You have the "Best of 2012 Images" in several forums, so a friend of mine suggested I start a "Best of MFT Images" ... but I really have little interest MFT images outside of the OM-D E-M5. And seeing how the "OM-D Images" thread is loaded with some amazing stuff, I thought it would be fitting to have an OM-D thread showcasing only the very best images from each OM-D shooter, captured in the year of its introduction.
You can post what you think are your absolute "best" or "favorite" shots, but please try and restrict your posting to no more than 6 images. The EXIF data should be included if possible, and please refrain from posting very large files. I will kick this off with 4 of mine - not necessarily my best shots but they my favorite ones. I may post a couple more later on.
Not sure why we're restricting this to OM-D images (my best image of the year, IMO was taken with my GH2 and my only real travel trip where I got many of my best images of the year was before the OM-D was in my possession), but I guess I'll play along...this is really hard to narrow down...I'm not sure if all but about two of these would make the list should I look at images tomorrow.
carstenw wrote:
Only for those shots for which the sensor size does not play a role.
Not that the thread should be about that and I'm not sure why you feel the need to state it but sensor size quite rarely matters as far as the actual picture goes. One can take just a good pictures with a smaller sensor as with a large one, and yes I know, I've been using FF for the past years.
I feel the need to state that because it was stated in such a way that it sounded like a universal truth, but it is not.
And yes, I own both FF and MFT, and there are certainly a lot of my results which I could not have gotten with the MFT camera, as good as it is, and I am not talking about DR or IQ in general.
Yup, µ4/3 is limited. Within those limits there's a lot of potential goodness tho. I guess everyone already knows.
I wish I owned an OM-D so I could post some up here too. I have this shot of an OM-D I took with an OM-D tho it probably doesn't belong in a best-of thread:
E-M5 50 mm f/13.0 1/500 sec 25600 ISO 0.0 EV
Processed and saved in ACR from the ORF RAW image.
Bifurcator wrote:
I wish I owned an OM-D so I could post some up here too. I have this shot of an OM-D I took with an OM-D tho it probably doesn't belong in a best-of thread:
If this were a shot of a real OM-D with a genuine picture on its LCD, then wow. The picture in the picture certainly belongs here, and the picture of that picture also because of the unique presentation of the picture in the picture. However, since it is a shot of a dummy OM-D ... hmmm. Not sure!
carstenw wrote:
I feel the need to state that because it was stated in such a way that it sounded like a universal truth, but it is not.
And yes, I own both FF and MFT, and there are certainly a lot of my results which I could not have gotten with the MFT camera, as good as it is, and I am not talking about DR or IQ in general.
*Sigh*
Of course there are pictures that "can't" be taken in the same exact way with MFT as with FF or medium format or full format etc, there will always be differences. Stating the obvious because you feel the need is just silly. Like I said, I only question your need to remark upon something like that, not the actual fact that it may be so.
There will always be pictures you can't take with FF as well, try mounting a FF camera on the head of a skier and strap it onto a snowboard the way you do with a Go-pro and I can guarantee you you will be in for a hard time. Use different equipment for whatever it does best. Learn it, live with it and enjoy it.
Yes, I thought so. And that just tells me what I've realized more and more, that the processing often makes much more of a difference than camera or lens.
Indeed it does. The processing I've done here actually ruins the image as far as quality goes, there is more grain and less sharpness, less dynamic range etc then in the original, yet it is much more satisfying to look at. It's always nice with good sharp lenses though as it is always easier to destroy and image then to improve on softness or other things missing from the beginning.
mortyb wrote:
Yes, I thought so. And that just tells me what I've realized more and more, that the processing often makes much more of a difference than camera or lens.
Fortunately, processing cannot replace a photographic eye.
I have this shot of an OM-D I took with an OM-D tho it probably doesn't belong in a best-of thread: