Camera Manufacturers Today

[davidc]

Definitely don't worry about it too much - the only reason I ask is that most of the comparisons I've seen online don't actually do like for like which means it's hard to draw any conclusions! Agree completely that whether bokeh is important to your shots or not is an entire personal/subjective thing.

[Mike Farley]

Well, it might or might not happen. Most people seem to think that DOF increases with a corresponding decrease in focal length regardless of sensor size, but I once read a technical article in AP by Bob Newman in which he wrote this was cancelled out by the increased magnification of the image neccesitated by the smaller sensor. At least, I think that is what he said. Being a scientist, he tends to write using scientific terms and it was one of those instances where I understood every single word, but struggled to understand the meaning of the whole.

In the meantime, or as a substitute if there is no follow up, here's one I did earlier which demonstrates an example of bokeh. It is actually the only shot I have ever taken for the specific purpose of inclusion in my Aspects of Composition presentation and illustrates giving the illusion of depth in a two dimensional image. In this instance, there are two techniques, out of focus background and a repeated subject of known size receding into the distance. For once, I have left the EXIF data intact so that you can see the settings. The aperture should actually be f/1.4, but as there is limited communication between the lens and camera body, Lightroom has guessed the setting. I do not know how it does it, but it is normally quite accurate.

[Mike Farley]

Since yesterday, there is a further slew of comments on the TOP post requesting reader feedback on the E-M1. Not all of the new ones are complementary and some highlight my concerns about the lack of decent long lenses and limited C-AF capability. On the other hand, the same is true about any of the mirrorless offerings currently on the market. One person even bought an E-M1 and a lot of top quality glass, only to sell it and go back to a DSLR because of dissatisfaction with image quality and too much DOF.

[Mike Farley]

And now I have just seen this post by Kirk Tuck, a pro photographer based in Austin, Texas who in the past has switched systems with astonishing frequency.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/ ... -real.html

His experience with inexpensive Canon consumer glass mirrors my own with the Pansonic m43 equivalents.

[davidc]

Another good article, and well timed too - I've been listening to someone called Brooks Jensen who runs a site called lenswork and one of his recent podcasts is almost the antithesis of this article. Specifically the x-series Panasonic glass is head and shoulders above any kit lens according to him and while I'm not doubting it's better, is it really THAT much better? Surely technique and need are the limiting factors when it comes to deciding if you should get "pro" glass. While we as enthusiasts almost certainly CAN see the difference and who is Kirk (or Ken, or Brooks) to tell us what we should and shouldn't aspire to in our hobby? Even so, while we can see the difference, the question is still valid - does the difference matter? But the point is still fair that for a majority of people for the majority of the time they can't get the best out of their kit to justify paying for it.

It still comes back down to the tools for the job but people lose sight of the "job" too often

Photographers are second only to golfers when it comes to spending insane money to eke out that extra fraction of a percent performance. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of coveting the red ringed lenses myself mind... Far from it!

[Mike Farley]

Mike Johnston has now requested similar feedback for the X-T1 as he asked for the E-M1. It turns out that he has both cameras and for financial reasons has to decide which one is the keeper. He has just bought the m43 45 macro, so maybe he has already made up his mind?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... nions.html

[davidc]

It strikes me that someone who is crowdsourcing his decision on which camera he should keep might be less interested in photography and more interested in gear. Or maybe just likes being the centre of attention

[Mike Farley]

Another good article, and well timed too - I've been listening to someone called Brooks Jensen who runs a site called lenswork and one of his recent podcasts is almost the antithesis of this article. Specifically the x-series Panasonic glass is head and shoulders above any kit lens according to him and while I'm not doubting it's better, is it really THAT much better? Surely technique and need are the limiting factors when it comes to deciding if you should get "pro" glass. While we as enthusiasts almost certainly CAN see the difference and who is Kirk (or Ken, or Brooks) to tell us what we should and shouldn't aspire to in our hobby? Even so, while we can see the difference, the question is still valid - does the difference matter? But the point is still fair that for a majority of people for the majority of the time they can't get the best out of their kit to justify paying for it.

It still comes back down to the tools for the job but people lose sight of the "job" too often

Photographers are second only to golfers when it comes to spending insane money to eke out that extra fraction of a percent performance. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of coveting the red ringed lenses myself mind... Far from it!

I have been following Brooks Jensen for a while and I subscribe to Lenswork Online, Lenswork magazine and the monographs. He is another commentator whom I find insightful and well worth reading and listening to for his thoughts about the approach to photography. Like Mike Johnston, he has not been so prolific of late and Lenswork Daily is anything but. The last podcast was in 23 May and the paid for site has not been updated much of late either. (It reminds me that I will need to send him another chaser.) One thing which he does not often comment on is equipment, although he broke with that last year when he spoke about using the G6 and GM1 Panasonics. It looks as though he has been a m43 man for a while, but I d not recall nor can I find the article when he talks about using higher quality glass.

No matter. While I have the Panasonic 45-200 and used it for one of my most successful shots last year, in all honesty it is no more than a reasonable performer. Yes, it is up to most tasks, but I am interested in seeing how the forthcoming pro spec Olympus 40-150 will perform. That said, the Olympus lens will almost certainly cost somewhere around the four figure mark, which would be a multiple of five times or more compared to what I paid for the Panasonic lens. I would be extremely surprised if it is five times better.

With modern computer aided designs and manufacturing, consumer glass is optically very good. As you say, good enough for most people and the law of diminishing returns applies as the cost increases. In addition to sharpness etc., what you are also paying for with more expensive glass is faster lenses and better AF performance. The Panasonic is f/4 - f/5.6, the Olympus a constant f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. In low light, the Panasonic is on the leisurely side when it comes to obtaining focus. For some, the price will be worth paying.

Maybe the time has come to do a blind test and see whether people really can tell the difference when it comes to optical performance? m43 v APS-C v full frame is what I have in mind. The shots would have to be posted to flickr so that they can be seen full size, which would mean that people could tell the m43 shot by its smaller size. Either that, or settle on a standard size and show 100% crops of the centre and edges.

[davidc]

Out of interest which shot was it?

[Mike Farley]

Out of interest which shot was it?

Father and Child Reunion

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=337&p=1803&hilit=reunion#p1766

Total cost of kit, body and lens, £470.