Jump to content

andreas_manessinger

Members
  • Posts

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

3 Followers

  1. This happens at times. Try to lightly (without force!) twist the lens. It will likely click audibly and the image will be there. I'm talking about an angle of half a degree or something like that. If you think the lens sits well, press the lens releas button, remove the lens and mout it again. If the lens is stuck, don't use force, ask a professional. If you get to the same condition even after unmounting / mounting a few times, the contacts of lens or body may be dirty or damaged. If you have another lens, you could tryy this, or you could again ask for professional help.
  2. Harry, I suppose the Olympus firmware updater is another victim of Apple's newly introduced System Integrity Protection. Try to <a href="https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-turn-off-the-rootless-in-OS-X-El-Capitan-10-11">turn SIP off</a>, do the update and then turn SIP on again. I guess it will work. You could also wait until Olympus comes out with their new Firmware for the E-M1 (announced for this month). I am sure they are aware of the problem and expect them to come out with a fixed updater.
  3. When using the converter, you can specify the DNG version to convert to. Personally I haven't used the DNG converter in a long time, thus I can't say what the exact DNG version supported by CS3 is, but if you stick to the right version, CS3 can open it. As far as I remember, the converter tells you about compatibility levels in its help. As Greg already said, you can just as well buy Lightroom, and for the few occasions when you need Photoshop (for instance when you want to use "Edit / Transform / Skew"), you let Lightroom render to a DNG, edit the DNG in Photoshop, and finally finish it in Lightroom. That's what I do.
  4. Stephen, would you care to explain where the fault lies?
  5. Nope, no barrier :) From the Olypmus E-P2 to the E-M5 I saw a big leap in high ISO performance, about equivalent to what I saw between Nikon D200 and D300. The E-M1 has no low-pass filter and therefore slightly different noise characteristics that could be seen as "more noise" when pixel peeping, but otherwise it is more or less the same as the E-M5. Look at it this way: APS-C and FF will always have either bigger pixels at the same resolution, or more pixels of the same size. As nobody has access to exclusive technology, you can always expect bigger sensors to perform slightly better at high ISO. There is no reason to expect MFT to ever "catch up". On the other hand, there is something that YOU use your camera for, and that is taking YOUR images. My images are mostly made of static subjects, I am no action shooter. Sometimes I like to play with shallow DOF (and I can with MFT), but more often I like the whole scene in focus. On MFT, f5.6 is fine for deep focus, at least if I don't focus too close. Think of architecture, landscape or street photography. On FF you'd have to stop down to f11 for the same DOF. These are two stops. Now compare this with a FF camera like, for instance, the Nikon D610. On the E-M1, thanks to five-axis sensor stabilization, I can hold my 25/1.8 at 1/10s all the time, and that without a proper steady stance. In fact I have just tried with the 12-40/2.8 at 25mm: I can repeatedly take images of critical sharpness at 1/10s, and that while holding the camera in one hand and away from my body. Taking a proper stance I can always hold 1/6s. You can't do that with an unstabilized 50mm prime lens on the unstabilized D610. The rule would be one over focal length, but let's assume you have steady hands and can reliably hold 1/30s. These are at least two more stops, and in sum that translates to the difference between ISO 200 and ISO 3200. Is the D610 at ISO 3200 as clean as the E-M1 at ISO 200? It's not. It has slightly more resolution and with a little bit of noise reduction and scaling down to the same size you may come near. Dynamic range will suffer though. Thus, for my applications the Nikon D610 has zero advantage in image quality. In all other respects it is worse. It's heavier, bigger, and the more lenses you add, the worse is the difference in size and weight.
×
×
  • Create New...