[Clavius]

One of key points Olympus wanted to show in the show in Melbourne, was how well the E-M1 goes against the FF camera. Photographers were invited to test both cameras on the spot, using professional studio lighting and professional models, and print results on an A2 and even larger. There was no way to judge which one was which.
I'll say again, it was pity that people representing Ricoh didn't do the same to demonstrate K5II and DA HD Ltds.

If you need a professional studio, that creates perfect lighting conditions, with professional models, which are no doubt professionally groomed to show zero flaws, just to mimic the IQ of larger format gear with a smaller format camera, then that tells me that latter gear must be a lot better.

Only pro's have studios to play in, and the skills, knowledge and experience to overcome the disadvantages of smaller format cameras. The amateur enthusiasts on the other hand wants to have the same high IQ when they're running around after their kids, grandkids and pets. And when they're taking pics late at night at parties, at amusement parks, concerts. And when they're landscaping on their holidays at any given time of the day.

So I think such demonstrations work backwards.

[Uluru]

....

So I think such demonstrations work backwards.

Not at all. Such demos are highly convincing, because camera is highly capable in less than ideal conditions. In fact, any demo is far more convincing than a non-presence, lethargic and lifeless presence -- in all latest shows --- of the camera brand and maker this forum is dedicated to.

[Clavius]

Not at all. Such demos are highly convincing, because camera is highly capable in less than ideal conditions. In fact, any demo is far more convincing than a lethargic and lifeless presence -- in all latest shows --- of the camera brand and maker this forum is dedicated to.

So first you state that professional studio lighting and professional models are used to create ideal conditions for the smaller format camera to shoot in. But now you're talking about less then ideal conditions. That's it, I give up again.

[Uluru]

So first you state that professional studio lighting and professional models are used to create ideal conditions for the smaller format camera to shoot in. But now you're talking about less then ideal conditions. That's it, I give up again.

In short, it's good for pros working in studio. Also, you can put in in humid and cold and wet place and it will work too. Ideal and less than ideal conditions. One can't do that with 6D, or D600, right?
That was the point.

[spade111]

Uluru Said: ----"Also, you can put in in humid and cold and wet place and it will work too. Ideal and less than ideal conditions. One can't do that with 6D, or D600, right?"


D600 works great in the cold and wet.

[Clavius]

In short, it's good for pros working in studio. Also, you can put in in humid and cold and wet place and it will work too. Ideal and less than ideal conditions. One can't do that with 6D, or D600, right?
That was the point.

The lack of WR gets totally overschadowed by the fact that the smaller format camera NEEDS that pro studio perfect lighting and pro models to perform as the bigger brothers. In photography WR doesn't tend to be as important as IQ. A D600 or D6 can be given WR with a plastic baggy and rubber band costing around $0.02. The really big spenders can do it a $5.- rain sleeve.

"Look! This Fiat Panda can do 200km/h, when going downhill, wheighed down, with the perfect wind speed and wind direction, and in the slipstream of an Audi A6." Such a demonstration only tells me it's not going to be able to do the same under less then ideal conditions and the Audi A6 probably is. It only confirms its inferiority. That the Panda can be parked in half a spot then gets totally overshadowed by the previous fact. People are just going to search for a better spot.

But you're right, I see now how it works on some people.

[Rondec]

In short, it's good for pros working in studio. Also, you can put in in humid and cold and wet place and it will work too. Ideal and less than ideal conditions. One can't do that with 6D, or D600, right?
That was the point.

I think we can all agree that most cameras shine in a studio setting. Hey, my wife and I went to a professional last year who turns out great results and she was shooting with a Canon D50. She is comfortable with the camera, can print as big as she wants. In that setting, in particular, the camera isn't a big deal.

The question that separates these cameras really is how they do in situations that push away from that ideal setting. I don't mean rain -- my wife seldom shoots portraits in the rain. More lower light settings. Twilight, under trees -- it is just so easy to see your iso creaping up into the 800 to 1600 range and that is the reason why people elect to get full frame. I get it. Under good lighting, even iso 6400 looks OK on a K5, in poor lighting, not so much...

[MetteHHH]

Hey Clavius - I would pick a Panda over an A6 any day! Gobbles up way to many microscopic fossils per kilometer for my tastes, and anyway, going 200km/h is illegal in Denmark and lethal in all countries Also, parking matters to me: This week I did about €400 damage on our cars by backing one of them into the front of the other one, thereby killing all my hopes of justifying a K5ii-purchase... wouldn't have happened with a Panda, I bet!

Which goes to show nothing except that priorities vary with the values of the people doing them. And now, if you two wouldn't mind, I subscribed to this thread to keep up with news about "New Camera before Christmas" - not to keep up with the details about what Uluru and Clavius consider the ideal testing conditions for camera comparisons... surely that topic is worth it's own thread?

[troenaas]

I subscribed to this thread to keep up with news about "New Camera before Christmas" - not to keep up with the details about what Uluru and Clavius consider the ideal testing conditions for camera comparisons.

+ 1

[Clavius]

Hey truth hurts. If we're to delete all the 585 posts not containing any facts, rumors or gossip directly related to the cameras that Pentax is going to market by Christmas, then we end up with exactly 1 opening post only.

[MetteHHH]

True. At least as long as you guys keep arguing about unrelated stuff, I get this very temporary little hopefull thrill every time I see that there is a new post on the rumour thread...

And I suppose I am returning the favour now with my own last two completely rumour-free posts!

[konraDarnok]

True. At least as long as you guys keep arguing about unrelated stuff, I get this very temporary little hopefull thrill every time I see that there is a new post on the rumour thread...

And I suppose I am returning the favour now with my own last two completely rumour-free posts!

bump for thrill

[alwaysmichellerene]

Ed Thomas has posted another good video, that somehow summarises last few years of expectations (especially current moments):

September 5th Vlog - YouTube

LOL! "standing there with a Canon camera!" HA! That's sad & funny at the same time.

[Rorschach]

The lack of WR gets totally overschadowed by the fact that the smaller format camera NEEDS that pro studio perfect lighting and pro models to perform as the bigger brothers. In photography WR doesn't tend to be as important as IQ. A D600 or D6 can be given WR with a plastic baggy and rubber band costing around $0.02. The really big spenders can do it a $5.- rain sleeve.

"Look! This Fiat Panda can do 200km/h, when going downhill, wheighed down, with the perfect wind speed and wind direction, and in the slipstream of an Audi A6." Such a demonstration only tells me it's not going to be able to do the same under less then ideal conditions and the Audi A6 probably is. It only confirms its inferiority. That the Panda can be parked in half a spot then gets totally overshadowed by the previous fact. People are just going to search for a better spot.

But you're right, I see now how it works on some people.

I have an A6 quattro...but also an A8 quattro and there is a difference, believe me, that A8 baby is a keeper ;-)

(Disclaimer before anybody gets too envious: these are 1998 and 1995 models, respectively :-)

[derekkite]

Well, what if our houses are not made to endure a direct impact of the tsunami wave, or an earthquake of the magnitude 10 on a Richter's scale, or a direct impact of the 15 gigatons nuclear bomb explosion?

All products are designed to work well within certain reasonable specs, and within certain tolerances that make common sense. Understanding of them, understanding of the nature of our work and aligning them together, makes one a professional minded photographer — as opposed to a wild-guessing amateur.

In the case of Olympus, what was pointed out is the education of studio photographers and showing them new options. In a studio, a photographer wastes very little energy, keeps all under control, everything is monitored, nothing unpredictable, etc. so for that kind of environment, even a modern m4/3 camera will do the work well and one needs no more than that.

But the problem arises is when newbies to photography start taking extreme scenarios into account, and based on it compile a list for their "required gear"; then most of the time, a rugged FF is the "only way" for them. Then even HD DA Limiteds aren't enough, but must be weather sealed. Kit lenses must be bomb-proof. Camera must be nuclear-fuel powered and one charge enough for 50 years of use. Etc.

All of a sudden, nothing is good enough anymore. It is same as when some paranoid home construction company decides to make all their houses absolutely earthquake-proof, fire-proof, water-proof, etc. Which is ridiculous, of course, because each house would be a bomb shelter house.

Newbies have such an attitude because they have no established line of work, no accumulated experience, and don't know how to control the risk and live with it.

You forgot the