|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
10-21-2017, 06:59 AM
|
| |
I love the E-P5, which has the 5-axis stabilization from the E-M5 plus a tilt screen. It also shares a battery with the E-M5/E-M1, etc, so you can fit it nicely into a multi-camera system once you realize how good it is. The only downside is shutter shock, which can be tuned-out using anti-shock mode.
The E-PL5, E-PL6, E-PL7 are also solid choices, but only offer 3-axis stabilization and aren't built as nicely (though probably slightly lighter). Some of these can flip the screen for selfies.
I wouldn't get too caught up in the details. Olympus releases new bodies on a schedule rather than based on features. Anything newer than 2012 should be fine if you like the ergonomics. For the most part the sensors are the same, and the menus are convoluted-yet-powerful on even the cheap bodies, and they all focus fast when using a newer lens.
The Panasonic-Leica 15mm looks to be great, though I haven't used it and I don't like WA.
Any of the cheap 1.8 primes should be considered, though I don't personally like the Olympus 17/1.8. The Sigma 60/2.8 is a shockingly good lens, too. I can't recommend any standard zoom, the only wide-to-tele zoom that I've liked is the Olympus 12-40/2.8, which is big and heavy. Many people like the old Panasonic 14-45 though.
I've mixed Olympus and Panasonic bodies/lenses for years without problems. I wouldn't feel constrained to use only one brand.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
03-17-2017, 08:00 PM
|
| |
I agree.
I consider µ43 to be a 4:3 version of an APS-C sensor because it is close in size to an APS-C sensor with the sides removed to make what is, in my opinion, a better aspect ratio. Reducing the diagonal this way also lets the lenses get faster and smaller with better usage of an image circle.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-18-2015, 08:00 PM
|
| |
Choosing a system capable of shooting better video than Pentax is a perfectly good reason to switch.
Using a 4K capable camera to shoot video is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Best of luck with your switch. I concurrently shot many systems, including Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, and some Sony. In the end I chose Olympus+Panasonic and I haven't looked back. All of these cameras are amazingly capable for shooting still images, but Panasonic (and in some circumstances Sony) shoots video at a higher level. And you'll appreciate the difference.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
10-20-2013, 10:21 AM
|
| |
I like mine. Large lens, usually gets comments from other people at the park or wherever. "Are you a professional photographer?"
A little slow on AF, but generally fast enough. Really good value, I got mine used for 550.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
10-20-2014, 12:50 PM
|
| |
The Panasonic 14-45mm is well regarded and pretty small, though it is no longer available new. You should be able to find a nice one for about $175 or less, used.
I really like the Panasonic 45-150mm zoom for longer stuff. It is small and actually renders pretty well, for what it is.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-28-2014, 11:18 AM
|
| |
I like m43 a lot. I mostly take pictures of my kids, and it works excellent.
For example, in this shot the face detect feature put focus on the eyes, and metered off the face, which caused the image to be made brighter. So focus is nailed and metering is nailed.
And the image looks great, too.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-12-2014, 02:24 PM
|
| |
I was pretty happy with the look of this product shot.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-12-2013, 04:37 PM
|
| |
Pentax has been making great stuff. K10D -> K20D -> K-x -> K-5. Many years of nice cameras at bargain prices.
IMO, Ricoh gives Pentax a fighting chance to continue to make great stuff. Possibly even addressing Pentax's weaknesses (AF, flash, FF).
RiceHigh tends to be very negative. Before deciding that his advice is valuable, take a look at the pictures he takes and decide for yourself what kind of photographer he is.
Nobody can fault his enthusiasm. I personally do not think his enthusiasm is related to photography.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
09-01-2013, 12:27 AM
|
| |
Anecdotally, TOP once had a post that is similar to this thread: The Online Photographer: How Come Nikon Beats Canon So Badly?
A post on that thread tells a similar story to mine here, The Online Photographer: How Come Nikon Beats Canon So Badly?
In my case, I don't think Nikon is "fiddly," but I otherwise mostly agree with the poster.
Nikon (Sony) sensitivity is definitely better. Nikon (Sony) resolution (especially the D800) is definitely better, especially for landscapes. Nikon bodies are, IMO, better. These things count and Nikon takes all of these points. But none of this matters to me if I feel like another camera would take a better picture under the circumstances.
I've only tried the D90, D7000, and D600. I couldn't love any of these cameras. Maybe the D700/D3/D4 bodies would fare better.
With respect to PP, I feel like I have to "work" a Nikon file to make it look good. And after I've worked it I often still don't like it. But Canon looks good SOOC and even better after PP, and doesn't often lead me to dead-end photos. When I see all the B&W Nikon photos I chuckle and tell myself that I've been there before, and I don't want to go back. (Yes, some B&W is an artistic expression, but B&W is definitely there for wonky light that cannot be corrected, too).
I don't believe that Canon has more faithful colors, and I'm pretty sure Canon can occasionally smear texture even without provocation (especially in the red channels), but I forgive these errors because I like the look of the pictures (especially in the reds and yellows). If texture is the price I have to pay to get nice colors, then I'm willing to pay that price. I also prefer Nikon's bodies, ergos, pop-up flashes, DR, sensitivity, etc. But I don't feel short changed buying Canon.
To my eyes, Canon images are warmer, have better reds, yellows, and greens, and look more pleasing as an idealized moment that I want to remember. To my eyes, Nikon reds are weird, greens are weird, oversaturated colors in general, although detail retention and sensitivity are very strong. But I'd rather have a grainy picture with good skintones than a sharp picture with bad skintones.
I regularly use the HSL sliders in LR4 to adjust an image to my taste. I know that settings can be tweaked. Despite this, I believe that Canon is doing something else with their images to make people look better. For example, Canon could be reducing contrast strictly in the red channel (similar to a red filter on B&W). I wouldn't be able to see the tweak in a final image and I wouldn't know that such a change was made, but I would know that skin would generally look better. Another example might be using a warmer WB, but also moving the black point toward blue to cool the shadows, bringing balance to an image that would otherwise look too warm. This is the type of stuff I occasionally do with both Nikon and Canon files, though I work it harder on Nikon to get what I want and often don't need any such tweaking on Canon.
I think that Canon processes images better and that LR4 is tuned better for Canon. I don't need to know why or how. I know that isn't satisfying, it doesn't satisfy me, either.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
08-29-2013, 12:39 PM
|
| |
As an initial matter, the K-30 doesn't have a particularly slow shutter lag. A lot of details can be found at the following link:
Pentax K-30 Review - Performance
In summary, IR says, "the Pentax K-30 was faster than average for a consumer SLR."
There isn't much info to go on here and it would be better to see the camera in person, but there are a few things that can affect shutter responsiveness that you can look at.
First, if you are using P-TTL flash, the shutter will be much slower due to preflash and associated processing delays.
Next, if you are in a Focus Priority mode, the camera will wait until focus lock is achieved before firing, adding an extra step that could be significantly slower depending on the lens you are using. Try Shutter Priority as an alternative and decide what works best for you.
I can't think of anything else to try right now, though I'm sure others will have ideas.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-11-2013, 04:32 PM
|
| |
I used the 5D (aka 5D Classic, 5DC, 5DI, etc.) for a few months and really liked it. I liked it so much that I decided to spend more on FF. Since then I've used a D600 and really like it, too, but I keep thinking about that 5D.
I'm blown away by how much I like the photos from the 5D, especially considering its cost. I bought it for 500 and sold it for 500. The Canon 50/1.4 was 250. Crazy good value.
My point is, if I have a point, is that hardly anybody around here uses the 5D, but it is a true jewel. Its most significant weakness is the lack of Auto-ISO. Another weakness was max ISO 3200, although the camera was perfectly usable at even ISO 3200 and you could push the exposure if necessary.
Other than that I think the 5D is a powerful tool even today. And anybody thinking of going FF should consider testing the waters with a 5D.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-30-2013, 03:18 PM
|
| |
RAW (the format) should generally always be processed.
JPG photos have some processing already applied in camera.
But generally, process the photos how you like unless there is some reason you shouldn't.
A photojournalist, for example, shooting pictures for a newspaper/etc., might be asked not to process photos to prevent editorializing or otherwise misrepresenting something that is presented as "truth". For example, in the following link you can see the original OJ Simpson photo run by Newsweek, and the edited Bad OJ version run by Time. The edited one makes Time look like idiots, so to avoid this many publications don't allow retouching.
O.J.‘s Darkened Mug Shot
If you are shooting test charts, you probably shouldn't edit the photos much.
But I think most people do all sorts of editing, from basic touchups to heavy duty.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-19-2013, 09:27 PM
|
| |
“Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.”
― Henri Cartier-Bresson
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
01-09-2013, 02:42 PM
|
| |
All of these are shot faster than 1/1000... I hope you don't have fluorescent lighting. If so, the cause may have been the lights.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
01-01-2013, 07:47 AM
|
| |
DOTD_20120101 - Best Buy[promotion%2C+synonymns]&pu=defaultusr&pt=1356588001
Q with 5-15 lens, $249 at Best Buy today.
Just sharing info, I like the 01 prime kit better myself.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-31-2012, 02:45 PM
|
| |
For the benefit of others, here is the EEPROM from my Pentax DA* 50-135mm lens.
I haven't done anything else, yet. I'm going to compare mine to some of the other samples provided.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
10-25-2012, 10:26 PM
|
| |
I don't think the slow sync speed problem arises from anything other than platform design choices.
Leaf shutters have some nice properties, so choosing to use a leaf shutter system is a viable choice. One benefit is the cavity doesn't need to host a shutter. Hence, smaller body and smaller SR mechanism. For a body like the Q, this is a big deal. Pardon the pun. Other benefits exist, as well as other problems being introduced. But the choice to make leaf shutter lenses isn't inherently bad, just different.
Toy lenses and adapted lenses generally don't have a leaf shutter. So the camera needs to use an electronic shutter. But the electronics involved aren't instantaneous. The sensor output has to be scanned in batches to get all the data out.
Check out this picture by JohnMFlores, which shows the electronic shutter in action: Visions of Jello | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
You can see 10 independently scanned sections, each section providing a small horizontal band taken at one moment in time, then it waits a fraction of a second, then it moves on to the next band, leaving a vertical smear in-between bands. You can see the darkening bands prominently in the sky and the effects of the time dilation at the boundaries of successive scans where vertical blurring occurs. The perspective of the white lines indicate that the sections are read from image-top to image-bottom in sequence. Each mini-exposure lasts 1/800 of a second, just as specified in the exif data, but the entire scan obviously took longer, probably 1/13 of a second as described below.
I think its safe to assume that 1/13 of a second is enough time to populate the whole image frame in a buffer to permit scanning an entire frame. Anything faster has to be done in banded batches.
Anyway, you've got to expose at 1/13 or longer to ensure that the flash exposure is stored in each scanned band.
Eventually the electronic shutter will improve. The Q50 might have a "global shutter" as is fantasized by film geeks who also suffer from the jello effect even at faster shutter speeds. Ultimately, to make a small body the shutter had to be moved to the lens, so non-shuttered lenses are required to operate without a mechanical shutter, so the sensor has to fall back to a slow speed that permits scanning the entire frame.
I don't think Pentax is going out of their way to harm anybody. Slow toy-lens sync is a consequence of an important design choice.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-20-2012, 09:46 PM
|
| |
The claims are right there to read. Dependent claim 5 and its dependent claims also add power and electrical control so the add-on stuff can include image stabilizer, zoom, shutter, and flash. Claims 12-22 substantially mirror claims 1-11 using means plus function language. Claims 23-24 cover a method of assembling the dumb case and the electric case (i.e. similar to the scope provided in the apparatus of claims 1 and 5).
Personally, I don't believe that anything modifying the optical characteristics that requires alignment/centering/precision will be useful. The tolerances of cell phone cameras are just too tight and the lens assemblies are assembled as a unit with precision instruments, so having a case-mounted add-on is pretty much limited to simple extras, such as filters, hoods, flashes, toy add-ons (with correspondingly diminished quality expectations), and maybe even the shutter.
Whatever gets allowed by the patent office may be integrated into an Apple case so that nobody else can exactly copy the design for a limited period. I doubt anything distinctly useful will come of it, but Apple has a reputation for surprising everybody with something useful that we can't live without.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-05-2012, 06:36 PM
|
| |
During the first production runs during late 2008, more than a handful of people demonstrated decentering defects, especially on the FA 31. That was enough to convince me that at least the first production runs may have had issues with incorrect setup or tolerances. IMHO, moving the production lines from Japan to Vietnam could easily account for QC errors while production ramped up. Many others disagree. For my money, I'd buy MIJ because they had been making them forever with fewer reported incidents of error. On the other hand, I'd trust a recent AIV lens for QC as much as any other modern lens can be trusted.
If there was a "dislike" button, many people would dislike this post and this opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
|
