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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 15, 2013, 9:53 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,378
Default

When our daughter reached her early teens we threw out our encyclopedias because she knew everything.
__________________
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 15, 2013, 10:31 AM   #32
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Ramcewan - First, Paul isn't a full time pro - he's a teacher But again, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to an event photographer that they know what they are doing. They may not be as skilled as Paul. But, they should be experienced enough to know how to use the gear properly. So, while the expressions captured and the framing might not be as good as what Paul does - the key would be an experienced event photog knows how to properly frame, get appropriate color, WB and exposure to minimize post processing.

The thing is - lots of people want to believe gear makes no difference in sports photography - that they can spend $1000 and get the same results that someone using $8000 in gear gets. With sports photography - especially in low light, proper gear does make a big difference. It really does. And it's easy to see the difference in photos. Lots of other types of photography it can be really tough to tell the difference. For low light sports photography it matters.

How much it matters depends on what you want to achieve. Not everyone needs professional quality results. Perfectly understandable. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a noticeable difference between the quality of results produced from professional gear in the hands of a competent shooter and m4/3 gear in the hands of a competent shooter.

Again - it is not just about aperture and focal length - there's a lot more to the gear aspect than just that. There's the focus system (right now that's the Achilles heel of m4/3 compared to other consumer / prosumer DSLRs much less pro DSLRs) - there's the burst rate of the camera and responsiveness, and there's noise / color performance at high ISOs - 6400 ISO say.

The difference is very noticeable in low light sports shots. And, it isn't about me being a Canon fanboy either. When Nikon released the D700 and D3S it was immediately evident even viewing posted photos and not pixel peeping that the focus accuracy and IQ at high ISOs were in a totally different league than anything Canon had. That didn't mean my kit was garbage. But it was delusional for me to think my 20d or 1dIII produced images as good. They didn't. It didn't make my images bad - but they weren't as good.

I'm not sure why it is so important for you to think the low light sports images from your gear can compete with low light sports images from a pro rig.

Put another way - if someone provided a D4 or 1dX with appropriate lens and helped you set up the focus parameters and you covered the same event - assuming you have some experience at the sport in question - there's little doubt the photos from the pro rig would tend to be better for the low light sports work. Does that make sense?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 10:49 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,378
Default

Makes sense to me anyway. Definitely why the NFL photos I view are so colorful and razor sharp. When I watch a game I look to see the gear being used and for the most part, I see all these white Canon L lenses and I'm sure what they are attached to is equally expensive.

I believe it was Greg who took some gorgeous shots of a Texas Ranger game with an inexpensive zoom lens and I thought those shots were close to being on par with the pro's photos as far as great color and sharpness is concerned.
__________________
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 15, 2013, 11:09 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Thanks James. The subject definitely was sharp enough in those shots where I was down nice & low. I wish I could afford to sit down there more than I do

The main difference you'd see if you could compare my shots to the guys shooting from the photographer's pit just a few seats over from where I was would be the way their faster lenses can separate the subject from the background. Everything beyond the action just melts away with those big, fast zooms due to the minimal depth of field at f2.8.
Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 11:14 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,378
Default

Stop buying all those expensive lenses and you will be able to sit there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
Thanks James. The subject definitely was sharp enough in those shots where I was down nice & low. I wish I could afford to sit down there more than I do

The main difference you'd see if you could compare my shots to the guys shooting from the photographer's pit just a few seats over from where I was would be the way their faster lenses can separate the subject from the background. Everything beyond the action just melts away with those big, fast zooms due to the minimal depth of field at f2.8.
__________________
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 15, 2013, 11:14 AM   #36
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

James - absolutely people can make wonderful shots with inexpensive gear. But, take a baseball game since you brought that up. There's a diving catch in the outfield. Oh, and it's a night game. Here's where that big, heavy gear makes a difference. Assuming you are attempting to photograph the pitcher and need to switch to the fielder - does the rig focus fast enough? Does it focus accurately enough? Is it sharp? Does the image stand up to a crop because of distance given you shot it at ISO 5000? Oh, and how 'bout FPS? It really is taking some getting used to going from 10fps back to 6fps. Those extra frames make a HUGE difference for timing things like that.

Heck, forget about crossing brands. There are very valid reasons why a pro PJ is using a 1dx and not a t4i. Especially in these financial times. So, it isn't a Canon or Nikon vs. Oly thing. Believe me - if a t4i or d3200 did as good they'd be using them instead.

It's why the Nikon D700/D300 and then the 7d were such big hits. Because, for a backup body they were often "good enough" at the price point - most of the pro PJs use 2 or 3 bodies at a time. Prior to these cameras only the top level pro cameras were "good enough". Now, there's still a difference. Take Canon - I have a 5dIII. Similar sensor performance to 1dx and same focus array. BUT, the processing chip driving the 1dX is better so focus is just a little better. AND, it's 10fps instead of 6 - that's huge. Oh, and it turns out that the larger battery in the 1-series helps drive the lens focus motors in some lenses just a tad better. Bottom line is - on paper the specs look similar - but there's a lot more to real world sports shooting than a spec sheet.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 12:21 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default What is going on here????

I don't own a micro 4/3 but I do own 4/3 cameras and visit the m4/3 occasionally. What is going on here? It almost seems as if I was on the dark side at DPReview. Why is the moderator injecting such long opinions in an Olympus users discussion?? This is a discussion among forum members, and the moderator job is to simply keep things civil and arbitrate between arguments of the forum members, and not to become part of the discussions and argue with the members.

Moderator Definition: "The moderator acts as a neutral party who maintains the focus of the debate. Important skills include time management, organization, and the ability to communicate effectively. It also helps for the moderator to have some level of knowledge on the topic up for debate. .."
"......The nature of a debate is to present arguments, but sometimes the discussion gets out of hand. For instance, if the debaters start to call each other names or throw insults, the moderator must step in and admonish each offender. This helps keep the debate from going off-topic and devolving into a fruitless war of words. It is important for the moderator to be impartial when moderating the discussion and handling petty arguments between debaters."


This kinda reminds me of 2012 Presidential Debate moderator Candy Crowley's wildly inappropriate intervention comments injecting herself into the debate, for which she later apologized. If the moderator wants to get into a debate, then he should not do so with the "Moderator" title beside his name. Because most of these comments were neither impartial nor neutral. This may be common on the dark side, but I find it very disconcerting here at Steve's Digicam.


Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 12:29 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Ramcewan - First, Paul isn't a full time pro - he's a teacher But again, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to an event photographer that they know what they are doing. They may not be as skilled as Paul. But, they should be experienced enough to know how to use the gear properly. So, while the expressions captured and the framing might not be as good as what Paul does - the key would be an experienced event photog knows how to properly frame, get appropriate color, WB and exposure to minimize post processing.

The thing is - lots of people want to believe gear makes no difference in sports photography - that they can spend $1000 and get the same results that someone using $8000 in gear gets. With sports photography - especially in low light, proper gear does make a big difference. It really does. And it's easy to see the difference in photos. Lots of other types of photography it can be really tough to tell the difference. For low light sports photography it matters.
Agreed that it really does matter, but the thing is most of the time we're having this discussion with someone who already has a camera, so the focus is usually on lenses. That's why my recommendations have and always are to get the fastest lens you can afford that is at a focal length that works for where you are in relation to the action.

A DSLR user with a kit lens will get better pictures with a fast prime simply because they'll be able to use a more appropriate shutter speed. Do you disagree?

I know for a fact that the shots I took with my E-PL2 using the 45mm f1.8 (90mm full frame equiv) are better than the shots taken by another parent with a Nikon DSLR and the kit 18-55mm, even though the Nikon has a bigger APS sensor. I know this because I compared them. In fact I had a higher hit rate because the Nikon was struggling to focus with the low light.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
How much it matters depends on what you want to achieve. Not everyone needs professional quality results. Perfectly understandable. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a noticeable difference between the quality of results produced from professional gear in the hands of a competent shooter and m4/3 gear in the hands of a competent shooter.
at what resolution though? a 1024 x 768 JPEG is going to make that difference fairly minute, don't you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Again - it is not just about aperture and focal length - there's a lot more to the gear aspect than just that. There's the focus system (right now that's the Achilles heel of m4/3 compared to other consumer / prosumer DSLRs much less pro DSLRs) - there's the burst rate of the camera and responsiveness, and there's noise / color performance at high ISOs - 6400 ISO say.

The difference is very noticeable in low light sports shots. And, it isn't about me being a Canon fanboy either. When Nikon released the D700 and D3S it was immediately evident even viewing posted photos and not pixel peeping that the focus accuracy and IQ at high ISOs were in a totally different league than anything Canon had. That didn't mean my kit was garbage. But it was delusional for me to think my 20d or 1dIII produced images as good. They didn't. It didn't make my images bad - but they weren't as good.

I'm not sure why it is so important for you to think the low light sports images from your gear can compete with low light sports images from a pro rig.
It really isn't important to me. What was important for me was that I got good shots of my child, shots that I was proud to share with my family.

It was also important to me that I shared the recommendation of the lens I used, the 45mm f1.8 with other users of the same platform, hence why I posted here and not the sports section.

As I explained multiple times the side references to the event photographer were just that, side references, musings if you will.

I even tried multiple times to make them less objectionable to you, first by adding caveats to them and then by removing them entirely.

Why is it so important for you that you kept it going?


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Put another way - if someone provided a D4 or 1dX with appropriate lens and helped you set up the focus parameters and you covered the same event - assuming you have some experience at the sport in question - there's little doubt the photos from the pro rig would tend to be better for the low light sports work. Does that make sense?
I totally agree, the better camera will make better pictures in absolute terms viewed at full resolution. Things like hit rate will also be greatly improved.

But again I am going to point out that this discussion was more about the lens I settled on for indoor sports.
__________________
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 15, 2013, 12:41 PM   #39
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Steven R - I appreciate your concern. I am a moderator of the sports forum only. I precisely declined to be a super moderator precisely so that I could engage in discussion. Now - Ramcewan has removed the comments from the original post that began our discussion / argument. I'm not going to restate what's been stated multiple times - you can read my posts as to why I commented.

When the original post has statements comparing the results of photos with that gear to photos of gear from other cameras/systems on a discussion board I'm sorry I don't believe only opinions of people owning the OPs brand are relevant.

If it would make you feel better, you can ask that I be removed as moderator of the Sports Forum. There are plenty of super moderators that can do that.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 12:49 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Now - Ramcewan has removed the comments from the original post that began our discussion / argument.
I did remove them, to end the discussion/argument, but you wouldn't let it go.

My apologies to all the regulars around here who were subject to this bickering.

I am going to pm the moderator of this section and ask that this thread be closed/deleted.
__________________
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
 
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.