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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Leica TL MILC is now Available | android | Digital Photography | 0 | November 9th 16 08:51 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 09:54 AM |