|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-02-2019, 09:34 AM
|
| |
Does it work without the remote? I've only tried this on the KP, which doesn't work with a remote. I could be mistaken, but I believe with the Olympus you can set it up fairly easliy so that all you have to do is press the shutter button once and it will rattle off a bunch of shots and make the multiple exposure. With the KP, I basically had to put it in continuous shooting mode and hold down the shutter button until it ran through the requisite number of shots. Of course, if I had remembered to bring my cable release, I could have locked the shutter button down on the cable release and it would've done its thing.
One advantage of the K-1 and KP is that you can combine as many as 2,000 shots in your multiple exposure. I'm not sure how many the E-M1X does, but the E-M5ii only does two, and many Canon and Nikon cameras only do about ten.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-01-2019, 02:44 PM
|
| |
I believe that's just a high number of multiple exposures, automated for convenience. You can do same thing on the KP and K-1 series of cameras, except it's not automated. Very dark ND filters, such nine or more stops, tend to produce better output. Here's an example from the KP, involving somewhere between 30 and 50 shots:
 |
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-27-2019, 12:09 PM
|
| |
At least some people in the user base badly wanted the K-1, and some of those wanted the F 2.8 trio (which is de rigueur for an FF system in any case). The DFA* 50 is a bit more questionable and is in some respects a vanity project for Pentax ("we can make a better 50mm lens than our competitors"). I would contend that a slow aperture trio on par with the DFA 28-105 should have been as much of a priority as the f2.8 trio. With those two trios in place, they could make whatever lenses they pleased; it wouldn't matter so much.
I believe that's highly probable. The larger issue here is that Olympus' camera division has struggled merely to break even; and indeed for years they were losing very large amounts of money. Their camera division has quite a bit of impressive expertise; but manufacturing cameras at low price points where they can easily turn a profit is not something they're very good at. This is one of the reasons why I don't think it would be a good idea for Olympus to enter the FF market, because if they can't turn a profit on high-end m43 cameras without charging well over $2,000, how the heck are they going to compete in the FF market against Sony and Canon?
One thing else to note about Olympus: they have a very lucrative medical divsion, which now essentially controls the company. How long will the medical division feel comfortable subsidizing the camera division?
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-26-2019, 09:46 PM
|
| |
Did their user base clamor for a camera that weighed two pounds and cost $3,000? I'm sure that some of the features in the camera were clamored for, such as improved video specs, improved IBIS, improved weather sealing, etc. etc. But did they really want an m43 version of the 1dx and D5? Well, they got it—except it's nowhere as good a sports camera as those Canon/Nikon flagships. Be careful what you ask for, because you'll never know what you'll end up getting.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-25-2019, 07:34 AM
|
| |
I agree with that. It's fills the role that used to be occupied by cameras like the Canon G9 --- high end compact for serious shooters.
Perhaps, but, assuming that Tony Northrup can be trusted, the tracking AF on this camera is inferior to what can be found with Fuji, Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras. And then of course the smaller four-thirds sensor doesn't really provide the ISO performance needed for many types of sports photography.
Having watched several videos about the camera, I would contend that the EMX1 is being mis-marketed as a sports camera. Where it excels is (1) in hand-held shooting --- the best camera for hand-hold shooting that we've yet seen; and (2) as a compact wild-life camera. It also may feature the most robust weather-sealing on the market and may be the best designed mirrorless camera to have emerged. If I were wealthy, I would buy one and use it for hand-held photography and wildlife and maybe video too (although the Panasonic GH5 is better in that respect).
It's size and weight limit it's practical appeal. This thing weighs nearly as much as the K-1, yet sports a sensor nearly four times smaller. You'll get three stops of usable dynamic range out of the camera, and not everyone is thrilled with what these devices produce at ISOs higher than 800.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
12-21-2018, 04:01 PM
|
| |
Some of us don't really care about so-called "actual" sensor performance or measurements of "sensor" performance (what the heck are they measuring?), but are more interested in what we see with our own eyes; and when I compare (via visual perception) raw files of the E-M1ii with the KP over at dpreview.com, what I'm seeing is that KP has about a two stop advantage in dynamic range and about a stop and a half advantage in ISO over the E-M1ii. I've shot with both versions of the E-M5, and that's consistent with my experience with those cameras as well. I'm not denying that m43 is capable of professional results; but I do suspect measurements of 4/3rd sensor performance tend to over-rate the performance, in terms of actual output, of Olympus cameras.
|
