tdekany Loc: Oregon

This guys is just having an issue with M4/3 and mirrorless in general. Just another armchair expert with no pictures of his own on this forum. Pretty sure he is another snap shot shooter for the last few decades.

whitewolfowner

Ouch! You are making some assumptions here, are you not? What is it about so many photographers (and this has been going on ever since I've been taking pictures) that they feel compelled to insist their manufacturer of their camera gear is the best. I really don;t think any of them would still be selling cameras and gear if they were not supplying the best gear for a certain nitch or type of shooter.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

This same person accused you of the claim that Olympus makes the best glasses. Same here with you. I said m4/3 or mirrorless. That is based on his many posts putting mirrorless technology down. We all know that m4/3 is not the best with it's puny sensor. And no one made such claims. Personally, I only care about the pictures, not what camera was used.

PS: or were you thinking that I was talking about you?

In that case you may want to google "Ginkgo Biloba"

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Its human nature... its called Identity politics. Go on FB and the wars continue on a daily basis. Everyone seems to have this need to tout their preference and their position; mostly ego and chest beating. Shoot what you own and be happy... its the finger that pushes the button that is most important.

whitewolfowner

No, I was agreeing with you all the way. And guess what, I already take Ginkgo Biloba along with other herbs too. At my age, we need an edge. Too many become brainless long before.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

That explains a great deal:
"Ginkgo may also cause altered insulin levels, anal sphincter spasms, behavioral changes, bleeding after surgery, bleeding of the eye, blood in urine, blurred vision, bruising, cardiac arrest, coma, constipation, death, diarrhea, distortion of taste, dizziness, dry mouth, edema, fertility reduction, gastrointestinal ...Nov 1, 2013"
Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) Safety - Mayo Clinic
www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ginkgo/safety/hrb-20059541

whitewolfowner

Pick any drug, food or herb you want and the list is as bad or worse than that. I like the sphincter spasms, too bad I don't get them, I could have really good gas then. Maybe I should increase my dosage.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Your right, it is the finger that pushes the button that is most important. But what a lot of people forget is Olympus and Panasonic have only been pushing into the professional digital market, in earnestness, for the last five years or so. Yes, if I want to take a picture of a black cat in a coal mine at midnight I would not chose my Olympus but a camera with 3,000,000 ISO. But the number of times that I will be taking a picture of that black cat may not even require one finger. So for me, why should I pay for that capacity if I am not going to use it? Because of the computers today, the designs of a mediocre lense today often surpasses the "superior" designs of twenty years ago.

Right now there are an increasing number of pros that are taking APS-Cs and 4/3rds cameras for more and more travel assignments. As they present more of those photographs to the various markets, it is my suspicion that people will start to see an increasing precentage of those being published. Leica, Zeiss, Canon, and Nikon no longer have the only sharp lenses on the open market. Either do they own the whole professional systems market like they use to. And it is specifically because of this new differentiation of equipment that the finger on the button has become more important than the name on the camera.

whitewolfowner

Your comment of today's mediocre lenses surpassing the "superior" designs of twenty years ago is anything but truth. Lenses from 40 years and even further back than that exceed most of today's glass. In fact, as a general rule, lenses are regressing in quality as manufacturer's put the money into the bells and whistles instead of the glass. Most lenses today will never have the longevity or durability of the lenses of yesterday either. I'll put many of my lenses that are more than 20 years old up against almost anything made today by popular manufacturers. And who out there can match the systems that Nikon and Canon have built for pro equipment; not a one! Sure, many pros are going with the smaller systems, but it's not by choice but practical reasoning as the airlines charge them their left nut when they try to take what they really would like to take with them. It's a compromise being forced by outside factors and simply the expense involved.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Yes, by all means increase the dosage. There is nothing like good gas !!!!

fotografz

Not to single out this post, but use it as an example of generalities that could confuse certain issues ... at least from one professional's point of view.

While the "finger pushing the button" is most important, that has been true since the advent of photography. Photography is part science and part artistic endeavor. You cannot take a photograph without some sort of machine and capture media ... be it a pin-hole camera and photo sensitive plate, film, or today's digital sensor and computer designed optics.

The size of the media in tandem with the field-of-view of lenses used has a direct effect on the characteristics of the image captured. The smaller the media the more depth-of-field per f/stop compared to the same f/stop using larger media. Any given field-of-view of a lens @ f/2 captured on 35mm full frame media has less depth-of-field than the same field-of-view at f/2 on a 4/3s sensor. Same field-of-view using a Medium Format sensor has even less depth-of-field. No "finger" is going to change that, it is physics.

The assumption that computers have equalized optical design is only partly true. It has also propigated homogenization. Many older lenses are prized for their characteristics or character by those that lean toward the artistic part of the science/art equation of photography. In addition, companies such as Leica are renowned for lenses that perform wide open better than so called mediocre optics. At f/8 one is hard pressed to separate many lenses from their competitors ... f/1.4 is a different matter altogether.

You can have lenses that produce extremely sharp images but the over-all impression is lack-luster ... where some lens systems may be equally as sharp but also have a certain impact (look and feel) that is anything but lack-luster ... Zeiss is particularly known for this. I personally have a fondness for the way fast aperture Canon lenses render light and color ... but prefer Nikon optics when doing B&W. It's a matter of taste and one's personal artistic vision.

Citing professional use, and use by increasing numbers of pros is a misleading. It assumes that the quality and characteristics of smaller sensors and performance of optics have leveled the playing field. The true mitigating factor is that professional end use has become less demanding. Printed matter is diminishing and electronic end use has become dominate.

Even though I more recently shot Sony DSLR and SLT cameras for professional work such as weddings/events/portraits, and do not own Canon or Nikon anymore, I would still tout them as "owning" the professional systems market. Just saying they do not doesn't make it true. Look up DSLR sales statistics or ask rental places. Wedding/event photography is dominated by Canikon ... so is portrait, sports, racing, and wildlife ... and for good reason.

Smaller formats, and alternative cameras such as mirror-less have their place IF the photographer ascertains that their needs do not warrant more choice, or faster, or more secure capture. I once owned and used a multi-shot Hasselblad kit that produced breathtaking professional results ... results for clients that required the best color fidelity and resolution possible. Nothing on the market today save the new Phase One 100 meg monster could even come close. When I stopped doing that sort of work, I moved to a lesser kit, but one that was highly capable at the new requirements.

BTW, exaggerating ISOs may make a point, but if there is anything that has distinguished modern sensor design is it increased abilities in lower light. However, I would agree that IF one doesn't need such performance, be it ISO or faster aperture lenses for less DOF, or dual card capture or whatever, then why pay for it? I feel that way about paying for video capture on cameras I only use for still capture.

Marc Williams
Fotografz, LLC
http://fotografz.smugmug.com

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Everything else aside...nice site with some great examples.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I agree and disagree with some of your points. You are right that the pro systems build by both Canon and Nikon have yet to be matched by others, but they will with time.

But I take issue with the statement that the older glass is better and the newer lenses aren't as well constructed.The SLRGear comparison of an old film day's lense compared to today's designs made it very clear that lense design has changed by magnitudes. The introduction of the OM-4t (film camera) was matched with the introduction of the 100mm f2 lense - the first Olympus lense with an (one) ED glass element. When one looks at the Olympus, Canon, Panasonic, Nikon, and other lense designs today, it is hard to find a design with less than three different types of glass even in the cheaper designs. Aspherical lense elements were only owned by the military years ago, but now almost all lense designs have one or more aspherical lenses. Then we can start talking about how coatings have changed. I have fallen on my former E-M5 and the only problem was it took a couple of hours to get the filter off. If that not a sturdy design, what is? Yes, the very cheap designs don't have a lot of different glass and some of them are almost all plastic. Those lenses will not hold up to the abuse by most of us. But then most of us are not going to buy the cheapest lense around.

And anyone can avoid the airline problems by shipping their larger equipment ahead of them. That way the equipment would travel cheaper than the airlines and the photographers would have that camera equipment that "they really would like to take with them". But that doesn't explain why lately, when they do local assignments, they are leaving the bigger systems behind in favor for the smaller systems.

In my opinion, from the data I can find, the tools of today do the job better and easier than the tools did in the past. It just comes down what is one's requirements for the tool.

whitewolfowner

Good advise, never know what will come of it.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say, but I looked at your site and you ARE what we mean when we say that the chimp behind the camera is what is most important. Of course a technically proper picture is important overall, but to have the creative and artistic skills that you have mister is what makes your work stand out. You are one of those talents who could use a cheap disposable camera and still create art. Give the best of the best gear to the rest of us, and we will gladly produce another snap.

Wonderful work MR!!!!!!