Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Micro Four Thirds Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              6      
7
       end
  

Archive 2017 · Question about portraits with M4/3

  
 
MAubrey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #1 · p.7 #1 · Question about portraits with M4/3


AmbientMike wrote:
I didn't realize it was posted there as well, maybe that is part of the problem?

I read several of the responses, and I was having a hard time seeing anyone buying and using m4/3 after reading this thread. I think even I was even feeling like a chump for using m4/3.

The camera I have used most often over the past 1.5-2 years. And I often have it attached to a supertele or tripod, so weight isn't necessarily a big factor for me.

So I hate to be a fanboy, but I really wasn't seeing another option. I have more
...Show more

I hear you. I didn't even realize there was a micro four thirds forum until you had said something. I've been coming from the Alt forum the entire time.

Ι shoot two systems: Sony FF and μ43 (an E-M1 & an E-M5). And I have no intention of changing.

For me the 75mm f/1.8 is a system defining lens (as mitesh notes a few posts up). In the Alt forum, there's lot of photographers who'd love to get there hands on one of those now discontinued Cosina Voigtlander 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar. It's small. It's compact. It's got great CA & resolution. Now they go for $1200 used. The Olympus 75mm f/1.8 does all of that in a smaller package with AF. With the Oly 75, I have no interest in spending $1200 on the Voigtlander (though I'd love one).

If you backpack and do landscape, then μ43 is really awesome--especially if you have a newer body with high res pixel shift.



Apr 12, 2017 at 11:22 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #2 · p.7 #2 · Question about portraits with M4/3


bobbytan wrote:
That's a terrible example to pick on. The lighting was from a low-watt single tungsten bulb, as I was trying to shoot in very low light situation to check on the shadow recovery. Both images look awful to me, color-wise. I wouldn't say that the Sony color is better than the Olympus color based on this sample image.


I happen to shoot in bad light a lot, so that kind of difference matters to me.


My personal experience is that the AWB is significantly better with the Olympus than with the Sony. The AWB on the Sony is all over the place - it's never nice or consistent.

AWB doesn't matter since I only use RAW anyway.



Apr 14, 2017 at 08:04 AM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #3 · p.7 #3 · Question about portraits with M4/3


I cannot say that I have much experience with Sony cameras but I do like the colors I can get from my Olympus RAW files. Color happens to be my thing - I love nice/vibrant color. Some samples here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1452357/0#13741148

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1452505/0#13741361

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1429904/97#13996396

http://yinyang.zenfolio.com/p63069331



Apr 14, 2017 at 11:36 AM
savingspaces
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.7 #4 · p.7 #4 · Question about portraits with M4/3


bobbytan wrote:
I cannot say that I have much experience with Sony cameras but I do like the colors I can get from my Olympus RAW files. Color happens to be my thing - I love nice/vibrant color. Some samples here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1452357/0#13741148

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1452505/0#13741361

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1429904/97#13996396

http://yinyang.zenfolio.com/p63069331


Come on Bobby - Do you not know who you are up against? And he shoots raw!!! Do you even know what that is?

This is what I am talking about!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/makten/24030994061/in/datetaken/



Apr 14, 2017 at 12:07 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #5 · p.7 #5 · Question about portraits with M4/3


No need for that, Thomas!


Apr 14, 2017 at 12:20 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #6 · p.7 #6 · Question about portraits with M4/3


bobbytan wrote:
If you spend a lot of time in the FM forum pages you will be terribly influenced by all the gear talk from gear heads. And there is a lot of one-upmanship going on. People love to trumpet or brag about their equipment and their knowledge about gear. These guys may have the best equipment that money can buy, but they are not necessarily good photographers. Professional photographers and those who shoot for NatGeo are not gear heads, but they are great photographers. So don't get too hung up about m43 vs APS-C vs FF debate. All of these systems/formats
...Show more


I think there are plenty of "gear heads" who shoot professionally, and being a self confessed "gear head" and also earning a living for the past decade as a photographer, I'd like to consider myself an example of that.

There are certainly some folks who love the tech, have the knowledge, but that do take boring shots of things like brick walls, and there are some folks who don't really care much for the tech, but having a great eye, but its not mutually exclusive.

I know plenty of folks who could write a dissertation about 20 different subjects in photography, have vast collections of gear, and that are ALSO amazing photographers.

As for Nat Geo..... guys like Steve McCurry, Joel Satore, Joe McNally et al., are certainly every bit as much camera obsessed gear heads as they are amazing photographers.

You really have to love everything about photogrpahy, both as an art form and as a technical pursuit to reach that level, and make that passion into a career.

I think most skilled photographers strive to take the best images they can, both compositionally and technically. Its just an issue of understanding what type of trade-offs one wants to make.

An 8x10 field camera gives technically superior results to a 4x5 field camera, but Ansel Adams was wise enough to know when to use which options. The 8x10 was great when shooting from the back of the station wagon on the side of the road, but the 4x5 made more sense when packing the rig in with a mule.

When I was shooting night football games, my 400/2.8 gave me an extra stop allowing lower ISO, BUT, my 200-400 f4, allowed me far more versatility in framing, and those more frames, so I'd rather have more images, with slightly less DR and higher noise.

The best IQ is always a compromise with regards to size/weight, shooting speed, and especially budget.

I mean lets face it, even the A7rII (camera I used to own and enjoyed) isn't the absolute best overall IQ on the market. Its perhaps "the best" with regards to size/weight, and a reasonable cost, but there are better options out there if money is no limit

Its like when I used to run my car at the drag strip, there was always a guy who had a pretty decked out car, who thought he was superior to anyone else, because his car was running 8 or 9 seconds quarter miles, but put that into connect with a 11,000 HP nitro car running sub 4 seconds passes and its downright slow..... not that many hobbyist would ever be running such a car, but still, the so called king of the hill is usually in the shadow of a true mountain



Apr 14, 2017 at 12:55 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #7 · p.7 #7 · Question about portraits with M4/3


I was generalizing. There is always an exception to the rule. Most (but not all) pros would balk at spending big bucks for a fancy Zeiss Otus lens, when the regular/inexpensive Sony or Sigma lens can do the job almost just as well. But an aficionado-hobbyist with deep pockets wouldn't hesitate forking out big bucks for exotic, top-of-the-line lenses ... mostly for the bragging rights and little else.

millsart wrote:
I think there are plenty of "gear heads" who shoot professionally, and being a self confessed "gear head" and also earning a living for the past decade as a photographer, I'd like to consider myself an example of that.

There are certainly some folks who love the tech, have the knowledge, but that do take boring shots of things like brick walls, and there are some folks who don't really care much for the tech, but having a great eye, but its not mutually exclusive.

I know plenty of folks who could write a dissertation about 20 different subjects in photography, have
...Show more



Apr 14, 2017 at 01:25 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #8 · p.7 #8 · Question about portraits with M4/3


bobbytan wrote:
I cannot say that I have much experience with Sony cameras but I do like the colors I can get from my Olympus RAW files. Color happens to be my thing - I love nice/vibrant color.


I'm more into "color resolution" than vibrant colors, and that might explain why I prefer camera X over camera Y in this case.

Even though I'm a gearhead, I'm really trying hard not to let others opinions bias my own. Usually I'm all over new stuff and love it, but after a few weeks I'm starting to find properties and characteristics of the new gear that I don't like. In the MFT case it was the colors. Still can't really explain exactly what was lacking, but I missed something from my other/previous cameras.
That does NOT mean that you can't take great images with MFT cameras, or that MFT cameras will give you "dull colors". It's a tiny, tiny difference that in most cases is really hard to see. But once you've seen it and have a personality always searching for something better...

I think savingspaces took a pretty good example out of my images. It was shot with the Sony a7 and Loxia 35/2, IIRC. There are very few color elements in the scene, but you can still se nuances in the wooden table that you wouldn't with some other cameras. In this particular image it's not at all important though, since it's all about composition and "weight" of the components of the image that make the result.

My "yield" with MFT was higher than with any other camera I've owned, thanks to the great handling, the superb lenses and the 4:3 aspect ratio, making me feel "at home" and not needing to crop as much. But that little difference in color made me move on, and I'm not at all saying other photographers should. Use the gear that gives you the results you want. That's important.


Edit: And again; since I'm quite happy with the Sony RX100 III (and the Mk I earlier), it's not only about sensor size.



Apr 14, 2017 at 02:33 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #9 · p.7 #9 · Question about portraits with M4/3


Sorry, but to my untrained eye, the color and nuances you were referring to looks more like color noise to me. And to be perfectly honest, I don't even know what color resolution means.

Makten wrote:
I think savingspaces took a pretty good example out of my images. It was shot with the Sony a7 and Loxia 35/2, IIRC. There are very few color elements in the scene, but you can still se nuances in the wooden table that you wouldn't with some other cameras. In this particular image it's not at all important though, since it's all about composition and "weight" of the components of the image that make the result.





Apr 14, 2017 at 02:57 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #10 · p.7 #10 · Question about portraits with M4/3


bobbytan wrote:
Sorry, but to my untrained eye, the color and nuances you were referring to looks more like color noise to me. And to be perfectly honest, I don't even know what color resolution means.


That's fine, and again it only shows that we don't seek the same things, in gear or in images.

Edit: With "color resolution" I'm referring to the cameras ability to distinguish small nuances of similar colors.



Apr 14, 2017 at 03:28 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #11 · p.7 #11 · Question about portraits with M4/3


I guess it's like having an acquired taste for something, and we all have varied tastes. And I get it on the color depth. Most of the better Leica and Zeiss glass have better color/tonal rendering (micro-contrast?) than Canon or Nikon lenses.

Makten wrote:
That's fine, and again it only shows that we don't seek the same things, in gear or in images.

Edit: With "color resolution" I'm referring to the cameras ability to distinguish small nuances of similar colors.




Apr 14, 2017 at 03:54 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #12 · p.7 #12 · Question about portraits with M4/3


Speaking of sensor color depth, the E-M1.2's color depth of 23.7 bits is practically as good as the Canon 5D III ... and better than the Sony RX100 III:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1136_957_795



Apr 14, 2017 at 04:30 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #13 · p.7 #13 · Question about portraits with M4/3


bobbytan wrote:
Speaking of sensor color depth, the E-M1.2's color depth of 23.7 bits is practically as good as the Canon 5D III ... and better than the Sony RX100 III:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1136_957_795


I haven't used the E-M1.2, so I can't comment on that. But note that they are only measuring (how?) at lowest ISO and controlled light:

"Flash studio photography involves a controlled and usually maximal amount of light. Even when shooting with hand-held cameras, studio photographers rarely move from the lowest ISO setting. What matters most when shooting products or portraits is to aim for the richest color rendition.
The best image quality metric that correlates with color depth is color sensitivity. Color sensitivity indicates to what degree of subtlety color nuances can be distinguished from one another, often meaning a hit or a miss on a pantone palette. Maximum color sensitivity reports, in bits, the number of colors that the sensor is able to distinguish.
The higher the color sensitivity, the more color nuances that can be distinguished. As with dynamic range, color sensitivity is greatest when ISO speed is minimal, and falls rapidly with rising ISO settings. DxO Labs has focused on measuring only maximum color sensitivity.
A color sensitivity of 22bits is excellent, and differences below 1 bit are barely noticeable."



Edit: Oh, and I see the OM-D EM-5 (that I had) gets the same score as the RX100 III. Which makes me believe this test tells very little about how the cameras behave when shooting in non-perfect conditions.



Apr 15, 2017 at 05:24 AM
MAubrey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #14 · p.7 #14 · Question about portraits with M4/3


Makten wrote:
I haven't used the E-M1.2, so I can't comment on that. But note that they are only measuring (how?) at lowest ISO and controlled light:

"Flash studio photography involves a controlled and usually maximal amount of light. Even when shooting with hand-held cameras, studio photographers rarely move from the lowest ISO setting. What matters most when shooting products or portraits is to aim for the richest color rendition.
The best image quality metric that correlates with color depth is color sensitivity. Color sensitivity indicates to what degree of subtlety color nuances can be distinguished from one another, often meaning a hit or


Edit: Oh, and I see the OM-D EM-5 (that I had) gets the same score as the RX100 III. Which makes me believe this test tells very little about how the cameras behave when shooting in non-perfect conditions.
...Show more
To get information at other ISO's you need go look at the actual charts. The scores just represent base ISO, but all the data for every other ISO is provided in the measurements section. Dig a little deeper.


Apr 16, 2017 at 08:48 AM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #15 · p.7 #15 · Question about portraits with M4/3


bobbytan wrote:
I was generalizing. There is always an exception to the rule. Most (but not all) pros would balk at spending big bucks for a fancy Zeiss Otus lens, when the regular/inexpensive Sony or Sigma lens can do the job almost just as well. But an aficionado-hobbyist with deep pockets wouldn't hesitate forking out big bucks for exotic, top-of-the-line lenses ... mostly for the bragging rights and little else.





Your certainly not wrong in that regard.... When I was working as a sports photographer for an NCAA school, I'd be on the sidelines with my older Nikon D3's and some of the boosters turned photog (aka guys with good day jobs like dentist, lawyers etc) would turn up with D4's and all the latest versions of glass. Occasionally I'd even get questions about why I'm using such "old" gear if I'm the official shooter lol

Obviously my gear being paid off meant that I was making profit off my work, where as if I went out and dropped 20K in new gear, I'd hardly cover my expenses. Its not like the school was going to give me a 50% raise in my day rates because I had to buy new gear

At the same time, some of those guys with the high end glass can produce some stellar images. There are a bunch of them right here on FM, posting just jaw dropping images in the presentation threads, and yet who do photography just for fun and nothing more.

Can't judge a photographer based on the gear, just like you can't tell if if someone is a good driver or skilled fighter based on appearances. I've seen fast Mustang Cobra's stall at the line because the owner has no idea how to work a stick and I've seen a seemingly frail old man fight off three attackers because he was an Olympus medalist boxing champ in his younger days and still has some really fast hands.




Apr 16, 2017 at 05:18 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #16 · p.7 #16 · Question about portraits with M4/3


MAubrey wrote:
To get information at other ISO's you need go look at the actual charts. The scores just represent base ISO, but all the data for every other ISO is provided in the measurements section. Dig a little deeper.


Thing is that I rather look at the images I take and see if I like the colors or not. And if there is data for cameras that I've had, that doesn't at all correspond with what I see; why should I trust data for cameras that I haven't tried?

It's the same with lens tests. A lens that seems awesome under "testing conditions" can be a lens that I hate because of characteristics that doesn't show in a test, but clearly makes difference for my photos.



Apr 17, 2017 at 07:53 AM
MAubrey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #17 · p.7 #17 · Question about portraits with M4/3


Makten wrote:
Thing is that I rather look at the images I take and see if I like the colors or not. And if there is data for cameras that I've had, that doesn't at all correspond with what I see; why should I trust data for cameras that I haven't tried?

It's the same with lens tests. A lens that seems awesome under "testing conditions" can be a lens that I hate because of characteristics that doesn't show in a test, but clearly makes difference for my photos.

Do what you want. That's totally fine.

I'm just saying that if you're going to complain about DxO, at least make sure you're doing it right.



Apr 17, 2017 at 08:53 AM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #18 · p.7 #18 · Question about portraits with M4/3




MAubrey wrote:
Do what you want. That's totally fine.

I'm just saying that if you're going to complain about DxO, at least make sure you're doing it right.


I didn't complain. Just concluded that I personally don't find their figures useful to me. And I wasn't the one refering to them in the first place.



Apr 17, 2017 at 09:08 AM
1       2       3              6      
7
       end




FM Forums | Micro Four Thirds Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              6      
7
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.