Posts for: ocbeyer
Dec 26, 2013 03:11:22 #
Racmanaz wrote:
I was just curious why people recomend the use of snapsort as a reliable source of information when Snapsort is habitually incorrect about the camera specs often?? :)
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Thank you! A terribly inaccurate site. Constantly getting specs incorrect and their scoring system is next to useless as they allow comparisons between apples and oranges.
Dec 12, 2013 13:51:07 #
larrywilk wrote:
I don't use it extensively but what I have explored with it works very well.
Never heard of it, just checked it out and will download it today. Looks tres cool. Thanks.
Dec 12, 2013 12:32:45 #
Must we be so scatological?
Dec 12, 2013 08:48:29 #
As a Republican I am offended.
By many of my fellow Republicans, that is.
By many of my fellow Republicans, that is.
Dec 12, 2013 08:45:12 #
rpavich wrote:
I've been through grips and have made my own grips... (show quote)
I bought one of these for my X10 (similar size and shape) but took it off after a month or so. I found that it was partially blocking the mode dial and made the camera just a bit less "pocketable" (as was the hood and lens filter). That's when I was reminded of why I bought the darn thing in the first place - as a daily alternative to my big DSLR. I like it lean and clean (like my dad's old Konica C35).
Dec 5, 2013 07:42:18 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
It works on the em5, but no where near as well as the em1
Yes, just looked that up, the auto focus. Thanks.
Dec 5, 2013 05:37:24 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
EM1 and EPM2 shooter...did you see the recent article about the new sensor vs the canon 70d? It was on 43rumors.com. I'll spoil the fun, the em1 has more dynamic range than the APS-c sensor. I debated on the em5, with all the great deals recently, but opted for the em1 because of my 4/3 lenses.
Ah, so the 4/3 lens adapter won't work on the EM-5?
Nov 28, 2013 12:03:54 #
JR1 wrote:
Don't forget noise can be effected by lighting dark and light areas within the photo and much more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise
And exposure times. Very long exposures can result in more noise.
Nov 28, 2013 08:28:24 #
I shoot as high as 1600, even 3200, in RAW, with my 40D and have been able to clean them up nicely with LR or Noiseware free community. Can't imagine the 60D being worse.
Nov 25, 2013 09:04:15 #
sbesaw wrote:
We are fortunate. Broomfield is a real experience. A Leica specialist. Gets a lot of visits from celebrities when in town, Robin Williams and Bill Cosby to name a couple.
Yes, they told me a bunch of those stories. The one about Robin Williams was hysterical.
Nov 25, 2013 08:27:44 #
sbesaw wrote:
I'm sure that you are joking as you invited the comment with, "I'm sure someone will chime in here." :D :D
Being a Bostonian I am usually the one being corrected. All I know for sure re:Boston is traffic sucks and taxes are high. We are fortunate in that we have several great camera stores where one can shop and get hands on advice. Hunt's, Calumet, Bromfield Camera, Newtonville Camera I feel for this in other areas who only have Costco, Walmart and Best Buy.
Being a Bostonian I am usually the one being corrected. All I know for sure re:Boston is traffic sucks and taxes are high. We are fortunate in that we have several great camera stores where one can shop and get hands on advice. Hunt's, Calumet, Bromfield Camera, Newtonville Camera I feel for this in other areas who only have Costco, Walmart and Best Buy.
You sure are fortunate. I visited Boston last spring, great town (though the traffic is awful it's no worse than D.C.'s) but what makes it a first rate city in my opinion (unlike my Baltimore) are all those camera shops. I had the privilege of stopping in Broomfield and those guys were great, spent almost an hour just chatting with them. Baltimore has exactly one camera store and if you don't shoot Nikon or Canon then you are out of luck.
Nov 23, 2013 07:09:05 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
It was tested by them & on the online website you can access the test report (it scored near the top for super zooms) It doesn't appear in the ratings as it is a 2012 model...
Yes, already obsolete.
:wink:
Nov 22, 2013 06:24:26 #
Nov 21, 2013 12:22:21 #
ront4649 wrote:
Thanks for the info. I am using the 40-150 lens that came with the camera. I will look into the longer lens.
Not exactly an action shot, but this was taken with an a E-420 (essentially the same as the 510 but without image stabilization) at dusk, 1/400 sec, f4.5, ISO 800, cleaned up a little with Noiseware. Not even a real "keeper" shot, composition wise, but I didn't import everything into LR5 so it wasn't easy finding a pic with the same sensor and shot at settings similar to what you would need.
Another thing, if you aren't using fast burst shooting already, you should try that.
Nov 21, 2013 11:29:47 #
ront4649 wrote:
Thanks for the info. I am using the 40-150 lens that came with the camera. I will look into the longer lens.
Well, it's not any longer than what you are using, just that it's wider. 3.5-4.5 vs the 4.0-5.6 on your kit lens. I like the kit lens a lot, it's very light, and pretty sharp and focuses quickly. But the older, faster lens might work better for you. It is pretty heavy, though. Solid. Metal mount.