If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
In article ,
David Taylor wrote: On 20/09/2015 11:32, android wrote: [] Only if you shoot jpeg, and then you could just as well use a phone. You can't correct fussiness... Results from micro-four-thirds are much better than those from a 'phone and, of course, the range of lenses is a lot greater, so I cannot agree with your statement. Well at the price you get better offerings from lets say Fuji and Canon. Almost as compact and with the better overall image quality that larger sensors yields. I would suggest taking the time to learn shoot and process raw if you intend spend the money asked for any of mentioned systems, BTW. There are good lenses and bad lenses in many different mount types, so selecting a bad example and a good example in different mounts doesn't prove a lot. You were suggesting that your choice of system was based on ease of use and size. I think that a good modest wide-angle lens in the pancake form factor would essential for such a system... -- teleportation kills |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
On 20/09/2015 17:42, android wrote:
[] Well at the price you get better offerings from lets say Fuji and Canon. Almost as compact and with the better overall image quality that larger sensors yields. I would suggest taking the time to learn shoot and process raw if you intend spend the money asked for any of mentioned systems, BTW. Ah, but there's the rub: "Almost as compact". For me, the size that's right today is micro-four-thirds. I am familiar with RAW, but it does not fit well with my taking or post-processing approach. For me, JPEG is "good enough" almost all the time. You were suggesting that your choice of system was based on ease of use and size. I think that a good modest wide-angle lens in the pancake form factor would essential for such a system... I think "ease of transport" would be more appropriate than "ease of use". Yes, such a lens is nice to have for the most compact system, and we have the Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...nic_20_1p7_o20 which has proven quite adequate in practice and about which DP Review writes: "The Panasonic 20mm F1.7 pancake does rather well in our studio tests". At the time, the body and that lens were being offered at a good price, but thanks for your notes! -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
In article ,
David Taylor wrote: On 20/09/2015 17:42, android wrote: [] Well at the price you get better offerings from lets say Fuji and Canon. Almost as compact and with the better overall image quality that larger sensors yields. I would suggest taking the time to learn shoot and process raw if you intend spend the money asked for any of mentioned systems, BTW. Ah, but there's the rub: "Almost as compact". For me, the size that's right today is micro-four-thirds. I am familiar with RAW, but it does not fit well with my taking or post-processing approach. For me, JPEG is "good enough" almost all the time. You were suggesting that your choice of system was based on ease of use and size. I think that a good modest wide-angle lens in the pancake form factor would essential for such a system... I think "ease of transport" would be more appropriate than "ease of use". Yes, such a lens is nice to have for the most compact system, and we have the Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...nic_20_1p7_o20 I don't care much for DPR but Photozone has made test of the mentioned mFT pancakes. The Panasonic do indeed seem to be a tad better than the Olympus but not impressive. It's also equivalent to a 50mm full frame and that's not really what I think most of us want's as a standard walkabout lens, but YMMV. which has proven quite adequate in practice and about which DP Review writes: "The Panasonic 20mm F1.7 pancake does rather well in our studio tests". At the time, the body and that lens were being offered at a good price, but thanks for your notes! Your looking for good enough, and have obviously found your level... My "notes" was not made for your benefit, but you're welcome anyways. -- teleportation kills |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
In article ,
David Taylor wrote: On 20/09/2015 17:42, android wrote: [] Well at the price you get better offerings from lets say Fuji and Canon. Almost as compact and with the better overall image quality that larger sensors yields. I would suggest taking the time to learn shoot and process raw if you intend spend the money asked for any of mentioned systems, BTW. Ah, but there's the rub: "Almost as compact". For me, the size that's right today is micro-four-thirds. I am familiar with RAW, but it does not fit well with my taking or post-processing approach. For me, JPEG is "good enough" almost all the time. You were suggesting that your choice of system was based on ease of use and size. I think that a good modest wide-angle lens in the pancake form factor would essential for such a system... I think "ease of transport" would be more appropriate than "ease of use". Yes, such a lens is nice to have for the most compact system, and we have the Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...nic_20_1p7_o20 I don't care much for DPR but Photozone has made test of the mentioned mFT pancakes. The Panasonic do indeed seem to be a tad better than the Olympus but not impressive. It's also equivalent to a 50mm full frame and that's not really what I think most of us want's as a standard walkabout lens, but YMMV. Edit: Not 50mm but 40mm but not a wideangle anyways... which has proven quite adequate in practice and about which DP Review writes: "The Panasonic 20mm F1.7 pancake does rather well in our studio tests". At the time, the body and that lens were being offered at a good price, but thanks for your notes! Your looking for good enough, and have obviously found your level... My "notes" was not made for your benefit, but you're welcome anyways. -- teleportation kills http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
On 20/09/2015 19:07, android wrote:
[] Your looking for good enough, and have obviously found your level... You imply that no-one makes compromises. I believe that the majority, even in this group, compromise to "find their level" and look for "good enough", otherwise everyone would be buying the most expensive full-frame (or bigger!) cameras and the most expensive lenses, and most here would be broke through pursuing their hobby! Oh, but perhaps they are! -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
In article ,
David Taylor wrote: On 20/09/2015 19:07, android wrote: [] Your looking for good enough, and have obviously found your level... You imply that no-one makes compromises. No I imply that that's good enough for you isn't very good considering the price of the stuff involved. -- teleportation kills |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
On 21/09/2015 06:16, android wrote:
[] No I imply that that's good enough for you isn't very good considering the price of the stuff involved. Your definition of "good" - apparently based purely on image quality per dollar paid - is much narrower than mine. I consider what I have to be "very good", but certainly not "perfect". Price is an important factor, but not the major one, and image quality is also important, but not the only factor. We have different needs and requirements, and are therefore unlikely to agree on the "best" kit. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
In article ,
David Taylor wrote: On 21/09/2015 06:16, android wrote: [] No I imply that that's good enough for you isn't very good considering the price of the stuff involved. Your definition of "good" - apparently based purely on image quality per dollar paid - is much narrower than mine. I consider what I have to be "very good", but certainly not "perfect". Price is an important factor, but not the major one, and image quality is also important, but not the only factor. We have different needs and requirements, and are therefore unlikely to agree on the "best" kit. Errr... I' more in the camp that thinks mFT is on the boarder to fraud! If it hasn't crossed it! -- teleportation kills |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
On 21/09/2015 06:53, android wrote:
[] Errr... I' more in the camp that thinks mFT is on the boarder to fraud! If it hasn't crossed it! Do you mean "expensive"? I would have to agree with that, but not on image quality. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The Instamatic of Today
In article ,
David Taylor wrote: --- I've proven my point. I invite any interested party read that that's written upstream. -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scanning instamatic 126 with Cannon 9900F Flatbed | Pictures | Digital Photography | 5 | November 7th 06 10:35 PM |
Kodak Instamatic 133-X - classic camera, or just junk? | Rick Mason | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | June 21st 05 07:33 PM |
KODAK INSTAMATIC 500 W/CASE-GERMANY-126 FILM-EBAY-$15 | [email protected] | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | March 22nd 05 02:54 PM |
FA: $10>9 PACKS of THREE GE MAGICUBES for "X" & INSTAMATIC's-NR | RICH-WA2RQY | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | March 9th 05 02:37 AM |
FA: $10>9 PACKS of THREE GE MAGICUBES for "X" & INSTAMATIC's-NR | RICH-WA2RQY | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | March 8th 05 04:15 PM |