matthew_moran

It's a marketing effort to convince you

that the cameras in question are similar

to DSLRs but without the big flapping

mirror.

And "interchangeable lens larger

sensor point and shoot" is kind of a

mouthful.

Sounds to me like you don't like your

Canon but are getting good results

from your Olympus. If the Canon

system isn't working out for you, why

invest more into it? I suggest you

expand your Olympus system. I'd even

go so far as to suggest you sell the

Canon gear you aren't using and put

the money toward gear you would

actually use.

I have a Garmin, not the Holux you mention. But assuming you can get some sort of standard track file out of the Holux,

there are several programs that will do this. I have used "PhotoLinker.app". I recently upgraded to Lightroom4 which

advertises this ability, but I haven't tried it yet.

 

With RAW, the data is added to a sidecar file. It includes the latitude and longitude, as well as a location name that it gets

from a reverse lookup service.

 

The biggest trick is making sure your camera time is accurate and there are no timezone issues. PhotoLinker handles this

well. Can't speak for Lightroom yet.

The idea that some objects are too

culturally valuable to be owned is not

one that can be made after the fact.

Otherwise, what's to stop some

busybody from deciding that my

(hypothetical) collectible camera is too

culturally significant for me to be

trusted with it?

 

If you think something is historically or

culturally significant and must be

preserved, then offer to buy it. Don't

imply that the current owner is

somehow obligated to surrender it.

<div></div>

The picture looks great on my phone.

I'll have to take your word that the

church is not sharp. What focal length

did you use? I ask because at F8 and a

fast shutter speed, the only thing I can

think of that would make the church

soft is that it is not in the depth of field

for the image. If you focused on the

streetlight or duck, and the lens was

normal or telephoto, then I can easily

imagine the church being soft.

For example, assuming you focused on the duck at 20 feet away and the church is 50 feet behind that, then any lens longer than about 35mm will not have sufficient depth of field at f/8 for the church to be in focus. Of course I'm making some wild assumptions about the distances.

Maybe the sensor ought to be round.

I used kodachrome 64 when I was a

kid in the 80s. I'd have to say that the

indoor flash shots were easier (from an

exposure point of view) than the

outdoor shots. The flash exposure was

set by the sensor on the flash

recording reflected light. The outdoor

exposures were much more likely to

have the increased dynamic range that

would fool a center-weighted TTL

meter.

<p>If your lightmeter is consistently overexposing images, you can compensate by telling the light meter that your film is faster than it really is. So yeah, if you are using ISO 200 speed film, telling the light meter you are using ISO 400 should give you the result you want.<br>

I can't believe how long it took me to work that out in my head. If your camera's light meter is on the fritz, I recommend buying a good spot meter and shooting in manual.</p>

<p>Personally I think the instant feedback from chimping leads to increased image picture quality. That increased quality justifies the increased cost, IMO. I may miss the joy of using a darkroom, but I haven't had access to a darkroom since I left school, so it doesn't really matter. I've never had any complaints about prints I've had made by online labs such as mpix or nationsphoto. The few photo printers I've owned have been very frustrating, expensive to operate, and not much fun at all.<br>

In short, since I switched to digital (using a lab to print my best pictures for display) the quality / price ratio has definitely gone up for me. And that doesn't even address the increased convenience of almost instantly sharing personal snaps with friends & family through social media. I used to pay for extra prints and then put them in the mail....<br>

So I'd say I "broke even" a long time ago.</p>

<p>It's not that hard to check the autofocus on a camera. Set up a focus target with some sort of ruler at a 45 degree angle. Use the autofocus to target a specific point and then see what's actually in focus. (Obviously use your lens wide open and use a close target to minimize depth of field. And turn off VR for the test.) B&H sells fancy ones (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/747316-REG/LensAlign_LA_LA2_LensAlign_MkII_Focus_Calibration.html). Hopefully the d7000 allows you to adjust the focus, or this knowledge will not do you much good.</p>

Hello Dimitar! Is there a camera store

near you where you can try these

cameras out? Any mirrorless camera is

going to be a substantially different

experience than your DSLR, and from

what I've read the Oly and the Sony

have very different user interfaces. It

would be best if you could try them out

yourself and see which you find more

intuitive.

 

On an opposite track, I wonder if what

you find limiting about your current

setup is your 50/1.8. The 50 is an

awesome lens, but not (in my opinion)

a very good general purpose lens for a

crop sensor camera. It depends on

what you like to shoot, of course. But

for general "walk around and take

pictures of stuff" type photography I

would find a short telephoto to be very

limiting. You might be happier with a

fast prime in the 20-35 range, or even a higher quality midrange zoom (if you

can find one in your price range.)

 

Good luck on your shopping!

Fast autofocus is desirable but not

essential for sports shots. Autofocus

has only been around for the last 20

years or so. Sports photography has

been around much longer.

 

If your sport is such that you know the

player will be in a certain place, you

can pre-focus for that location and then

just fire the shutter when they get

there. Make sure you stop down

enough to get good dof.

 

A tripod/monopod and good high iso

performance are probably more useful

than a fast lens because the dof on a

fast lens can be prohibitively shallow

for sports, especially if you are close

enough to fill the frame with your

subject.

 

YMMV.

<blockquote>

<p>i'd give the mirrorless cameras one maybe two more iterations before they can truly vanquish dslr's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe in 2 two more iterations we can have full frame mirror-less cameras about the size of a leica in the $1000-$2000 range. Then we will have high image quality with a small form factor. But unless there is some revolution in chip manufacturing technology, I'm not going to hold my breath for that quality in a reasonable price range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let me re-state my needs with order of importance:</p>

<ol>

<li>Fast AF for moving people</li>

<li>Good image quality</li>

<li>Light weight</li>

<li>Under US $ 2,000 a body for a wide, normal and short telephoto</li>

<li>Good view finder</li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>I don't own either a D7000 or the OM-D, but I can make this easy for you :-)</p>

 

<ol>

<li>The DSLR will have better autofocus, especially the D7000. Phase detect is just better than contrast detect for moving subjects. At best, the OM-D will be "almost as good".</li>

<li>The D7000 will have better image quality. It's a bigger chip; that means less enlargement. Even if the OM-D sensor was perfect, it would be harder to get a decent size enlargement because every flaw at exposure (camera shake, focus error, diffraction) will get magnified. Less magnification is better. If image quality is a concern, buy the biggest chip you can afford.</li>

<li>The OM-D will weigh less and be smaller.</li>

</ol>

<p>I'll leave out 4 & 5 since I assume both the D7000 & OM-D meet these criteria. Just based on 1&2, the D7000 is the clear winner. If the small form factor were more important than image quality to you, you would have listed it first. Also, you would have already bought a micro 4/3 or compact camera instead of the D7000.<br>

The OM-D changes nothing. The D7000 is still better for the criteria you list. Take it out of the box. Take lots of pictures. Stop reading camera reviews on the internet.</p>

 

@Jerry, according to the video that Wade linked to, you can load a GPS track file into LR4 and tag your photos. You just

need to make sure your camera's internal clock is accurate.

@Wade, thank you for the link to that video. It looks like LR4 does most of what PhotoLinker does. The only important

thing PhotoLinker does that the LR4 video didn't mention is provide a way to bulk modify the times on photos to make the

locations correct. If one photo is off by a couple minutes, they all are.

I carry a separate handheld garmin

with me. Then I use a program called

PhotoLinker

(http://www.earlyinnovations.com/photo

linker/) to merge the GPS data to the

photos.

 

I've heard rumor that LR4 supports

geotagging so I'm currious to see if

upgrading will make PhotoLinker

unnecessary.

Bob, I'm surprised that formula doesn't include anything

about the image size. Is the assumption that there will be

no enlargement?

 

Also, I think 550nm=0.00055mm (not 0.000055mm)

<p>I've never used Mixonic, but I note that under both CD and DVD production it says "Order as few as 1 unit". According to their quote engine, 1 CD with a full color picture, four panel full color insert and jewel case costs $4.89 plus shipping. I can't imagine ordering only one. What happens if the burn fails? I would want a few extras.<br>

I'm not sure if Mixonic is economically practical for the OP, but it looks to me like it is an option. Which is what he asked for.</p>

<p>I don't own a photo printer anymore. I have found them to be nothing but frustration. You get some nice prints, and then the ink starts to run low and quality suffers. Or the thing stops working right and it's cheaper to buy a new one than repair the old one.<br>

Much more satisfying to just order prints from <a href="http://www.mpix.com/">mpix</a> or <a href="http://www.nationsphotolab.com/">nations photo lab</a>. I don't think they print on a CD/DVD though. (I've never had occasion to do that.)<br>

A quick google search revealed that <a href="http://www.mixonic.com/cd-printing/">mixonic</a> appears to offer what you want.</p>

 

<p>Most of my shooting is handheld, and so I usually use shutter priority set at 1/60 (for my 50) or 1/125 (for my 100). Then I let the light meter pick the "best" aperture. If it gets too dark and the aperture indicator starts flashing, it's time to think about bumping the iso. If it's really bright I can bump the shutter up to keep the aperture between f/5.6 and f/11.<br>

I do this because if the light changes, the consequences of being at f/2.8 instead of f/5.6 are a lot less severe than the consequences of being at 1/15 instead of 1/60.<br>

Of course, if it's the sort of shot I'm taking the time to set up with a tripod, I might be in Av but more likely in manual.</p>

<p>Thank you for the link to the comparison Scott Ferris. It certainly looks like there is no real difference in detail available between the 20D and 50D at f/16 & f/20. I wouldn't say the 50D is worse, but it does not appear to be better at those apertures.<br>

And thank you Craig Meddaugh for the excellent summary: "unless you are trying to optimize your file size, DLA is an irrelevant thing to be worried about"</p>

 

<p>"f/16 on the 7D will yield in print about what you used to get from the old 8MP 20D"<br>

This seems like a testable hypothesis. Does anyone have access to a 7D, a 20D, a good lens, a tripod and a resolution chart?<br>

Take identical images with the two cameras at f/16. Then progressively crop each image identically and scale them to the same resolution. (i.e. full frame scaled to 900x600, then the center 1/3 of the image scaled to 900x600, then the center 1/3 of that scaled to 900x600. - I use 900x600 instead of 4x6 print in hopes that whoever does this will post the results.) If Michael Young is correct, we won't be able to tell the difference between the two images at any crop level because they both contain the same amount of information.<br>

Or have I misunderstood your point again?</p>

<p>And if the goal is not to see optical imperfections when looking at the pixels, why not just have a 1 pixel camera? You can zoom in as much as you like and never see any diffraction blur, or spherical aberration, or even ugly composition. Just one big beautiful monochromatic pixel.</p>