All the cameras are better than you are...

laur1 · March 19, 2014

@Landrum

Yes, the first part of my previous response was to Paul's comment. The other paragraphs were in response to your comments.

And yes, I realized your initial sarcasm was meant for Kirk Tuck, not for me. Maybe persons not participating in this thread are fair game for sarcasm - was that your point?

As for:

My last post mangled some words. This is how the post should have read:

</blockquote>

Well, you tried twice and you still just came out with an out of context quote. This is what I actually said - emphasis on the missing piece:

Everyone wants better cameras, but no one wants to be a better photographer - that is how you sound like when you keep whining about how equipment is restricting your goals.

</blockquote>

I didn't claim the first part is true as a standalone statement, I said it sounds like that's where you're coming from. And note the use of "sound like" - I was still giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You not only mangled the words, but you mangled their meaning too.

laur1 · March 19, 2014

Technological improvements beyond what? The Daguerrotype?

</blockquote>

Doesn't matter. It's a generic statement and the keyword in it was only.

One thing I did not mention because I kind of assumed it to be understood is that by "goals" I meant "artistic goals" or put otherwise "the goal of creating some work that will be enjoyed by future generations".

With that clarification, my main point in that statement was that if technical improvements become available, they will become available to everyone and then skill, talent, genius - whatever you want to call it - that will become again the differentiating factor. Sure, there will always be some individuals that will have what it takes to fully exploit the new technology - but they will always form a minority - for the simple reason that if one result is produced too easily or by too many, it will stop being perceived as desirable or as art.

So, with this background, my point was that if one is only preoccupied by technological improvements, that should make another one wonder whether they (the first one) could create some worthwhile work when that technological improvement becomes available. And this wonder would be justified by the probabilistic argument outlined earlier (out of many, very, very few).

Landrum Kelly · March 19, 2014

Laurentiu, it appears that you are prepared to keep this thread going forever in order to establish. . . what?

You are not talking to real people anymore (if you ever were), since none of us fits the profile that you are responding to. You continue to knock down straw men (and women), nothing more. You are refuting positions that no one has advocated. All that I can say is that, if Kirk Tuck is your man, then you are welcome to him.

I have absolutely no doubt but that you will come back with something, but you will be talking to yourself, as I strongly suspect you have been doing all along. You might as well be a solipsist for all of your regard for the existence of other minds with real points of view. You choose, that is, not to engage such minds but to pretend to do so while continuing this conversation with yourself.

Have at it. May the best man win.

--Lannie

llorton · March 19, 2014

Coming late to this post thread after ahving been directed to it by a friend, I just want to cast my 'vote.' I shot Nikon for years, ending up shooting FF with the trio of lenses that all Nikon shooters love plus some others. As I concentrated more on street photography, the reality of large, noticeable camera lens combinations and the weight and inertia of any combination made me interested in a move.

I was dreading losing the IQ I had loved in Nikon but, after trying the Olympus cameras, my Nikon sat idle for >3 months and the thought of schlepping that heavy bag for that minor increase in IQ made the sale of all my Nikon equipment actually sensible.

I've been shooting with Oly OMD bodies and an assortment of Panasonic and Olympus lenses for a year and, with the exception of fat-fingering the master dials, I'm happy as a clam.

Landrum Kelly · March 20, 2014

after trying the Olympus cameras, my Nikon sat idle for >3 months and the thought of schlepping that heavy bag for that minor increase in IQ made the sale of all my Nikon equipment actually sensible.

</blockquote>

That is a very reasonable decision to me, Lewis. My first thought by way of response, however, is to say, "Don't give up image quality at all: shoot one of the new Sony cameras and get 24 MP or 36 MP in a much smaller package than Canon or Nikon currently offers (for the same image quality).

In other words, we should resist the message that miniaturization implies loss of image quality. With MFT, it does for some pictures, but for Sony and its latest cameras, no real sacrifice is required.

I shoot mostly Nikon, but I have said for some years that the future belongs to Sony. In so saying, I also reject Kirk Tuck's telling me that this or that (especially MFT) is good enough. It might be good enough for him, but not for others. Olympus cameras are great, but I still say that the MFT turn in the road was not its best move except as a marketing device for offering an alternative to Canon and Nikon. Sony is doing the same thing, but they are doing it better.

I will keep shooting Nikon--and some Canon--but that is only because I already have them, and my arthritis does not yet require going to smaller cameras. When it does get worse, I will have to make the adjustment.

--Lannie

laur1 · March 20, 2014

Landrum, your opinion would be valuable if it would be accompanied by some reasonable arguments. Or at least some nice photos.

Statements like:

In other words, we should resist the message that miniaturization implies loss of image quality. With MFT, it does for some pictures, but for Sony and its latest cameras, no real sacrifice is required.

</blockquote>

and:

Sony is doing the same thing, but they are doing it better.

</blockquote>

are devoid of value.

I also now understand where you are coming from:

In so saying, I also reject Kirk Tuck's telling me that this or that (especially MFT) is good enough.

</blockquote>

It is certainly hard to swallow that MFT is a system that allows handheld results like these using [gasp] a smaller sensor:

Landrum Kelly · March 21, 2014

You call those low-light photos? They may have been shot at night, but the scenes are brightly lit. (The last one isn't that bright, but, then again, the only thing you can see well is the light.)

No, I won't try to offer a philosophical argument, since "logical argumentation" is not what this thread has typically been about. I will simply make another assertion that can be verified or dis-verified empirically: Sony can now do it better. (Nikon and Canon have been doing it better for some time.) Pentax does it better. What makes the Sony the most interesting to me, however, are the smaller and smaller boxes that they are putting FF and crop sensors into. I personally prefer a somewhat bigger "box" for my fingers, but, if I wanted to shoot FF or crop sensor in a smaller package, there are cameras out there than can accommodate me.

That said, Olympus has come a long way with the MFT than I ever thought they could. I am truly impressed with your photos. I regretted leaving Olympus digital in the first place. Yet, yet, let's face it: there's just so much you can do with a sensor that size. What is Olympus going to do for an encore? At some point, one does come up against the limits of the MFT sensor.

Still, if the results are good enough, they are good enough--and for many persons they are. More power to them.

As I suggested earlier, however, defending MFT was apparently what was driving this thread from the beginning. It's impressive, but I still want to milk every bit of image quality I can out of nighttime photos, and for me MFT is not quite there.

While we are talking modestly-priced packages, have you checked out the Canon 6D? It can hold its own pretty well against the new Nikon D4s, for a tiny fraction of the price ($1750 right now on Amazon and down to $1499 at B&H near the first of the year)..

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · March 21, 2014

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d/24">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d/24</a>

</blockquote>

Dial in "Raw" and "ISO 25600" for the cameras of your choice. Comparing the best Olympus with the Canon 6D shows at least a one-stop advantage for the 6D. Is it worth the extra money or bulk? That is for each buyer and user to decide. (The DPReview test is even more decisive when one shifts the high-lighted area to one of the portraits on the right.)

Still, none of this takes away from the very real achievements of the Olympus MFT system--and the Zuiko lenses are of astonishing quality.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · March 21, 2014

Now do the same comparisons (of the Olympus E-M5 and Canon 6D) with the two most recent Sonys. I wont't say that Sony has quite caught up with Nikon or Canon at low light, but Sony has been closing the gap fast--and in a smaller package:

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7r/17">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7r/17</a>

The reason that all this pixel-peeping matters is that one is investing in a system. MFT is not likely to improve much more, whereas FF and 1.5x crop or 1.6x crop will likely continue to improve. If I were starting out today, I would probably not invest in Canon or Nikon. I would buy Sony, since I personally believe that Sony will win out over the long term. (Since I will turn sixty-nine next month, I don't think too much about the long term.)

Again, this is not to take away anything that Olympus has achieved. If I wanted high ISO performance in the smallest package, Olympus would be either the winner or one of the best contenders. For some the size of the camera and lens combo is the decisive factor. If so, then Olympus may well be their choice. The Sony bodies are getting smaller. I am not sure what they are doing abut lens size. Size and quality are indeed where the Zuiko lenses shine.

I have deliberately omitted the Nikon D4 and D4s from consideration because of the price differential. The Nikon Df, on the other hand, is astonishingly good at high ISO, and its price, though high, is not yet totally out of sight. With a sensor virtually identical to that of the D4, that should come as no surprise.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · March 21, 2014

Then there is Pentax, which has made astonishing strides in low-light photography using crop sensor cameras. . . .

I can only imagine what Pentax could do with FF. (We have seen in the 645D what Pentax can do with medium format digital.)

There certainly are very good alternatives to Canon and Nikon. That is obvious enough.

--Lannie

cyanatic · March 21, 2014

Very nice photos, Laurentiu! I particularly like the first (fisheye cityscape), and the fifth (b&w, bare tree, lonely roadside, mist, lights in distance...nice)

Landrum Kelly · March 21, 2014

Steve is right, Laurentiu, and I would not want all of the verbiage above to obscure the fact that I believe that your work is very good. As I said above,

Olympus has come a long way with the MFT than I ever thought they could. I am truly impressed with your photos.

</blockquote>

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · March 21, 2014

There are some things that are easier to talk about than others. While I've said above in this thread that I think tools, materials, and gear are worthy of consideration relative to what we want to produce, I also think tools, materials, and gear are much easier to talk about. We look at Laurentiu's pictures (particularly of the tree, for me, but all of them to some extent) and it's much easier to go on about the gear used and what different gear might accomplish than actually to spend a similar amount of time talking about the photos, the vision, what we see, and how it all comes together. Aesthetic critiques generally boil down to some superficial equivalent of "Nice shot" and yet we wax on for dozens of pages about equipment specs, ISO readings, and other more scientific matter. I don't know if those who read all about the latest equipment and research comparative specs also spend time looking at photo books, going to galleries, and reading up on how, for example, Weston visualized the world or Brassai used his intellect as inspiration. But you don't hear near as much of the latter as you do the former in certain circles. Well, don't be surprised if that doesn't sometimes show in our work. One of my favorite people on the site, who's no longer around, used to say "Click on the names." This meant we should each take a look at each others' work to see what the results of all the talk is. While I don't subscribe to the belief that one has to have a particularly evocative portfolio in order to speak coherently about photography or in order to have constructive thoughts on a variety of photo-related matters, utlimately, if the goal is producing photos, the photos do the loudest speaking of all. Thanks, Laurentiu, for making this thread just a little bit about photos.

Landrum Kelly · March 21, 2014

Sometimes we have a creative vision in our heads that we want to realize, but the gear gets in the way.

Here is a shot (not a masterpiece) in which I wanted to be able to freeze the motion of the car, the raindrops, and the rain spattering off the pavement:

<a href="/photo/17714313&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/17714313&size=lg</a>

One or two stops can make a difference in cases like this between getting the shot and getting a blur.

Shooting MOVING THINGS hand-held in the dark is not easy to achieve. Are we justified in paying a bit more (or enduring a bit more inconvenience) for buying and using the gear that will help us to achieve that vision for ourselves? I dare not try to answer that question for everyone.

I do know that on the margins of ISO and shutter speed is where much night photography falters.

I would shoot in the dark with as much ease as in the noonday if I could. The night is magic.

--Lannie

Brad_ · March 21, 2014

I own <a href= "http://richmondsfblog.com/images/lyon1.jpg">this print</a> made by San Francisco

photographer and friend Fred Lyon - it's one that I enjoy looking at often. He made the photograph using his Rolleiflex TLR at the Land's End area of San Francisco in 1953. Are the technical aspects perfect? No. Does it exude a special presence and gravitas? Absolutely, in spades. I suspect Fred would not want it captured and rendered any other way, or more perfectly.

Landrum Kelly · March 21, 2014

Wondrous, Brad! Wish I could do that.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · March 21, 2014

This has nothing to do with nighttime photography, but here is a very nice piece of work by Les Berkley:

<a href="/photo/16583358">http://www.photo.net/photo/16583358</a>

Technically good? It actually looks like a "save" to me rather than something that was planned. Either way, I like it.

I do wish, though, that I could shoot anything and everything in the dark, though I know that it will never happen in my lifetime.

--Lannie

Brad_ · March 21, 2014

>>> Wondrous, Brad! Wish I could do that.

My point is that you can, 60 years later (<a href= "https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lands+end+sf&hl=en&ll=37.780469,-122.50928&spn=0.003999,0.004088&sll=37.788081,-122.475586&sspn=23.232167,50.229492&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A">here's the neighborhood)</a>. It's about seeing, imagination, recognizing possibilities, practice,

being driven, etc.

Norma Desmond · March 21, 2014

Sometimes it's a forest and trees sort of thing.

There might be situations where I have a particular photo in mind or an effect I'd like to achieve and maybe don't have the best equipment to achieve that. There's nothing wrong with striving to achieve a pre-visualized product or very particular look that I just don't quite have the technical capability to achieve given my equipment, etc.

On the other hand, sometimes I can miss the forest for the trees, the trees being such technical details that I may be after. At what point do some of those technical details actually distract me from using my imagination and adapting to the realities of the equipment and eyes that I have? If I dwell too much on things I want to do but cannot, then do I have an excuse not to figure out some things that I can do but that will require more of my vision, creativity, and imagination? There's nothing wrong with roaming through a forest in search of a particular kind of tree or plant or fungus. But what do I risk missing if I'm so determined to find that one particular thing I have in mind that all the other foliage and atmosphere around me goes unnoticed? Not saying that's always the case, but it certainly can be.

I find it's good to always want more, to have a certain amount of dissatisfaction in my life, whether it's with equipment or other things. That's how desire is born and desire is a passion that can be at the root of a lot of creative endeavors and a lot of art. At the same time, some kinds of dissatisfaction are very unproductive and can keep me from doing things that are right in front of me, things that could develop into something significant if I allow them to blossom given the means I have rather than expending too much energy on the things I don't.

I think we each have to come to grips with those two sides of the coin for ourselves. And I find it's worth taking a careful look at my choices and my dissatisfactions to see which are pushing me forward and which are holding me back.

laur1 · March 22, 2014

@Landrum:

Steve is right, Laurentiu, and I would not want all of the verbiage above to obscure the fact that I believe that your work is very good.

</blockquote>

Thank you, Landrum.

Then there is Pentax, which has made astonishing strides in low-light photography using crop sensor cameras. . . .

</blockquote>

I used Pentax. The only bright thing that Pentax did was starting to use Sony sensor technology after they dissolved their partnership with Samsung. If you want to see what Pentax could do with a FF sensor, just look at Nikon D800 and Sony A7R - they won't do any better than that.

Now do the same comparisons (of the Olympus E-M5 and Canon 6D) with the two most recent Sonys.

</blockquote>

I did and my conclusion is that the gap between systems is now insignificant. Below is a more detailed analysis, but if it is too boring, it can be skipped to the next comment.

I am an engineer - my interest in photography was born from an interest in understanding the technology and theory of photographic devices. I also like to take photos, but I do it as a hobby, because it takes my mind of other things and it teaches me to pay attention to details that I would have not noticed otherwise. I recommend to everyone interested in photographic theory this <a href="http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/">reference on equivalence</a> - it touches on every aspect so fervently discussed on forums.

If we look at all these systems, this is how they compare (and anyone can check my math): considering sensor surface, FF has ~1.3Ev advantage over APS-C, which in turn has ~0.7Ev advantage over MFT - this is the theoretical advantage due to sensor surface. Thus FF has a neat 2 Ev advantage over MFT. If you look at dxomark Low Light ISO scores, this is what is seen in them too: MFT scores around ISO 800, APS-C around ISO 1250 for Pentax K-3 (ISO 1000 for NEX cameras), and FF scores just around ISO 3000 (a tiny bit less than the expected ISO 3200). Basically, the gap between MFT and APS-C is half the size of the gap between APS-C and FF.

Now, for low light, the way you match the performance of a large sensor system is with faster lenses on the smaller sensor. If on FF you use f/2.8 at ISO 6400, on MFT you can do that with f/1.4 at ISO 1600 and APS-C would require f/1.8 at ISO 2500. Pentax was mentioned as doing a great job with APS-C, but their DA Limited lenses are all super slow and designed for small size rather than competition with FF. Sony has not done a better job either for NEX. Only Fuji has put out lenses in an attempt to bridge the gap to FF.

As a parenthesis, where large sensors have an advantage that cannot be matched by smaller sensors is at low ISO! Because small sensors don't have access to lower ISOs even if they would have access to faster lenses. But, on the bright side, nobody complains about performance at base ISO, so it's not that much of a deal in practice.

I am a manual focus user. On Pentax I had invested in Cosina/Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses (well, just 1 of each) but both companies stopped production for K-mount some years ago. Cosina actually announced they will focus their efforts on MFT, which drew my attention. Then they put out their 25mm f/0.95 lenses and that really got my attention - these guys were actually understanding equivalence. This was a 50mm f1/9 lens that on APS-C I could only match with something like a 35 f/1.2 - even now there is no APS-C lens matching that, although Fuji's 35/1.4 comes close. Then they brought up equivalents for a 35/1.9 and an 85/1.9 lens. Right now, only the 85/1.9 can be matched in specs by Fuji's 55/1.2, which shows you which is the other company that understands equivalence. Unlike Sony, Fuji gets it. Sony is botching even their A7 line with slower lenses. Sony makes great sensor technology, but their vision in building a camera system is lacking. I wish them all the best, but they're just too slow and confused at the moment.

Of course, the Voigtlanders are manual focus and thus not for everyone's needs. And they're expensive, although given their build they're not more expensive than any of their equivalents. But MFT also has a bunch of fast AF primes - many f/1.8 lenses which compare positively with slower APS-C f/2.8 counterparts. And they're starting to get more f/2.8 zooms. And Olympus at least (if not Panasonic) may bring back f/2 zooms too - before Sigma's f/1.8 APS-C zoom, nobody had bothered to make an APS-C constant max aperture zoom faster than f/2.8 - Olympus showed they understand equivalence long before Cosina and Fuji did. And then there is strong third party support. If you're into video there is not only Panasonic but also Blackmagic. The MFT system is growing faster than any other.

Then there's the aspect ratio part - I really prefer 4:3 to 3:2 for many situations, but especially for portraiture. And if you look at how MFT crops the APS-C image, the reduction in height is less significant than the sensor surface ratio would suggest - that actually reduces the DOF difference, but I did not bother to calculate by how much (I'd have to crop 3:2 to 4:3 and then look at the resulting surface difference).

And finally, there is also the image stabilization part, which given my legacy of old lenses comes in handy. It also seems to be great for video, but I didn't get into that yet. For my photography, which often involves static subjects, this alone compensates the sensor size difference, even without relying on faster lenses. Also, in my experience, comparing the MFT lenses with Pentax APS-C ones, the MFT ones perform much better at wide open apertures than the Pentax counterparts and don't need to be stopped down as much to get to their peak IQ point - that again helps balance the slightly smaller sensor. An example might help - on Pentax I got the 15/4 DA Limited which many users were enthusiastic about. It did not impress me and it was slow - on MFT one can get the 12/2 prime or use the 12-40/2.8 at wide end where it actually outperforms the prime. I have no regret for APS-C and for what Pentax offers these days.

So, looking at the MILC systems today, MFT already gives me what I need. Fuji is getting there, but by now if sensor size would worry me, I would rather go directly for FF given the fast FF lenses that I already have. Sony is going to be interesting to watch just to see how they clear their mess. And Samsung seems completely lost, especially after today's announcement of their NX-mini system, which seems redundant compared to Sony's clip-on-phone lenses. I must admit an interest in the A7 because of the aforementioned FF lenses, but then I wonder whether they'd perform that well and I would also like image stabilization at that price, so I just put out those thoughts. A few days ago I actually pixel peeped a night cityscape shot with the A7 and I did not see any details that I could not capture with the E-M5.

So that's why I look at all these systems and MFT looks better than APS-C to me: fast and well designed lenses, an aspect ratio that I prefer, and image stabilization. A FF MILC may still entice me but it hasn't been made yet and by the time it will be, I'll probably lose my interest. I understand the appeal of Fuji and I think Sony yet has to prove they can build a nice system.

Well, thanks to those that read so far!

the scenes are brightly lit

</blockquote>

I have other shots taken at higher ISO in lower light conditions. But I normally don't want to post something just because it is taken in low light, I'd like it to be interesting and my conviction is that if the image is interesting, then the noise and other technical aspects won't matter.

For example, the following gratuitous shot is not particularly interesting and inspiring, but it was taken in the dark - it was much darker than I processed it here, but these modern cameras act like night vision and if I adjust the exposure to match what I could see, then there wouldn't be many interesting things left to see in it.

This was ISO 3200. I was not seeing the details at the bottom of this image, nor the palms in the distance. Exposure was 0.62sec.

Photography is literally "drawing with light". If there is not much light, how much can we expect to draw? Here is another shot that again looks lighter than it was:

1/20 exposure.

With a long enough exposure night looks like day. This is a 20 sec exposure on an UltraPod. The light here comes from the moon - you can see the stars in the sky.

Maybe this is not that impressive for low light capability since you could get results like this with older equipment, but my point is that being able to handheld the camera for longer exposures can allow you to get shots that look better lit than they actually were.

I even pushed the E-M5 to the max ISO on an occasion. This was on various rides at Disneyland when I only had the slow kit lens and I was on the ride, so I needed a fast shutter to freeze the scenes. Before I begin, this is what I got on first attempt at ISO 400:

And here are shots at ISO 25600:

They show noise and they are not that interesting, but there is enough detail and with some NR they could be made to look even better. If I would have caught something really interesting, I wouldn't have minded the noise. The ISO 400 result actually seems more intriguing :)

Shooting MOVING THINGS hand-held in the dark is not easy to achieve.

</blockquote>

That's right, but it depends on how you want to express things. What is wrong with motion blur? The following shot is taken with a P&S camera when I was trying to get creative in the neighborhood at night:

Fred expressed what I think is the important idea here:

On the other hand, sometimes I can miss the forest for the trees, the trees being such technical details that I may be after. At what point do some of those technical details actually distract me from using my imagination and adapting to the realities of the equipment and eyes that I have?

</blockquote>

I also think about this and I look back at some shots I took with older equipment and I feel that more performance makes me lazier, not more creative. I have less noise in my photos, but the old ones with noise are not any worse because of it.

You can also freeze fast moving things that are well lit. I found it interesting to shoot fireworks handheld and the results look more like how you'd see the fireworks in a TV frame than how photographers record them:

And one more:

And at small print sizes, even smaller sensors are surprisingly capable today. Here are a couple more shots from the P&S, which is just a waterproof camera - Panasonic TS3:

This one's pushes it to the limit - panning in low light with fast moving subjects:

Some weeks ago, I went down memory lane and selected some images from our first digital camera, an Olympus P&S with 4MP. IQ was pretty lame, but a few shots had potential:

I know this is no longer low light, but it's interesting light.

My waterproof compact died last year, but now I'm considering getting a new one. Maybe something like the Pentax Q with its prime lens. As my earlier long tirade on MFT shows, I spent time thinking about equipment, but it didn't lead me just to justify MFT, it also made me realize that for many shots, I don't even need MFT and I'd be better served by a smaller camera with better quality than my phone.

Speaking of phone, even the phone served me well on a few occasions. When I took this shot I also had my MFT camera with me, but I needed a wider angle so I used my phone:

On this other occasion, it was a rare moment and I was in slow traffic - the phone was perfect:

Please excuse the "artistic" filter. I make a point of processing all phone shots on the phone and this was the best option I found. It's over the top but actually gives a better idea of the special light at that moment.

@Fred:

Thanks, Laurentiu, for making this thread just a little bit about photos.

</blockquote>

Thank you Fred, and thank you for mentioning Brassai, who is one of my favorite photographers. His work is amazing. If I had the time and the courage, I'd spent my nights on the streets trying to capture life after dark, but I have a feeling it's a more dangerous endeavor today not just because you might get mugged but because some alert citizen may think you're up to nefarious goals.

I know I went over the top with this post.

laur1 · March 22, 2014

I find it's good to always want more, to have a certain amount of dissatisfaction in my life, whether it's with equipment or other things.

</blockquote>

The best thing is to be dissatisfied with what you can do and strive to do better. Everything else will then come much easier.

dhbebb · March 22, 2014

I know I went over the top with this post.

I hate to say it, but sadly if a posting fills more than one screen, nobody will read it!

Landrum Kelly · March 22, 2014

Great shots, Lauretiu! Truly, these are wonderful.

Two stops? I have no numbers to contradict that. Two full stops are huge for me. In any case, FF is worth the bulk and the heft to me for a "mere" two stops, and I can also use the lenses for FF on my crop sensor cameras--and often do. I do like to capture motion crisply in the dark. When I am satisfied with (or seek) blur, that is no trick with any camera, but that is rare for me. I usually do not want blur, or at least not very much of it.

Smaller cameras can, of course, be less threatening, and I admit that one has to consider that--especially for street shooting.

The E-M5 is very impressive, and I am especially impressed by these photos. For some, I am sure it is exactly what they are looking for. As I said already, more power to them. I might consider one for myself, except that (1) it would be a pricey addition and (2) I really like having the extra low-light capacity of FF at night. I also am not one who is not typically bothered by the feel of large cameras, unless I have to carry them around for a long time. I do like that the lenses for MFT are correspondingly smaller and lighter. That is a great advantage, I have to concede, for many situations, or for travel considerations. In addition, along the long dimension, MFT is hardly tiny by any measure. (My E-20 got very good pictures with a much smaller sensor--except at night, a fact which probably colored my earlier biases against MFT when it was announced.)

I do share your preference for the 4:3 aspect ratio, for what that is worth.

The bottom line for me is that those two stops you cite can be the difference between 1/15 sec and 1/60 sec (or 1/30 and 1/125). That does matter a lot to me. For crisp night shots, two stops are definitely not to be sneezed at. I also do shoot pictures in dangerous neighborhoods--and I anticipate doing more of that kind of work as the weather warms. I do not want to fool with a tripod in those circumstances, as I have probably said more than once.

As for price, the 6D is not all that more expensive than the E-5M--until one factors in the cost of certain EF lenses. I don't have any Canon FF equipment right now, but, if I were going to buy a full-frame Canon now, that is probably what I would buy, notwithstanding the overall quality of the 5D III. My current low-light camera is a used Nikon D3s, and, yes, it is a tank and has limited resolution, but it has other strengths beside low-light ability.

Again, thank you for the great photos, Laurentiu--and your willingness to respond.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · March 22, 2014

I hate to say it, but sadly if a posting fills more than one screen, nobody will read it!

</blockquote>

I just read it, David! In fact, I read every word. For those of us who care about these issues (and I guess the rest peeled off some time ago), Laurentiu's full explanation has to be very welcome.

I am glad that we also transcended the more rancorous tone of the earlier exchanges. This thread finally realized its full potential, I think. I cannot think of a more useful one to me lately, if ever. Whenever discussions of gear and actual photography converge, that is my kind of thread.

I think--I hope--that Fred would agree with that last remark, too.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · March 22, 2014

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Interchangeable-3-0-Inch-Tilting-Touchscreen/dp/B0074WDDN8">http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Interchangeable-3-0-Inch-Tilting-Touchscreen/dp/B0074WDDN8</a>

</blockquote>

Holy cow! That is a good price, but, no, no, I cannot afford to buy a thing right now.

One wishes Olympus well as this economic downturn drags on and on. That is one company that I would hate to see fail. I do not believe that it will, but the situation is pretty bad for all manufacturers right now. I understand that Leica is in very serious trouble.

--Lannie

Sign In

All the cameras are better than you are...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in