Pro-photographers, time to reconsider

I think m4/3 is a viable platform for almost all photographic purposes, but then so is the iPhone. We've long since left behind the times when technology was really insufficient to do what most people want to do.

What matters more is the interface between the user and the sensor. Some people find it easier to take good pictures using an optical viewfinder, some people love electronic viewfinders. Do you want a lot of physical controls? How big should the camera be? How do you want to focus?

Professional photographers could use a m3/4 camera, but they probably won't because their current gear works fine. There's nothing wrong with the m4/3 platform, but there's nothing particularly right about it either.

P.s. The philosophy behind writing a piece like this seems a little silly. You're just trying to convince avowed gear-purists that they should expand their dogma to include another format. It's like trying to convince a catholic each individual protestant denomination is Christian, as opposed to "protestants" as a whole.
 
The argument "even small sensor equipment can produce good photos" isn't a particularly interesting one. Of course it can.

But to leap from that to saying, "small sensor equipment can produce any photo that a full-frame camera can produce," which is the logical basis for saying, "you don't need FF anymore," is just silly. There are images that a FF camera can make that a small sensor camera cannot (shallower DoF images for a given FoV). So, if you want to make images that only FF cameras can make, you need a FF camera.
 
aeturnum said:
P.s. The philosophy behind writing a piece like this seems a little silly. You're just trying to convince avowed gear-purists that they should expand their dogma to include another format. It's like trying to convince a catholic each individual protestant denomination is Christian, as opposed to "protestants" as a whole.
Click to expand...

:) word "evangelism" came to my mind earlier to describe whats happening here.
 
It's this way.
It's not this way.
That way is better. This way can never be that way.
If you want that way, you can't choose this way.
This way is as good as that way.
This way can never replace that way.
There is no way.
There is only way.
Only trolls write about that way when we're clearly talking about this way.
Only trolls write about this way when we all know that way is better, so shut up already.
It's wrong to suggest anything other than this way is the only way.
It's wrong to suggest anything, especially this way, can replace that way.
Those who believe in this way really shouldn't blog about it.
This is the place to talk about this way, not that way. Take your that way over there, why would you even bring it up?
Are you so self-conscious that you even need to write about this way publicly?
Don't you know that the X-1 Pro blows this way and that way out of the water?
It's not the way that matters it's the person going down it.
 
Well I really like the E-M5 and have one ordered. It is what it is and will more than be good for what I want it for. DPRs review is very good.
 
Panasonic is superior in some ways to Olympus...fast primes they are ahead in and a better ultrawide, but one thing i could never get used to is the Panny jpeg engine...that's really an Oly strong suit. Not to start yet another RAW/JPEG thread (yikes) but Oly's engine is so good that I rarely had cause to use RAW; I couldn't get better results using ACR. That keeps me on the Oly side of things. I've compared it to every JPEG engine around--Pentax, Ricoh, Nikon, Canon, Sony and Panny's, and Oly does it best. Even DPreview says that they can hardly get more detail from the RAW then Oly's engine does. Saves me a lot of PP time.

Yeah yeah yeah, losing data and less choices, I shot with slide film and never had PP choices either. This is me, only me, I'm nuts, do NOT make this thread about that unless that old pull toy pro/nopro is getting salivalogged and you really want to move on to a pointless debate.

Meanwhile I look forward to saving hours on PP and making my magazine happy with the images I deliver from the E-M5. I get paid for that, too.
 
The things i shoot these days, professionally are for internet. i use a point and shoot digital. Sometimes film that's scanned at higher resolution,approx 6mp.
i downsize to 640 or 800 to prevent some copying.The use of hi-speed lenses for tiny depth of field applauded on all forums is not really liked by the general public. Ask! i have learnt to really like almost everything in focus.
Full frame means 35mm, 36 x 24. End of story.
i loved half frame in 35mm using Pens. They were though unsuited to hard professional work.hopefully this has changed. The Pen system looks very attractive to this Leica user..
 
Last edited:
Which Sony Jpegs have you worked with? I have shot many Olympus cameras and as much as I like Olympus colors my a850 Jpegs have stunning color depth. Large prints looks creamy smooth compared to what I got out of my E5.
 
I learned with the Nex 5N that a mirrorless camera needs one of two things, preferably both: EVF and stabilization. The latter is more versatile...I find I enjoy composing and shooting off the rear LCD in many situations, but the lack of stabilization on the 5N meant more blur than I would have liked. I think any camera that is designed for off-LCD shooting needs to have stabilization. You're loosing the third leg of the human tripod shooting away from your face and I never realized how important those three contact points (both hands and face) were in stable shooting. Though the Nex 5N's teeny-tiny size probably didn't help. (I'm not bashing the 5N, it's an impressive little camera, just being honest about its deficiencies for my use.)

So for me the EVF in the E-M5 and the stabilization means the best of both worlds...I'm curious what I will favor in use.

I have an x100 and it's hard to use the EVF after using the OVF!

I've used JPEGs from the A850, A580 and Nex 5N. My rank order is Oly, Sony/Nikon, Canon/Pentax, Ricoh was the pits until I tried the M8 in JPEG, in which case everything else is like the first time I got glasses when I was a kid. Oh, that's the world sharp!
 
Most of the Sony E mount lenses are optically stabilized. I agree in body is a better way. But with that none of the Pens stabilization was nearly as good to me as the 4/3rd line.
To be honest only a couple of times have I got blurry pictures with my NEX 7. I can push the ISO of the NeX high enough to get what I want and still get a good shot. High ISO shots with the Pens were never good enough, they need stabilization.
 
I think it's the camera designers who need to do the reconsidering.

Phone cameras do a pretty good job for the tiny size they are.

Given Moore's law, maybe sensors should be smaller than micro 4/3 so that lenses could be faster and longer and still portable.

So in micro 4/3, why can't I get equivalent images perspective and DOF-wise to a 35mm film camera with smaller lighter micro 4/3 lenses. Micro 4/3 12mm f1.0 (=24mm f2), 25mm f0.5 (=50mm f1), 50mm f1 (=100mm f2, and we can get one of those now, but I want a 50mm f1 macro to do the job of my Zuiko 90mm f2 macro), 100mm f1.x, etc. When the micro 4/3 lens designers figure they can make possible better images on micro 4/3 than are feasible on full frame digital cameras, they will have changed the game and photographers will vote with their feet.....
 
Bluey I think that you 're right when you say that the onus lies on the camera designer and not on the photographer. The Photographer be it pro or amateur chooses/ or should choose the camera that suits his work /him best. Same goes for Motion picture work.:)

Dominik
 
hatidua said:
Irrespective of all the tech-speak, why do so many people see it as their calling in life to convince others of the virtues of the 4/3 cameras? (or FF sensors, or medium format over 35mm, Etc).

As the article seems to at least slightly be portraying a professional setting, it bears mentioning that I have yet to meet a single competent pro who needs a blog to tell him/her what gear to use in order to satisfy his/her clients needs. Nor, have any of my clients cared what I use to get the results they are paying for, they simply want the image/s. The author acts as if he was hesitant to immediately let his clients in on what tool he used for the job (as if it would matter...).

If someone wants a 4/3 camera, fantastic - go buy one. They are not appropriate for the needs of some and no amount of blogging on their merits is going to change that.
Click to expand...

It's called *a discussion*, my dear fellow.
Also known as, exchanging ideas or thoughts.

Some of you in this thread confuse that with indoctrination.

Pro or not, if you don't want to consider what people think out there, then you are closing your mind.

Of course there aren't going to be a lot of pros who proclaimed that they got an idea from a blog. But if you think that is not happening, well, you haven't been paying too much attention.
 
shadowfox said:
...

Of course there aren't going to be a lot of pros who proclaimed that they got an idea from a blog. But if you think that is not happening, well, you haven't been paying too much attention.
Click to expand...

My professional work has benefited greatly by incorporating ideas, methods and techniques. I consider keeping abreast of what's happening and changing to be part of my responsibilities to my clients.

Like any information on the Internet, you must carefully evaluate if the writer really knows what they're talking about and if their point of view is relevant to your goals.

It' not "happening" yet for me.

Using 7-14 mm focal length lenses and sensors with reduced dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratios is the opposite of what I need. The focal lengths don't interest me because apparently it's difficult to produce even small lenses that perform well at the angles of view I need. The sensor performance is important because about 80% of my subjects exceed the dynamic range of my 24 x36 mm sensor.
 
PKR said:
Physics or ITLOPS
Click to expand...
I don't think it's physics. The relationship between field of view, image size, f-stop is well described. It's more economics/business that determines where money is spent.

Bottom line for me - I've been waiting to find a proper replacement for my OM-4 and zuiko primes. The OM-D is the first serious candidate but has a few design compromises I'm not to sure about yet.....and the lenses I'd like are still in the works.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
willie_901 said:
My professional work has benefited greatly by incorporating ideas, methods and techniques. I consider keeping abreast of what's happening and changing to be part of my responsibilities to my clients.

Like any information on the Internet, you must carefully evaluate if the writer really knows what they're talking about and if their point of view is relevant to your goals.

It' not "happening" yet for me.

Using 7-14 mm focal length lenses and sensors with reduced dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratios is the opposite of what I need. The focal lengths don't interest me because apparently it's difficult to produce even small lenses that perform well at the angles of view I need. The sensor performance is important because about 80% of my subjects exceed the dynamic range of my 24 x36 mm sensor.
Click to expand...

Willie,
Sometimes what you take out of a blog (or whatever form ideas are expressed in nowadays), is: "Not for me."

That's is completely okay. And it does not invalidated the notion that we learn a lot from what or how others think. Pro or not.
 
PKR said:
It occured to me that after reading your post, that this thread might be a good tutorial on thread behavior. If you look at the various participants and their contribtutions; and what information some might take away from the thread vs others and the behavior (nothing out of line) commonly found on a forum from the Arpanet days on.. It makes an interesting little capsule of web -forum behavior. Of note are the OT inserts - like this one..

If the same dicussion were to happen in person, with all the players face to face sitting at a table drinking their favorite beverage, I'll bet the dynamic (as we know) would be very different.

In a forum like this, with so many different topics to choose from, and a thread like this posted under MFT - why would anyone ask why ideas about MFT are being exchanged?

Only under the cloke of anonymity is this kind of behavior seen.
Click to expand...

PKR, it is what it is.
Internet forums do afford some measure of anonymity and it's true, that emboldens us to speak our mind.

But sometimes that can be a good thing.
For example, how many times I've said to myself "now why did I wrote THAT???"

And that gives me a chance to re-evaluate myself and discover what makes me react a certain way.

It's cheaper than paying a visit to the psychologist for sure :)
 
I've bookmarked this thread. Reading this, sipping a glass of vino at night...presto, I'm asleep. Better than any sleeping pill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top