[Closed] One for the photographers...

When you have anything actually of use to add to a photography thread

what I mean is that when I think about photography, it's in terms of being in the right place, spotting dramatic light or interesting juxtapositions, capturing a moment, a shape, a pattern, and so forth, and not about numbers on dials, or intentionally handicapping myself to draw attention to some feature of the machine. No non-mathematician gets a thrill from numbers, they're just an inconvenient means to and end.

Many thanks for all the responses. Had another go with the contenders at Jessops this morning and have opted for the A33. It felt right in my hands if that makes sense, and though it's full size, it's a lot smaller and lighter than comparable DSLRs.

Here's hoping I get on with it!

Cheers
Ben

It felt right in my hands if that makes sense

Yup that makes very good sense. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

It felt right in my hands

As I said above, best reason to choose a particular camera. If it feels right you'll use it more, and take better photos.

herd-buyers

Yeah, a huge number of DSLRs are sold (currently) to gadget wanters. At the zoo yesterday I saw loads of people carting them around just taking snaps or not at all. I think people have the wrong idea about them.. yes, they will take better pictures but the difference is in reality only slight compared to a good compact, and they're really not the best tool for holiday snaps. However people want to think they deserve the very best, without really knowing what that is. Hence they wander into a camera shop and say 'gimme the best camera at £xxx' or 'What's the next one up from a Dxxx?'. Which I've overheard several times.

I think a lot of Canikon's sales are to that market segment. And that's why Oly/Panasonic/Pentax etc etc don't get a look in. The 'other' manufs (including Sony) bring innovation and nice features to the market and it'd be a shame from a (sort of) photographer's point of view to lose them.

yes, they will take better pictures but the difference is in reality only slight compared to a good compact

I wish I could believe that, as I end up always carrying round 1.5kg of Nikon, which has given me a bad back, yet compacts feel like total tat in comparison 🙁

I wish I could believe that, as I end up always carrying round 1.5kg of Nikon, which has given me a bad back, yet compacts feel like total tat in comparison

Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box. This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience.

In most cases I did not tell them what they were looking at, simply saying that I had been shooting with two cameras, and that they should divide the prints (about a dozen) into two piles – Camera A and Camera B. They were asked to judge resolution, accutance, colour reproduction, highlight detail, dMax, and any other factors that they wished to consider.

The Results
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.

In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness.

Needless to say there was much shaking of heads and muttering. Could this be? Could a $500 digicam equal a $40,000 medium format digital system in image quality, at least in prints up to 13X19" (Super A3)?

I think a lot of Canikon's sales are to that market segment. And that's why Oly/Panasonic/Pentax etc etc don't get a look in

I had a Pentax SLR and two of their DSLR's as well, only changed to Canon because of the limited Pentax lens range. The longest lens they currently sell is a 300mm and frankly that's too short for wildlife especially birds. Not sure about Sony and Olympus, but guess its pretty much the same for them too.

The Pentax K-5 looks a fine camera and would happily buy one, but would like a better range of lenses to put on it.
Yes there are the third party makes, but the Canon and Nikon longer lenses in particular still set the standard and one of the main reason they corner the market

Not sure about Sony and Olympus

Can't say I've looked into the long stuff on olympus. It wouldn't fit in my pocket...

yet compacts feel like total tat in comparison

They're not. You would do well with a 'bridge camera' or whatever they call them nowadays. All the manual control, lots of features but much smaller and more portable. You can also get weatherproof compacts for cheap, and so on.

Re Oly zoom lenses - they do a fair few. The crop factor of 2 really helps. I've got the 70-300 fsomethingorother which was only £300 ish in the US, and considering it's 600mm's worth it's tiny. Only slight problem is strange bokeh which can look a bit like camera shake to the uninformed photographer (ahem.. see earlier threads by me 🙂 )

There are lots more long zooms in the Oly range. For a while Sigma were making some of their lenses with a 4/3 mount, but they were mostly made for cameras with smaller crop factors which meant they became mega zooms when attached to an Oly. One they no longer make was a 500mm one that is popular with wildlife photographers on a budget, giving 1000mm.. known as the 'Bigma' on some forums 🙂

You can also get weatherproof compacts for cheap, and so on.

my mobile works underwater, however I'll be shooting blind unless I go under too 🙁 Need to find some nice clean water for getting some riding shots 🙂

I think it depends on what you're shooting and under what circumstances, but this is amusing:

it's not about the quality of the photos but the handling. The D300 never gets turned off, zooms in a fraction of a second, has the inertia to hold steady, shoots blisteringly fast and has a viewfinder I can see without holding it at arms' length!

it's not about the quality of the photos but the handling.

Yeah, and the large size of a DSLR would be considered detrimental to the handling by many (including me).

and the large size of a DSLR would be considered detrimental to the handling by many (including me).

get a grownup to hold it for you sonny 🙂

Yeah, and the large size of a DSLR would be considered detrimental to the handling by many (including me).

another Olympus user here too 🙂

Yeah, and the large size of a DSLR would be considered detrimental to the handling by many (including me).

Really?

Yep. Not only are DSLRs much larger, they are an awkward shape - as I am sure you are aware. Portability is an aspect of handling imo.

HTTP404 - what stuff do you have?

E420, 50mm pancake, 14-42 and 40-150.
I did have the E300 but sold it as I wasn't getting the use.
I'd like to have the newer truepic sensor but would have to save the pennies. I would also consider moving onto a hybrid m4/3 camera as I do believe the best camera being the one are more likely to lug along with you.

Has Sophistry For Beginners started up again?

Not only are DSLRs much larger, they are an awkward shape - as I am sure you are aware

it feels really sorted in my hands 🙂 Awkward [b]size[/b] deffo, but that seems to go with the territory, and smallness is always accompanied by compromise.

Has Sophistry For Beginners started up again?

we beginners don't know what that is 🙁

I love compact things as I hate carrying stuff around when I am on hols so I have gone through a fair amount of small cameras. In the end there is a D40 + 1 lens that is predictably with me for several reasons:

1. Weird shape or not you can actually hold it somehow to steady it long enough to take a picture.
2. It has a viewfinder, dunno how people manage it but I cannot for the life of me frame a half decent shot through an LCD.
3. Noise, I know people can find it artistic at times but I hate it, I like smooth pictures and no m4/3 or compact beats the D40 yet.
4. Depth of field, I like isolating my subject, I already find the APS-C sensor to be a limiting factor to this. Try with an even smaller sensor camera... good luck!

To that extend I am more likely to buy a D7000 than I am to get a GF1/2 or Pen.

3. Noise, I know people can find it artistic at times but I hate it, I like smooth pictures and no m4/3 or compact beats the D40 yet.

The D40 is a 4yo camera that costs 150£. So still m4/3 just about manage to match in noise terms only the lowest end model aps-c of 4 years ago. How do they compare to the d3100 which is closer in features/price?

No not ready to move over yet I will await for some more aps-c mirrorless attempts m4/3 not quite for me

Both the epl2 and g2 are a match for the D40 (comparison here...) when compared for the same size print.

Oh don't be so practical! Everyone knows this isn't about printing photos to display! It's about PURITY dammit! Zoom in as much as you can and admire the pixels 🙂

I can't imagine a printing technology which would actually be able to resolve the kind of noise I get even at ISO800 on my 4/3.

Barnes - my point really is that with an SLR you have to make allowances to carry it around with you. A compact can easily be tossed in whatever bag you happen to have, or a pocket. Mrs Grips for instance has a Sony Cybershot in her handbang/baby bag all the time, and we've got some lovely baby pics and videos because of it. I'd always have a compact as well as a SLR.

Yeah, sure, bigger sensors of the same generation are better, they always will be.

HIJACK

How do I get my prints the same as whats on my screen i.e. WYSIWYG? I'm thinking new printer may be in order as the current one is on its last legs anyway

How do I get my prints the same as whats on my screen i.e. WYSIWYG? I'm thinking new printer may be in order as the current one is on its last legs anyway

I've also had issues with that. Still need to mess about with it. I've got photos taken in Adobe RGB, opened in PS Elements, and printed with 'let photoshop manage colour settings' selected which apparently means it's using ICC profile... Still not quite right though. I don't know if the ICC profile for my printer is the right one? I suspect I don't really know what ICC means.

it's not difficult with a proper colour managed workflow:

calibrated monitor that can show all or most of adobe1998 colourspace.
a monitor that has user defined blackpoint so contrast range can be matched to paper.
a printer with decent 8-10 colour inkset.
a bespoke printer profile for each paper you use.

knowing how to use all of the above.

I've been thinking about getting one of those little calibration thingymajigs that you stick on the screen but put it off due to cost - but now looking into it; regarding printing - it's significantly different to what is on my screen i.e. looks great on screen but underexposed when printed with detail in blacks virtually non-existant

it's not difficult with a proper colour managed workflow:

I do very little printing of images but have been doing a lot more recently and therefore now becoming an issue.....off to do some reading

looks great on screen but underexposed when printed

MrSmith - and for the home user with a PC world printer?

I have seen profiles for the various papers actually - but I thought that selecting the correct paper brand and type from the dropdown in the printer driver settings was doing that.

Actually, colours seem ok to me but brightness isn't (brighter on the printer). And what about the LCD on the camera? My monitor matches that pretty well, what does that mean?

Oh and the little widget they show on the reviews on dpreview.com suggests my monitor is calibrated okay.

just use generic profiles for your printer downloaded from the paper manufacturers. they only tend to do them for a3 canon/epson/HP printers though.
if you have a non listed paper then pay the £10-£15 for a profile. permajet paper will profile for free (if you buy their paper)

"Oh and the little widget they show on the reviews on dpreview.com suggests my monitor is calibrated okay. "

i can tell you now it isn't. you need hardware to calibrate a monitor (spyder-3, eyeone or similar) twiddling the controls isn't the same as calibration.

I use a HP printer (Photosmart 5 colour job, was 150 or so) and HP paper, so I think they're included.

I thought I'd done everything right but apparently not.

i can tell you now it isn't

Apologies. I meant to say that my brightness settings appear to be correct...

How close am I likely to be able to get with generic home PC stuff? Given that I don't want to spend hundreds, should I just leave it?

so it's 120 lumens/M2 then?
🙂

Er, yeah, sure 🙂

You can rent the hw/sw to calibrate your monitor (as best you can given it's probably a cheap one).

How much for a pre-calibrated one?

Anyway - HTTP404 - how d'you get on with that pancake? I quite want one.

I got one of the Spyder monitor calibrators. I have 2 identical monitors. I calibrated both and they rendered quite differently. I tried it again with a different pair of identical monitors, and again, they looked different. Bear in mind I have poor colour vision, so the differences must have been marked. Support were unhelpful so it went back to Amazon.

How much for a pre-calibrated one?

it drifts with time and needs to be checked regularly...

molgrips - The pancake lens (25mm) is ok. it's not upto the same standard (sharpness/contrast) as other lens in the zuiko range. And not all what I recall a standard lens [i]should [/i]be - in the old days of 50mm std lens.
The reviews I've seen mention problems with chromatic aberration.

It's a handy lens. If you can get it cheap - then [i]maybe[/i]. I got it for £125 in HKg.

I've played with old lens as well - which seems to be one of the strong points of this system as there is a wealth of old glass out there to collect. I have managed to collect Zuikos, Vivitars, Helios, Industar pancake.

Mm yeah I read that, the pancake is designed for smallness not image quality. I saw a second hand one for £100 in Cardiff but it had a whacking great lump of gunk in the middle of the lens just under the first element. Probably not going to affect the image, but it affected me.

I only want one lens for each niche. So I've got the standard kit, the 40-150 and the 70-300 (I'd not have got the 40-150 but it was £99 and I thought it would be plenty of zoom for wildlife.. may sell it not sure, having bought the 70-300 later), then the 35mm macro. I fancied the pancake for nice portable camera carrying but I'm just not sure if it's worth it. Especially as I have an E600 not a 420 so that's bigger to begin with. If it were faster then that would also be a draw but it's only maybe a stop or a stop and a half better than the kit lens.

Only other thing now is the 9-18mm wide angle 🙂

I only want one lens for each niche.

by "niche" do you mean "range of focal lengths" ?