alphaone wrote:
As a dual system user of FF camera and MILC systems, the image quality of my oldie A900 still surpass any current digital cameras.
The drawback of A900 or any FF/FX system is its weight and size only.
Of course, I actually sold my A900 after using a NEX-5 and rangefinder glass for a few months, because, at the print size that I commonly use, the trade off was worth it. Of course, I'm hoping the NEX-7 gets me a little closer to the A900's output.
Our D7000 and Nikon lenses have been kicked to the curb in favour of a GF1 and GH2, with no regrets so far. I may have a harder time letting go of my 5D Mark II, but one never knows...
I can see a dual system of m4/3 and 645 digital replacing the old "35mm film for sports/wildlife and medium-format film for landscapes" paradigm.
Had my Coolscan V (film scanner) not crapped out I would probably still be shooting mostly b&w film... but shit happens and sometimes you accidentally end up with a new system... E-P1 w/17 was it and became my new system. All my Canon stuff has been sold and I rarely regret it. Sure, there are compromises, but i think of it as a challenge and have in general been making better photos from my E-P1 than ever before in my life.
While not as clean as a 5D, you do get around the same resolution for enlarging... it wasn't that long ago that the $3000 5D was considered good enough... m43 is still good enough for lots of shots... as a practical matter 12mp+ easily beats 35mm color film for enlargement and I mostly shot 35mm. Occasionally I imagine that I will regret not having shot some photos with a 5D II or similar for greater enlargability...
mh2000 wrote:
Had my Coolscan V (film scanner) not crapped out I would probably still be shooting mostly b&w film... but shit happens and sometimes you accidentally end up with a new system... E-P1 w/17 was it and became my new system. All my Canon stuff has been sold and I rarely regret it. Sure, there are compromises, but i think of it as a challenge and have in general been making better photos from my E-P1 than ever before in my life.
While not as clean as a 5D, you do get around the same resolution for enlarging... it wasn't that long ago that the $3000 5D was considered good enough... m43 is still good enough for lots of shots... as a practical matter 12mp+ easily beats 35mm color film for enlargement and I mostly shot 35mm. Occasionally I imagine that I will regret not having shot some photos with a 5D II or similar for greater enlargability......Show more →
Drumscan vs 5dmkII it's close: http://www.redbubble.com/people/traviseaston/writing/2531282-digital-versus-velvia
I think 'good enough' is the precise reason there isn't a small, inexpensive FF camera. The general market (and we here are not the general market) couldn't care about FF vs. APS-C vs. m4/3, etc. To the average consumer, what's important is that images are good enough on-screen and for infrequent printing. The lack of depth of field control with smaller sensors could actually be a plus for many, since it masks focusing issues and results in more keepers. And why would manufacturers undercut their higher end, higher margin FF cameras by giving many who will eventually buy one of those a cheaper alternative? For those who really want FF, they'll find a way to afford it, though I agree, a not so bulky body would be nice. Something like the old EOS-1 would be good for me. I think we're getting to the point now where electronics have been miniaturized enough (for example the iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad/MacBook Air) to allow camera manufacturers to trim a significant amount of bulk from cameras. However, I doubt we'll see a price point much lower than the 5DII should a slimmed down FF camera materialize. The manufacturers know FF is in the realm of enthusiast and pro users who are willing to pay a premium.
Well, that is Velvia, not print film. While I do definitely prefer b&w film and Velvia over a 5D II (etc.) for imaging, in my experience *I* can *generally* get better color results from digital than *my* scanned color print film (especially ISO 400).
Obviously since I am shooting m43 I am not worried about using "the best" equipment.
mh2000 wrote:
Well, that is Velvia, not print film. While I do definitely prefer b&w film and Velvia over a 5D II (etc.) for imaging, in my experience *I* can *generally* get better color results from digital than *my* scanned color print film (especially ISO 400).
Obviously since I am shooting m43 I am not worried about using "the best" equipment.
Zaitz wrote:
Ektar has more resolution than Velvia
But more visible grain once a tone curve is applied. So many trade-offs!
BTW, I admire your considering 8x10. I've shot 4x5 and it is a different shooting ethic because of how it slows things down. 8x10 even more so! I saw some of your 4x5 work and I'm sure you'd be quite successful with any format.
If you go that route have fun! There is an 8x10 shooter over in the landscape forum who posts some amazing images.
For me, I've moved to deliberate shooting with smaller formats. I don't need the extreme resolution of 4x5 and prefer the portability and flexibility of a smaller system. I still usually shot my tiny camera like it was a LF though!
kwalsh wrote:
But more visible grain once a tone curve is applied. So many trade-offs!
BTW, I admire your considering 8x10. I've shot 4x5 and it is a different shooting ethic because of how it slows things down. 8x10 even more so! I saw some of your 4x5 work and I'm sure you'd be quite successful with any format.
If you go that route have fun! There is an 8x10 shooter over in the landscape forum who posts some amazing images.
For me, I've moved to deliberate shooting with smaller formats. I don't need the extreme resolution of 4x5 and prefer the portability and flexibility of a smaller system. I still usually shot my tiny camera like it was a LF though!
Ken...Show more →
Thanks for the encouragement and good words. I do have an 8x10 C1 right now but am contemplating getting rid of some digital gear. Probably not though since I don't have a ton to begin with...and the D300 is my light meter. I'd rather just acquire more and keep what I have . Or go on more road trips. The only successful 8x10 shot right now.
4x5 is definitely different. I really enjoy the speed or lack thereof. I am sending some to get drum scanned so I'll finally get to see the real quality of it. I can definitely see the weight and size being a hindrance or nuisance to some, especially if the resolution isn't needed or wanted. I'll try and search for the 8x10 shooter, I know of a few LF shooters on here. Edit: Must be Ben Horne? Looks great, thanks for the heads up.
mh2000 wrote:
Well, that is Velvia, not print film. While I do definitely prefer b&w film and Velvia over a 5D II (etc.) for imaging, in my experience *I* can *generally* get better color results from digital than *my* scanned color print film (especially ISO 400).
I recently finished scanning roughly 18,000 35mm and MF slides and negatives... and I hope I never see another piece of film again!
The 20/1.7 is like a 40mm f/3.4 on full frame. For shallow DOF, the 25/1.4 or 25/0.95 are much better (like a 50/2.8 or 50/1.8 respectively).
Abam - As to handling...ever use a GH2? Best handling camera I've owned. Controls are well placed and very easily accessible. Makes my 1Ds II or any other Canon camera I've owned feel like a kludge. Panasonic does things well. My E-P1, unfortunately, does not have the same level of handling.
Obviously even the best m4/3 sensors aren't as good as the best full frame sensors, but they are remarkably good nonetheless, and make excellent enlargements up to 20x30, which is about as large as I ever print. I have a good mix of GH2 and 1Ds II shots on my walls, and I can't even tell the difference in image quality in a decent size print, let alone the average viewer.
If image quality is your top concern, m4/3 doesn't make sense. If portability and a light bag are important, it makes a LOT of sense, especially since the image quality IS quite good...better than my old 30D and my old 1D Mark II by a fair margin, and only really lagging in dynamic range when compared to my 1Ds II. Sure, those are older bodies, but professionals used the 1d II and 1Ds II extensively for years and never had any problems, so the fact that I can get better quality than one of them and darn close to the other in a package 1/6th the weight, makes me happy. Overall, since I switched to m4/3, the quality of my photography, and more importantly to me, my enjoyment of photography, has dramatically increased.
Jason, I got tired of lugging my big gear around too (although I won't be selling the Nikon stuff) for everyday stuff, I'm shooting an EP2 with various lenses. It will get more casual work when the 45 is released. Right now I'm at a cake show with my wife and my adapted tmm macro and 35 fw are working out nicely.
I have an E-PL2 and think it's a nice camera, but I wouldn't sell my 5D. Noise is no problem and sharpness is definitely good enough, but I really miss being able to get small DoF with a relatively wide angle. I love the photos I get with 35L at f/1.4 on 5D. E-PL2 + 20/1.7 doesn't even come close. Even when I put the two lenses on comparable apertures (for example the 20mm at 2 and 35L at 4) the photos from the 5D look more "alive" and have more sense of depth to them. Because of this I only use the Olympus for close-ups, urban details etc., and not for people.
Not to drift into the film thing... but, why the heck would you ever scan 18.000 slides and negatives?
The reason shooting film worked so well for me is that I only scanned and processed the really important images (and come on, all 18,000 of the images you scanned are not gallery quality important images are they? No single recognized museum photo/artist has ever produced 18,000 important images!)
Slides can be viewed directly and 4x6" proof prints are great from negatives.
molson wrote:
I recently finished scanning roughly 18,000 35mm and MF slides and negatives... and I hope I never see another piece of film again!
With long lenses you can blur backgrounds with m43, but really, *I* think that the obsession for ultra narrow DoF rarely translates into better photos (sure, for wedding effect photos etc it has its place, but in general becomes tacky... ). For probably 95% of shots the increased DoF is probably *better*.
DoF is probably better for most applications.
DR/noise is better from larger sensors.
True, current zooms are slow, but the system is meant to be small and light.
No price advantage, but comparison isn't fair (based just on sensor), different cameras.
Agree that not pocketable, but a m43 with 17 or 20 pancake is much much smaller than any APS DSLR with lens attached.
Silkypix They support m43 cameras.
abam wrote:
i still hold out great hopes for the future of u4/3 format, but for me, too many negative issues remain:
handling drawbacks.
DOF/DR/noise compromises.
slow zooms.
no price advantage over 1.5x/1.6x dslrs.
still not pocketable, necessitating bags and/or shoulder straps.
silkypix.
They support m43 cameras.