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, 2:08 PM   #41
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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.
It would have been if your original post never mentioned another shooter using gear from another system and saying your results when viewed on a monitor were indistinguishable from theirs. When you make those types of statements, the discussion is no longer about oly lens A vs. Oly lens B. The discussion is opened up to the results of photos from one photographer and his gear to another photographer and their gear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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.
Generally speaking I agree. Accept there are other factors - the sharpness of the lens and the focus speed of the lens. Those factors also matter. For example, in the Canon system the 85mm 1.2 focuses slower than 85mm 1.8. So, even though the 1.8 is slower in terms of aperture it's a better sports lens. I know from other discussions that various Pentax lenses have similar dichotomies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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?
Maybe, maybe not. First, the fast prime needs to be the appropriate focal length. A 35mm 1.4 lens isn't going to be of much use shooting soccer on a full size field. So while one could argue the results would be better than a 18-55 style lens they'd still be very poor. Conversely, a consumer grade telephoto zoom lens would provide better results than the 35mm 1.4. My point being, you cannot oversimplify the situation. You have to look at the specific shooting needs and then decide on what lenses would be appropriate and what the strengths/weaknesses would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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.
I would expect that to be the case. The "chain" is only as strong as it's weakest link. That's why people can't oversimplify the requirements. For example, someone like the parent you were talking about spending money on DSLR and kit lens and expecting good results at a cheer competition. They get poor results because they didn't understand results are a factor of a lot of variables:
  • Ability of shooter
  • Camera sensor / image processing
  • Camera focus performance
  • lens focus performance
  • Lens sharpness
  • Distance to subject
  • backgrounds
  • shooting angles
  • frame rate
  • camera buffer handling
  • knowledge of the focus options of a given camera and how to tweak them for a given type of sport
So, for example, a parent in the stands at a HS football game under the lights is going to generally get very poor results even with the most expensive gear - their angle to subject, distance from subject become such an incredibly weak link in the chain, the gear cannot overcome it. Conversely, a parent in the stands at a volleyball game can still get decent shots with an appropriate camera/lens and skill. Every situation is different.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
at what resolution though? a 1024 x 768 JPEG is going to make that difference fairly minute, don't you think?
Absolutely noticeable - all you have to do is look at photographs posted on forums. It's very easy when you look at a post containing 10 photos - you can see where focus is off a bit, where detail is missing, etc. Just like you can with portraits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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.
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more that's a great goal. As a parent, that's my goal when taking photos of my son.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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.
Wonderful. And if you had left out comparisons to other gear used by the hired professional and the photos being indistinguishable, there wouldn't have been a discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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?
I will answer honestly - if you had simply removed them and said they were not important I never would have. But you first couldn't help but try to keep them in. And you couldn't resist the smart-a$$ comment dismissing me after you removed them. So, I will admit that the attitude I sensed from your posts made me disinclined to not respond to your posts. That's an honest answer. As I said, if your posts simply talked about results you've had with multiple oly lenses and you never mentioned other gear, other systems or other shooters and how your results compared I never would have responded in the way I did.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 2:29 PM   #42
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

OK guys....

Different members will have different opinions about image quality and suitability of gear for a specific purpose.

As for Moderation, I also see no issues with a Moderator participating in debates, just like any other member can. In the case of Forums Moderation, different sites approach it in a different manner. But, I think you'll find that Moderators at most similar sites also participate in the discussions and voice their opinions, just like any other member.

IOW, just because Moderators have some extra permissions and can help out with enforcing rules, deleting posts, and keeping the peace (and also providing subject matter expertise, in the case of JohnG's moderation in our Sports Forum), doesn't mean they can't participate in the debates.

Are there other opinions? Sure. Some of the others may feel that the image quality from a [insert camera here] and [insert lens here] are just as good. Or, more often, "good enough", depending on the purpose for the images.

Civil Debate is good, as it gives both sides to any disagreement; as long as that debate doesn't get personal.

So, please don't take comments as personal or make the comments personal, keep the discussion friendly and we can all get along.

That way, members can have a better understanding of each others' viewpoints on the issues.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 2:37 PM   #43
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
I am going to pm the moderator of this section and ask that this thread be closed/deleted.
Let's cool down guys.

You're going to have differences in opinion between members here.

That doesn't mean a thread that others have already made comments in should be removed; as that's not fair to the other participants.

So, let's just keep any further debate in this thread civil and don't let it get personal. Otherwise, I will need to close it.

Thanks
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 2:50 PM   #44
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

With regards to photo quality and whether or not the average person can see a difference. It's often relative. Look back a few pages at the images brought in from Flickr. Now bring up this standard daily shot from one of the local papers. I'm sorry, but the image quality difference is easily noticeable - at least to me. - again. use 2 windows to bring this up against the flickr photos. It will also demonstrate that knowing how to use expensive gear definitely makes a difference

http://photos.cleveland.com/plain-de...l#incart_photo
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 11:29 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: oakville, on
Posts: 491
Default

This discussion twigged a memory of an essay over on Luminous Landscape titled "You've got to be kidding". The gist was the author did a comparison of a canon G10 against a Hasselblad with a Phase One P45 back. The upshot was that the output from both cameras, when printed at 13" x 19", the results were hard to tell apart.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
Granted, these were not action shots in this review, but it did show that a "lesser" camera can capture fine images
KulaCube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2013, 9:02 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
I will answer honestly - if you had simply removed them and said they were not important I never would have. But you first couldn't help but try to keep them in. And you couldn't resist the smart-a$$ comment dismissing me after you removed them. So, I will admit that the attitude I sensed from your posts made me disinclined to not respond to your posts. That's an honest answer. As I said, if your posts simply talked about results you've had with multiple oly lenses and you never mentioned other gear, other systems or other shooters and how your results compared I never would have responded in the way I did.
Since we're being honest John,

When I read your first post I thought you actually missed the first line of my op since I stated I wasn't going to share photos. I answered you in a thoughtful manner. At that point I was ready to have a discussion. However your first post was in reality just bait for a trap you set, you knew this when you posted, I was naive. Your second post sprung the trap, like a classic troll.

In your second post you implied I was lying and after misreading my post declared I was inexperienced (I said 3 time with the e-pl2). The inexperience thing I can take with a grain of salt, yes it was rude and wrong and maybe my ego was a little hurt but oh well.

But when you imply I am a liar, that is disrespectful and where I'm from those are fighting words.

To make matters worse you demanded I share my private photos with you even though I explained why they weren't being shared. If you'd approached it differently I might have shared, but the last thing I was going to do was share photos of my 15 1/2 year old daughter with some a$$hole who just called me a liar.

As a tip going forward, if you want to have a discussion with someone, show them the same respect you would expect, don't call them a liar.

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you didn't mean to call me a liar and you didn't mean to be so offensively intrusive about my child. It would go a long way if you confirmed that you didn't mean it in the way I saw it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JimC as I mentioned in my pm I was looking to close this because I started the thread and felt bad about bringing an argument to this otherwise very nice group.

I understand your desire to keep it open for fairness. I will therefore apologize to the members here; Steven, Zig, James, Greg, folob, kula and drew. It wasn't my intention to start this p!ssing match here.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000

And since we're being honest I'm going to honestly evaluate my own claims, so here we go;

Claim1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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.
Assumptions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
. From what I could tell he didn't do a lot of zooming in and out with the 70-200mm, and from the images I saw on display I think he was shooting right around 80-100mm focal length or equivalent of 40-50mm on MFT.

Let's look closely at the lenses;

Fact1: the 70-200mm f2.8 USM is a very sharp lens, according to slrgear it is very sharp wide open at f2.8 and tack sharp at f4

Fact2: the 45mm f1.8 is also an exceptionally sharp lens. Wide open the center is tack-sharp and by f2.8 it is as sharp as anything, again according to slrgear.

Fact3: 45mm on MFT = 90mm on full frame, based on my stated assumption the FOV is equivalent.

Fact4: both of us had to be shooting at 1/500 or faster to avoid motion blur.

Conclusion1: if we were both shooting at the same equivalent FOV and shutter speed the 45mm f1.8 is shining more lumens per square mm on my sensor than the 70-200mm f2.8 is on the full frame sensor to achieve the same level of sharpness, since according to slrgear the 45mm is sharpest at f2.8 and the 7-300 is sharpest at f4.

Conclusion2: since more light is hitting my sensor my ISO would in turn be lower, I was shooting at ISO 400. One would have to believe the ISO he was using would have been higher. Therefore my camera has an inherent advantage because of the faster lens. Does ISO 400 = ISO 1600 on full frame in terms of IQ? I don't know but I do know that the ISO difference closes the gap.

Fact5: JPEG compression is lossy, when you compress those giant files from a full frame to 1024 x 768 JPEG the result is many of those extra pixels are merged and the data recorded by them is lost forever.

Overall Conclusion: If the differences in ISO will close the gap a little, the loss resultant from JPEG compression closes that gap further.

I'm going to honestly mark this claim as completely plausible.

And that's an opinion because at the end of the day, I was the only one who saw my images and saw the images on display, there is no way to verify.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claim2:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan
I would have liked to plop down next to him with an OM-D and the Lumix 35-100mm f2.8 OIS X series lens and say "look I have the same as you at more than half the cost and 1/5 the weight ".
Fact1: the Lumix 35-100mm f2.8 OIS X series zoom has the equivalent field of view as the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 USM.

Fact2: the Lumix 35-100mm f2.8 OIS X series zoom has the same max aperture as the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 USM.

Fact3: the Lumix weighs in at .75lbs (12.7 oz), the Canon weighs in at 3.2lbs

Conclusion1: the Canon is in actuality 4.3x heavier than the Lumix, seems I was pretty close in my claim about weight.

Fact4: the Canon costs $1700, the Lumix costs $1500

Conclusion2: my statement about cost was off in terms of the lens.

let's now look at the OM-D vs. the 5D MK

Fact5: the OM-D has 9 fps continuous drive the Canon has 4 fps

Fact6: the OM-D weighs in at .94lbs, the Canon weighs in at 1.8lbs

Conclusion3: the Canon only weighs twice as much, I was wrong.

Fact7: the OM-D is $899 body only, the 5D MK II is still $2200 body only

Conclusion4: I was closer on the price difference between the bodies

Fact8: the sensor on the OM-D is half as big as the sensor on the 5D

Overall I'm going to honestly rate my claim as 2/3s BS yes they have similar capabilities but I went overboard saying they are the same and on the price claim.
__________________
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 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2013, 12:11 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,380
Default

Oh please, lets end this. Everyone has made their point, do we need to continue.
__________________
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 16, 2013, 12:22 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Interesting thread to say the least. This last post by ramcewan reminded me of the last presidential debates. After each debate, CNN analyzed every claim made by each candidate for truth. Some were absolutely true, some were totally misleading and some were somewhere in between. I guess the lesson learned here is that we all must be careful about statements we make so we are as close to the truth as possible. Sometimes the excitement is intense and we tend to go overboard with our conclusions. I was recently looking for some old pictures I knew I had taken with the Sony A300 I once had. In the process, I came across some excellent pictures taken with that camera. The excitement of seeing so many good images made me go online and buy another A300. Humm, how much sense did that make? This is a 5 year old camera. I obviously acted on impulse and whenever we do that, chances are we will do wrong.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2013, 12:37 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Emory View Post
Everyone has made their point, do we need to continue.
James,

I think not.......

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2013, 2:56 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
folob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 856
Default The end of it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
James,

I think not.......

Zig
Agreed. If not, it will last forever!
__________________
Portfolio: http://agilephotography.deviantart.com/

Gears: OM-D E-M5 Mark II and E-M1 MK 1 with 14-150mm Mark II, 12-40mm f2.8, 15mm f8 cap lens, 60mm Macro, 75-300mm, Olympus Trinity -> 25/45/75mm f1.8. On the 4/3 side: 9-18mm and 50-200SWD with the MMF-2 4/3 adapter, FL-36R and FL-50. Also Rokinon mFT 7.5mm f3.5 Fisheye, Pentax 50mm f1.7 with K to m4/3 adapter, Olympus OM 200mm with OM to m4/3 adapter.
folob 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 6:51 AM.