A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 18th 18, 11:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run

In article , Neil
wrote:

To be fair, those dedicated to photography find themselves, for different
reasons, drawn to the entire spectrum of great image producing machines
including, but not limited to Olympus, Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon, Leica,
PhaseOne, Panasonic, Sony, Pentax, Hasselblad, and others. It is just that
many of us, pro, or enthusiast have made our choices, and in some cases have
made a considerable investment in cameras, and glass.

No doubt that brand choices are made for various reasons, and some of
the makes are comparable in most ways. I was fortunate, in that all of
my kits paid for themselves through the work that I did with them. In
terms of image quality, I think that lenses make the biggest difference.

In the digital world, I'd say that ease of use is pretty important,
since they're all less efficient than film cameras.


digital cameras are *more* efficient, since they are not limited by
having mechanical linkages, film transport mechanisms, etc. nor do they
need to have film swapped every 36 shots (or less). control placement
can go *anywhere*, with the space that once was needed for film can be
repurposed for bigger batteries or faster and more capable electronics,
or just make a smaller camera.

So, control
placement, menu structure, and a well thought out user interface are the
most important factors to me.


that applies to every product.

there are examples of well thought out digital and film cameras as well
as poorly thought out ones and everything in between.

I've never been a fan of autofocus, finding it more of a compositional
hindrance than a benefit. When combined with a varifocal lens, the
camera becomes pretty useless to me. So, my choices are mostly for the
least frustrating kits!


autofocus has the *most* benefit with varifocal lenses, and as a side
benefit, it offers more flexibility for the lens formula.
  #22  
Old January 19th 18, 12:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run

On 1/18/2018 5:07 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

To be fair, those dedicated to photography find themselves, for different
reasons, drawn to the entire spectrum of great image producing machines
including, but not limited to Olympus, Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon, Leica,
PhaseOne, Panasonic, Sony, Pentax, Hasselblad, and others. It is just that
many of us, pro, or enthusiast have made our choices, and in some cases have
made a considerable investment in cameras, and glass.

No doubt that brand choices are made for various reasons, and some of
the makes are comparable in most ways. I was fortunate, in that all of
my kits paid for themselves through the work that I did with them. In
terms of image quality, I think that lenses make the biggest difference.

In the digital world, I'd say that ease of use is pretty important,
since they're all less efficient than film cameras.


digital cameras are *more* efficient, since they are not limited by
having mechanical linkages, film transport mechanisms, etc. nor do they
need to have film swapped every 36 shots (or less). control placement
can go *anywhere*, with the space that once was needed for film can be
repurposed for bigger batteries or faster and more capable electronics,
or just make a smaller camera.

Those aspects describe flexibility, which I agree are where digital
cameras excel. Efficiency is about how easily one can get the shot
they're after, and having too many variables is a detriment to efficient
management.

So, control
placement, menu structure, and a well thought out user interface are the
most important factors to me.


that applies to every product.

there are examples of well thought out digital and film cameras as well
as poorly thought out ones and everything in between.

I already covered that, which is why I prefer Olympus cameras to my
Nikon digitals.

I've never been a fan of autofocus, finding it more of a compositional
hindrance than a benefit. When combined with a varifocal lens, the
camera becomes pretty useless to me. So, my choices are mostly for the
least frustrating kits!


autofocus has the *most* benefit with varifocal lenses, and as a side
benefit, it offers more flexibility for the lens formula.

There are two aspects of this where I'd disagree with you. First,
autofocus presumes what you want to focus on, sometimes fights with you,
and even in the best of cases screw up with varifocal lenses because the
location of focus changes with focal length. Manually, I can focus much
more quickly with a zoom lens because the focal point remains constant
with focal length. YMMV.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #23  
Old January 19th 18, 08:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run

On 1/18/2018 3:07 PM, Neil wrote:

snip

No doubt that brand choices are made for various reasons, and some of
the makes are comparable in most ways. I was fortunate, in that all of
my kits paid for themselves through the work that I did with them. In
terms of image quality, I think that lenses make the biggest difference.

In the digital world, I'd say that ease of use is pretty important,
since they're all less efficient than film cameras. So, control
placement, menu structure, and a well thought out user interface are the
most important factors to me.


Each of us has our own criteria.


I've never been a fan of autofocus, finding it more of a compositional
hindrance than a benefit. When combined with a varifocal lens, the
camera becomes pretty useless to me. So, my choices are mostly for the
least frustrating kits!

Autofocus can be a real PITA, or it can be a blessing, depending on the
subject you are shooting. i rarely use AF for macro and landscape. When
shooting critters it depends. For fast moving ones, I have found AF
quite helpful. For some shots I prefer to preselect focus and exposure.


--
PeterN
  #24  
Old January 19th 18, 08:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run

In article , Neil
wrote:

In the digital world, I'd say that ease of use is pretty important,
since they're all less efficient than film cameras.


digital cameras are *more* efficient, since they are not limited by
having mechanical linkages, film transport mechanisms, etc. nor do they
need to have film swapped every 36 shots (or less). control placement
can go *anywhere*, with the space that once was needed for film can be
repurposed for bigger batteries or faster and more capable electronics,
or just make a smaller camera.


Those aspects describe flexibility, which I agree are where digital
cameras excel. Efficiency is about how easily one can get the shot
they're after, and having too many variables is a detriment to efficient
management.


they also describe efficiency.

no need to stop to change film, waiting for processing, needing to
bring sufficient film and of the correct type (daylight/tungsten,
etc.), keeping it cool, etc.

pick up a digital camera and shoot photos. results are instant, even
wirelessly syncing the photos to a computer, and in some cases, could
even be automatically uploaded to a web site (although most people
would want to at least review them first).

the fuss is completely gone.

So, control
placement, menu structure, and a well thought out user interface are the
most important factors to me.


that applies to every product.

there are examples of well thought out digital and film cameras as well
as poorly thought out ones and everything in between.

I already covered that, which is why I prefer Olympus cameras to my
Nikon digitals.


why?

nikon has a very well designed ui/ux, considered by many to be among
the best in the industry. in particular, the two control wheels and
several buttons on the body, some of which can be user-defined, along
with a page of user-defined menus which can even be invoked from a
custom button.

contrast that to having endless levels of menus and awkward button
placement (often not enough buttons, forcing users to use the menus).

one thing olympus film cameras did get right was multi-spot metering
with the om-3/om-4, which was incredibly useful for theatre photography
as well as other difficult lighting situations. otherwise, their ui/ux
was not very good and those cameras in particular had some reliability
issues.

I've never been a fan of autofocus, finding it more of a compositional
hindrance than a benefit. When combined with a varifocal lens, the
camera becomes pretty useless to me. So, my choices are mostly for the
least frustrating kits!


autofocus has the *most* benefit with varifocal lenses, and as a side
benefit, it offers more flexibility for the lens formula.

There are two aspects of this where I'd disagree with you. First,
autofocus presumes what you want to focus on, sometimes fights with you,
and even in the best of cases screw up with varifocal lenses because the
location of focus changes with focal length.


only when improperly used.

Manually, I can focus much
more quickly with a zoom lens because the focal point remains constant
with focal length. YMMV.


autofocus automatically adjusts with varifocal lenses, making it
effectively equivalent to a true zoom. it 'just works'.

also, you can't focus quicker than autofocus no matter what lens you
use. autofocus can maintain focus on a moving subject coming directly
at you or away from you, even adjusting focus as you shoot multiple
shots while it moves. human reaction time is much too slow to keep up.

autofocus also works in very low lighting conditions where manually
focusing is difficult at best because of the low light.
  #25  
Old January 19th 18, 10:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run

On 1/19/2018 2:19 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

In the digital world, I'd say that ease of use is pretty important,
since they're all less efficient than film cameras.

digital cameras are *more* efficient, since they are not limited by
having mechanical linkages, film transport mechanisms, etc. nor do they
need to have film swapped every 36 shots (or less). control placement
can go *anywhere*, with the space that once was needed for film can be
repurposed for bigger batteries or faster and more capable electronics,
or just make a smaller camera.


Those aspects describe flexibility, which I agree are where digital
cameras excel. Efficiency is about how easily one can get the shot
they're after, and having too many variables is a detriment to efficient
management.


they also describe efficiency.

How?

no need to stop to change film, waiting for processing, needing to
bring sufficient film and of the correct type (daylight/tungsten,
etc.), keeping it cool, etc.

For the pro, there is no need to do any of that anyway because they
don't shoot willy-nilly, and if they need to shoot a lot of frames on a
job, they buy a special back which can hold enough film for hundreds of
frames. So, let's just drop that straw man and focus on efficiency as a
matter of composition and execution.

So, control
placement, menu structure, and a well thought out user interface are the
most important factors to me.

that applies to every product.

there are examples of well thought out digital and film cameras as well
as poorly thought out ones and everything in between.

I already covered that, which is why I prefer Olympus cameras to my
Nikon digitals.


why?

Go back and read it. I don't repeat posts.

I've never been a fan of autofocus, finding it more of a compositional
hindrance than a benefit. When combined with a varifocal lens, the
camera becomes pretty useless to me. So, my choices are mostly for the
least frustrating kits!

autofocus has the *most* benefit with varifocal lenses, and as a side
benefit, it offers more flexibility for the lens formula.

There are two aspects of this where I'd disagree with you. First,
autofocus presumes what you want to focus on, sometimes fights with you,
and even in the best of cases screw up with varifocal lenses because the
location of focus changes with focal length.


only when improperly used.

It's a property of every varifocal lens I've used over several decades.

Manually, I can focus much
more quickly with a zoom lens because the focal point remains constant
with focal length. YMMV.


autofocus automatically adjusts with varifocal lenses, making it
effectively equivalent to a true zoom. it 'just works'.

That has not been my experience.

also, you can't focus quicker than autofocus no matter what lens you
use. autofocus can maintain focus on a moving subject coming directly
at you or away from you, even adjusting focus as you shoot multiple
shots while it moves. human reaction time is much too slow to keep up.

I don't need to focus quicker, I need to focus where I want the focus to
be and have it stay there during composition.

--
best regards,

Neil
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Leica TL MILC is now Available android Digital Photography 0 November 9th 16 09:51 AM
NR: Nikon considering "larger" sensor MILC! android Digital Photography 43 October 8th 16 05:24 PM
NR: Nikon considering "larger" censor Milc! android Digital Photography 10 September 25th 16 02:08 AM
How common are plug-in charge leads for small digicam kathie Digital Photography 1 June 10th 09 09:32 PM
short leads on Canon ACK600 - how rto extend? bugbear Digital Photography 0 January 28th 09 10:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.