OM-D & PEN Images
/forum/topic/1127925/203

1       2       3              203      
204
       205              267       268       end

bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7487
Country: United States

MFT vs FF article by Lindsay Dobson whom I think is an exceptionally talented pro photographer.

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/



mawz
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Total Posts: 7891
Country: Canada


The rose by Mawz, on Flickr
E-M5, Summilux-DG 25/1.4



ulrikft2
Registered: Oct 21, 2009
Total Posts: 2100
Country: Norway

bobbytan wrote:
MFT vs FF article by Lindsay Dobson whom I think is an exceptionally talented pro photographer.

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/



Surely a good photographer, but I'm not sure she would survive a dof/noise/usability debate over here with sloppy logic like she displays here..



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4706
Country: United States

ulrikft2 wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
MFT vs FF article by Lindsay Dobson whom I think is an exceptionally talented pro photographer.

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/



Surely a good photographer, but I'm not sure she would survive a dof/noise/usability debate over here with sloppy logic like she displays here..


I'd say her logic is spot-on for her type of photography and for a lot of forum group-think in general. Minimum DOF, maximum ISO performance seems to be the general internet mantra in a lot of places when it comes to FF / m43, and here is a pro photorapher arguing against that, at least from her perspective and her photography.


I can agree, up to a point. She brings up weddings as an example, and in some circumstances, sure, the razor-thin DOF of FF is a hindrance and the shooter should stop down (she uses this argument to equalize ISO arguments).

However, I've seen plenty of very nice shots with adequate DOF with a 35mm on FF around f/1.4 or f/2 that just wouldn't be possible with the same FOV on m43 and would look a bit more busy (because more of the background would be in too much focus).

All situational IMO.


I will say, having shot a full wedding using all mirrorless (OMD, GX1 and NEX-5N), shooting processions is NOT fun with the OMD or any mirrorless camera. Also, around ISO 3200 shots (which happen in dark meeting halls) from the OMD just can't hang compared to FF, DOF be damned.

Again, very situational.



DavidWEGS
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Total Posts: 3799
Country: United States

As a wedding photographer for about 20 years off and on (currently mostly off), I have also got a perspective that sort of follows her thinking on the whole big camera thing.

1. You really don't need the FF any more, unless you like it that way.
2. You cannot achieve with the OMD what you can with the D700, D600, D800 etc. IMO. File IQ being the test there.
3. The relive apertures do help, but don't overcome the benefits of file qualities at this time (again IMO).

I just went to a wedding this past w/end and shot a handful with the OMD and 45/1.8, and quite a lot with the RX100.

I prefer the files from the RX file in general. Better skin, better file overall to work with IMO. However, I prefer the wide apertures available on longer FL's that go with the OMD.

So I see the benefit of added (effective) DOF, and the benefit of shallow. But neither compensates for the file qualities of a given system, and the knowledge a photographer has of the subject matter, and how to light it.



DavidWEGS
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Total Posts: 3799
Country: United States

cputeq wrote:

I will say, having shot a full wedding using all mirrorless (OMD, GX1 and NEX-5N), shooting processions is NOT fun with the OMD or any mirrorless camera. Also, around ISO 3200 shots (which happen in dark meeting halls) from the OMD just can't hang compared to FF, DOF be damned.

Again, very situational.



I concur, the OMD will not a wedding camera make IMO.



safcraft
Registered: Nov 30, 2010
Total Posts: 530
Country: Portugal

I will not bash an excellent photographer like Lin but using the argument that one "NEEDS" to continuously stop down a fast lens in order to get decent DOF is ....well....not true. And that is the "base" of all her reasons to defend M43.

There are numerous situations where one CAN and SHOULD use a 35mm at 1.4 in a wedding. Or an 85mm at f1.2. Or a 70-200 at 2.8. Her shooting style says its a no no...but other will prove differently. She has a very close up and "show no background" kind of shooting where DOF can be too shallow if using a 200mm at 2.8. So she stops it to 5.6. And now she says in M43 she doesn't need to. True. Why didn't she buy a 70-200 F4 then? It would save her a lot of money and shoulder pain !!!

Why buy a 35 f1.4 if one MUST stop down to f2.8 ? Step back...use the 35....embrace the background and use f1.4. You CAN NOT get that look with M43....ever.



juju1958
Registered: Apr 27, 2009
Total Posts: 710
Country: United Kingdom

O dear here we go again. Just where every other thread seems to end up, in every other forum. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again........... gets so boring.



DavidWEGS
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Total Posts: 3799
Country: United States

You are right Julian. Sorry.



millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4805
Country: N/A

DavidWEGS wrote:
cputeq wrote:

I will say, having shot a full wedding using all mirrorless (OMD, GX1 and NEX-5N), shooting processions is NOT fun with the OMD or any mirrorless camera. Also, around ISO 3200 shots (which happen in dark meeting halls) from the OMD just can't hang compared to FF, DOF be damned.

Again, very situational.



I concur, the OMD will not a wedding camera make IMO.


+1

I've taken mirrorless as 3rd and 4th bodies to weddings and they work in a limited context, but when it comes to things like shooting the actual ceremony, in a dim church, I'm glad I've got two full frame Nikon's D3s' which are purpose built tools for that type of demanding work.

Mirrorless does allow for some unique shots that that a DSLR doesn't really lend itself too.

Just comes down to if you want to get some shots, such as if your a guest, or if your being paid to make sure you get "every" shot.

All cameras can serve a purpose though, even putting cheap P&S on tables for guest to shoot their own snapshots with and have wifi cards in them to stream to a running slideshow.

They are simply tools in the toolbox. Of course, if your building homes for a living, your tool set is going to be a bit different than the home handyman.



owyhee
Registered: May 10, 2008
Total Posts: 453
Country: United States

Russian built Scorpion submarine built in 1972. I can not even imagine being in one of these under water.



Kingfishphoto
Registered: Nov 26, 2005
Total Posts: 6826
Country: United States

Tonight with a Canon FDn 400 F4.5 lens + Metz flash on the OM-D at sunset in Gilbert, AZ.
Harry Palmer



bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7487
Country: United States

All I can say is I am extremely impressed by Lindsay's artistry and talent. I have seen a lot of crappy images coming from fast/exotic lenses and high-end FF DSLRs. Ultimately it does NOT really matter if you shoot with a D800, OM-D or RX100.

Just saying that it's the photographer more than the camera. If you don't have an eye for photography and your processing skillset is somewhat limited, your images will suck!



ultrapix
Registered: Feb 03, 2010
Total Posts: 656
Country: Italy

When I was used to attend wedding photography, in the film age I shot with 6x6 TRL, 6x6 SRL, 35mm SRL, and finally with Leica RF; clients and colleagues when they saw me with those little cameras looked at me disgusted (at that time almost no one used Leica rangefinder); then saw the photos ...

To each his own, it's a very subjective matter



mawz
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Total Posts: 7891
Country: Canada


Bare Bones by Mawz, on Flickr
E-M5, ZD 14-54 II



Nate A.
Registered: Jun 21, 2012
Total Posts: 249
Country: United States

E-M5 with the 20mm 1.7



savingspaces
Registered: Oct 01, 2012
Total Posts: 907
Country: United States

Nate A. wrote:
E-M5 with the 20mm 1.7


Awesome shot!



owyhee
Registered: May 10, 2008
Total Posts: 453
Country: United States

Nate, that is a great image.

Aaron



mawz
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Total Posts: 7891
Country: Canada


Orange Drop by Mawz, on Flickr
E-M5, m.Zuiko 12-50



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4706
Country: United States

Something surprising to me at least, this Olympus thread is now at page 204, and yet my Panasonic image thread attempt is a pretty epic fail (only one other poster contributing one shot!).

I wonder if that reflects reality, in that Olympus outsells Panasonic by that much on their bodies, or if perhaps Oly's OMD EM-5 was such a hit, people forgot about Panasonic bodies for the most part? Even the GX7's thread is fairly short compared to comparably EM1/EM5 threads.

Interesting, I say



1       2       3              203      
204
       205              267       268       end