolonged downturn.
Something has to give, maybe not this year but a longer term view I would have to say we're likely to see a few more pack in cameras.
Take your pick, Sony are far from out of the woods, Panasonic in a similar situation. These 2 makers are getting hammered in consumer electronics too. Fuji's been pretty shaky too over the years.
I will say something, I don't think Olympus and their pricing in Europe does them any favours, they are by far the worst offender for overpricing.
I know about 2 micro 4/3 users, in a market dominated mostly by Canon. Hard to pin down but I think micro 4/3 isn't good value as far as Olympus are concerned. Read quite a few articles about Europe and buyers, and I would have to agree smaller is not considered a selling point for many EU buyers.
-
Having just rented an EM1 and X-E2 over the holidays I agree with Michael's choice here. From IQ to ergonomics to build quality the EM1 performed flawlessly, and I'll be ordering one soon. My kit will be an EM1 plus an RX1 so I'll still have some FF ability when I want it.
On the industry itself, no denying those numbers are grim, and surely more shakeout is inevitable. It seems most logical that Sony will buy the rest of Olympus (at least the camera division) that it does not own. Then to keep their M43 sensor operations in business if Panasonic looks to drop out, Sony would be the logical acquirer of Panasonic camera operations as well (perhaps dropping the Panasonic brand and branding all M43 as Olympus). Sadly Ricoh/Pentax feels likely just to wind up at some point. That would indeed leave Canon, Nikon and Sony as virtually the whole market.
-
Having just rented an EM1 and X-E2 over the holidays I agree with Michael's choice here. From IQ to ergonomics to build quality the EM1 performed flawlessly, and I'll be ordering one soon. My kit will be an EM1 plus an RX1 so I'll still have some FF ability when I want it.
On the industry itself, no denying those numbers are grim, and surely more shakeout is inevitable. It seems most logical that Sony will buy the rest of Olympus (at least the camera division) that it does not own. Then to keep their M43 sensor operations in business if Panasonic looks to drop out, Sony would be the logical acquirer of Panasonic camera operations as well (perhaps dropping the Panasonic brand and branding all M43 as Olympus). Sadly Ricoh/Pentax feels likely just to wind up at some point. That would indeed leave Canon, Nikon and Sony as virtually the whole market.
Makes no sense to me why Sony would buy Olympus out (bar medical areas where they have a good presence) Sony have their own E mount models they are trying to push. Why buy a competitors system when you have 2 of your own? (A and E mount)
Ricoh's buy out of the Pentax camera division (not the medical which Hoya I think kept) seems a questionable choice. Pentax can certainly bash out a decent camera, but it seems any push for K mount should have happened 4-5 years ago. The party is indeed over so longer term I have doubts about Ricoh/Pentax.
-
Yes, I also put a short version of this post to the "full frame myth" section because I think it belongs to both. Well, the author of the article forgot to mention one but crutial thing: The depth of field possibility. Yes, I can see that it is not a hot topic for a landscape shooter but for the experienced eye of the experienced street / portrait / people shooter the full frame abilitites in this respect are not a "myth" at all. With m4/3 or even APS/C, one cannot reach the same field of view with the same level of the shallow DoF. There are no equivalents for 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 35/1.4 or 50/0.95 or 85/1.4 lenses. No need to say in this forum that IT IS the lenses what greatly contributes to the final perception, atmosphere, "pop" and concept of the final images. Of course I can see Mr.Reichmann´s style of shooting doesn´t work with the very thin DoF which I accept - that is his style and I have a respect for it. But honestly, the pictures of photographers who can (masterfully) benefit from the fast full frame lenses have much deeper impact on me. So while in the high-iso department I think we can live up with the offerings from APS-C or m4/3 sensors, the real benefit of the above mentioned facts shouldn´t be forgotten. The size still matters, I´m afraid.
Otherwise I consider the OMD E-M1 an unbelievably thought-out and made camera. Unfortunately, one important unpleasant thing here too: When playing with it shortly in low-light I couldn´t have noticed that the tracking AF system and the overall AF reliability does seem to me (significantly - albeit the meaning of this adverb is relative, I admit) worse than my 5D mark III. Please note that I´m not talking about super-fast tracking of a flying pigeon in a dim hall... And that was with the high-grade pro 2.0 lens which can hide a lot in the greater depth of field. I would really like to see the amount of keepers if the equvalents of the fast full frame lenses existed.... ;-)
No, I don´t want to neither bash Olympus for producing a really great camera nor M.Reichmann for the really very interesting article. I just cannot share the enthusiasm mainly because 1) The m4/3 sensor cannot give you the same low-light / high megapixel quality and shallow DoF control 2) The AF system in low light leaves something to be desired 3) The m4/3 format is dead.... Sorry guys, I´m totally persuaded about that for the future.
-
I don't think anyone is arguing against the continued existence of larger formats. How many times does it need to be stated: This Is Not A Zero-Sum Game! Such games are the stuff of absolutist fantasy and fanboy drivel. Also, the DOF thing has been driven into the ground and out the other end already. Enough...buy the gear you want/need. Enjoy using it. Photography is fun...have fun!
Personally I'd love nothing more than for a brand new player to swoop down upon the photo industry with super-cool whiz-bang technology and disrupt the shit out of everything. IMO a right good housecleaning is well overdue.
-Dave-
-
... the pictures of photographers who can (masterfully) benefit from the fast full frame lenses have much deeper impact on me....
For instance?
And I mean, not just shot with such lenses, but shot at their max aperture? How many great images of our times have been shot with apertures below, say, f/2.0? And if they did, how many of us would be able to tell the difference if they were shot at a half or even a full stop smaller? And among those who could, how many would swear that it made all the difference in the world regarding the content?
-
No, I don´t want to neither bash Olympus for producing a really great camera nor M.Reichmann for the really very interesting article. I just cannot share the enthusiasm mainly because 1) The m4/3 sensor cannot give you the same low-light / high megapixel quality and shallow DoF control 2) The AF system in low light leaves something to be desired 3) The m4/3 format is dead.... Sorry guys, I´m totally persuaded about that for the future.
So this means you're not interested in the Voightlander 17.5mm, 25mm and 42.5mm f/0.95 lenses in native m4/3 mount? You must be a very specialized shooter.
-
Apropos this thread, this week's article by Ctein at The Online Photographer:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/01/complexity-and-convergence.html
A quote: "So, is it terribly surprising that we end up picking over minutia trying to decide what camera to buy? To paraphrase an old homily, the purchasing debates are so heated precisely because it is so hard to find any kind of clear distinction between the products."
-Dave-
-
Well so far Olympus has attracted the plaudits of reviewers and commentators but the proof of the pudding is in the eating ie sales and increased lens sales. And this Grinchs opinion is that the "5" hits my price/performance sweet spot the "1" is overpriced by $200 to $250 for its place in the market.
No doubt a good camera but Olympus probably should have priced the camera somewhere about the Sony Nex 7 level. I suspect amongst the Olympus buying public the question being asked is what extra to me is the OM-D E-M 1 over the E-M 5 ?
For me, it would be, as Michael noted, the ability to efficiently AF the Oly SLR 4/3 excellent High Grade lenses (24-120/2.8-4.0 and 100-400/2.8-3.5 EFL), and the simply exquisite, unmatched for speed and wide-open IQ Super High Grade 28-70 and 70-200 EFL fixed f/2.0 and 150-500/fixed 2.8 zooms, not to mention the sublime 300/2.0 and 600/2.8 EFL primes. Unlike the E-M5, the M1 can AF these lenses with its hybrid contrast/PD AF system as opposed to the E-M1's purely contrast AF common to all other m4/3 bodies. The Oly SLR bodies these lenses were designed for were hampered by their noisier, lower resolution 10-12MP sensors.
I use the contrast AF-enabled 4/3 Pana-Leica 14-150/3.5-5.6 OIS as my Panny GH3 workhorse, but it's slow to focus - about 1/3 sec. - though very accurate. This and the above lenses need the 4/3>m4/3 adapter adding several ounces and near 7/8" to the rig. After 3 1/2 years it still impresses me with it's corner-to-corner IQ throughout it's range, and better than my previous 4/3 Oly 12-60 Hi-grade over their common range - also slightly shorter and an ounce lighter than the Oly! So yep, the E-M1 with it's iron claw IBIS and expanded AF system is definitely in my future, with the GH3 for backup and video.
Pete
-
The AF abilities of the legacy 4/3 lenses are not likely to be important to new buyers, only to previous 4/3 users wanting to re-use those lenses.
It's nice to have no question, but hardly a selling point for most buyers.
As for the original 4/3 that lasted from 2003-2010 with the E5 being the last body they made, effectively the 4/3 system died which was predicted some time ago by more than a few folks ::) That being the second system demise for Olympus after they dropped the OM mount, let's hope micro 4/3 lasts a bit longer.
Whilst it might not matter to some I've a few problems with Olympus and micro 4/3
Other than size, I see no advantage over other formats. Some might say that's enough for their needs which is great.
The other is cost, any company trying to sell a small sensor at the same price as a full frame one is either smoking something pretty strong..or just plain ripping consumers off, either way I think Olympus is going to have their hand forced by a declining market, cheaper FF bodies and far more discerning buyers.
I would also have to mention..that the 2011 accounting scandal, the subsequent firing of the "honest CEO" and later the lenient sentences handed out in one of the biggest fraud scandals in the history of Japan, leave a very very bad taste in my mouth personally. To the degree I would personally not want to hand over money to such a company, no matter how interesting their product might be.
That might be a side issue, but still the reality of things to come is that sensor size and relative cost will effectively limit future micro 4/3 bodies in terms of profitability and appeal. You could argue APS-C does to a point, but that format has legacy 35mm lens support, better DOF control v micro 4/3 and you can easily match and beat any micro 4/3 body for IQ with an APS-C camera costing a fraction of the EM-1's price.
Micro 4/3 is very much a niche market longer term, and that's the real problem for them. FF is heating up and however you cut it..it's a lot easier to sell a FF body for £1200 than a micro 4/3 one.
-
My approach with photo gear, as with other interests & pursuits affected by technological turbulence, is to put my metaphorical eggs in multiple baskets. This is a good way to avoid all the excesses of fanboydom.
I've said before that I didn't plan on buying any gear this year. But I've changed my mind. If, for me, 2013 was the Year of micro Four-Thirds then 2014 is looking to be the Year of the Folding Medium Format Rangefinder. My Zeiss Contessa could use a CLA but is otherwise in good shape. My dad's old Retina IIc works flawlessly. But remembering that Dad's first good camera (long gone) was a folding Voigtländer Bessa I've had my eye on the current Cosina/Fuji Bessa III. And using m43 along with my boxy Pentax has reinforced what I already knew to be true: I just do not like the 3:2 aspect ratio. Glad to be rid of it in fact. So I think I'll leave the Contessa & Retina alone and re-embrace the world of 6x6 and 6x7! (The III does both.) Let the photo biz do whatever it'll do, then evaluate things again next year.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtl_bessa_iii.htm
-Dave-
-
...
I would also have to mention..that the 2011 accounting scandal, the subsequent firing of the "honest CEO" and later the lenient sentences handed out in one of the biggest fraud scandals in the history of Japan, leave a very very bad taste in my mouth personally. To the degree I would personally not want to hand over money to such a company, no matter how interesting their product might be
...
That's an interesting approach. If I understand you correctly, you choose to punish the engineers (and others on the camera team) who came up with a great product for what the CEO did.
-
Actually the CEO was the whistle blower in this case and was sacked - I image though Olympus were faced with paying over even more shareholders money in settlement.
It was various boards, multiple executives and auditors who basically wrecked the company. The legal sentences were as much a joke as the pardoning in Korea of the Chairman of Samsung.
-
From my experience, again from Portugal, Olympus is very expensive. Right now, the price of the EM1 is comparable to the price of a EOS 6D (with the Canon rebates tha ended in Dec 31). Lenses have comparable prices too, at least the usual ones. No doubt a EM1 with say, a 17 f1.8 is a fantastic kit for travel and street; but so is the 6D with a 40mm pancake, or 35 f2, or 50 1.4; for similar prices.
I am not taking sides here, just stating that price wise, for the normal shooter, the Canon makes a very strong point. So much so that on Dec 31 I bought a 6D with 50 1.4 lens.
-
How many great images of our times have been shot with apertures below, say, f/2.0? And if they did, how many of us would be able to tell the difference if they were shot at a half or even a full stop smaller? And among those who could, how many would swear that it made all the difference in the world regarding the content?
Hi, I´m sorry but unfortunately you do not seem to get the point. The f2.0 lens on m4/3 chip behaves like f4.0 lens on FF camera in terms of depth of field. And that is pretty significant difference when compare to f1.4 lens mounted on the full frame camera.
-
If, for me, 2013 was the Year of micro Four-Thirds then 2014 is looking to be the Year of the Folding Medium Format Rangefinder. My Zeiss Contessa could use a CLA but is otherwise in good shape. My dad's old Retina IIc works flawlessly. But remembering that Dad's first good camera (long gone) was a folding Voigtländer Bessa I've had my eye on the current Cosina/Fuji Bessa III. And using m43 along with my boxy Pentax has reinforced what I already knew to be true: I just do not like the 3:2 aspect ratio. Glad to be rid of it in fact. So I think I'll leave the Contessa & Retina alone and re-embrace the world of 6x6 and 6x7! (The III does both.) Let the photo biz do whatever it'll do, then evaluate things again next year.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtl_bessa_iii.htm
-Dave-
For me 2004 was the Year of the Folding Medium Format, so 10 years ago. Digital cameras not grown up then and 35mm too small for nice scans. So I got a Bessa I with a 56x88 mm frame format, a Kodak Monitor 620 56x82 mm, an Iskra with 56x56 mm frame format and I converted a Polaroid 110b. The right scanners for the job too. By the time (2008/2009) Fuji thought there was still a market for a medium format folder it was not interesting anymore and I bought the 5D MK II. One of the showstoppers was that Fuji did not deliver a 56x82 mm frame size camera but a 56x68 mm maximum frame size and with that size in view an unnecessary 56x56 masking method. The camera is way too big compared to the MF folders of the 1960's. The 5D + lenses is heavy too so I am interested in M4/3 and do not expect its dead yet. That Europeans are not interested in smaller, capable digital camera systems must be a myth.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
On fast lenses and DOF. There are very good vintage and new f/0.95 and faster lenses for M4/3, see the C-mount and movie lens catalogs. The Speed Booster adapters fill in some other temporary niches and make the step to M4/3 easier.
The EVF resolution improves and for critical focusing the sensor size no longer dictates the viewfinder size like it does in (reflex) optical viewfinders. No deviations between viewfinders and sensors on focusing, coverage etc. It could become the champion of viewfinders for fast lenses. Yes, there are disadvantages in EVFs but more in sports photography etc.
There was a time that medium format and larger were the choice for focus/bokeh tasks and 35 mm found its place too then. Faster lenses appeared, more accurate rangefinders to accompany them.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Hi, I´m sorry but unfortunately you do not seem to get the point. The f2.0 lens on m4/3 chip behaves like f4.0 lens on FF camera in terms of depth of field. And that is pretty significant difference when compare to f1.4 lens mounted on the full frame camera.
Ha! That's real funny! I "do not seem to get the point", but you failed to answer a single question from my post!?
Besides, in my post, I did not once mention m4/3 lenses or how they compare to full frame, but simply referred to your professed love for "fast full frame lenses." But if you insist on the spec differences on paper, it shall be noted that the fastest m4/3 lenses are not 2.0, but 0.95, which translates to, in DOF terms, to about 1.9 full-frame. Or, if you want to be even more precise, f/1.5, as per Vladimirovich' post (#38) (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85282.20).
-
My camera of the year is my own. All the rest are irrelevant.
Likewise, mine has survived two years of constant exposure to beach conditions, three bad waves that went over the camera and tripod, three years of shooting rivers and inbetween use in the hot and dusty conditions where I live.
-
Ha! That's real funny! I "do not seem to get the point", but you failed to answer a single question from my post!?
Besides, in my post, I did not once mention m4/3 lenses or how they compare to full frame, but simply referred to your professed love for "fast full frame lenses." But if you insist on the spec differences on paper, it shall be noted that the fastest m4/3 lenses are not 2.0, but 0.95, which translates to, in DOF terms, to about 1.9 full-frame. Or, if you want to be even more precise, f/1.5, as per Vladimirovich' post (#38) (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85282.20).
I don't think anyone would argue that sometimes one needs lots of depth of field, sometime, less. It's really up to the photographer's intent and the limiting environmental factors (light, sensor sensitivity, etc).
As most on this forum know, using shallow depth of field is just one subject isolation technique that many photographers use. They are often sports, wild life or portrait photographers. In many other situations, a photo can benefit from more depth of field. I tend to side with Slobodan though. My impression is that most iconic photos do not employ shallow depth of field as a main technique.
All of this will become a quaint argument if new technology like Lytro takes off. You will then simply select the desired depth of field in post processing.
-
Hi, I´m sorry but unfortunately you do not seem to get the point. The f2.0 lens on m4/3 chip behaves like f4.0 lens on FF camera in terms of depth of field. And that is pretty significant difference when compare to f1.4 lens mounted on the full frame camera.
And you get more depth of field if you step up to medium format. FF is not a magic solution, it's just one position in a range of qualities; I recently took some book-cover photographs with an m4/3 and a D800e. I used a Voightlander m4/3 42.5 f0.95 and a Nikkor 85mm 1.8G and frankly, the depth of field isolation was just fine and there wasn't a nickel's worth of difference between the images.
BarryFitzgerald says that m4/3 has no special advantage except size, and I'd agree. But size is the whole point, and it's a huge, under-appreciated advantage over FF. I can take a full system, with two bodies, in a relatively small carry-on when traveling. With a FF system, I'd need a rolling case. The price of higher-end m4/3 is somewhat irrelevant, because you're paying for a top-end camera, and have other choices in the same format. And it's still lower than top-end FF. The m4/3 quality is good enough for high-end magazine covers and all internet uses, which, for 99% of people using cameras, is good enough. MY feeling is that, given time, the whole camera business may simply push niches -- cell phones may eventually destroy the compact camera market, m4/3 will take over the former DSLR market, FF will become the new medium format, and medium format, with its incredibly high prices, will become a true niche, competing with traditional large format (which will continue.) Most people don't consider than m4/3 has only been here for a few years, yet it's shipping more than a third of interchangeable lens cameras in Japan, perhaps the most photo-forward country of all.
But, we will see. I'm going to try to stick a snapshot to this file, to illustrate what I'm talking about...but I haven't done this much, and don't know how it will work: Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on the left, m4/3 35-100 f2.8 on right.
-
But, we will see. I'm going to try to stick a snapshot to this file, to illustrate what I'm talking about...but I haven't done this much, and don't know how it will work: Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on the left, m4/3 35-100 f2.8 on right.
Not a fair comparison and you know it. Show me an om-d with a 35-100 f1.4 or a 70-200 f5.6 (or a variable f4-5,6) mounted on a sony a7r and we can talk about camera size, file quality and depth of field control.
Regards
-
The DOF argument is a valid point (for some shooters)
It's not that you can't get shallow DOF on micro 4/3, you can with very fast lenses.
You never get that focal length compression effect that you do on full frame, it is very different it's not just about aperture or equivalence of DOF but focal length effects.
Put a 100mm lens on micro 4/3 and you have a field of view of a 200mm lens, it's not even close to full frame in that respect (even if you have the speed to achieve shallow DOF) It's true APS-C is a compromise too, just not as much of one..and with 1.5 crop the effects of focal length is reduced but not nearly as much as micro 4/3 is.
It might not matter to everyone though, horses for courses as they say.
For me I find the ability to use my FF lenses on my APS-C bodies (most are useful, some less so) I can run straight into full frame at any time as most of my lenses are full frame. That is a key advantage. If you're in micro 4/3 land, that's it..APS-C users can intermix with FF lenses as and when required. As well as pick up a huge variety of s/h lenses with autofocus, and aperture control.
As for size yes I see for some it matters a lot and nobody doubts that advantage, nor the "good enough" aspect to IQ as well (has to be noted Olympus are overstating their ISO figures significantly according to DxO)
But then again with an APS-C body and a 17-50mm f2.8 runs quite a bit smaller and lighter than a FF body and a 24-70mm f2.8 so it's down to how smaller or lighter your needs are.
Honestly there is nothing wrong with micro 4/3 it's an excellent choice for many. I personally find the prices on the bodies to their biggest problem.
I was playing with a Lumix GM1 the other day, nice little camera the sort of thing you might pick up even if you are a DSLR user. A camera to take out for the day with good IQ.
Then you look at the price tag, and they want higher than APS-C DSLR's for it £600..so you wander off and lose interest. And no need to mention there is no VF either which again puzzled me on the cost of the camera (no VF= cheaper to make)
What's wrong with micro 4/3 is they have to be better priced, smaller sensor = pay less. FF = bigger sensor pay more. Makes sense to me. Small is fine, just don't expect me to pay a hefty premium for it. Ditto on the Sony RX100 II, nice enough camera just seriously overpriced.
Every time I see one of these offerings I just buy another DSLR for peanuts :o
-
As other folks have correctly pointed out the DOF argument is a non-issue except in extreme cases. I've seen a lovely portrait of a young girl taken by David Noton with a 24/1.4 wide open on a Canon 1Ds something-or-other. I've also seen creative portrait/fashion work done with 200/2 lenses on 35mm format...I bet BC has some examples. I own a Nikon 400/3.5...no slouch in the subject isolation sweepstakes on any camera if you don't mind the perspective compression. But my own most-used shallow DOF lenses throughout my pic-taking life have been 85 or 90mm f/2s on rangefinder cameras. Cosina's m43 Voigtländer 42.5/0.95 has that territory covered nicely. (And, yes, 42.5mm doesn't offer as much inherent magnification as 85mm. There's a difference, if subtle, in look when each is offering the same coverage. But IMO this is esoteric territory...objective "better" or "worse" don't apply.)
If you think only m43 lenses can be used on m43 cameras you're very mistaken. I can use every SLR lens I own (except the Zeiss Contaflexes...they don't adapt to anything). Even my medium format Pentaxes. Some work better than others, for sure. With the Yashica/Contax-mount Metabones SpeedBooster I get wider-than-APS-C coverage with each lens along with a one-stop increase in speed. A welcome side effect of the SpeedBooster is a dramatic improvement in corner performance with wider lenses.
The other side of having a set of f/0.95 lenses is that they're f/0.95! Sheer photon-gathering ability in low light is nice to have, particularly combined with Olympus' sensor-based stabilization. On m43 you get usable DOF along with the lens speed, especially with the Voigt 17.5mm. This offsets the somewhat noisy performance of m43 sensors at high ISOs.
Note that this is all irrelevant anyway to the vast majority of camera owners, with their f/3.5–5.6 kit lenses.
People should use what they like. But IMO they should also experiment when possible. New discoveries and new experiences are enriching, photography-wise and otherwise. I find it hard to take seriously arguments for or against any camera system made by anyone who has never used that system in earnest. Experience OTOH carries weight.
As usual these discussions are more about self-identity and perceived challenges to same than about photography. I Am My Stuff! ::)
(Note too that I was partly jesting re. folding rangefinders. I do plan to get a Bessa III but I'll hardly be abandoning everything else. Too much fun to be had!)
-Dave-
-
... You never get that focal length compression effect that you do on full frame, it is very different it's not just about aperture or equivalence of DOF but focal length effects... it's not even close to full frame in that respect (even if you have the speed to achieve shallow DOF)...
Care to back it up with something else other than words?
-
You never get that focal length compression effect that you do on full frame, it is very different it's not just about aperture or equivalence of DOF but focal length effects.
That long-lens compression is all about narrow angular field of view; you get the same effect with 300mm in 4/3" format as with 600mm in 35mm format. (One difference is that many of us find it easier to afford and carry a 300mm lens than a 600mm lens!)
To put it another way, you get the same perspective (and DOF) effects with
a) a lens of a given focal length and aperture on 4/3" format
b) a lens of the same focal length and aperture combined with a 2x TC and used with 35mm format (or a lens of twice the focal length and twice the f-stop),
if compared on prints of the same size, because the entire image (including OOF effects and diffraction effects) is simply doubled in size to fill the double-size sensor. This equivalence is easy to show with basic optics, or with photographic examples.
-
Not a fair comparison and you know it. Show me an om-d with a 35-100 f1.4 or a 70-200 f5.6 (or a variable f4-5,6) mounted on a sony a7r and we can talk about camera size, file quality and depth of field control.
Regards
http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/
-
… m4/3 has only been here for a few years, yet it's shipping more than a third of interchangeable lens cameras in Japan, perhaps the most photo-forward country of all.
To be precise, NOT m4/3 , but mirrorless - and that includes APS-C. The recently released FF Sony A7, will further dilute the Olympus percentage of that 'mirrorless' ILC figure in the coming year.
-
Not a fair comparison and you know it. Show me an om-d with a 35-100 f1.4 or a 70-200 f5.6 (or a variable f4-5,6) mounted on a sony a7r and we can talk about camera size, file quality and depth of field control.
How 'bout showing me an 85mm f/0.95 "full frame" lens so we can talk about light-gathering equivalence.
Better yet, let's not. This is all about identity, posturing and Look At My Big One nonsense. The E-M1 gets Michael's Best New Camera of the year award and some folks take it as an existential threat. WTF?! Maybe we need to spend less time defining ourselves with our gear, whatever it is, and more time using it.
I've attached a pure record shot, taken last night at 8pm to show my friend Kirsten in LA the view outside my house. I'd just finished shoveling snow, and it was -9° C with a bit of wind. I used an E-M1, Voigtländer 17.5/0.95 lens wide open, 1/20th sec. at ISO 1000. All for fun, as (unless you're a pro working to someone else's brief) it should be.
Cheers!
-Dave-
-
Care to back it up with something else other than words?
Care to back it up with something else other than words?
I shouldn't have to, we should all have a good grasp of the effects of focal length and perspective compression.
http://jcorbinphotography.blogspot.ie/2011/07/focal-length-can-it-compressexpand-your.html
You can work out the effects of focal length or the equivalent crop by looking at that.
It's worth pointing out this applies to other cameras too, take the Sony RX10 with it's 24-200mm f2.8 (equivalent lens)
The lens is an 8.8-73.3mm one, it actually has slightly less DOF at the 200mm equivalent than a 1.5x crop camera and an 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 lens (it's pretty close though on paper)
Bottom line is you're shooting at 73mm on the Sony and 135mm on the other lens (both equivalent roughly to 200mm field of view) It doesn't matter how you twist things, the 73mm lens is not going to compress the background as much as the 135mm one. So even though the Sony bridge model on paper has slightly better DOF control at the tele end, it has less perspective compression, you're quite likely to prefer the image from the 135mm lens for portrait shots. If you add a full frame lens at 200mm f5.6 the difference is even more obvious.
It's also the reason other premium compacts don't give the same look v even crop sensor cameras, they're shooting at a tele equivalent with a wide angle lens, which looks quite different to an actual shorter focal length telephoto lens, even with the extra speed the compression with be entirely different.
It might not matter much to some, might not be a concern for some shooters but it is something often overlooked by many review sites, when they try to compare "bokeh" shots, they mostly entirely overlook the effects of focal length and compression.
-
The other side of having a set of f/0.95 lenses is that they're f/0.95! Sheer photon-gathering ability in low light is nice to have, particularly combined with Olympus' sensor-based stabilization. On m43 you get usable DOF along with the lens speed, especially with the Voigt 17.5mm. This offsets the somewhat noisy performance of m43 sensors at high ISOs.
A) FF camera @ 35mm f/1.9 1/100s ISO 400
B) m43 camera @ 17.5mm f/0.95 1/100s ISO 100
Assume that both sensors are state-of-the art (or perfect, or equal tech). Take an image of the same scene, placing each camera on the same stand/position. Print both at 13"x19" and hang them on your wall side-by-side.
Which image has the most DOF and the most pleasing AOV and perspective? Which sensor receives the most photons? Which is most noisy?
-h
-
I shouldn't have to, we should all have a good grasp of the effects of focal length and perspective compression.
http://jcorbinphotography.blogspot.ie/2011/07/focal-length-can-it-compressexpand-your.html
You can work out the effects of focal length or the equivalent crop by looking at that.
Barry,
thanks for that link: it makes Slobodan's point and mine well. Perhaps you should reread its discussion of "camera-to-subect-distance": as explained there, the "compression" effect comes from increasing the distance from the foreground subject, and then keeping the image of that subject the same size on the final image, which in those examples is done by increasing the focal length. This changes the ratio between the apparent sizes of foreground and background images, making the background relatively larger, which makes the brain think that it is closer. This effect is achieved equally in any format, and nothing at that site indicates otherwise.
In fact, here is an easy way to do the same thing: photograph the same subject with the same camera and the same focal length from different distances, and the crop so that the foreground subject occupies the same portion in each of the final images. See what happens to the background? (You might also be surprised how the OOF effects in the background compare if the same f-stop is used for both images.)
-
Barry,
thanks for that link: it makes Slobodan's point and mine well. Perhaps you should reread its discussion of "camera-to-subect-distance": as explained there, the "compression" effect comes from increasing the distance from the foreground subject, and then keeping the image of that subject the same size on the final image, which in those examples is done by increasing the focal length. This changes the ratio between the apparent sizes of foreground and background images, making the background relatively larger, which makes the brain think that it is closer. This effect is achieved equally in any format, and nothing at that site indicates otherwise.
In fact, here is an easy way to do the same thing: photograph the same subject with the same camera and the same focal length from different distances, and the crop so that the foreground subject occupies the same portion in each of the final images. See what happens to the background? (You might also be surprised how the OOF effects in the background compare if the same f-stop is used for both images.)
We've already been down this road many times..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
It's quite obvious to me that you would for a portrait shot just one example, say a head or head and shoulders shot, maintain the subject size. It's also a common mistake people make to suggest focal length has no part in the DOF calculation (it does, part of the formula, but it's a variable just as subject to distance is)
The only addition to make the article above is the distribution of DOF (ie portion in front and behind the focus point) does vary depending on focal length, even if the actual DOF is the same or almost the same. ie wide angle lenses have a larger area behind the focal point in focus, where as telephoto lenses have a more even distribution.
Focal length clearly does influence camera to subject difference. Put a 100mm lens on a FF camera for a head shot portrait, you'll have to move back further with an APS-C one (thus increasing the DOF and reducing the perspective effects) and with a micro 4/3 body you'll be even further back (again more DOF less magnification etc etc)
I'm not really sure how will manage to get over these differences from a practical perspective ::)
It is correct that linear perspective changes are down to distance to subject changes, but you're a bit mixed up here. If you stay in the same position and take a photo from 3 different focal lengths, the perspective does not change because the distance has not changed, and you can if you want crop the images and they will be the same perspective wise.
-
The camera has also somewhat 'different' feel in hands.
If I were to find an example of cameras’ execution (i.e. evolution) of which advancements are analogical say to those in the sensor technology, it would be difficult to think of a better example in around £2500 – 3000.
-
We've already been down this road many times..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
What has DOF got to do with your claim about "compression" being less possible with a smaller format? To repeat again what your link illustrates, compression is about changing the relative sizes of foreground and background subjects by changing camera position.
As to my aside about background OOF effects, I was alluding to the fact that the OOF effects on subject for beyond the subject are not directly related to the DOF. In fact, by changing choice of camera position, focal length and aperture, you can increase the DOF on the subject while increasing the blurring of distant background objects! I thought I would mention this since so many people use "DOF" when referring to the extent of blurring of background objects for behind the plane of focus.
-
Barry, is being long and convoluted your way of saying you were wrong? ;)
-
Focal length clearly does influence camera to subject difference. Put a 100mm lens on a FF camera for a head shot portrait, you'll have to move back further with an APS-C one (thus increasing the DOF and reducing the perspective effects) and with a micro 4/3 body you'll be even further back (again more DOF less magnification etc etc)
I'm not really sure how will manage to get over these differences from a practical perspective ::)
As you surely know, one adjusts for differences in format by adjusting focal length choice to cover the same FOV: if 100mm in 35mm format, then 60-70mm in APS-C formats and about 50mm in 4/3" format.
It is correct that linear perspective changes are down to distance to subject changes, but you're a bit mixed up here. If you stay in the same position and take a photo from 3 different focal lengths, the perspective does not change because the distance has not changed, and you can if you want crop the images and they will be the same perspective wise.
On that we have always agreed: try reading the subject line of my message which was all about changing position to change the compression effect! What has "no change if you shoot from the same position" got to do with your previous claim of a difference in compression effect ability based on format size?
-
As you surely know, one adjusts for differences in format by using lenses that cover the same FOV: if 100mm in 35mm format, then 60-70mm in APS-C formats and about 50mm in 4/3" format.
On that we have always agreed: try reading the subject line of my message which was all about changing position to change the compression effect! What has "no change if you shoot from the same position" got to do with your previous claim of a difference in compression effect ability based on format size?
What's so hard to grasp that DOF focal length and subject to distance are variables? The entire DOF calculation is is based on a number of variables and equations which influence each other.
Regarding perspective and compression we've the same lens, and yes it will have the same DOF on all the bodies, but you cannot maintain the same subject distance for obvious reasons. Thus APS-C and micro 4/3 have a larger DOF and less compression. Now you can argue you can halved the focal length and get the same effect. But you have to adjust the lens speed to compensate.
Problem is let's take a 50mm f1.4 lens on full frame. You have your 25mm micro 4/3 lens, you would need a lens faster than f0.7 to achieve this effect. Such a lens is not made, even the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 cannot match it. And that's before we've looked at the price some $1000 odd v the significantly cheaper FF lens. Suddenly the cost advantages slip away quickly with micro 4/3, as you need over 2 stops to match full frame DOF.
Even just to match APS-C lenses like the 35-100mm, and 12-35mm f2.8 would have to be f2.2 not f2.8, and f1.3 to match full frame. The 45mm f1.8 needs a speed boost to f1.2 to be competitive with APS-C. These lenses don't exist, nor will they.
Maybe you take your portraits differently than I do, I compose (regardless of sensor format) either way focal length varies the magnification, which varies your subject to distance which effects perspective.
-
This is my camera of the year.
-
Better yet, let's not. This is all about identity, posturing and Look At My Big One nonsense. ... Maybe we need to spend less time defining ourselves with our gear, whatever it is, and more time using it.
But defining ourselves with our gear is so much easier than using it ;-)
-
I've attached a pure record shot, taken last night at 8pm to show my friend Kirsten in LA the view outside my house. I'd just finished shoveling snow, and it was -9° C with a bit of wind. I used an E-M1, Voigtländer 17.5/0.95 lens wide open, 1/20th sec. at ISO 1000. Al
OK, I can shoot more or less the same picture with similar DOF and file quality with, say, a Nikon D600 and a 35 mm f2.0 at ISO 4000, but then price and weight of both systems are similar. You've IS and I've AF. Both systems have strong points. But it's not a 35-100 f2.8 vs 70-200 f2.8.
Regards
-
Wow,
What is full frame, cause I thought anything that filled the frame was full.
It's funny I buy fast lenses and oh so very rarely ever use them wide open.
Like Michael I enjoy the em series, I use it for commerce and find a lot of pluses. It's not the costs (though cost is important) it just the character of the file, the handling of the camera and I love the ability to go from a 4:3 drop to 2:3 at a flick of a switch. Also it's one of the few modern digital cameras I can manually focus and if you love beautifully built cameras it's a beautifully built camera and no I get nothing for that statement, I pay retail.
Speaking of beautiful cameras, last night I messed with a Leica S at the Mayfair studio and even with that beautifully big ovf when I put it next to the little em1 (and boy does the em1 look tiny next to it) I didn't see a drop off in the ability to manually focus or autofocus in low light, though I'll admit the Leica S is really something special.
Like Michael, I love cameras that are made by camera folk, not marketing guys and in a strange way I think Olympus and Leica are somewhat alike in that process.
You know I shot this with an 85mm 1.8 probably stopped down to around F3 or 4 or maybe more. I never look at F numbers, I look at shutter speed to hold sharpness and just adjust F stop to get the background look I want.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/micro_43_3_versionsc/source/image/russell_rutherford_m_2627bd.jpg)
I shot this with a Canon at about 400 iso and at the time had I owned the em-5 or , with a 45 or my contax with a 120 there would have been so little difference nobody would have known.
There's more to a camera than just the numbers.
IMO
BC
-
Speaking of beautiful cameras, … I'll admit the Leica S is really something special.
Go on, you know you want to - buy it!
-
"Full frame": formerly used to describe digicams using 135 format sensors, though technically a true full-frame camera would be able to capture entire image circles rather than rectangular crops.
"Full frame": currently used primarily for marketeering and posturing.
BC, I second Manoli...get the Leica S. I wanna live vicariously! :D
-Dave-
-
It seems to me that all mirrorless systems are remarkably overpriced. Given that a mirrorless camera does away with all the complicated mechanical parts of SLR viewing and focusing, what you have a basically a large sensor compact with a lens mount. It ought to be cheaper than similarly featured SLRs. We ought to be able to get mirrorless cameras at every level from budget to pro that offer better value than DSLRs but the opposite is the case. In every market segment, those complex, hand assembled obsolete DLRs cost less and provide higher specs. For example, name me the mirrorless body currently available that offers a 24MP sensor for under £300 like the D3200 does... Ah, yes, um,er. Mirrorless manufacturers haven't taken advantage of the cost savings from dumping the mirror to lower the cost of entry for the buyer, they've tried to have their cake and eat it: sell you less for more... a lot more.
I like my XE-1 but it's a lot of money for what you get, I liked my G1 and GF1 and I like my G3 but there is no way I would buy another G series until the price falls by 50%. DSLRs are a bit of a bargain, especially at the budget end.
From my experience, again from Portugal, Olympus is very expensive. Right now, the price of the EM1 is comparable to the price of a EOS 6D (with the Canon rebates tha ended in Dec 31). Lenses have comparable prices too, at least the usual ones. No doubt a EM1 with say, a 17 f1.8 is a fantastic kit for travel and street; but so is the 6D with a 40mm pancake, or 35 f2, or 50 1.4; for similar prices.
I am not taking sides here, just stating that price wise, for the normal shooter, the Canon makes a very strong point. So much so that on Dec 31 I bought a 6D with 50 1.4 lens.
-
It seems to me that all mirrorless systems are remarkably overpriced...
When they expend their market share and volume, the price will fall, just as it has for DSLRs. DSLRs are Walmarts of the world, mirrorless more like a boutique.
-
Wow,
What is full frame, cause I thought anything that filled the frame was full.
When Kodak made digital cameras and digital sensors, I remember a rather tetchy reply on a forum from a product manager of the early 4/3 sensors supplied to Olympus. Our sensors are full frame he said, not interline like those budget Sony CCDs.
I think he was less irritated by Sony's sensor division success than at the developing slang term of "full frame" (meaning 36x24mm) stomping all over the then "correct" usage for full frame transfer CCD.
-
Some reasoned, non-proselytizing commentary at Mike Johnston's site:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/01/olympus-disappearing-thom-responds.html
-Dave-
-
The entire DOF calculation ...
Barry, I suspect that this reply is futile, but I will try anyway:
I was responding to your comments about compression. Neither your claim about compression nor my rebuttals have anything to do with DOF, or with the desire of some people for portraits with very blurry backgrounds, so your entire post about DOF and portraits is irrelevant to our discussion.
(Aside: I suspect that by now almost every long-time participant in this forum knows that 35mm format achieves roughly the same compositional characteristics of angular field of view, depth of field and shutter speed as 4/3" format with twice the focal length, twice the aperture ratio (and so the same effective aperture diameter or entrance pupil diameter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrance_pupil)), and thus four times the ISO speed.
-
Michael Johnston of The Online Photographer also chose this as his camera-of-the-year.
And with the Sony A7R as his runner up, and a nice discussion that makes it clear to me that half a dozen different cameras deserve this honor, from different photographers with different objectives and priorities:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/12/ (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/12/)
P. S. And from the sublime to the ridiculous, it was the same 1-2 of Olympus OM-D E-M1 and Sony A7R in the DPReview reader poll. The main take-away from this is the wide-spread shutout of the dominant brands (Canon and Nikon) and the dominant system camera sensor size ("APS-C") in these measures of "online new gear enthusiasm".
-
P. S. And from the sublime to the ridiculous, it was the same 1-2 of Olympus OM-D E-M1 and Sony A7R in the DPReview reader poll. The main take-away from this is the wide-spread shutout of the dominant brands (Canon and Nikon) and the dominant system camera sensor size ("APS-C") in these measures of "online new gear enthusiasm".
I suppose this has something to do with sheer novelty. I'll admit that's part of what originally attracted me to m43. A fairly new system with an expanding & developing lens lineup. But also some genuinely creative design, participation from Cosina (whose various Voigtländer lenses I like a lot), quality EVFs, accurate manual focus and auto focus that doesn't sacrifice accuracy for speed. IMO Canikon is stuck in a rut. It does a lot of things well, but the things it doesn't do well all irk the hell outta me...and it doesn't seem interested in addressing any of those things. So I take my business elsewhere.
Sony's A7r interests me for much the same set of reasons. Despite my contempt for the term "full frame," and the condescending attitude that often accompanies it, I have nothing against the 35mm format other than a lack of enthusiasm for its aspect ratio. (EVFs and in-camera aspect ratio selection to the rescue!) Most of the lenses I own were designed for this format. Most of the photos I've taken have been with cameras using this format. So Canikon wants to make it difficult or impossible for me to use their "legacy" lenses on their current cameras? Despite the fact that some of these lenses are amongst my all-time favorites? Screw 'em...I'll use someone else's cameras.
-Dave-
-
... and a nice discussion that makes it clear to me that half a dozen different cameras deserve this honour ...
Add to that that this 'Camera of the Year' nonsense seems to be a rolling accolade throughout the year, and you begin to understand the futility of it. Originally, TIPA adopted it, mainly as marketing ploy and spread the awards around on a fairly politically correct basis. I'm sure there has not been a year since 1991 when, if Canon won one category, Nikon won another, Panasonic another etc. etc ... you get the idea - just look at the winners for 2013.
http://www.tipa.com/english/XXIII_tipa_awards_2013.php
'Camera of the Year' is a misnomer. Change the title to 'Technical Innovation of the Year' or 'Contribution to Industry' - and then award it to Olympus for IBIS, by all means.
-
Sony's A7r interests me … I have nothing against the 35mm format other than a lack of enthusiasm for its aspect ratio. (EVFs and in-camera aspect ratio selection to the rescue!)
Dave, I also dislike and don't print in the 3:2 format, preferring the more rectangular 4x3, 5x4 aspect ratios. But the one advantage of the 3x2 format is that, if you stitch, a simple 'portrait' 2-stitch becomes 4x3. On a 36mp camera that gives you a 72mp capture. On scenics, that can be useful.
-
Hi,
I guess there is little doubt that in image quality the A7r is the one that wins, mostly. Mostly because of the shutter related vibration, BTW, how does OM-D E-M1 handle that?
On the other hand, there is something called good enough, and most cameras are already there. Or rather, for many applications most modern cameras may be there. Than it it plays a big role how well designed a camera is, workability. It seems from reports that OM-D E-M1 is very well designed.
I would call the A7r an enabling technology, being widely adoptable to a lot of different lenses and probably having some of the best image quality available at a very reasonable cost.
Best regards
Erik
And with the Sony A7R as his runner up, and a nice discussion that makes it clear to me that half a dozen different cameras deserve this honor, from different photographers with different objectives and priorities:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/12/ (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/12/)
P. S. And from the sublime to the ridiculous, it was the same 1-2 of Olympus OM-D E-M1 and Sony A7R in the DPReview reader poll. The main take-away from this is the wide-spread shutout of the dominant brands (Canon and Nikon) and the dominant system camera sensor size ("APS-C") in these measures of "online new gear enthusiasm".
-
Dave, I also dislike and don't print in the 3:2 format, preferring the more rectangular 4x3, 5x4 aspect ratios. But the one advantage of the 3x2 format is that, if you stitch, a simple 'portrait' 2-stitch becomes 4x3. On a 36mp camera that gives you a 72mp capture. On scenics, that can be useful.
Yep! You can stack two horizontals too for a 3:4 portrait assembly. Another advantage is cropping to (or even shooting in) 16:9 for HD monitor/television display. You don't have to throw away as much data as with a 4:3 frame. I like panoramics and semi-panos...but I've always found 3:2 itself an uncomfortable shape to frame with. This is probably why I've always tended to frame top-to-bottom, not minding if the side-to-side coverage was a bit wide. When I started scanning transparencies in the 1990s it was such a pleasure to finally see what I'd had in mind framing-wise when I took so many of those photos. (I could never bring myself to wrestle with Cibachrome or other such processes.) Just a personal quirky thing, I guess.
Sony needs to add additional aspect ratio options to the A7(r). With an EVF camera, not including 4:3 and 1:1 at least is inexcusable. Maybe they're afraid of scaring off "full frame" absolutists. ;)
-Dave-
-
Hi,
I would think I crop to subject, but what I see in the viewfinder affects my view of things. When I shoot with the Hasselblad and the primes I have compositions sometimes turn out better than the more precise ones I do on the DSLR and zooms. Perhaps limitations enhance vision? I still need to find out.
I really don't feel cameras are that important. I really enjoy shooting with my 15 year old Hasselblad. When shooting with the 'Blad' I also feel how easy it is to shoot with a modern DSLR. I never go for a walk with the Hasselblad alone, a DSLR and a pair of zooms always make company.
Best regards
Erik
Yep! You can stack two horizontals too for a 3:4 portrait assembly. Another advantage is cropping to (or even shooting in) 16:9 for HD monitor/television display. You don't have to throw away as much data as with a 4:3 frame. I like panoramics and semi-panos...but I've always found 3:2 itself an uncomfortable shape to frame with. This is probably why I've always tended to frame top-to-bottom, not minding if the side-to-side coverage was a bit wide. When I started scanning transparencies in the 1990s it was such a pleasure to finally see what I'd had in mind framing-wise when I took so many of those photos. (I could never bring myself to wrestle with Cibachrome or other such processes.) Just a personal quirky thing, I guess.
Sony needs to add additional aspect ratio options to the A7(r). With an EVF camera, not including 4:3 and 1:1 at least is inexcusable. Maybe they're afraid of scaring off "full frame" absolutists. ;)
-Dave-
-
I guess there is little doubt that in image quality the A7r is the one that wins, mostly. Mostly because of the shutter related vibration, BTW, how does OM-D E-M1 handle that?
Olympus has an "anti-shock" option that introduces a delay between the shutter closing and then re-opening to begin the exposure. Of course any mechanical movement at all is bound to induce some degree of vibration under some conditions. A good reason IMO to dispense with physical shutters (except perhaps as protective shields).
On the other hand, there is something called good enough, and most cameras are already there. Or rather, for many applications most modern cameras may be there. Then it plays a big role how well designed a camera is, workability. It seems from reports that OM-D E-M1 is very well designed.
Yes, the E-M1 is very solid and easy to operate. Ridiculously configurable, too, to the point of making your head spin while first setting it up. But once you've got it configured the way you like it mostly gets out of the way.
It can be fun and rewarding to own & use "the best." IMO there's a degree of healthy obligation involved: I feel I need to perform at my best when using a device with capabilities that exceed mine. I know my photography improved a lot when my dad started letting me use his Leica...I was kinda intimidated by it, though in a good way. OTOH the pursuit of more for its own sake eventually runs you off the rails. I can't make a print large enough to exhaust the resolving capabilities, tonal or spatial, of any electronic camera I currently use. Now I could buy a bigger printer...but what would I do with the bigger prints? Buy a bigger house to display them in? Do something absurdly egocentric and open a gallery? (I mean egocentric for me...some folks do work that warrants huge prints and gallery displays.) Uh...no.
I would call the A7r an enabling technology, being widely adoptable to a lot of different lenses and probably having some of the best image quality available at a very reasonable cost.
Yeah, I'm on the verge of giving this camera a spin. I'd get a Yashica/Contax adapter, maybe the native 55mm lens and stop there. No messing with wide M lenses or other optical experimenting. 16:9 aspect ratio only. Shoot with electronic (4k) display, not prints, in mind. Video as well as still images. Could be lotsa fun!
-Dave-
-
Yeah, I'm on the verge of giving this camera a spin.
-Dave-
The only things that half interested me in the A7 (not the R) was it partially tethered and I like the A mount Zeiss glass I used on my FS 100 video camera. (underscore used, past tence).
Ok, I'll admit the ability of full 35mm frame I thought might produce a better file and a contact told me the A7 will tether, so it got my attention, until I tested it against the olympus em-5 then the em-1.
I can use any camera I want and honestly, except in extreme situations 15mp vs. 20 something is almost imperceptial to me.
The Sony had possiblities, if I can leave the Canons at home. We travel so much, every case is $150 a trip, multiply that out in a year and the camera costs start to shrink.
The things that bothered me wasn't just the shutter noise, the area of focus coverage with the A mount lenses, the build quality (A7). It was just the overall feel and the look of the evf. It looked like video where the em-1 looks like film.
I can make the leap from optical finder to "digital film", polaroid to "film", camera rear lcd to " digital film", even a crappy powerbook screen to " digital film", but looking though that finder with jagged lines just was too much.
I'm not knocking anyone that uses or bought a sony, but once I put the new olympus em-1 next to the Sony the em1 is one of those cameras that feels expensive and shoots right.
The closest I can compare it to is a Leica, but I'm sure Leicaphiles would take exception.
So I bought the em-1 and honestly love it except the damn thing doesn't tether and if any human can explain how to actually wi-fi tether with the olympus wi-fi "system" I owe them dinner.
I even set it up using those flaky eye-fi cards and shot a hundred frames coming in at about 12 to 15 seconds a jpeg until it just quit receiving. Don't know why, don't know if anyone knows why, but I'll try it again if I get the time.
Honestly though if you shoot with clients you have to tether. and when it comes to tethering only the 1ds 3 with usb, the 1dx with ethernet hooked to dpp is the most rock solid, second would be my phase backs on an older computer that takes fw 400. The Canons and the phase are the only tethering I've done where it's solid and you can see an image on the lcd and the computer at the same time.
Even the Leica S2 which I really want is reported to have slow tethering. I'll test it fully but hasn't any of these companies heard of usb 3, or ethernet, or some connection that's stable.
And that's the kicker with the Olympus. To me it's a complete professional camera, shoots a great file (though I believe the em-5 shoots a prettier file than the em-1), focuses like no camera made but you really have to wonder how much more would it have cost olympus to just make a usb connection to a computer?
Now in regards to all the noise we hear on this forum about Canon, I've never been in love with Canon and owned about every professional still digital camera they make.
This forum seems to want to roll them over and stick a fork in em, but before anyone does that they need to look at the complete Canon line up.
They make a professional series of cameras from video to still, shoot pretty skin tones, are the only company that has a professional still camera that shoots a 4k video file (all though it's $18,000) and has a lens line up in Canon and PL mount that combined, nobody gets close to.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that more professional photographs, still and motion are shot with Canon than any other brand and once again keep in mind this isn't a brand that I'm in love with, I just think they're good, stable and logical cameras.
In regards to Sony, they should own the world, they know how to innovate but they do just flaky stuff that makes no sense (see fs 700 video camera).
I just feel Sony covers so many segments that I get the feeling that they're so busy covering territory they have issues making any one segment really, really great, they just get close enough and move on, but that's my take. If I'm wrong, they improve the camera, I'll take a deeper look.
But the final note is with all camera sales taking a hit I strongly suggest anyone that makes a camera that takes a 9 grand spend in bodies and lenses needs to really give some deep thought into how to make it as best as possible, not just try to cover market share.
Olympus should also adopt this policy, because other than tethering and video, the olympus really is there.
IMO
BC
-
Sony's mistake is trying to be the swiss army knife of the photographic world, shotgun product releases trying to hit something purely with numbers (at times)
They're also particularly bad at resolving issues with firmware, and are very poor at actually taking in user feedback and responding.
The can hit the mark, sometimes by accident, but their products never really feel quite finished and you can usually see areas where they simply got a suit to work on something, and didn't spend enough time listening to field testers (that's if they actually have field testers I wonder at times)
Regarding mirrorless and even the industry as a whole in 2014, unless there is a good upswing in sales there will be blood as they say. I personally think the entire mirror less take has been grossly over hyped, and was never going to be the runaway success some said it would. It will stick around, but it's a very very obvious mistake to try to put all users in one box and hope it meets all their needs. The idea is fine, but the reality is all the more affordable ILC models don't even have a viewfinder, many are too small for comfort and represent poor value when compared to "budget DSLR's"
As buyers in Europe and the USA have shown little interest in these products, I for one believe that the size argument doesn't cut it for many folks. Just making something smaller isn't going to sell it on it's own. If they priced these cameras at more competitive lenses to take into account reduced costs then you could at least give them a nob. Right now I suspect 70% of the thinking behind ILC's is nothing to do with users needs/wants, but purely to try to cut costs and increase margins.
But the good news is if 2014 isn't great for the industry at a whole, we might start to see price reductions even on optics. If they can't get the sales prices will have to fall, and that's good news for everyone.
-
But the good news is if 2014 isn't great for the industry at a whole, we might start to see price reductions even on optics. If they can't get the sales prices will have to fall, and that's good news for everyone.
Good news for everyone except the industry. Falling prices due to reduced demand means reduced profits, which means less new products and possibly failing companies.
Is that what "everyone" wants? I don't think so.
Also, your continuing dissing of the CSC marketplace does not recognize that in some markets they're doing just fine, thank you. And, there are some of us who think that they are great tools and prefer them over larger and heavier cameras.
Michael
-
... If they can't get the sales prices will have to fall, and that's good news for everyone.
Is it? I wish the prices will go tenfold up, so that everyone who deliberates whether to go to movies+popcorn+soda or buy a camera would drop out and leave photography to photographers. I am getting tired of this mastardization™ of everything... leave democracy to voting.
-
It seems to me that all mirrorless systems are remarkably overpriced. Given that a mirrorless camera does away with all the complicated mechanical parts of SLR viewing and focusing, what you have a basically a large sensor compact with a lens mount. It ought to be cheaper than similarly featured SLRs. We ought to be able to get mirrorless cameras at every level from budget to pro that offer better value than DSLRs but the opposite is the case. In every market segment, those complex, hand assembled obsolete DLRs cost less and provide higher specs. For example, name me the mirrorless body currently available that offers a 24MP sensor for under £300 like the D3200 does... Ah, yes, um,er. Mirrorless manufacturers haven't taken advantage of the cost savings from dumping the mirror to lower the cost of entry for the buyer, they've tried to have their cake and eat it: sell you less for more... a lot more.
I don't think mFT as a whole is overpriced (at least in the US, where mirrorless is not very popular). While it's true that there are no 24MP mFT (there is a 24MP APSC mirrorless - the NEX7), there are several 16MP options that are pretty competitive to their 16MP DSLR counterparts that are still in production.
Here's a list of the Olympus 16MP models (current B&H prices, USD):
PM2: 369
PM2: 399 (w/14-42 F3.5-5.6 kit lens)
PL5: 599
P5: 999
EM5: 999
EM1: 1399
and here's a list of Nikon 16MP DX models:
D3100: 430 (only sold w/18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens)
D5100: 549 (only sold w/18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens)
D7000: 699
D300S: 1697 (12MP)
and here's a list of the current Nikon 24MP DX models:
D3200: 527 (only sold w/18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens)
D5200: 647
D7100: 1147
I'd say that the lower tier Olympus offerings actually cost less than their Nikon 16MP and 24MP counterparts. The EM5 was also price competitive with the D7000 before it's price fell (used to be 999) with the introduction of the D7100. And although mFT should have a cost savings for fewer mechanical parts, there is always a premium for compactness/portability (consider prices of ultrabooks vs similarly configured laptops).
It seems that everyone gets fixated on the high price of the EM1 and compares it to an entry level DSLR, but never considers that there are entry level mFT bodies as well. And if someone is wondering why the 16MP EM1 is more expensive than the 24MP D7100, then they should also wonder why the 12MP D300S is even more expensive.
-
BC, I hear ya. I wouldn't disagree with calling the E-M1 "Leica-like" in build & feel. Use one for awhile and it makes sense why it costs what it does. The Sony is a mid-level camera housing a high-end sensor. The E-M1 is a high-end camera housing a smaller, less expensive sensor. With technology most cost gains come from miniaturization. You can make the photosites and supporting components on a 24x36mm sensor smaller but the sensor size itself is fixed. (I'll skip the gory fabrication/yield details.) Thus to make a relatively affordable 135 format camera you've gotta reduce costs elsewhere.
I also agree re. Canon. Best SLR AF system I've used, most refined out-of-camera tonality. Some lovely lenses, others just okay. I never got along well with the cameras feel-wise, though (aside from the AE-1...a different beast from a different era).
Eye-Fi cards are as much PITA as useful. For me, as a glorified happy snapper, it's not so much an issue. I use one in my Pentax to transfer downsampled JPEGs to my iPad. It works except when it doesn't. ;)
I intend to use the Sony in a way likely to make the sharpness crowd cringe. No tripod, no 400% on-screen scrutiny. 16:9 HD aspect ratio. 30mp downsampled...screen display/TV presentation only. If the JPEG engine is up to it I might not even bother using the RAWs. The aim is to use my favorite SLR lenses, the Y/C Zeisses. Not even the faster ones, aside from the 50mm, but the compact f/2.8s and 3.5s. The camera is merely a platform for the lenses, one that lets them provide the horizontal FOV they were designed for. If it turns out to be too quirky in use I'll just move it on. We shall see...
As an aside, once 4k display matures my printer is history.
-Dave-
-
...And although mFT should have a cost savings for fewer mechanical parts, there is always a premium for compactness/portability (consider prices of ultrabooks vs similarly configured laptops)...
Don't forget many M43/mFT cameras have electronic view finders, an expensive part.
-
Actually I think that EVF will be cheaper than a genuine pentaprism OVF in both production and installation. The pentamirror is probably a lot cheaper and it shows.
-
Actually I think that EVF will be cheaper than a genuine pentaprism OVF in both production and installation. The pentamirror is probably a lot cheaper and it shows.
Probably correct, but then that doesn't explain why Sony's A99 was priced so high other than profit gouging.
Most of the lower end ILC models have no viewfinder at all, thus should in theory be somewhat cheaper than their more complicated to make DSLR rivals, yet this is not reflected in the retail price.
There is no room for sentimentality in this market, I'm not dissing the ILC concept either, I'm just asking why it's not taken off in many regions (ie USA/Europe), why I'm seeing lots of blowout deals on Panasonic G's and Nikon 1's being discounted to silly prices to move stock. One reason I think might be price, one might be size (some like bigger not smaller) and I think we all know there are too many wolves chasing an ever decreasing pile of meat, ie the market is getting smaller with too many makers.
I suspect camera makers would be happy to make a profit in the coming years v a loss. Most know that it's likely some makers will pack up entirely. So yes there will be changes, like it or not the market has evolved and the boom times are over.
-
I'm just asking why it's not taken off in many regions (ie USA/Europe), why I'm seeing lots of blowout deals on Panasonic G's and Nikon 1's being discounted to silly prices to move stock. One reason I think might be price, one might be size (some like bigger not smaller) and I think we all know there are too many wolves chasing an ever decreasing pile of meat, ie the market is getting smaller with too many makers.
I suspect camera makers would be happy to make a profit in the coming years v a loss.
I work professionally so since I'm a hammer the world's a nail, but it seems to me that since the dawn of digital capture the process has been to lay out incremental upgrades every 18 months or so.
I can run the list from the Canon 1dc ($18,000) to the Sony A7 that are either rushed to market too soon, or purposely hobbled to move you to the next version.
Panasonic just announced a gh 4k still and video camera that will have sdi out and two xlr inputs. It won't be perfect (though video autofocus on the panasonic gh3's is pretty amazing) and I'm sure the gh4 will be limited on frame rates at different resolutions, so it won't replace a RED or an Arri but even for professional work, it will get damn close.
But think about Olympus which has amazing stabilization that is perfect for motion imagery, but a weak video codec and limited sound pre amps and connections, so it's really not a cross media camera.
Same with the Sony A7. Better connectors, xlr inputs, but no in camera stabilization and also a weak codec, with a kind of a work around in tethering for stills.
I don't doubt for a moment that there won't soon be an A8 that has better autofocus and maybe a 422 codec, but knowing Sony, they'll still hobble it in some way so not to break into their other segments and that's where the camera industry seems to have problems.
Take the olympus, panasonic, sony, heck any camera and why not add modules (though not the Sony $6,000 fs700 4kmodules), but in place of the right angle grip add 4k, or a prorezz recorder, and xlr inputs.
Why not a removeable finder that changes the focusing style, from fast stills to smooth motion? I could go on, but a camera system that encourages you to invest, knowing the system will not be obsolete in less than 2 years.
In the professional world there is a change that is already with us, shooting combination still and motion projects. Photographers like me who have added and moved to motion had to spend 6 figures to get to professional 4k, with lens sets, monitors, etc. etc., and to this day only one camera I work with (the gh3) is the only real usable still and motion camera that shoots with any quality.
I can see that a company like olympus is fighting costs and a $5,000 omd would be a tough sell for the average public, but for me, if they added modules I'd happily pay 5 grand or more to get what I need given that two cameras, one large lens set would save me the costs of the camera bodies in a year just in baggage overage and transportation fees.
I've participated in the digital revolution since almost the start and I've come to the conclusion to stop worrying about it, because when you read the specs of a new camera, there is always that blank space.
All I know is sony lost my purchase with weak video and no touch screen autofocus. Olympus only got my money because they make such a good little camera, but had I not already invested in the gh3's, I never would have looked at the olympus.
Oh and btw: since we're talking about camera of the year the omd em-1 everyone should try the vf 4 finder. It really makes the omd em-1 a waist level camera and allows for great focus and shooting angles.
It also works on the em-5 with an upgrade.
The only downside is you lose the hotshoe, but hey maybe in the next version?
IMO
BC
-
A few comments about the pricing of compact system cameras, and comparisons to Canon/Nikon DSLR pricing:
1) Some of the entry level CSCs with no EVFs are priced below DSLRs; it is the higher level, lower volume, models with EVFs that are "not inexpensive".
2) Pricing depends on far more than component costs; indeed factory door component costs are often only about half or less of the retail price. Other cost factors relate to economies of scale and how much new R&D expense has to be defrayed. So of course the long-established, high volume, consumer level DSLR lines from Canon and Nikon have a cost advantage --- at least for now.
3) In a competitive market (rather than a centrally controlled command economy or some other economic fantasy world), prices are set on the basis of what is expected to produce the most profitable balance of unit margins and volume, not something like a fixed percentage markup over unit cost. Cutting prices to increase sales volume is _not_ always a profitable business move, despite this being by far the most common advice I see given to camera makers in internet forums!
4) With most camera makers struggling to break even, let alone make big profits, it is absurd to accuse them of "gouging"!
-
It's been a long time since I worked in professional video production but I'm still having difficulty imagining a nominally still camera, especially an M4/3 camera, equipped with a pair of full-sized XLR balanced audio inputs - even on an "audio grip" (not a bad idea, that)! But maybe there's a miniature XLR format that's been invented since I bowed out of the game.
Roy
-
A few comments about the pricing of compact system cameras, and comparisons to Canon/Nikon DSLR pricing:
4) With most camera makers struggling to break even, let alone make big profits, it is absurd to accuse them of "gouging"!
From a professional use viewpoint, I'm not asking camera makers to drop prices. In most cases far from it. I'm asking them to add features and raise prices. I like the idea of modular, which evf's should offer advantages. I like the idea of pay as you go. Don't want video, don't buy the module. Want 4k video buy that module, etc. etc.
The 4/3 cameras, well at least the gh3 makes great motion imagery, to the point it's kind of scary for the price, I mean $1,200 for that quality is unheard of at any point in time.
If they shoot great stills that's even better.
Last week I was finishing a video to to go the sound tech. I wanted to find the raw and change the grading of one image. I was positive it was from the gh3 which was good, but I thought needed some work.
Turned out I shot it with the R1 RED. So if I can't tell in an edit which camera I'm using . . . one that cost $25,000 or one that cost $1,200 then yes, things have gotten a lot better for the professional image makers.
I just finished post production on a still portrait from the same shoot. Lifestyle image from the olympus em-5 at 400 iso, f 2.5. I't beautiful, I processed it out in Adobe Camera Raw and think I uprezzed it in processing to 80mb.
The client, who will be critical, will never remember that the camera I used was 4/3 and small enough for one hand, they'll just look at the image. Me I look at the colors, tone, workable file.
But my point is rather than constantly ask us to toss perfectly good cameras because the next catch phrase will be 4k it's just better for all if we could add modules and parts.
I'm with 4/3, and btw it's not cheap with good glass. The new Leica 4/3 f 1/2 40 something mm lens is $1699 and I'll place the order this week. There are things these little cameras can do that are wonderful in still and motion, but don't hobble them, put the foot on the floor and separate your camera from the point and shoot/mobile phone crowd.
To me, that's how to return to profit.
IMO
BC
-
A few comments about the pricing of compact system cameras, and comparisons to Canon/Nikon DSLR pricing:
1) Some of the entry level CSCs with no EVFs are priced below DSLRs; it is the higher level, lower volume, models with EVFs that are "not inexpensive".
2) Pricing depends on far more than component costs; indeed factory door component costs are often only about half or less of the retail price. Other cost factors relate to economies of scale and how much new R&D expense has to be defrayed. So of course the long-established, high volume, consumer level DSLR lines from Canon and Nikon have a cost advantage --- at least for now.
3) In a competitive market (rather than a centrally controlled command economy or some other economic fantasy world), prices are set on the basis of what is expected to produce the most profitable balance of unit margins and volume, not something like a fixed percentage markup over unit cost. Cutting prices to increase sales volume is _not_ always a profitable business move, despite this being by far the most common advice I see given to camera makers in internet forums!
4) With most camera makers struggling to break even, let alone make big profits, it is absurd to accuse them of "gouging"!
Couple of quick points...
In Europe £299 secures a super budget DSLR (and in some cases even lower than that) and kit lens, there are not many ILC's below that price bar the odd blow out stock clearance offer.
Even up to the £500 price mark some makers such as Sony don't even give you a hot shoe, nor any viewfinder nor any way to add one (I believe that's a turn off for some buyers)
Pricing does depend on more than component cost, let's throw another bone into the mix. Assembly time, clearly it's going to take longer to assemble a DSLR than a CSC which has far fewer components, another strong argument for better prices.
Thing about cutting prices is it brings more users onboard, and some of them will buy more bodies and lenses later on. On the other hand one shop manager I spoke to said most people buying a Nikon 1 at crazy prices were simply looking for a better IQ compact and will likely NEVER buy another lens or anything else. It's true some DSLR users don't, but the lower price point is the "hook" and "bait" for some users who will invest in a system heavily.
Anyway, the other point is as said too many makers, market saturation another problem. As for compact makers they've been lazy for years offering mostly pin head sensors and not seeing the smart phone attack coming (which was quite obvious)
I personally see a big push for FF coming in the next few years as the top 2 struggle to maintain sales, that means lower prices and cheaper APS-C bodies too, something everyone should welcome. Is the EM-1 overpriced? That depends where you live, in Europe I think it's quite absurd to price it at near FF levels. Don't expect Olympus to gain big market share with such pricing strategies.
-
A pest.
-
A place in Hungary?
(Sorry, I messed that up. The response should obviously have been -- Bud.)
-
Just ate dinner...Hungry no more.
-Dave-
-
To me, the device is Sony A7R. Though I just handle it for 3 times. It gives me strong impression. Great in appearance and performance.
-
Love at first sight. Proposed on third date?
-
A place in Hungary?
(Sorry, I messed that up. The response should obviously have been -- Bud.)
Buds make you hungry!
-Dave-