Choosing the Right Camera System

[synn]

Nothing wrong with having pride in being able to afford something after working hard for it.
Nothing wrong with having even more pride in being able to create noteworthy images with it.

This whole "Everyone's a winner" stuff belongs in little league. The real world doesn't work that way.

[Chrisso26]

I've never been able to build anything.
I understand how it would build a sense of achievement and pride.
I'm very happy to own the gear I own, and enjoy using it immensely.

[BernardLanguillier]

Nothing wrong with having pride in being able to afford something after working hard for it.

In a world where most people have anyway a large debt related to real estate/cars/..., the decision to buy a camera is really little more than asset mgt, or put it otherwise, how much you are willing to enslave yourself to a banking corporation.

I see zero legitimate reason to be proud of that. The only skills it takes is optimism and/or blindness (and, yes, a bit of financial credibility at some point of time in the past).

Even if you bought your camera cash and have no other debt, well placed pride should IMHO be about the skills that helped you generate the money, not about the goods you bought with the money. And that is leaving aside the luck part that is de facto a major contributor to the relative success many of us enjoy.

Then there is of course those people's whose ego needs support in the form of the superficial respect coming from other consumers who value people by what they own instead of valuating them by what they are. Is it legitimate to be proud of such respect deriving from flawed priorities? I don't think it is either.

This whole "Everyone's a winner" stuff belongs in little league. The real world doesn't work that way.

Agreed, but winners in photography should be the good photographers, not those who have bought good cameras.

I personally don't feel any pride in owning the gear I own, more a fuzzy sense of responsibility in terms of leveraging the best possible way the equipment I have been lucky to have the opportunity to purchase from the talented engineers who designed and manufactured it. Would it make more sense to donate it to more talented photographers who would put it to better use? This is IMHO a more relevant feeling that pride.

Anyway, apologies for the digression, let's get back to our let's-help-Nick-select-the-camera-that-will-help-him-take-more-great-images projet.

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

Even if you bought your camera cash and have no other debt, well placed pride should IMHO be about the skills that helped you generate the money, not about the goods you bought with the money.

Which is why i said "Nothing wrong with having pride in being able to afford something after working hard for it."

Emphasis on the being able to afford part, not the something part.

Agreed, but winners in photography should be the good photographers, not those who have bought good cameras.

Which is why I said "Nothing wrong with having even more pride in being able to create noteworthy images with it."

Emphasis on the even more part, i.e. the ability to make good images deserves more pride than the ability to be able to afford the image making equipment.

Please read carefully before going on a verbal rampage.

[BernardLanguillier]

Which is why i said "Nothing wrong with having pride in being able to afford something after working hard for it."

Emphasis on the being able to afford part, not the something part.


Which is why I said "Nothing wrong with having even more pride in being able to create noteworthy images with it."

Emphasis on the even more part, i.e. the ability to make good images deserves more pride than the ability to be able to afford the image making equipment.

Please read carefully before going on a verbal rampage.

Or, put it otherwise, you agree with what I wrote?

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

Or, put it otherwise, you agree with what I wrote?

Cheers,
Bernard

Rather, I wrote my take on this whole pride and you jumped on it and over explained the wrong parts. I don't need to agree to anything as you were responding to my post, not the other way around.

**edited to remove some vitriol**

[Nick Walt]

...The em-1 is a better camera, but not a better sensor or whatever causes the look and not just dr or numbers (know very little about dxo or any of those sites because I don't care) but the look of the em-5 when shot properly is quite pretty, the em-1 is very dslr looking.

Hi bcooter,

What characteristics appeal to you about the sensor in the E-M5 (I guess that would also include the sensor in the E-M10, is that correct)? What do you mean by the expression "DSLR looking"?

Cheers

[deejjjaaaa]

What characteristics appeal to you about the sensor in the E-M5

Е-М5 (and GH3) has sensor from Sony
E-M1 (and GH4) has sensor from Panasonic

CFA are different (Adobe for example initially used the same dcp profile for E-M1 as for E-M5 in RC version of ACR, then changed to a noticeably different profile in final release that supported E-M1... or was is RC2 ? ... in any case you cas see that youself if you modify manually dcp profiles for E-M5 and E-M1 to use them crosswise)

E-M1 does not have AA filter, E-M5 does have it
E-M1 has EFCS, E-M5 does not have it - makes a big difference for some shots resultion wise

[bcooter]

Hi bcooter,

What characteristics appeal to you about the sensor in the E-M5 (I guess that would also include the sensor in the E-M10, is that correct)? What do you mean by the expression "DSLR looking"?

Cheers

Nick,


This is just personal observation, no charts, no brick walls.

To me some cameras, usually cameras that go to higher iso, seem to see more global colors, less specific.

Those are the ones that give me fits.

Other cameras like a digital back or even the little em-5 seem to see every color, good and bad.   If there is a blemish on a face it sees it in all it's glory where other cameras just kind of let it blend in.

It's interesting, I can (and have) set up a Canon 1ds3 next to a digital back, shot two frames of each, showed a client and asked which one did they like.  To a person they picked the Canon, though working in post and wanting the ability to see as much color difference as possible offered more choices.

I just found the em-1 file to be a little thin, a little global and much harder to work in post, where the em-5 was kind of like a little digital back in color, but PLEASE remember this is how I work, other people will get different results.

I don't use either olympus for heavy production, but if I did I would love the em-5 sensor in an em-1 body.

I've never seen any blur or vibration from either cameras, though before buying the em-1 I went to the Sony store twice to test them (before they closed most of the Sony stores), and I personally couldn't get a really tight shot with the A7 and A7r though a lot of people love those cameras, so maybe it was just me.

This is a snap from the em-1 in mixed light, some slight oversharpening to enhance the grain and I love the look, though don't judge this photo on artistic merits.

BTW:  this was a vertical so it's about 1/2 the frame.



Bottom line is they're both fun cameras and the em-1 is built like a rolex, though the menu for both had to be designed by a martian.

IMO

BC

[bcooter]

Wow Bernard baby,

You take a jealously pill today?

Why would you care what anyone spends their money on, or what they use and how do you know if it's worth it to them?

No offense man, but you seem to have the view that no matter what anyone says, you interject the words Nikon or Sony sensor into most of your responses, which is kind of a downer for the people that use something else, like they screwed up or something.

Who cares?   Your not them, you probably don't compete with them, but regardless I think it's cool that you have two nikon bodies and one german lens that cost 11 grand total, especially since you don't earn your living with a camera.

That's great, hopefully fun and unless you mugged a granny to afford it you should be proud.

It's not the device that is cool, it's the work and commitment it takes to buy something that's cool, something you want.

I have a friend that buys nice stuff.  Really nice stuff like $35,000 chairs.

I've heard people make a lot of comments usually negative, but this guy came from below nothing,  has worked professionally 18 hour days since he was 16, so buying what he wants he not only deserves but it's not anyone's business what he does with his money.

btw: the chairs are pretty.

IMO

BC

[Manoli]

It's not the device that is cool, it's the work and commitment it takes to buy something that's cool, something you want.

That's (part) of your post.
This is (part) of what Bernard said:

well placed pride should IMHO be about the skills that helped you generate the money, not about the goods you bought with the money.

Now, if you can explain the philosophical difference between those two statements, I'd be grateful.

[NancyP]

I actually have some pride in lovingly used equipment, even if it is ordinary mass market equipment. I would like to have even more pride in images created    , but I am slowly learning more skills, and take some pride in the learning process and in the tools used for learning. Not surprisingly, I will never sell my first SLR and its first lens even though it is a quite ordinary manual/mechanical-everything SLR (Mamiya Sekor DTL 1000, one of the few 135 format Mamiyas, and its M-S 55mm f/1.4 M42-mount lens).

[BernardLanguillier]

Wow Bernard baby,

You take a jealously pill today?

James,

What makes you think so when the very purpose of my post is to stress how irrelevant the possession of expensive equipment is to me?

Besides, you have frankly no idea about what I can afford nor about the value of my photography equipment and I don't tntend to boast about that here. As written above, anyone reasonnably successful has access to credit and could buy any of the pieces of equipment you frequently report about. I could probably afford some of them cash if I thought it would help me take better images. I happen to think that working with what I have/expand on top of what I have is more relevant for my planned needs and a better use of my financial assets.

No offense man, but you seem to have the view that no matter what anyone says, you interject the words Nikon or Sony sensor into most of your responses, which is kind of a downer for the people that use something else, like they screwed up or something.

It would appear that you only read a tiny subset of my posts if that's how you feel. Not that you should read more of them, but then it may be better to avoid such mistaken generalizations?



It goes without saying that everybody has different needs and that I do understand that. Having my own little studio, I have a first hand understanding of the value of flash synch speeds faster than 1/320 sec and what lens shutter can bring to the table. So I do understand, to give you one example, why you and others shoot with MF cameras. For what it is worth I now own a Lovely Hassy 503cw and a few excellent lenses. That's 10+ years after I sold my buggy H1.

I only comment about Nikon in threads where somebody like Nick asks explicit advice.

Back on the point, in this case, is your view that Nick would be better off with a 6D compared to a D750?

Cheers,
Bernard

[NancyP]

Bernard, these shots of the traditional martial arts / traditional cavalry are quite interesting. Talking about pride in ownership being greatest when one has made the tool (or trained the horse) or when one has lovingly used the tool for a long period of time - the re-enacters must have such pride in their weapons and well-trained horses. (Yes, one does have to train a horse to put up with a rider moving off balance or waving some implement around in the horse's generous visual field).

At any rate, there are many good systems out there, and the "best" systems are the ones that best suit the individuals using the systems. For a student, that might be a starter DSLR of any brand and its kit lens - or, an old TLR or view camera - or, a fixed lens bridge camera - or, G-d forbid, a phone - something that might get overlooked as "not worthy" by someone with more money to spend and more specialized interests.

[Guillermo Luijk]

What makes you think so when the very purpose of my post is to stress how irrelevant the possession of expensive equipment is to me?

Besides, you have frankly no idea about what I can afford nor about the value of my photography equipment and I don't tntend to boast about that here.
(...)
I only comment about Nikon in threads where somebody like Nick asks explicit advice.

You have always been one of my best references in this forum in all matters: technical knowledge, common sense and talent. I find surprising to find people here making you appear as a Nikon fanboy or requiring any further explanations about your comments. I wouldn't bother Bernard.

[BernardLanguillier]

You have always been one of my best references in this forum in all matters: technical knowledge, common sense and talent.

Thanks Guillermo, very kind of you.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jim Pascoe]

Wow Bernard baby,

You take a jealously pill today?

Why would you care what anyone spends their money on, or what they use and how do you know if it's worth it to them?

In defence of Bernards post - not that he needs defending by me, I don't think he was having a go at people buying or owning expensive gear.  What Bernard seemed to be saying to me is that he finds it odd that anyone would be 'proud' of their camera.  And I happen to feel the same.  It's what you do with it that counts.  I remember buying a pair of Ray Ban sunglasses about 20 years ago.  The first thing I did was carefully scrape away the logo that was painted onto one of the lenses.  I wanted the quality that I perceived they offered without feeling the need to say to everyone "hey - I can afford a pair of Ray Bans".  Nothing irritates more than it being assumed that the reason I can make good photo's is that I have an expensive camera.

If anyone wants to feel proud of their camera that's fine by me.  Perhaps it why I prefer cycling to having a flash car.  The bicycle speaks of what I personally can do - it is propelled by me.  The flash car just needs a hefty boot on the accelerator!

Jim

[Fine_Art]

In defence of Bernards post - not that he needs defending by me, I don't think he was having a go at people buying or owning expensive gear.  What Bernard seemed to be saying to me is that he finds it odd that anyone would be 'proud' of their camera.  And I happen to feel the same.  It's what you do with it that counts. 

...

Jim

That was my read of it as well. I agree.

[BernardLanguillier]

That was indeed the point.

There are many photographers needing some unique features only provided by pieces of gear with a high price tag, producing accordingly amazing work with those. As a result they are, and should be, proud.

James is one of them.

Btw, another one captured with the D750 yesterday. It isn't that great technically, but I somehow like it.



Cheers,
Bernard

[armand]

That was indeed the point.

There are many photographers needing some unique features only provided by pieces of gear with a high price tag, producing accordingly amazing work with those. As a result they are, and should be, proud.

James is one of them.

Btw, another one captured with the D750 yesterday. It isn't that great technically, but I somehow like it.



Cheers,
Bernard

I love it! So much to get out of this one.
Do you use any walk around zoom with the D750?