wdross wrote:
Why don't you try renting the OM-1 and 12-100 f4 Pro IS lens (24-200 angle of view in 35mm terms). The system weight is 2.53 pounds for body, battery, card, and lens together. This would reduce your system from two lenses to one lens and lose a good portion of weight. I suspect it will reduce the size also.
This is my current system - OM-1 / 12-100 F4. It's very light, easy to use. My previous system was a Canon 5D3 and at my age (say over 75) I needed a lighter system.
Be aware that the OM-1 is very, very different so you need to invest time to learn the new platform.
Another factor, for me, is that my Mk2 battery grip will also work with the Mk3. I'm going to take a hard look at the additional features of the Mk3 vs the Mk2. I do bird photography when on trips and the Mk2 is not bad at all, so the newer body should serve me well too.
User ID wrote:
Have you considered the M1 mkIII ? IIRC some of the impressive MX tech trickled down and wound up in the M1 mkIII.
I use the M1 mkII and find the mkIII very tempting but am having no GAS for that oversized MX.
Check out the M1 mkIII. While it’s not the whole MX in a smaller body, it may have the elements that you care most about.
I found a video comparing the 3 bodies -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nYMXkgFAEYThe presenter's preference is for the mk3. I'll probably agree with him.
You have the most valid point - check for features you need and care about, this should be the driving argument. Then we have other considerations - size, weight, price, etc.
I have the M-1 and am happy with it. Now, however, I'm tempted by the M-1X which is on sale for $1,700. I would like to hear from users that have/had both bodies about what one gains from the pro body.
I know that you can shoot hand-held better and apparently do hand-held focus stacking. What other advantages are there? On the other side the M-1X is double the weight and much bigger, will probably need a taller camera bag. Any help is appreciated.
Chris63 wrote:
I have no issues with the color rendition in my Canon G7X II (JPEG only).
In my opinion colors, as they come out of the camera, are true to reality.
I understand that different manufacturers use different algorithms to generate/retain color in JPEG.
Are some of them better (i.e. more true to life) than the others? I am not after tweaking colors in post-prod. I'd like them true out of the camera.
Any recommendations for the most faithful one overall?
You brought up an interesting issue. How do you tweak colors in-camera? I know that mine (Oly m-1 Mk2) has a list of different JPEGS and I may be able to adjust WB. What else is available? I know that all these tweaks apply to JPEGS only, the RAW images contain all available information and can be post-processed as much as one wants.
Right. I have a 7plus so didn't need an adapter.
Thanks for the suggestion. I really, really need to weed-out my iPhone images as everything I get is saved there.
You can copy/move directly from the iPhone to a hard drive. I would have done that if it was easier locating the images I wanted to copy.
I did Move from a Desktop folder which is on C:/ to my photos hard drive. LR will copy from the iPhone to a hard drive but will Add from an existing folder in C:/. I hope I'm clear about that.
I want to share something I learned by trial and error today although I may be the last one here to figure it out.
I connected my iPhone 7, updated to the latest ios, to my PC in order to download several photos. The iPhone shows up in Windows Explorer and I can see the photos - Apple iPhone/internal storage/DCIM/folders by date.
Opened LR Classic (latest upgrade) and the iPhone showed up as a source in the import process. So, it's possible to do an import just like one does from, say, a SD card. I have too many photos on the phone so finding what I wanted was going to be a very long process. I went back to Explorer and copied the photos I wanted from their iPhone folder to a new folder in Desktop. I could see the folder in LR and chose it as the source, selected Move to copy the images to their permanent location on a hard drive. The images are JPG which is OK for phone photos. I cropped one, did some minimal processing - so far.
A plane can be curved which is what you referred as focal distance.
I import images from SD cards into a hard drive using LRc for that. This way LR is aware of the entire event - location, folder names, etc. I specify new folder names & locations during the process, all that in LR. I second what other posters have said - all subsequent changes MUST be done from within LR otherwise you'll need to point LR to the changes.
Costco Photo Center. Online only.
wdross wrote:
I cheated. I started smaller, lighter, and less costly from the start. I went digital with the release of the Olympus E-M1 mkII. There are small full frames and APS-C cameras, but they not as small and will not save you as much size, weight, and cost as 4/3rds, especially when it comes to lenses. The 1" all-in-ones are nice but to "change out" a lens you have to buy a whole new camera. Plus the image quality, although very good, is not quite as good as 4/3rds. Cameras were tested by one of the photo sites recently and Olympus was determined to have the best image stabilization compared to all camera formats. And there was a recent challenge that was met by Olympus for a 20 second handheld shot (my best is 4 seconds; not bad for being 71). If holding the camera steady is a problem, 4/3rds is the best way to go. Much lighter in weight and best in industry image stabilization.
My suggestion for a starting image stabilized system is the E-M1 mkII or mkIII with the 12-100 f4 Pro IS lens. Used equipment or reconditioned equipment will make the system even less costly. But it is not likely you will need a monopod or tripod with this system. And you should be able to cover about 90% or better of the shots in front of you including 1/2 lifesize close-ups. And it appears that next year there will be an even higher resolution body available.
Panasonic 4/3rds is another possibility especially if you do any video. It has the best built-in video functions of any format camera at this time. The image stabilization is nearly as good as Olympus.
I know others have said stick with the system you have and just buy a monopod or tripod. It is not necessarily bad advice but will not reduce the size and weight of your system nor increase the camera's handheld image stabilization when you cannot use a monopod or tripod. You owe it to yourself to go to your local camera retailer and see what 4/3rds is all about.
I cheated. I started smaller, lighter, and less co... (
show quote)
I second that. My walk around camera is the E-M1 Mk2 w/12-100 f/4 pro lens which is quite light. I hardly need to change lenses.
Lovephotography wrote:
Hi,
I am a first time poster here!
I have been collecting and using Nikon equipment for many years. As I am in my senior years, I find it is extremely hard for me to hold a lot of my cameras and lenses.
I am looking for any suggestions on lightweight equipment I can purchase. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Kathy
Hi Kathy, I'm in the same boat here. So four years ago I switched from a FF Canon 5D3 to the Olympus 4/3 system. I started with the E-M1 Mk2 and 3 Pro lenses, added over time more lenses, flash, etc. I took several trips with the new gear, found it much easier than the heavy FF system. The quality is great so I've no regrets about the switch.