Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 19, 2010, 2:57 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
Nope, just you. They made no blanket statements without a clue what they speak of.
So, let me see if I've got this straight.

Fifty nine owners of Olympus telephoto zoom lenses respond to a survey, and, together, report that the AF Speed is slow, but I'm wrong when I quote the results of the survey?

You understand how this works, right? Surveys obtain input from a variety of respondents, and are intended to reduce bias. Surveys are how Consumer Reports can report which cars are reliable and which washing machines aren't. Surveys are how the US Food & Drug Administration determines which drugs and treatments are safe and effective. Psychics and Bigfoot Proponents rely only on anecdotal accounts, because they like bias.

You've obviously been able to get good results with your Olympus gear, and from that I conclude that you are very good at what you do. But if someone has a choice between two brands, and surveys show that one brand would suit them better than another, do you think they should base their purchasing decision on the opinions of multiple individuals, or a single individual.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 19, 2010 at 3:50 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2010, 6:43 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
So, let me see if I've got this straight.

Fifty nine owners of Olympus telephoto zoom lenses respond to a survey, and, together, report that the AF Speed is slow, but I'm wrong when I quote the results of the survey?

You understand how this works, right? Surveys obtain input from a variety of respondents, and are intended to reduce bias. Surveys are how Consumer Reports can report which cars are reliable and which washing machines aren't. Surveys are how the US Food & Drug Administration determines which drugs and treatments are safe and effective. Psychics and Bigfoot Proponents rely only on anecdotal accounts, because they like bias..
The question in this case, which will go unanswered like all the rest of the questions I've asked of you, is: "Do you understand how this works?"

I added my information to this database, maybe a year ago. I've got some glass that is somewhat rare, so I chimed in to give validity to the data, you know, anything of Statistics and margin of error stuff. Problem is that it didn't add my results to the database, and still hasn't. You can fill that out and it does nothing. The validity of the data is, well, not so great. Shame because it was a good idea.

Next, they list a 35-200 f2 lens. One doesn't exist. They list one 50-200 lens, and there is two versions, one driven by a ring motor, the other a micro motor. Its the same errors it had a year ago.

TCav, when you get challenged and surf the net for stuff to validate your viewpoint, that is called bias. You end up missing stuff, like the E620 has a completely new focus system compared to the prior Olympus entry level cameras. When you go off and shout the stuff from a rooftop, you begin to look like the village idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
You've obviously been able to get good results with your Olympus gear, and from that I conclude that you are very good at what you do. But if someone has a choice between two brands, and surveys show that one brand would suit them better than another, do you think they should base their purchasing decision on the opinions of multiple individuals, or a single individual.
I'll be quite clear on this. I think its hard to go wrong with anyones entry level DSLR today. They are all quite good.

You are biased against Olympus, and have been since I've joined the forum. That doesn't bother me at all. What camera you shoot has nothing to do with me at all. Problem is when you act like an authority when you don't know anything about a subject. Its a pity that someone might take your drivel as fact. It really makes my skin crawl. There were a couple of folks in this case that actually OWNED both cameras and you walked all over them when you likely have touched neither offering.

TCav, have you noticed I disclose when I have, or have not, personal knowledge of a camera. It allows the reader tha ability to give proper weight to what I say. I think its just common courtesy. I know your not likely to change your ways, because you feel a need to be a big fish in a little pond, but its the new folks that take the hit for that. Pity.

Back to the survey thing. 59 folks say its slow. Hmmm, really??? I'd guess the upgrader from a megazoom to the 40-150 MkI would say its lightning fast. I'd guess the owner of a 12-60 SWD (common lens not on the survey, BTW) would rate it as an absolute dog for focus speed. The survey the doesn't list the other 40-150 for what its worth.

Then there is the other lens that you paid attention to, the 50-200 f2.8-3.5. The problem is that there is not one version of that lens either. I have both in my kit. They are WAY different in focus speed. The data base is not current. I'd guess Klaus has hard drives full of data and intends to get it crunched some day. Problem is its really not valid anymore.

ALWAYS question data. It can mislead.
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2010, 2:45 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Let me clear up some things.

First, about me.

I agree with you that all modern dSLRs are capable of taking great photos in most circumstances. But beyond that, some cameras are better than others at some things, and some systems are better than others at some things.

When someone asks for help selecting a dSLR, I look at what they have narrowed their choices down to. If their choices seem reasonably broad, I presume that the selection criteria they've used to get to that point is valid. That is, if I think they've narrowed it down too much, I ask how they got to that point, and possibly broaden their selection somewhat. If not, I generally confine my comments to their selection unless something obvious jumps out at me. So, chances are, if they don't mention Olympus, I probably won't either.

If they haven't stated what they intend to use a dSLR for, I ask them to. Based on the information they provide, I look for lenses (both OEM and third party) that can do what they want, and if applicable, will fit within their budget. (Hence that "The lens is the thing" thing.) Since the selection of 4/3 lenses is sparse, and since many of the OEM 4/3 lenses are expensive, chances are I won't mention Olympus. From that point, I will suggest a camera body that will take the best advantage of the lens or lenses that are suitable for their purposes, and if applicable, are within their budget.

(BTW, if you can find a place in that process where there might be an opportunity for me to squeeze in some bias, I'd be pleased if you could point it out to me.)

I confess that I don't have much hands on experience with Olympus dSLRs. Most of what I do know, I have learned from the people here, including you. For example, I've learned that Canon has the best AF system for Sports/Action/Wildlife, and even though Olympus dSLrs may be fine for other types of photography, they don't do as well as Canon or Nikon (for instance) for that. (BTW, if that's bias, it's bias I picked up from the majority of contributors here. I suggest that, if you doubt me, you search the Wildlife Photos, Sports & Action Photos, and Transportation forums for photos of moving subjects captured with Olympus dSLRs.)

That's how I work.

Second, about data.

Data is real. Data is objective. Data collection is subject to errors, however.

There are three types of errors: Random Error, Systematic Error, and Bias Error. Within the current context, Random Error would be where a person got lucky and got a particularly good lens or a particularly good camera or were particularly good at using it (or just liked it more than is rational), but another person got a bad product, or used it improperly (or disliked it more than is rational.) The way to negate the effects of Random Error is to collect large amounts of data. Systematic Error is where the data itself is generated and/or collected badly. For instance, a survey may mishandle the data, consistently reducing the values of all data collected. But Systematic Error would still produce useful results. Since all data would be subject to the same error, some data, when compared to similar data for other items, would still allow valid comparisons. Bias Error is when some data is handled one way, and other data is handled another. This can happen in surveys, but the survey must have it built in, and PhotoZone.de's surveys collect the exact same data for every lens in exactly the same way, and process it in exactly the same way.

I'm pleased to read that you attempted to add your performance data to the PhotoZone.de database, and also disappointed that your attempt "to give validity to the data" was unsuccessful. What I can tell you is that I've seen the "Number of Inputs" change from one day to the next. So, perhaps there was something about the way you submitted your performance data that didn't satisfy their requirements in the same way that previous additions had.

And, yes, the first person to submit performance data for the Olympus 35-100/f2.0 no doubt mistyped the description, but enough people recognized the mistake and continued to add performance data for it. That doesn't make the performance data any less valid. After all, how many different f/2.0 zoom lenses has Olympus made?

That's how data works.

You can question the data collection process, but you NEVER replace data with anecdotes.

And, BTW, I've used the PhotoZone.de performance database for years, when shopping for new and used lenses, and have been satisfied with how the survey results predict the performance I've obtained. Similarly, I've been satisfied with the objective lens test results at places like SLRGear.com, PhotoZone.de, PopPhoto.com, and CameraLabs.com, and the user surveys at SLRGear.com, PhotoZone.de, and Dyxum.com. I don't need to scrounge around the internet searching for sources that agree with me. My opinions are based on the information I've collected from those sources. When challenged, I simply refer to the source material that I used to form my opinion, even if I have relevant personal experience. I do that because I believe that my personal experience isn't as important as the personal experiences of the multitude of people whose experience may or may not conflict with my own.

If you disagree, I can live with that without attacking you or your motives.

I remind you that the OP has already made his purchase decision, so continuing this discussion here does not serve the original purpose of this topic. Perhaps we can continue this discussion in another topic, or via PMs or VMs.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 19, 2010 at 3:58 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2010, 6:55 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post

I'm pleased to read that you attempted to add your performance data to the PhotoZone.de database, and also disappointed that your attempt "to give validity to the data" was unsuccessful. What I can tell you is that I've seen the "Number of Inputs" change from one day to the next. So, perhaps there was something about the way you submitted your performance data that didn't satisfy their requirements in the same way that previous additions had..
I gave objective results from the lenses I owned. I submitted to the point the thank you message appeared and that it would take a couple days for the inputs to be included. It never happened. Then I noticed this from the site:

"A final Note: This survey doesn't track the number of owners - your input will be excluded unless you have entered some serious performance data. The current acceptance rate after all consistency checks is about 25% ... so please - don't try to enter junk data. This is just a waste of bandwidth."

Bottom line is they are tossing out 3/4 of the "data". That's a bit suspect. If I gave my best effort to put input things, and if they rejected it because they didn't like something in that input and do so for a majotity of inputs, is the data resulting from the survey valid. It sounds more like "here's the answer I'm looking for" survey.

Is the waste of bandwidth the results the input, of could it be the survey itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
And, yes, the first person to submit performance data for the Olympus 35-100/f2.0 no doubt mistyped the description, but enough people recognized the mistake and continued to add performance data for it. That doesn't make the performance data any less valid. After all, how many different f/2.0 zoom lenses has Olympus made?

That's how data works..
I'll stick to the line I know.

The 35-100 is listed as a 35-200

There are two versions of the 14-54 f2.8-3.5, but only one place to input data.

There are two versions of the 50-200 f2.8-3.5, but only one place to input data.

There are two 40-150 lenses of different speeds, but only one place to input data.

You don't see a problem here? You don't see cross contamination as data would be input from one intended for the other?

Garbage in, garbage out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post

You can question the data collection process, but you NEVER replace data with anecdotes..
There is a practical knowledge that must applied to a process. If you want to call it anecdotal, fine.

If someone shoots wonderful landscapes, and you want to do the same, his opinions matter. If a person does macro, or sports, or in this case, wiildlife, of other specific field of photography, they have a practical knowledge that should carry substantial weight. I'd value that higher than someone combing the internet for data that doesn't have a clue about that specialty.

Now to you TCav.

You stated Olympus isn't very good at macro. That is buffoonery. You said stabilization was very inportant to macro photography and fought tooth and nail when I said flash was much more important. That is buffoonery.

Here you say focus speed is a determining factor for wildlife photography. That is buffoonery.

What it tells me is you do not do those types of photography. It sticks out like an orange in the apple bin. I know, but the new folks wanting to learn don't. Its not the data I have a problem with. Its people short of that practical knowledge proclaiming things that are untrue. That's my problem with you TCav.

If you want to go off half cocked about subjects you have no practical knowledge and are misleading folks, I'll shine the light on your lack of experience in those areas.
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2010, 4:08 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
There is a practical knowledge that must applied to a process. If you want to call it anecdotal, fine.

If someone shoots wonderful landscapes, and you want to do the same, his opinions matter. If a person does macro, or sports, or in this case, wiildlife, of other specific field of photography, they have a practical knowledge that should carry substantial weight. I'd value that higher than someone combing the internet for data that doesn't have a clue about that specialty.
I absolutely agree, but you miss my point. When 59 people respond to a survey, and the results of that survey indicate that something is black, one person saying it's white doesn't carry much weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
You stated Olympus isn't very good at macro. That is buffoonery.
The hoops you jump through to shoot macro (extension tubes, reversing rings, etc.) are available to anyone with a dSLR, and so don't indicate any advantage or disadvantage that Olympus might have compared to other systems.

I already pointed out that the selection of AF/AE macro lenses for the 4/3 mount is smaller than for other mounts. Therefore, the Olympus system isn't as good for macro as other systems. That's still true. The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di has many fans here; it's not available for the 4/3 Mount. The Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and its shorter focal length would seem to be particularly appropriate for the 4/3 Mount, yet it seems that the 4/3 Mount is the only dSLR mount that it isn't available for.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't make it "buffoonery".

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
You said stabilization was very inportant to macro photography and fought tooth and nail when I said flash was much more important. That is buffoonery.
What I said was that image stabilization CAN be an alternative to a tripod, and CAN allow someone to capture inanimate objects just as well as when using a flash. And image stabilization CAN allow the casual macro shooter to get good shots without having to haul around a tripod or fancy flash equipment. That's still true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
Here you say focus speed is a determining factor for wildlife photography. That is buffoonery.
"Determining factor"? No.

What I said was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
... but its [Olympus'] autofocus system isn't very good for that kind of subject.
But to take on what you said I said, wouldn't you agree that photographing a moving subject, wildlife or not, requires a fast AF system? Wouldn't you agree that, when attempting to photograph a woodland creature of some kind, that it's important to get it in focus before it runs (or flies) away? Wouldn't that require a fast AF system?

So, is recommending a dSLR for shooting wildlife, based on its AF speed, really "buffoonery".

If you're going to continue this exchange, you could save me a lot of time by quoting me correctly. Thanks in advance.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 20, 2010 at 9:06 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2010, 9:16 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I absolutely agree, but you miss my point. When 59 people respond to a survey, and the results of that survey indicate that something is black, one person saying it's white doesn't carry much weight.

..
Here's the whole thing in a nut shell.

First, its not 59 people. Its more like 240 people and the rest they chose not to accept for some reason.

Second, the site is in a state of severe neglect. How's the 14-24 Nikkor do? How about the new 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor? Are they too exclusive to be included? How about the new Canon kit lens, you know, the IS version? I suppose no one has one of those. Its the forgotten database. Its dead, its contaminated, it was a good idea that has been left to wither.

Third, I disagree that the measure of a camera's wildlife ability is properly based on two zoom lenses that have been out of production for two years or more. That is mind boggeling to me, I find that to be desparation in grabbing at straws to prove a false statement.

Fourth, if your pointing at one person being me that "one person saying it's white doesn't " is intended for, you are attributing that to someone that never said such a thing. I never said a thing about the focus speed of these two discontinued lenses as I feel it is rather moot to the usefullness of Olympus as a wildlife camera. If you would like to quote me, I'll listen.

Bottom line, I find your argument totally and utterly a straw man fallacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The hoops you jump through to shoot macro (extension tubes, reversing rings, etc.) are available to anyone with a dSLR, and so don't indicate any advantage or disadvantage that Olympus might have compared to other systems.

I already pointed out that the selection of AF/AE macro lenses for the 4/3 mount is smaller than for other mounts. Therefore, the Olympus system isn't as good for macro as other systems. That's still true. The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di has many fans here; it's not available for the 4/3 Mount. The Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and its shorter focal length would seem to be particularly appropriate for the 4/3 Mount, yet it seems that the 4/3 Mount is the only dSLR mount that it isn't available for.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't make it "buffoonery"..
In this thread: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy/174741-lens-olympus-e420.html you made a blanket statement

TCav's word of wisdom:
For the Olympus E420, macro will be tough.

Its utterly a false statement, was slapped down by EVERYONE that responded to that thread, and I supplied many macro photos, closeup photos to refute the comment. TCav showed his macro abilities in the thread also. I'd like those few that are actually following this drivel to take a look and see those photos as proof the statement is drivel. AKA foolishness, AKA baffoonery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post

What I said was that image stabilization CAN be an alternative to a tripod, and CAN allow someone to capture inanimate objects just as well as when using a flash. And image stabilization CAN allow the casual macro shooter to get good shots without having to haul around a tripod or fancy flash equipment. That's still true.
In this thread, http://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy/175240-first-time-dslr.html TCAV said:

TCav's word of wisdom:
"Yes, macro may be a problem. Canon only has one stabilized macro lens and it's expensive. Nikon only has two stabilized macro lenses, and similiarly, they're both expensive."

My experience varied from this as a macro shooter that also does some snap shooting indoors in low light. I said:

"In my humble opinion, flash is a better answer for both situations. Its rare for me to use a tripod for macro, and I go beyond 1:1 often. The only time i don't use flash is if I like the natural lighting and shadows, and that gets tough very quickly unless you can accept very shallow DOF."

I posted natural light and flash macros to verify my point, and JohnG did the same with indoor flash photos. TCav proved JohnG's points by posting a few flashless pics of his own.

And TCav's current thing from this thread.

TCav' Word of Wisdom speaking of the E620 and wildlife:
"but its autofocus system isn't very good for that kind of subject."

And Olympus:
"Olympus' dSLRs don't have very good AF systems for sports/action/wildlife"

I took issue with the wildlife ability being questioned. I posted pics to prove my point, and it looks like TCav learned his lesson and hasn't shared his wildlife shooting abilities.

As to the sports/action ability, both of the cameras mentioned with all lenses mentioned will likely have difficulties here. I even posted a flying eagle pic while stating even the flagship E-3 struggles in comparison to Nikon's top tier cameras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
But to take on what you said I said, wouldn't you agree that photographing a moving subject, wildlife or not, requires a fast AF system?
See the above paragraph for overall ability with moving subjects in comparison to the top line cameras. The ability of the entry level cameas will be different. As to the determing factor being a "fast AF system" vs. a focus tracking system that can predict the subject's next position, the tracking is far, far more important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Wouldn't you agree that, when attempting to photograph a woodland creature of some kind, that it's important to get it in focus before it runs (or flies) away? Wouldn't that require a fast AF system?
Fast autofocus is always a nice thing to have. That said, my experience is that the focus speed is overrated in actually capturing a subject in reality. I've been trying to say that all along. My experience is that more time is spent in a quick composition than is the focus of the subject. In addition to that, if you prefocus the lens 15 yards out so the lens doesn't have to rack from a parked position, focus is nearly instant and the motor noise is much less likely to draw attention to yourself. To answer your question directly, AF speed is more a luxury than a necessity for shooting wildlife.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
So, is recommending a dSLR for shooting wildlife, based on its AF speed, really "buffoonery"
First, at the entry level and the two cameras we are speaking of, its a straw man.

Secondly, in direct response to your question, Yes.

I've answered pretty much every question you've asked. You have been somewhat evasive. I'll settle for just the one I keep asking. How much wildlife photograhy do you do, TCav?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
If you're going to continue this exchange, you could save me a lot of time by quoting me correctly. Thanks in advance.
Went with copy/paste to make you happy. Are you happy?

Decided to edit out the dragonfly part? Bummer, I like to post dragonfly pics, and the results I have are either the slowest AF lenses I own, or the same lenses set to manual focus. Smart edit TCav.
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/

Last edited by fldspringer; Aug 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM.
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2010, 10:20 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
In this thread: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/wh...mpus-e420.html you made a blanket statement

TCav's word of wisdom:
For the Olympus E420, macro will be tough.

Its utterly a false statement, was slapped down by EVERYONE that responded to that thread, and I supplied many macro photos, closeup photos to refute the comment. TCav showed his macro abilities in the thread also. I'd like those few that are actually following this drivel to take a look and see those photos as proof the statement is drivel. AKA foolishness, AKA baffoonery.
I congratulate you on the lengths to which you will go to get macro shots. In this thread, the OP was pinching pennies. The options for macro that preserve the AF and AE that you can do without, plus the flash that you say she must have, are expensive at best. Other mounts have the same alternatives that you use that don't support AF & AE, and have cheaper alternatives that do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
In this thread, http://forums.steves-digicams.com/wh...time-dslr.html TCAV said:

TCav's word of wisdom:
"Yes, macro may be a problem. Canon only has one stabilized macro lens and it's expensive. Nikon only has two stabilized macro lenses, and similiarly, they're both expensive."

My experience varied from this as a macro shooter that also does some snap shooting indoors in low light. I said:

"In my humble opinion, flash is a better answer for both situations. Its rare for me to use a tripod for macro, and I go beyond 1:1 often. The only time i don't use flash is if I like the natural lighting and shadows, and that gets tough very quickly unless you can accept very shallow DOF."
The OP wanted a shallow depth of field when shooting indoors. That means shooting with a large aperture. When you use a large aperture lens, if you can get a proper exposure without the flash going off, sometimes the flash doesn't go off. Wouldn't IS that works at slower shutter speeds be a better choice than flash that doesn't go off?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
...

As to the sports/action ability, both of the cameras mentioned with all lenses mentioned will likely have difficulties here. I even posted a flying eagle pic while stating even the flagship E-3 struggles in comparison to Nikon's top tier cameras.

...

First, at the entry level and the two cameras we are speaking of, its a straw man.

Secondly, in direct response to your question, Yes.
So, to sum up, you think that the differences in AF Speed in entry level dSLRs is not significant when shooting moving subjects, and that AF Speed isn't important when trying to photograph skittish wildlife subjects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
Went with copy/paste to make you happy. Are you happy?
Yes. I am happy. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
Decided to edit out the dragonfly part? Bummer, I like to post dragonfly pics, and the results I have are either the slowest AF lenses I own, or the same lenses set to manual focus. Smart edit TCav.
I dropped the "dragonfly" part because I considered it an unnecessary tangent, but since you resurrected it ...

If you search this site for "dragonfly" you'll find a lot of posts in a lot of forums, particularly in the Pentax / Samsung dSLR forum, but only a few in the Olympus dSLR forum. (Yours, of course, are conspicuous.) But something else particularly interesting about the dragonfly shots in the Pentax / Samsung dSLR forum are that many of them are shot without flash and with shutter speeds longer than that Shutter Speed = 1 / ( Focal Length X Crop Factor ) formula would indicate is reasonable. And, sometimes, they're a lot longer. Yet those dragonfly shots turned out quite good.

So maybe there's something to that "Available Light + Image Stabilization" stuff. Huh?

And in one of those "dragonfly" posts in the Olympus dSLR forum, the OP is lamenting how difficult it is to shoot dragonflies, and another Olympus dSLR owner quickly agrees with him.

Maybe there's something to that "AF Speed" thing, too. Ya think?

Oh, and by the way ...
Attached Images
     
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2010, 11:17 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
If you're going to continue this exchange, you could save me a lot of time by quoting me correctly. Thanks in advance.
The main question is why do you insist to keep this thead alive. You make the most perposterous proclamations and when the arguments go south, you just keep on insisting they are true.
















And I see you have the same BIF problem I have.





__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/

Last edited by fldspringer; Aug 21, 2010 at 11:19 PM.
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2010, 1:00 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
So, to sum up, you think that the differences in AF Speed in entry level dSLRs is not significant when shooting moving subjects, and that AF Speed isn't important when trying to photograph skittish wildlife subjects.
...
I'm saying that it is well down the list.

Primary is accurate focus. Its a must. If its manual or auto, it must happen or the results aren't really worth the effort.

Second is either reach or the ability to get very close to the subject. If you cannot get close enough to the subject, the results will be sub-par.

Those are the must have's. The rest is gravy. Low noise of the camera in its operation is nice. Ability to chancge settings with the camera to your face is nice. Quick autofocus is also nice. So is weather resistance. Alot of this is personal, but your statement was WAY over the top. Your statement was simply false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I dropped the "dragonfly" part because I considered it an unnecessary tangent, but since you resurrected it ...

If you search this site for "dragonfly" you'll find a lot of posts in a lot of forums, particularly in the Pentax / Samsung dSLR forum, but only a few in the Olympus dSLR forum. (Yours, of course, are conspicuous.) But something else particularly interesting about the dragonfly shots in the Pentax / Samsung dSLR forum are that many of them are shot without flash and with shutter speeds longer than that Shutter Speed = 1 / ( Focal Length X Crop Factor ) formula would indicate is reasonable. And, sometimes, they're a lot longer. Yet those dragonfly shots turned out quite good.

So maybe there's something to that "Available Light + Image Stabilization" stuff. Huh?.
I'm not against stabilization. I'm not against available light, especially if there is something special about that light. I loved this light and was lucky enough to get it to work out. 200mm EFL f2.5 at 1/60s on an overcast day under forest canopy.



Now to the macro point flash vs. stabilization thing. The pics were not macro, unless I saw the wrong pics. When you get really close, DOF disapears quickly. You must stop down and either ISO must rise or shutter speed must become longer. You will hit a point where flash becomes a blessing. Stabilization is less effective in all but totally still subjects, and maybe in thise situations also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
And in one of those "dragonfly" posts in the Olympus dSLR forum, the OP is lamenting how difficult it is to shoot dragonflies, and another Olympus dSLR owner quickly agrees with him..
Are you talking the flying dragonfly thread in the Olympus forum, taken with a manual focus legacy lens? Have you ever tried flying dragonflies??? I have with a fast focusing lens and it is not child's play. That pic in that thread surpasses my results the few times I've tried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Maybe there's something to that "AF Speed" thing, too. Ya think?..
Obviously its not as big of thing for wildlife as you are making it out to be.

Oh, and by the way Manual focus of very slow focus with macro lenses, or manual focus with those lenses.









And one w/ natural lighting.

__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/

Last edited by fldspringer; Aug 22, 2010 at 1:07 AM.
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2010, 8:17 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

damn people get a room why dont ya!

seriously though either system can be used - its more about photographer's ability than the cameras in alot of situations but i dont think it can be denied that shake reduction and fast autofocus is never likely to be a feature of a camera you dont want to have

"no no no please i dont want fast autofocus give me something slow and with no shake reduction while your at it"

as to the relative difference between the cameras abilities cant say since i've never used either
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo 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 8:04 AM.