Cameras

[Dropt]

The Olympus E-M5 looks very good for his range (It's the best mirrorless since… the GX1). I think it's perfect if you happen to travel a lot because of the light weight and other features that makes it appealing to experienced amateurs. Personally I would prefer getting a used mkii for the same price (as a main camera) which is definitely a more high-end product, but it really depends on your needs.

The incoming D600 looks very interesting. It could very well win the ff market in no time.

[Dane]

The Olympus E-M5 looks very good for his range (It's the best mirrorless since… the GX1). I think it's perfect if you happen to travel a lot because of the light weight and other features that makes it appealing to experienced amateurs. Personally I would prefer getting a used mkii for the same price (as a main camera) which is definitely a more high-end product, but it really depends on your needs.

The incoming D600 looks very interesting. It could very well win the ff market in no time.

Agreed the money could easily go elsewhere...but if we're talking mirrorless systems, it has to be mentioned.

In a perfect world I would both that beautiful D800e and an e-m5.

[munch]

yeah I am mainly looking for something that is small and easy to bring along with me. I feel a bit immobilized when I have to bring a bag for the camera and lenses alone, and another bag for my everyday stuff.
the E-M5 looks really nice! it's currently a thousand bucks here, which is not too bad. a bit less than the NEX-7 and a bit more than the NEX-5N... body only, that is.
as I understand it, the drawbacks is a more shallow depth of field and the crop factor...
but I have to say, after looking at reviews of the E-M5 it looks very promising in the technical aspects. seems to have really good AF, and good controls and build quality. I don't know what else to make of it really.

thanks!

[Crowzer]

I'm not even an amator about photography, I have a Nex-3 it's just perfect for me. Like PMB software, it's easy to use.
I would like to improve my skills.

[Dane]

yeah I am mainly looking for something that is small and easy to bring along with me. I feel a bit immobilized when I have to bring a bag for the camera and lenses alone, and another bag for my everyday stuff.
the E-M5 looks really nice! it's currently a thousand bucks here, which is not too bad. a bit less than the NEX-7 and a bit more than the NEX-5N... body only, that is.
as I understand it, the drawbacks is a more shallow depth of field and the crop factor...
but I have to say, after looking at reviews of the E-M5 it looks very promising in the technical aspects. seems to have really good AF, and good controls and build quality. I don't know what else to make of it really.

thanks!

Don't get too caught up with the depth-of-field nonsense...sure, if the primary focus of your photography requires this, m4/3 probably isn't for you...for everyone else in the world, who cares. You can get perfectly sufficient depth of field with several of the excellent m4/3 lenses. This is a continued argument from the full-frame-fanboys because they can't find anything else to get worked up over.

If there's one thing I've learned as of late...fashion forums are a dream compared to photography forums. They're all fucking lunatics. /rant

Main issue with the e-m5 right now is availability...at least in the US...seems like Olympus can't keep up with the demand. Another potential issue is ergonomics...if you're accustom to dslr's that are form-fitted to your hand, and find range-finder style cameras like holding a brick, you may not love the e-m5. They do sell a separate battery-grip, but it'll cost you another $300, so worth taking into consideration if you plan on using heavy lenses like the Voigtlanders.

Crowser - part of improving your skills may involve learning more advance software skills. The new version of Lightroom (4) is amazing. There's basically no point to shooting digitally if you're not going to invest the time into learning how to use the software to optimize it. My 2 cents anyway.

[Dropt]

The arguments of the full-frame aren't only based on the supposed gain of depth of field. First of all this is a non-sense because depth of field and focal length are what they are. It will be the same at 2.8 aperture be it a Full frame Camera or an Aps-C, except that the smaller CMOS of the aps-c will make the out of focus blur less present due to the crop factor (but will maintain the sense of perspective).

Full frame captors will record a better dynamic of the scene captured, and will overall have a better image quality because of the lesser density of its components (for the same amount of pixels). You can also climb up in ISOs without creating too much noise (even though there is a lot of improvements on that side elsewhere) and use lenses for their initial focal length, which is better.

All in all, ff is better used into professional hands (given the price) and won't benefit that much to the occasional photoshooter. I just wanted to clarify a few things since this discussion lacks a bit of precision.

Lightroom is indeed a good choice for shallow retouching/RAWs interpretation & photo storage. The best tool of the trade is still photoshop, but "mastering" it goes a long way.

There's basically no point to shooting digitally if you're not going to invest the time into learning how to use the software to optimize it.

You know it's not true, but I guess it was for the sake of stressing your point.

[Dane]

Your precise explanation lacks precision - m43 has a 2x magnification rate, so as far as DOF goes, a 2.8 in m43 = 5.6 in ff (roughly). Light gathering and focal length remain the same, but the DOF does not. That being said, m43 makes up for diffraction with the 2x magnification, because a ff using f16 can be obtained (again, roughly) on an m43 at f8.

Yes, ff has its advantages as far as range and whatnot, but no one mentioned having to print billboards, so I don't think your average joe who's asking for mirrorless recs is going to notice.

And you honestly think that a photographer in 2012 doesn't need to know how to use software properly? Seriously??? And obviously photoshop has its advantages for a professional...but no one partaking in this conversation is a pro, so I don't really get your point. Lightroom and Aperture clearly have an advantage for the non-pro for organizational and easy of use purposes.

[Dropt]

Your precise explanation lacks precision - m43 has a 2x magnification rate, so as far as DOF goes, a 2.8 in m43 = 5.6 in ff (roughly). Light gathering and focal length remain the same, but the DOF does not. That being said, m43 makes up for diffraction with the 2x magnification, because a ff using f16 can be obtained (again, roughly) on an m43 at f8.

Only the size of the picture intercepted by the sensor changes with its format. It's only when you want to get the same image with an APS-C from a FF that you'd have to back up meaning more Depth of Field for the same aperture.

Yes, ff has its advantages as far as range and whatnot, but no one mentioned having to print billboards, so I don't think your average joe who's asking for mirrorless recs is going to notice.

We're talking about photography right ? Does that mean the average joe = an amateur photographer ? An intermediate level photographer ? Because if that's the case, he's probably interested in knowing the differences.

And you honestly think that a photographer in 2012 doesn't need to know how to use software properly? Seriously??? And obviously photoshop has its advantages for a professional...but no one partaking in this conversation is a pro, so I don't really get your point. Lightroom and Aperture clearly have an advantage for the non-pro for organizational and easy of use purposes.

Now you're talking about a "photographer". Pick your terms more clearly then, because everyone who owns a camera is potentially a photographer, and 90% of "photographers" I know don't use softwares devices. And no, you don't need to know softwares to make good digitals photo, if you know your camera well and make a good use out of presets available.

I'm partaking this discussion and I'm a professional retoucher, I also did some photography jobs. I'm probably not the only one on this board, and I think it's good for other people to have some insights on this.

[Dane]

Like I mentioned in a previous post - people who frequent photography forums.

[munch]

hmm. well... depth of field is not really my main focus, so that might not be a problem. but I do like when it's nice, of course.
hmmmm. focal length is going to be the same? I am confused... I thought that was the part that changed? so .. like.. 17mm lens would be almost equal to 35mm on m4/3's?

but are you guys still saying the E-M5 would be the best choice on a budget if I want something that is still quite a serious camera but also very portable?

thanks!

[Dropt]

Like I mentioned in a previous post - people who frequent photography forums.

Ok I may come off as a big troll.

Munch — Micro 4/3 (most of mirrorlens sensors) like Dane said have a magnification of about 2 when it comes to lenses (the apparent focal length). So yes, you're right on that.

As for the EM-5, I red some excellent reviews on it and it seems to fit well with your aspirations. Go for it.

[Dane]

hmm. well... depth of field is not really my main focus, so that might not be a problem. but I do like when it's nice, of course.
hmmmm. focal length is going to be the same? I am confused... I thought that was the part that changed? so .. like.. 17mm lens would be almost equal to 35mm on m4/3's?

but are you guys still saying the E-M5 would be the best choice on a budget if I want something that is still quite a serious camera but also very portable?

thanks!

Nex's magnification is different too (a Nex 16mm lens = 24 in 35mm).

Not a concern unless you're using non-native lenses of course. If you are (non-native) that is, m43 will double the length. Makes acquiring shorter legacy lenses a challenge.

Not saying em5 is definitely for you...but worth checking out if you're looking at mirrorless cameras. it is a serious camera, and quite portable...but not as portable as a nex3 with pancake or anything. You'd have to weigh your pros & cons.

[munch]

hmm well the nex is aps-c ish right? so it should be different?
I guess there are no DSLR's that are portable so I should just look into mirrorless, right?

however I was not really looking to spend more than 750 on a camera so it is kind of.. expensive with the E-M5. and less is as usual better.

the Samsung NX200 is then supposedly a bit better?
but what about the NX210? it's like 300 bucks more. is it worth it? I am looking at tech specs and I can't really find anything
however, sony NEX vs samsung NX? no clue what are advantages or disadvantages.
hmm...

[munch]

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/new-canon-eos-m-with-ef-m-mount/

HMM!

[Dane]

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/n...th-ef-m-mount/

HMM!

I'm a bit disappointed if this is the actual model...I guess I was hoping for something a bit less entry-level. We'll see how it performs though!