Cameras

[munch]

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eosm/

kinda neat shots, even with the 22mm that comes with it. I'm looking forward to this thing, a lot!

[lowrey]

well I kind of do care about manual controls, but the screen has the manual controls right? just a bit less accessible. I haven't shot in auto pretty much ever but I still went and changed settings with the screen...

well yea, but its strange they'd take them off the dials because they are there even in smaller cameras. But I guess it does come down to who the target market is, the S-series was probably aimed at DSLR users who need a small camera, hence why it had almost identical controls.

also, this made me lol:

[Fade to Black]

that is hilarious. I've never peered through a lens of that magnitude, but I sometimes wonder if I used that to take my subway photos what it would look like/what would happen.

edit - chuckled at a news report yesterday that said "covert photography" was on the rise on the local subway and that a few dozen people had been arrested so far from the ages of THIRTEEN - .....all i got ta say to that kid is keep on keeping on young fella the world is yours.

[munch]

yeah well that makes a lot of sense. ok think I'll decide on the EOS M before I go nuts. I think I should get that lens-- is that the 70-200?

[Dane]

This is concerning:

"Speaking of focusing, our experience was surprisingly sluggish, even with the 22mm and 18-55mm kit lenses. Using full-size EF optics, such as the 400mm f/2.8 L, was almost painful, with the camera struggling to adjust when shooting in a dimly lit room."

but...

"Like image quality, which we weren't permitted to review on a computer, Canon says that the camera's performance is far from final, and given the October ship target, it's reasonable to expect significant improvements before the EOS M makes its way to consumers.?

That's coming from Engadget though, so take for what it's worth.

There are a few things wrong with this camera, and naturally they don't apply to everyone, but instead of having a direct focus, Canon has tried to please everyone. Having the option to adapt lenses is great for the DSLR crowd, but the body of the camera lacks the functional abilities that these people would want. I can't see a P&S buyer spending $1500 on a lens that makes the camera weigh 6lbs.

Naturally, this model is only a stepping stone. They'll no doubt release something more advanced, with more control, probably a more advanced sensor, and no doubt an electronic viewfinder in the near future.

[Dane]

Just for laughs...a few pics (not mine) of m43's with ridiculous adapted lenses:

Pentax 400mm


Nikon 400mm


Zeiss 500mm


M43's have 2x magnification, so the focal lengths are thus doubled.

Adapted lenses can be fun if you have the patience for manual focus/aperture. Olympus cameras specifically are great because of the built-in image stabilization, which is amazing on the e-m5.

[Fade to Black]

I'm willing to bet the people who own/work those cameras take absolutely shit pictures.

[Dane]

I'm willing to bet the people who own/work those cameras take absolutely shit pictures.

Why do you say that?

[munch]

aww I don't like this... I'm almost leaning towards the 5N again if this one has focus/autofocus problems. 5N is cheaper and also known as Low Light King (comments on this?) which I will be shooting a lot of.

baaaah. end my torment.

[Fade to Black]

Why do you say that?

I've noticed that the more time people spend on researching, tinkering with, acquiring and perfecting their gear, the less they spend on actually going out and making pictures. The best/most serious photographers i've seen get what they need to do what they do, and keep the fuss to a minimum. It is about the pictures, not the camera.

[fncyths]

I've noticed that the more time people spend on researching, tinkering with, acquiring and perfecting their gear, the less they spend on actually going out and making pictures. The best/most serious photographers i've seen get what they need to do what they do, and keep the fuss to a minimum. It is about the pictures, not the camera.

I see your point Fade but totally disagree with you. Most photographers that I know that use these "massive" telephoto lenses are sports / fashion photographers and are amazingly technical and have a vast knowledge of shooting and are quite talented "tinkerers."

I agree that it's better to just "shut up and shoot" but to be honest it's this short of mentality that's stenching up our visual world, all these so called photographers and bloggers that are infesting our eyes with their digital diarrhea.

It's this sort of cultural ca ca that has inspired me to return to film to retrain my compositional efforts and talents.

I'll match anyone's gazillion shitty shots in just 12 frames. That's what I'm working with and within those constraints it has conformed me to strive to be a better shooter.

I've worked with and for photographers that come from both schools of thought. It's a lot easier on a shoot to work with someone who knows how to verbalize the desired shot through technical verbiage and not just through debasing banter.

Shoot. Have fun. Get educated. Word

[Fade to Black]

"I'll match anyone's gazillion shitty shots in just 12 frames."

Well, at least we can agree on this point. I see and respect what you say about film, but I believe even when shooting digital one needs to exercise the same scrutinizing restraint and care for quality rather than taking a million snaps and hoping to end up with a single good one.

[fncyths]

I see and respect what you say about film, but I believe even when shooting digital one needs to exercise the same scrutinizing restraint and care for quality rather than taking a million snaps and hoping to end up with a single good one.

Totally. It's taken me over 40,000 actuations to get to the point where I'm at now and I've been just shooting and stumbling non stop in order to better myself and train my eye. Now I've been working on fine tuning my technical side. It's been a bitch cause I'm not a technical person.

[Fade to Black]

"I"m not a technical person."

Me neither. This will likely put me on the bad side of many photography purists who are anal about the nitty gritty of a photo, but I've always stressed the importance of content over technique. Am perfectly fine with things being unresolved or a bit untidy in a photograph technically if its overall presentation produces a genuine visceral or emotional resonance.

[Dane]

aww I don't like this... I'm almost leaning towards the 5N again if this one has focus/autofocus problems. 5N is cheaper and also known as Low Light King (comments on this?) which I will be shooting a lot of.

baaaah. end my torment.

Don't get too caught up in the preliminary reviews of the Canon...the firmware is probably not final and things may change.

That being said, I still think the 5N will be a better camera...as long as you're okay with a limited selection of native lenses. Keep in mind that the 5N's noise levels are on par with the C3...worth considering if you're trying to save money.

If low light is a priority, the kit lens with the 5N won't cut it. The Nex 50mm will work well, as will the (pricey) 24mm. The 16mm pancake will be better than the kit lens, but still not great. There are also 2 inexpensive Sigma lenses with the same f2.8 aperture as the Sony pancake. I think they run around $200.