[awscreo]

Those were with the 1st model? Pictures look great

With Olympus EM1. They added so many neat things with firmware updates, I think that camera still holds up really well, especially since mft sensors don't improve as much as say apsc or ff in terms of IQ.

Thanks btw I just wanted to show a broad range of applications I've used the camera for

[Fcsnt54]

With Olympus EM1. They added so many neat things with firmware updates, I think that camera still holds up really well, especially since mft sensors don't improve as much as say apsc or ff in terms of IQ.

Thanks btw I just wanted to show a broad range of applications I've used the camera for

Ive been impressed with how the recent Olympus models handle. With the second model, they rate it for 440 shots for one battery, but People have been saying that is a very conservative number that it could range to about 950 shots give or take. So I mean that's not so different the a dslr. Even the newer 5 axis handles great, the EVF is smoother with the 120 refresh rate. The quality of A3 prints are even pretty nice with tons of detail. Although not a Mirrorless trait, It comes natively to a 4:3 perspective.

I do think people are making too much emphasis on the subject. Also the advantages/reasons are starting to change as they should. Those that are arguing one is better then the other, is in the same camp that say Full Frames are the only true cameras, or one brand is far superior then the rest, or other subjective comments. Things change and evolve.

[awscreo]

Ive been impressed with how the recent Olympus models handle. With the second model, they rate it for 440 shots for one battery, but People have been saying that is a very conservative number that it could range to about 950 shots give or take. So I mean that's not so different the a dslr. Even the newer 5 axis handles great, the EVF is smoother with the 120 refresh rate. The quality of A3 prints are even pretty nice with tons of detail. Although not a Mirrorless trait, It comes natively to a 4:3 perspective.

I do think people are making too much emphasis on the subject. Also the advantages/reasons are starting to change as they should. Those that are arguing one is better then the other, is in the same camp that say Full Frames are the only true cameras, or one brand is far superior then the rest, or other subjective comments. Things change and evolve.

The new model seems like an absolute beast in terms of af, video and all the cool tech they've managed to build into it.

I think people should get over the brand fanaticism just use what you enjoy and be happy lol.

I personally don't regret the switch, although I do miss the convenience of mft sometimes when I'm out and about with a backpack full of ff gear lol.

I also can't wait until someone finally makes a 1" waterproof adventure cam sort of like the tg-5. I'd buy that for travel and would be happy with a smaller sensor

---------- Post added 09-20-17 at 06:52 PM ----------

BTW I definitely could do more than 400 shots from one battery with em1, and that battery is way smaller than some of the recent mirror less batteries

[surfar]

I also can't wait until someone finally makes a 1" waterproof adventure cam sort of like the tg-5. I'd buy that for travel and would be happy with a smaller sensor

Nikon kinda tried with the AW-1, too bad it leaks and overheats.

BTW I definitely could do more than 400 shots from one battery with em1, and that battery is way smaller than some of the recent mirror less batteries

I dont pay much attention to how many shots i get from a battery because ive always got spares...Although one morning i went out and got 1200 from a mirrorless camera.I think the brands dead now,but they still havent told us when the funeral is?....Maybe it'll come after the Nukes?

[Fcsnt54]

Nikon kinda tried with the AW-1, too bad it leaks and overheats.



I dont pay much attention to how many shots i get from a battery because ive always got spares...Although one morning i went out and got 1200 from a mirrorless camera.I think the brands dead now,but they still havent told us when the funeral is?....Maybe it'll come after the Nukes?

Which mirrorless are you talking about. The one from nikon or the pentax q?

[surfar]

Neither,for the 1200,it was a SAMsting.

[Fcsnt54]

Neither,for the 1200,it was a SAMsting.

Oh the forgotten one.

[Rondec]

Hmm. I was able to get a 2/3 of my 32GB SD card filled from 1 battery with my Oly EM1 back in the day, that's quite a lot of shots. As with any camera manufacturer, amount of shots you can get from it varies but is usually a larger number than stated in specs. I had small spare batteries with me, they don't take more space than two matchboxes really. EM1 can do up to 10fps I believe, and mft has long lenses and long zooms available now. Having tried multiple systems (and being with a ff system now) I can honestly say for majority of enthusiast level of photography modern mft mirrorless cams are great. I do see cleaner and more detailed images with K-1, and processing might be a tad easier due to higher DR, but I think I was shooting more before because I took my camera everywhere with me, I could fit camera, small gorillapod, batteries and 3-4 primes into a small sling-style backpack, and smaller sensor didn't bother me that much.


Rockefeller Plaza by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Patong beach sunset by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Saint_Vitus_12132015-10 by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Cathedral of Christ the Savior by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Botanical garden by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Trails by Timur Dzhambinov, on Flickr

Your photos look great.

This is not a mirrorless thing since there are now even mirrorless medium format cameras, but I definitely see improvement in dynamic range at low iso and high iso performance with full frame versus APS-C. The other thing that larger sensors do is allow for printing/viewing a lot bigger. If the whole point is to have images that look good here (at roughly 1000 pixels across) or Facebook or Instagram then about any ILC released in the last 10 years would be fine.

[surfar]

The other thing that larger sensors do is allow for printing/viewing a lot bigger. If the whole point is to have images that look good here (at roughly 1000 pixels across) or Facebook or Instagram then about any ILC released in the last 10 years would be fine.

Yes, but even some of the small point and shoot cameras do pretty good.

I saved a friends images he posted on a forum,they looked quite good laptop size.I actually thought they would lose resolution any bigger,so i put them on a 1080 42 inch screen.They were excellent, they guy hardly knows one end of a camera from another but his images are good due to the hardware.

[Rondec]

Yes, but even some of the small point and shoot cameras do pretty good.

I saved a friends images he posted on a forum,they looked quite good laptop size.I actually thought they would lose resolution any bigger,so i put them on a 1080 42 inch screen.They were excellent, they guy hardly knows one end of a camera from another but his images are good due to the hardware.

I just don't know what good a point and shoot does over a cell phone camera. Maybe a little better lens with some optical zoom? That's about it. But, as you say, for web size posting even those are probably fine for the most part.

I do think that when you look at smaller sensors the images look "pushed" a lot. You can tell they have had the saturation and sharpness pumped up and even the RAW images often have had some manipulation done to them.

[BrianR]

I just don't know what good a point and shoot does over a cell phone camera.

Buttons! I inherited a relative's old iphone 4, and I had an initial love affair with its convenience I still find it frustrating to use for photos. The touchscreen is a pain to not hit by accident when trying to compose an image. Unless I'm totally cramped for space, I'll bring a Nikon 1 + 10mm pancake now as my pocket camera for quick snapshots or reference photos (quality is also much higher, but that's another story).

I don't have a cell phone plan, so apart from using it as a mini-computer, there's no guarantee I'll have the iphone with me. If it was glued to my hand like many people's phones, I'd agree that it makes any small compact camera less attractive as guaranteed availability will trump annoyance.

Nikon kinda tried with the AW-1, too bad it leaks and overheats.

The leaking was a design feature to counter the overheating.

[Rondec]

Buttons! I inherited a relative's old iphone 4, and I had an initial love affair with its convenience I still find it frustrating to use for photos. The touchscreen is a pain to not hit by accident when trying to compose an image. Unless I'm totally cramped for space, I'll bring a Nikon 1 + 10mm pancake now as my pocket camera for quick snapshots or reference photos (quality is also much higher, but that's another story).

I don't have a cell phone plan, so apart from using it as a mini-computer, there's no guarantee I'll have the iphone with me. If it was glued to my hand like many people's phones, I'd agree that it makes any small compact camera less attractive as guaranteed availability will trump annoyance.



The leaking was a design feature to counter the overheating.

Technically, a Nikon 1 is an ILC, not? To me point and shoots have tiny buttons, terrible ergonomics and usually some sort of a retractable zoom and will fit in your pocket. Ergonomics are slightly better than cell phones, maybe, but ILCs, even small ones like the Nikon 1 or Pentax Q, tend to be a lot better for whatever reason.

[Fcsnt54]

Your photos look great.

This is not a mirrorless thing since there are now even mirrorless medium format cameras, but I definitely see improvement in dynamic range at low iso and high iso performance with full frame versus APS-C. The other thing that larger sensors do is allow for printing/viewing a lot bigger. If the whole point is to have images that look good here (at roughly 1000 pixels across) or Facebook or Instagram then about any ILC released in the last 10 years would be fine.

The one part that I always get confused on is when someone says big prints, how big are we talking here? Ive seen an iPhone print as big as 8X10, it looked fine, and id imagine it could go bigger. m43 size sensor, printed just fine at A3+, the image could have gone the next size up, but even then Ive heard some people making much bigger prints with that small of sensor. so what are we saying is a big print?

[Rondec]

The one part that I always get confused on is when someone says big prints, how big are we talking here? Ive seen an iPhone print as big as 8X10, it looked fine, and id imagine it could go bigger. m43 size sensor, printed just fine at A3+, the image could have gone the next size up, but even then Ive heard some people making much bigger prints with that small of sensor. so what are we saying is a big print?

It depends, not? I don't think Pop Photo is still around, but they used to have a recommended max size at given iso for each camera. Often you could shoot, say a 4 by 6 at 12K and get by. The same is not true for an iphone where in good light it will be fine, but if the iso starts creeping up then things get shaky pretty fast. My biggest quibbles with iphones is really the ergonomics though, which are terrible.




This is the sort of image where even on APS-C I probably couldn't have gotten much detail out of the image and still keep the sky blue in the background. It isn't a great image, but I post it more to illustrate the difference that the extra dynamic range makes.

[BrianR]

Technically, a Nikon 1 is an ILC, not? To me point and shoots have tiny buttons, terrible ergonomics and usually some sort of a retractable zoom and will fit in your pocket. Ergonomics are slightly better than cell phones, maybe, but ILCs, even small ones like the Nikon 1 or Pentax Q, tend to be a lot better for whatever reason.

It is an ILC, but I don't put its ergonomics in a very different class from my ancient Canon A510 P&S - both awkward compared to a dslr (tiny buttons and not enough of them), but leagues above my iphone. Key point (for me) is no touchscreen, and a functioning shutter button with a half press. I find it's far to easy to accidentally make the touchscreen do things I don't want it to do. Tap where you want it to focus? No thanks, I'll take a half-press and recompose any time, and I think many/most P&S still have that. Other people might be more comfortable with the smart phone interface, but I'm anti-touchscreen if it's to be your primary control method. I doubt that would make it worth it for most cell-phone users to buy and use a dedicated P&S though.