Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 13, 2013, 2:04 PM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Ramcewan - actually I am not a pro cheer photographer. But I've done a lot of paid sports shooting work in the last 8 years. It's not about "my way or the highway". What I've found though is a number of people like you who post a lot about what gear can and can't do without any actual photos to back it up. Threads tend to deteriorate when people with limited hands-on experience argue. And, as with this thread, when it is suggested that readers could form their own decisions based upon the photographs people like you always have an excuse for why you won't show photos. I know it drives you nuts that the trump card in these arguments is "show the photos demonstrating your point" because, of course, you don't want to show them. There have certainly been threads I've been involved in where someone posts photos and an OP says "that's good enough for what I want". But, the challenge when it's just words and not photos is: how does a reader know whether your opinion of "good enough" and their opinion of "good enough' are the same?

In the thread you link to - I argued that an 85mm lens would pose some serious problems for GYMNASTICS. I stated WHY I thought so and that it was based upon actual real-world shooting of gymnastics and with an 85mm lens. Now, since you disagree with my advice that an 85mm lens would be too short for shooting many gymnastics events from the stands perhaps you can show your photos of gymnastics demonstrating how an 85mm lens was capable of getting the shots? Or, should a person just spend $500 and hope for the best?

Why should a person follow your advice on how to spend their money.

If you want to debate and argue gear for certain types of photography and your advice is contrary to the advice of shooters more experienced in that type of photography you can expect push back. If you actually had and would post photos people could say "Yep, Ramcewan said this gear was up to the task and gosh his photos of what I want to shoot with the gear being recommended are good enough for me".

Again, your advice and opinions are contrary to my experience and that's OK. But if you're going to debate the merits of certain gear for certain shooting situations it is certainly beneficial to use photographs to do so.

It's interesting - you don't see many photographers on Steve's with a large amount of sports shooting advice that disagree with my posts. That isn't because I'm so great - it's that the things I write are fairly basic principles that experienced sports photographers agree upon. Disagreement usually comes from people with very limited sports shooting experience that like to extrapolate what they know into areas they don't have experience on.

Everyone has the right to an opinion. But I've never been shy about putting my work on display so people can judge for themselves how much weight to give my opinion when I give gear advice - especially with regards to sports shooting. That's the fundamental difference between you and I:

While we both have strong opinions I'm actually willing to show my work product and let people decide for themselves how much weight to give my opinion. You just want people to accept your recommendations because you said so.

I'm not worried at all about protecting the turf of a pro. Just worried about people making poor buying choices based upon what I perceive to be bad advice from people with limited experience and no photos demonstrating their advice is sound.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 2:52 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

John - maybe you are lost - this is not the "What camera should I buy" section, this is the Olympus micro four thirds section, and I wasn't making a recommendation, I was sharing an experience, my personal experience with Olympus Micro Four Thirds gear with other users of that gear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
It's interesting - you don't see many photographers on Steve's with a large amount of sports shooting advice that disagree with my posts. That isn't because I'm so great - it's that the things I write are fairly basic principles that experienced sports photographers agree upon. Disagreement usually comes from people with very limited sports shooting experience that like to extrapolate what they know into areas they don't have experience on.
Actually what is interesting is that you're still trying to prove you are right and that your opinion is the only right one. What's also interesting is I have heard from a few people in private that you they in fact stopped posting in forums where you post because you're such a jerk that all you do is shout down people who don't agree.

Again you're making a statement that I am disagreeing with you because I'm inexperienced.

You say I don't have a right to an opinion because I won't share my photos, but really I'm not sharing an opinion I'm sharing my experience, which for the record was that the 45mm f1.8 happened to work well for me on my Olympus E-PL2 to shoot my daughter's cheer.

You say I don't have a right to an opinion because I won't share my photos, but you have no problem deciding that I am giving bad advice and I am inexperienced at sports photography (for the record the first time I did sports shooting was 25 years ago with a film Canon T70).

Seems like a one way street, I don't get an opinion without you getting to judge my photos but you get an opinion about my photos without ever seeing them?

You are right there is a difference between you and I;

If I had seen a thread in say the Canon DSLR area about how great an experience a parent had using the 70-300 f2.8 USM L shooting cheer without pictures I would not have jumped in to demand they share pictures even after they stated that they didn't for privacy reasons and if no pictures were shared declare that their experience was "bad advice"

And what if I did share my pictures with you? You would compare them to shots from Fred Miranda at a different event?

Surely you'd declare my shots were not up to snuff and that my experience (which you keep taking as a recommendation) was invalid.

To what end? To save someone from going out and buying the same setup as I did because they saw my post somewhere in a sub forum specific to micro four thirds?

No of course not, nobody comes to the micro four thirds section to find the camera they want for cheer, no they start in the right section which is the "what camera should I buy section".

So the real goal, your real goal is to win an argument I wasn't trying to have with you. You are plain and simple a troll. You've taken what was supposed to be an enjoyable discussion with fellow Olympus micro four thirds users about taking pictures at my child's event and ruined it.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32

Last edited by ramcewan; Mar 13, 2013 at 3:11 PM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 8:23 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,378
Default

Folks who post here are either sharing their opion or asking for one. People that read the forums/posts should also have that same mindset; they are opinions and not necessarily a professional's viewpoint of the subject. I read Ramcewan's post as his opinion, and nothing more. Most people on this forum know they cannot compete with a professional photographer, let alone afford the equipment to do so. Most of us here are amateurs that share information and/or pictures and seek help with an upcoming purchase of a piece of equipment. I have to agree with John on one facet of this discussion, and that is if you share your opinion with others about a photographic experience, share the photo as well so we can all judge. Pictures can speak a thousand words.
__________________
Olympus OMD-M5, HLG6 grip, Olympus 4/3rd 35mm macro lens, Panny/Leica 25mm, f1.4, Olympus 17mm, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer, Canon MP990 Printer, Slik U212 Tripod, Manfrotto monopod, MMF3 converter.
James Emory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 12:29 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Pictures are always nice....lord knows I post enough of them myself, but ramcewan had his reasons and this is neither a professional or sports photography forum.

The 45mm f1.8 is an exceptionally good lens. The type action shooting I like to do these days is a type where I could never get close enough that it would be a practical lens to use for those purposes. At another time in my life, like maybe 8-9 years ago when my daughter was still a teenager playing sports and in the marching band there would have been times it would have worked really well but today I wind up capturing images like these with it..







Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 12:38 PM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
and this is neither a professional or sports photography forum.
Greg - For the most part I totally agree. But, it is a gear forum. And, when the OP stated the photos produced by this gear were indistinguishable from the results the pro sports shooter was getting when viewed on a workstation, then that changes the discussion. Now, those comments have been removed from the Original post. If the original post were written as it is now, we would have never gone down the rabbit hole. But if you write a post saying the smaller, lighter, less expensive gear was producing photos that matched the pro photos IMO you're changing the discussion. Then, IMO, it's perfectly valid to have your photos compared to pro photos.

Again, others are free to disagree with my interpretation.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 2:16 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Greg - For the most part I totally agree. But, it is a gear forum. And, when the OP stated the photos produced by this gear were indistinguishable from the results the pro sports shooter was getting when viewed on a workstation, then that changes the discussion. Now, those comments have been removed from the Original post. If the original post were written as it is now, we would have never gone down the rabbit hole. But if you write a post saying the smaller, lighter, less expensive gear was producing photos that matched the pro photos IMO you're changing the discussion. Then, IMO, it's perfectly valid to have your photos compared to pro photos.

Again, others are free to disagree with my interpretation.
You know what JohnG

I stand by my original comments. It is my opinion that the images that were on the viewing stations setup (it looked like 1024 x 768 monitors) the average person would not be able to distinguish between a photo from my 12MP micro four thirds camera and the 24MP full frame camera the pro was using.

I'm not saying I'm a better photographer then he was or you are. I am not saying that his timing and composition was worse than mine, in fact I have repeatedly pointed out that my technique was lacking and I needed to rely on spray and pray.

What I am saying is that a fast lens and a fast shutter speed on a decent camera will produce more than acceptable images of indoor sports at 1024 x 768 JPEG.

So go ahead tell me how you disagree, as you said you are welcome to your opinion.

However if you are going to insist on attacking my opinion as invalid based upon personal derogatory comments about my skill or experience that is not a discussion, that is a petty fight that I'm not going to continue.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 2:26 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Since I'm not willing to share my photos I figured I'd grab some other peoples from flickr to illustrate the point, one was taken with a micro four thirds camera using a fast prime the other was taken with a 5D MK III,

Care to guess which is which?

edit: pics removed
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32

Last edited by ramcewan; Mar 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 2:36 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,378
Default

I would say the bottom photo is from the Canon. Better color detail, contrast and noticeably sharper image. BUT, I would expect that with a full frame expensive DSLR and likely using a Canon "L" lens....probably six or seven times as much money as the camera used in the top photo.
__________________
Olympus OMD-M5, HLG6 grip, Olympus 4/3rd 35mm macro lens, Panny/Leica 25mm, f1.4, Olympus 17mm, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer, Canon MP990 Printer, Slik U212 Tripod, Manfrotto monopod, MMF3 converter.
James Emory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 2:57 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

James,

I think the higher ISO and glaring white brick background is more responsible for the perceived differences in the first pair. Not saying you picked right but just saying there is more than just gear involved.

Like the images you linked to JohnG, those were great cheer shots, but they really popped because it was a black background, same shots against a bright background wouldn't have been as nice.

Here's two more images. Again one is micro four thirds the other is one of the 5D models.

I for one think that the average person would have trouble saying which is which at this resolution.

Yeah maybe we can stare and compare and pick one that is slightly better, but if you didn't know that they were from different cameras?
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32

Last edited by ramcewan; Mar 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 3:01 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

No - I wouldn't guess. Not when you can cherry pick images from Flickr. And given that neither of the images is very good I wouldn't say they are indicative of good sports photography work.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:46 PM.