The Instamatic of Today

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 20/09/2015 05:33, android wrote:
[]
I think that half frame is the minimum for a serious camera too. But for
those that are contended with jpegs you can go along way with with a
phone these days. And sometimes it might be all you got. I think mFT is
a halfway house that makes few happy. Bigger is better, but something is
better than nothing. I usually have the EOS-M with the 22mm in my bag.

Have you used a recent mFT system at all? Do you have direct personal
experience over an extended period? If you did, you might have a
different opinion......

Well, I had the Evolt-300 for quite some time... FT and mFT (quarter
frame) are really the same thing. I really liked my OM cameras till I
needed glasses, but the digital Olympus did not live up to the
expectations. The OM system was the peak of Olympus technological
creativity. Take the TTL flashmetering for example. I thought that they
might have some trick in their bag then started anew with FT system They
didn't. Just like the original Pen system was hampered by small film
area exposed and under par optics the FT is too. There is no way around
the physics in photography. Bigger is better.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 02:34:22 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-19 06:09:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:35:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-09-19 05:17:29 +0000, RichA said:

On Friday, 18 September 2015 14:08:39 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:13:55 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

I'm in the camp that would say sensor size is the main thing now. With
the major brands, everything else is comparable, and more than
acceptable to most. We know that sensor size is going to determine the
quality of large prints, but what's most important to some of us is
low light image quality. At the same time, neither of those is
important to lots of people. I think the minimum is APS-C, but some of
the posters here who ain't exactly newbies, are happy with 4/3
cameras. The excuse for anything smaller is that at least you have it
with you, and it's perfectly valid, too

Or, it's laziness or fear of carrying a real camera into various
places. People are trend-driven and self-conscious.

I have become fond of my X-E2. The weight reduction from my D300S +
battery grip is remarkable, and the X-E2 has become my carry everywhere
camera. It is APS-C and produces images the equal (or better) to the
D300S. I can slip an extra lens into a pocket without any trouble.

...and for those moments I don't have a "real" camera with me, I have
my iPhone.

I don't think you need to own a X-E2 to have a very suitable
substitute for a "real" camera. Many of the p&s, or compact, cameras
in the $100 to $150 range provide very good images in certain
situations.

Rich is the individual who brought "real" camera into the conversation,
hence the way I typed it.
I fully accept compacts as "real" cameras. My other lifeboat camera is
a Canon G-11 which has served me well, especially on that South Africa
trip when it was all I had for the last week there.

If you step up the price a little bit, and get one that has the
ability to shoot in RAW (as mine does), a compact camera can produce
excellent results in certain situations.

Yup!

Last night we went out to dinner to celebrate the birthday of one of
my grandsons. I took my compact into the restaurant and came away
with some snaps that are quite acceptable. My dslr would have been
overkill.

An appropriate time for a compact, the X-E2 is certainly small enough
for that task. It compares quite well with my G-11.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w6qjeduiyrnsn9u/AABNbvuMPxc7pER1bNzPR6fAa?dl=0


The grandson, by the way, was taking iPhone snaps with his iPhone5 (or
5s, I'm not sure) on a selfie rod using a remote device. He turned it
to get the whole table of seven people. I saw them only in the phone,
but they looked pretty good.

The iPhone 5(S) has an acceptable camera, the iP6S is even better. Rich
might even deem it a "real" camera if he would get over his anti-Apple
issue.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

The day I have to stand there, trying to get a decent shot with a phone (it's
amusing to watch people try it) instead of carrying a real camera...

My Xperia M4 smartphone has a dedicated camera button. You don't have to
unlock it, just press to activate then press again to snap...
--
teleportation kills

On 2015-09-20 05:37:54 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 02:34:22 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-19 06:09:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:35:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-09-19 05:17:29 +0000, RichA said:
On Friday, 18 September 2015 14:08:39 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:13:55 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

I'm in the camp that would say sensor size is the main thing now. With
the major brands, everything else is comparable, and more than
acceptable to most. We know that sensor size is going to determine the
quality of large prints, but what's most important to some of us is
low light image quality. At the same time, neither of those is
important to lots of people. I think the minimum is APS-C, but some of
the posters here who ain't exactly newbies, are happy with 4/3
cameras. The excuse for anything smaller is that at least you have it
with you, and it's perfectly valid, too

Or, it's laziness or fear of carrying a real camera into various
places. People are trend-driven and self-conscious.

I have become fond of my X-E2. The weight reduction from my D300S +
battery grip is remarkable, and the X-E2 has become my carry everywhere
camera. It is APS-C and produces images the equal (or better) to the
D300S. I can slip an extra lens into a pocket without any trouble.

...and for those moments I don't have a "real" camera with me, I have
my iPhone.

I don't think you need to own a X-E2 to have a very suitable
substitute for a "real" camera. Many of the p&s, or compact, cameras
in the $100 to $150 range provide very good images in certain
situations.

Rich is the individual who brought "real" camera into the conversation,
hence the way I typed it.
I fully accept compacts as "real" cameras. My other lifeboat camera is
a Canon G-11 which has served me well, especially on that South Africa
trip when it was all I had for the last week there.

If you step up the price a little bit, and get one that has the
ability to shoot in RAW (as mine does), a compact camera can produce
excellent results in certain situations.

Yup!

Last night we went out to dinner to celebrate the birthday of one of
my grandsons. I took my compact into the restaurant and came away
with some snaps that are quite acceptable. My dslr would have been
overkill.

An appropriate time for a compact, the X-E2 is certainly small enough
for that task. It compares quite well with my G-11.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w6qjeduiyrnsn9u/AABNbvuMPxc7pER1bNzPR6fAa?dl=0


The grandson, by the way, was taking iPhone snaps with his iPhone5 (or
5s, I'm not sure) on a selfie rod using a remote device. He turned it
to get the whole table of seven people. I saw them only in the phone,
but they looked pretty good.

The iPhone 5(S) has an acceptable camera, the iP6S is even better. Rich
might even deem it a "real" camera if he would get over his anti-Apple
issue.

The day I have to stand there, trying to get a decent shot with a phone
(it's amusing to watch people try it) instead of carrying a real
camera...

Agreed. My iPhone is a camera of last resort, or casual convenience.
For that purpose it is an acceptable camera. It is not a replacement
for my D300S or my X-E2.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 20 September 2015 00:33:19 UTC-4, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Friday, 18 September 2015 14:08:39 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:13:55 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

I'm in the camp that would say sensor size is the main thing now. With
the major brands, everything else is comparable, and more than
acceptable to most. We know that sensor size is going to determine the
quality of large prints, but what's most important to some of us is
low light image quality. At the same time, neither of those is
important to lots of people. I think the minimum is APS-C, but some of
the posters here who ain't exactly newbies, are happy with 4/3
cameras. The excuse for anything smaller is that at least you have it
with you, and it's perfectly valid, too

Or, it's laziness or fear of carrying a real camera into various places.
People are trend-driven and self-conscious.

I think that half frame is the minimum for a serious camera too. But for
those that are contended with jpegs you can go along way with with a
phone these days. And sometimes it might be all you got. I think mFT is
a halfway house that makes few happy. Bigger is better, but something is
better than nothing. I usually have the EOS-M with the 22mm in my bag.
--
teleportation kills

New m4/3 camera sensors have wider DR and better noise control than the EOS-M
with its Canon sensor. Also, camera controls and features are far better
than the Canon. What the Canon can claim is portability with the 22mm.

The shoutout:

EF-M 22mm f/2.0

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...t/1533/cat/all

Zuiko 17mm f/2.8

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...t/1276/cat/all

As you can se the EF-M pancake trashes the Zuiko ditto full open even
though it's a full step faster...
I usually use the 22mm at f/4 and am very happy with the result.
--
teleportation kills

On 2015-09-20 05:56:02 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2015-09-20 05:37:54 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 02:34:22 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-19 06:09:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:35:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-09-19 05:17:29 +0000, RichA said:
On Friday, 18 September 2015 14:08:39 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:13:55 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

I'm in the camp that would say sensor size is the main thing now. With
the major brands, everything else is comparable, and more than
acceptable to most. We know that sensor size is going to determine the
quality of large prints, but what's most important to some of us is
low light image quality. At the same time, neither of those is
important to lots of people. I think the minimum is APS-C, but some of
the posters here who ain't exactly newbies, are happy with 4/3
cameras. The excuse for anything smaller is that at least you have it
with you, and it's perfectly valid, too

Or, it's laziness or fear of carrying a real camera into various
places. People are trend-driven and self-conscious.

I have become fond of my X-E2. The weight reduction from my D300S +
battery grip is remarkable, and the X-E2 has become my carry everywhere
camera. It is APS-C and produces images the equal (or better) to the
D300S. I can slip an extra lens into a pocket without any trouble.

...and for those moments I don't have a "real" camera with me, I have
my iPhone.

I don't think you need to own a X-E2 to have a very suitable
substitute for a "real" camera. Many of the p&s, or compact, cameras
in the $100 to $150 range provide very good images in certain
situations.

Rich is the individual who brought "real" camera into the conversation,
hence the way I typed it.
I fully accept compacts as "real" cameras. My other lifeboat camera is
a Canon G-11 which has served me well, especially on that South Africa
trip when it was all I had for the last week there.

If you step up the price a little bit, and get one that has the
ability to shoot in RAW (as mine does), a compact camera can produce
excellent results in certain situations.

Yup!

Last night we went out to dinner to celebrate the birthday of one of
my grandsons. I took my compact into the restaurant and came away
with some snaps that are quite acceptable. My dslr would have been
overkill.

An appropriate time for a compact, the X-E2 is certainly small enough
for that task. It compares quite well with my G-11.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w6qjeduiyrnsn9u/AABNbvuMPxc7pER1bNzPR6fAa?dl=0


The grandson, by the way, was taking iPhone snaps with his iPhone5 (or
5s, I'm not sure) on a selfie rod using a remote device. He turned it
to get the whole table of seven people. I saw them only in the phone,
but they looked pretty good.

The iPhone 5(S) has an acceptable camera, the iP6S is even better. Rich
might even deem it a "real" camera if he would get over his anti-Apple
issue.

The day I have to stand there, trying to get a decent shot with a phone
(it's amusing to watch people try it) instead of carrying a real
camera...

Agreed. My iPhone is a camera of last resort, or casual convenience.
For that purpose it is an acceptable camera. It is not a replacement
for my D300S or my X-E2.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 20/09/2015 06:36, android wrote:
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:
[]
Have you used a recent mFT system at all? Do you have direct personal
experience over an extended period? If you did, you might have a
different opinion......

Well, I had the Evolt-300 for quite some time... FT and mFT (quarter
frame) are really the same thing. I really liked my OM cameras till I
needed glasses, but the digital Olympus did not live up to the
expectations. The OM system was the peak of Olympus technological
creativity. Take the TTL flashmetering for example. I thought that they
might have some trick in their bag then started anew with FT system They
didn't. Just like the original Pen system was hampered by small film
area exposed and under par optics the FT is too. There is no way around
the physics in photography. Bigger is better.

So you don't have experience with a recent mFT system. The older FT
cameras were bigger as they had to allow for the mirror, making the
lenses either bigger or less well-performing. FT and mFT are not the
same thing, really.

And I said "recent" as sensors have been improving too, meaning that,
for the sake of argument, you were satisfied with the results from APS-C
a few years back you might be equally satisfied with the results from
micro-four-thirds today.

If "bigger is better" were the only criterion, folk are going to end up
with at least a full-frame 35 mm camera, or something even heavier and
more expensive! For many of us, weight and bulk of camera and lenses
are important considerations too.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 20/09/2015 06:36, android wrote:
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:
[]
Have you used a recent mFT system at all? Do you have direct personal
experience over an extended period? If you did, you might have a
different opinion......

Well, I had the Evolt-300 for quite some time... FT and mFT (quarter
frame) are really the same thing. I really liked my OM cameras till I
needed glasses, but the digital Olympus did not live up to the
expectations. The OM system was the peak of Olympus technological
creativity. Take the TTL flashmetering for example. I thought that they
might have some trick in their bag then started anew with FT system They
didn't. Just like the original Pen system was hampered by small film
area exposed and under par optics the FT is too. There is no way around
the physics in photography. Bigger is better.

So you don't have experience with a recent mFT system. The older FT
cameras were bigger as they had to allow for the mirror, making the
lenses either bigger or less well-performing. FT and mFT are not the
same thing, really.

Sure they are. Mirror or no mirror, the implication of sensor size are
the same.

And I said "recent" as sensors have been improving too, meaning that,
for the sake of argument, you were satisfied with the results from APS-C
a few years back you might be equally satisfied with the results from
micro-four-thirds today.

The sensors are a moving target. Bigger is better.

If "bigger is better" were the only criterion, folk are going to end up
with at least a full-frame 35 mm camera, or something even heavier and
more expensive! For many of us, weight and bulk of camera and lenses
are important considerations too.

The M is not considerably bigger than a mFT quaterframe. I prefer my 1D2
over the M. IQ vise. It's however a tad bulkier transport though, but
it's a joy to handle.

When I say "Bigger is better" than I mean the sensor. I think that that
is kinda clear in this context...
--
teleportation kills

On 20/09/2015 07:43, android wrote:
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:
[]
So you don't have experience with a recent mFT system. The older FT
cameras were bigger as they had to allow for the mirror, making the
lenses either bigger or less well-performing. FT and mFT are not the
same thing, really.

Sure they are. Mirror or no mirror, the implication of sensor size are
the same.

... but not in terms of bulk. Size matters - and here smaller and easier
to carry is better.

The sensors are a moving target. Bigger is better.

...and that's why I said "recent".

The M is not considerably bigger than a mFT quaterframe. I prefer my 1D2
over the M. IQ vise. It's however a tad bulkier transport though, but
it's a joy to handle.

I don't know to which camera your "M" refers.

For me now, even APS-C is too bulky and heavy. Full-frame would be
completely out of the question (and yes, I have handled full-frame...).
The image quality from modern micro-four-thirds is good enough
(especially since come of the lens imperfections can be corrected at
shooting time).

When I say "Bigger is better" than I mean the sensor. I think that that
is kinda clear in this context...

Yes, and that's how I read it.


--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 20/09/2015 07:43, android wrote:
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:
[]
So you don't have experience with a recent mFT system. The older FT
cameras were bigger as they had to allow for the mirror, making the
lenses either bigger or less well-performing. FT and mFT are not the
same thing, really.

Sure they are. Mirror or no mirror, the implication of sensor size are
the same.

.. but not in terms of bulk. Size matters - and here smaller and easier
to carry is better.

The sensors are a moving target. Bigger is better.

..and that's why I said "recent".

The M is not considerably bigger than a mFT quaterframe. I prefer my 1D2
over the M. IQ vise. It's however a tad bulkier transport though, but
it's a joy to handle.

I don't know to which camera your "M" refers.

The EOS-M. I mentioned it elsewhere in the thread. Sorry to confuse
you... And it's still about as compact as a mFT.

For me now, even APS-C is too bulky and heavy. Full-frame would be
completely out of the question (and yes, I have handled full-frame...).
The image quality from modern micro-four-thirds is good enough
(especially since come of the lens imperfections can be corrected at
shooting time).

Only if you shoot jpeg, and then you could just as well use a phone.
You can't correct fussiness...

As I wrote in a response to RichA:

"The shoutout:

EF-M 22mm f/2.0

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...t/1533/cat/all

Zuiko 17mm f/2.8

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...t/1276/cat/all

As you can se the EF-M pancake trashes the Zuiko ditto full open even
though it's a full step faster...
I usually use the 22mm at f/4 and am very happy with the result."


When I say "Bigger is better" than I mean the sensor. I think that that
is kinda clear in this context...

Yes, and that's how I read it.
--
teleportation kills

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.

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.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu