shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Steve, thanks for that particular link.
I went to Iowa State University (where that lady do workshops).
Wish I had a clue about printing process back then
kanzlr
Hexaneur
seconded.
If you like rangefinders and want to go with a cheap digital, get the Ricoh GXR with the M Mount Module. It is much nicer to use than the 5N (and I had both, just ebayed the 5N with EVF).
the Ricoh feels nicer, is a bit bigger, has better resolution (despite having less nominal megapixels) and has a more clever approach to focusing aids.
If you like rangefinders and want to go with a cheap digital, get the Ricoh GXR with the M Mount Module. It is much nicer to use than the 5N (and I had both, just ebayed the 5N with EVF).
the Ricoh feels nicer, is a bit bigger, has better resolution (despite having less nominal megapixels) and has a more clever approach to focusing aids.
douglasf13
Well-known
Just to make a counter point, I am able to focus the 5N as fast as any rangefinder, but I've been using focus peaking since a firmware update to the NEX-5 last summer, so I've had practice. Focus peaking is not something you can pick up and be perfect at. Like a rangefinder, it takes practice. Add a leather half case to the 5N and it pretty much negates any differences in feel and adds bulk to the grip.
As far as better resolution, there is a difference between the 5N and GXR in the corners with wide rangefinder lenses, but it isn't bad. In the center of the frame, it's close, but we should remember that removing an AA filter doesn't increase resolution. To quote Joakim, who works in the industry, on another forum:
"...RESOLUTION can never go up by getting rid of the AA filters. In fact it often goes DOWN in the purely factual sense when looking at a stitistical "average" scene - due to a larger number of situations where the interpolation fails to get the missing two colours per pixel right.
What you DO get is a higher contrast at the frequencies close to Nyquist, which can be mistaken for "higher resolution", especially since the main "benefit" you get from it is a very much stronger luma+chroma noise at the pixel level (100% Nyquist) in the interpolation stage of the raw conversion. It's quite easy to add a light sprinkle of "perfect" noise to a normal [with aa filter] image - most people will see that as "increased detail". "
As far as better resolution, there is a difference between the 5N and GXR in the corners with wide rangefinder lenses, but it isn't bad. In the center of the frame, it's close, but we should remember that removing an AA filter doesn't increase resolution. To quote Joakim, who works in the industry, on another forum:
"...RESOLUTION can never go up by getting rid of the AA filters. In fact it often goes DOWN in the purely factual sense when looking at a stitistical "average" scene - due to a larger number of situations where the interpolation fails to get the missing two colours per pixel right.
What you DO get is a higher contrast at the frequencies close to Nyquist, which can be mistaken for "higher resolution", especially since the main "benefit" you get from it is a very much stronger luma+chroma noise at the pixel level (100% Nyquist) in the interpolation stage of the raw conversion. It's quite easy to add a light sprinkle of "perfect" noise to a normal [with aa filter] image - most people will see that as "increased detail". "
2tcreative
Established
+1. Most cameras are capable of more then we can produce. I like to know what features my camera has and I want it to not impede me operationally, but we seem to have lost the meaning of why we make/take pictures. If we are only trying to produce the technically perfect image from a technically imperfect instrument we are going to be frustrated.
On the other hand, if we want to touch the heart with an image, though technically far from perfect, visually it conveys the message and more than we intend, then what does it matter if we do it with a plastic throw away camera or a multi-thousand dollar piece of jewelry around our neck!?
Let's make images that sing! Let's make images that talk to the heart, not just the head!
HCB was my hero! He could do it with something that none of us would touch given today's technically advanced photographic implements. Absolutely could do it and they may have been soft and even out of focus, but they moved me.
YYV_146
Well-known
Speaking as an almost exclusive NEX user, I think Sony pretty much nailed everything, including the price point for the current crop of E mount bodies. I can focus my NEX7 as fast as most autofocus systems, with a lens of shorter focus throw, sports and street are not at all inaccessible. There is a learning curve, but Sony's focusing aid and operations are mostly intuitive.
In digital it's all about the processing. Jpegs are fine for quick work, but to do a full darkroom-style retouching one needs to learn how to use Lightroom (and Photoshop, to a lesser extent). Various third party filter plugins will help. I use Silver EFEX a lot, color EFEX for quick color tuning, portraiture for skin smoothing and sharpening/tonal contrast plugins. It can be tedious at times, but quite rewarding.
In digital it's all about the processing. Jpegs are fine for quick work, but to do a full darkroom-style retouching one needs to learn how to use Lightroom (and Photoshop, to a lesser extent). Various third party filter plugins will help. I use Silver EFEX a lot, color EFEX for quick color tuning, portraiture for skin smoothing and sharpening/tonal contrast plugins. It can be tedious at times, but quite rewarding.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't know. I see plenty of whites and blacks in the OP's photos, and certainly in my own. And the prints look better than what I see on the screen.
Sounds to me like you need to work a little harder on your rendering and printing workflows. The latter might need a better printer with better inks and/or a more appropriate paper choice.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The E-1 is a superb camera. I still have and use mine too. Mine was manufactured in October 2003 ... antediluvian in digital camera terms.
G
Olympus E-1 + ZD 50mm f/2 Macro
ISO 100 @ f/4 @ 1/500 second
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've been working with the GXR-M since it came out. It is indeed an excellent camera, and the most compatible with the widest range of short-focal-length M-bayonet lenses (it does even better than the M8/M9 with some). It has a plethora of customization options and is truly a high quality piece.
That said, I'd like to supplement it with another TTL electronic body. The NEX 6 appeals due to the same format, its sensor, and the built-in EVF is convenient (that's the only beef I have with clip-on EVFs ... they're not as convenient) as well as later generation EVF technology than the Ricoh EVF. I haven't shot with the NEX 6 yet, although I've played with one at the store. For manual lens use, it doesn't seem much more responsive than the GXR, which is one of my few beefs with the GXR.
But I'm also looking at the new Olympus Pen E-P5. Form factor is closer to the GXR, the new VF-4 is better than any other EVF I've seen, and it adds two other things that are very useful: 5-axis image stabilization and the best ultrasonic automatic sensor cleaning in the industry. The format's a little smaller, so I'll need one step wider lens for it (21mm is perfect for my wide on APS-C, I'll need a 15-18mm for the E-P5). The question mark circles around the sensor—does it perform with M-bayonet lenses as well as the Sony? or GXR?—and whether it's too close in type to the GXR.
One advantage to the Olympus is that I like to work square format a lot of the time. With a 16Mpixel APS-C camera, that means I lose 33% of the pixel resolution, netting about 10.5 Mpixels. With a 16Mpixel FourThirds format camera, I lost a little less than 25%, so that nets me 12 Mpixels.
Not a huge difference, but some.
G
2tcreative
Established
If anyone prints their own images you should try this.
I print using an Epson R2400. Yes, I know it is old and there surely must be better out there, but it has been paid for now for sometime!
I print my black and white on Arches hot press 140lb paper. If you haven't tried this you will be amazed at the tones you can achieve. It almost looks like a paladium print to me.