robwilson

<p>I love my E3 in many ways but I am getting a bit frustrated with it. I'd love to see an Olympus that's a bit less noisy at longer exposure times. <br>

However, I think my 12-60mm SWD lens truly kicks arse. I'll take it over the lenses my wife has for her D300 any day of the week.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You could also try Silypix. I find it an excellent tool.<br>

Cheers and good luck.</p>

<p>Definitely CF. They are much faster and are available with much larger capacity.</p>

<p>I have an E3 and am very happy with it. I saw one taken apart the other day (at an Olly store). It's the camera equivalent of a tank! It is extremely well constructed and as far as I am aware, it has the best weatherproofing of any camera in its price range.<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p>Don't forget that lenses are an issue as well. Your kit lenses are likely to considerably inferior to what your friend is using. For the record, I use an E3 mostly with the 12-60mm SWD lens and the results I get are at least as good and often better (particularly at lower ISO) than my fiance's D300 with Sigma lenses.<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p>Martin Parr's stuff makes me laugh. He is extremely witty.<br>

I think I should have put Robert Capa on my list as well. The photo of the dying man in the Spanish civil war still blows me away. <br>

He doesn't really inspire me as such (because I have no desire to emulate him), but Rankin's work blows me away as well.</p>

<p>Some interesting responses...<br>

I notice that Diane Arbus is conspicuously absent from the list so far. I have one of her books and I still can't make my mind up about what I think of it.</p>

<p>I am in the process of building a collection of books by the 20th century's greatest photographers. What I am wondering is which of the greats inspires you the most? Whose pictures send shivers down your spine?<br>

For me, it has to be Henri Cartier Bresson, for his extraordinary ability to capture the decisive moment; Robert Frank, for producing the incredible collection that is 'The Americans'; William Eggleston, for making the ordinary seem a little weird and uncomfortable; and Andreas Gursky, for the magnificent scale of his most recent work.<br>

Anyway, I'd love to know what you all think! <br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p>Well, I love my E3, but there are issues. The AEL is a bit hard to get your fingers on if you are using the vertical control grip for a start. A few more megapixels would be nice, just so I don't feel inadequate compared to my fiancé's D300. They should get rid of the flip-screen as well. Mine broke after only a few months. To be fair on Olly Korea, they replaced it immediately though. A better performance at higher ISOs would be handy as well.</p>

<p>I would thoroughly recommend the 70-300mm. The results are excellent for a lens of its price. If you take a look at my gallery folder 'A day at the races' you'll see the results that I've got with the lens (I would stress that I use an E3 rather than E520).<br>

I hope that is useful.<br>

All the best,<br>

Rob</p>

<p>Thank you guys, some excellent points. The 'ciricle jerk' comment made me laugh as well!<br>

I must admit that I started this threat last night after several pints of beer, and was rather frustrated after seeing a whole heap of fawning over an image that I really didn't like. In the hindsight of a hangover perhaps I would have worded my original question a little differently!<br>

I often wonder what ratings William Eggleston would get if he put his amazing 'lightbulb in a red room' picture on here! (Probably a whole heap of 3/3s!) (I have to admit that I did once consider making up a fake ID and posting some of the world's greatest pictures on here and seeing what response they got!)<br>

I think John is right, I should concentrate on the more important numbers! However, as I am happily engaged to a fellow PNer (who may read this at some point) I don't think I should be getting any phone numbers!<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Is it me or does there seem to be a direct correlation between how you rate and how high the ratings you receive?<br /> If I am right on this, then maybe we should all grow up a little...</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I think that in reality people won't mind getting a 3/3 if they know that it is a 'genuine' 3/3. Unfortunately there are many clear cases when people are just being ar2eholes for the 'fun' of it. Trolling is ubiquitous throughout the internet, and there is no reason why it shouldn't happen here as well.<br>

Collective backslapping and/or hero-worship can be just as annoying as well. Some people can put anything up and they get a pile of marks. I have noticed ancedotally that there seems to be a correlation between the marks a person gives and the marks they receive. I suspect that testing could well show that this hypothesis as correct.<br>

Nude photos average much higher than street photos, that is also annoying especially as I don't do the former!<br>

I have only ever had 2 people be brave enough to give me a 3/3 with their name visible. And it actually made me think and realise that the photo in question was rather boring. I soon removed it.<br>

My suggestion for this issue would be to have some control over average ratings. If the average rating that the person is giving is over say 5 or under 4 (or whatever figure the mods feel appropriate) then they are warned or whatever. </p>

<p>I want the truth about my pictures, but I suppose the biggest weakness of the rating system is that you cannot legislate for someone being a ****.<br>

I must admit that I do get frustrated at times with unexplained low ratings, but have equally been confused with higher rated photos. <br>

I once deliberately put what I considered to be a rotten picture up for rating that happened to be in one of the categories that tends to attract higher ratings (or that's how I perceive it). It actually got quite a decent mark - well over 5 average. I eventually took it down due to embarassment. I think rating a picture often depends on what is popular at that moment.<br>

I think that landscapes average more than street shots, for example.<br>

That's a random 2p worth from me anyway.<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p>I have an E3, so lens choice is exactly the same. If your budget is low then the kit lenses that Olympus sell are fine. However, I can't recommend the 12-60mm SWD highly enough - it is a fabulous lens. I combine it with a 70-300mm - which isn't as good as Warren's 50-200mm SWD, but is a lot less expensive and is still an excellent lens!<br>

I will say one other thing - Olympus lens really kick arse compared to the competition at all price ranges! <br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p>Warren is quite correct. I currrently use an ND8 filter, sometimes combine with a polariser to give very long exposure times.<br>

I tend to shoot waterfalls (during daylight hours) on cloudy days. If you are in bright sunlight, it is practically impossible even with a neutral density filter. On sunny days, I wait until around dusk - as long as the setting sun is not directed at the fall.<br>

A polarising filter is also useful to cut down the reflection from the water.<br>

I hope that helps,<br>

Rob</p>

<p>I shoot an E3 and whilst the camera does have its limitations, especially at high ISO, it is still a very fine camera for the money. The biggest upside is the Zuiko lenses. I use the SWD 12-60 for my main lens and it is superb. The quality of image that I get is, I think, better than what my fiance gets with her D300 using the best lenses that Sigma have to offer. <br>

It is also built like a tank.<br>

Having said that, there is stuff I envy about her D300, so if I had a pot of money to spend then I'd probably get the D700.<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p>Perhaps photography has just become more democratic and accessible. I look at the great photos of the past and wonder how much they would get rated on photo.net. (Visions of Bresson-Cartier banging his head on the desk and yelling, 'Why did that bastard give me a 3/3?')<br>

Serious, I think digital photography has raised the standard. I just see some many more marvellous images now. So many more people now have the opportunity to strut their stuff as photographers. The more people striving to produce something meaningful, the more meaningful stuff that you will find.<br>

Also, in some ways we have only exchanged one technology for another. For darkrooms of the past, we have Photoshop now. I honestly miss film at times as it frustrates the hell out of me knowing that I could get much more out of pictures but don't because I am not as good at Photoshop as the next guy. Equally, I am so happy that I don't have to limit myself to 12x3 bracketed shots per day as that is all I can afford. I can now compensate for uncertainty, adjusting exposure time and the depth of field to my hearts content. <br>

To be honest, in the end, it is all evolution really. Technology evolves and will continue to do so really and that can only be a good thing. Anyone really want to spend all their photography days trying to make a Deguerrotype image?<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p>I think that this is an excellent lens for the money. It is not as sharp as my 12-60mmSWD lens, but it was about 1/3 of the price. For the focal length that you get, it is also very compact.<br>

I think the Olympus lenses are excellent value for money all round!</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p>All interesting explanations, but I think I like Mark's the best...<br>

And someone rating themself - that's just a ridiculous thing to do! Anything for a sense of self-worth, eh?</p>

<p>I recently posted a picture for rating. It only received 5 ratings (which was a shame but there you go, happens). However, I was delighted with the ratings...<br>

The scores were as follows:<br>

5 5 2 people<br>

6 6 2 people<br>

7 7 1 person</p>

<p>After a few days, I went back to the picture this morning and found the following ratings:</p>

<p>3 4 1 person<br>

5 5 2 people<br>

6 6 1 person<br>

7 7 1 person</p>

<p>Now, obviously we are never happy to get a 3, but that's part of life here on photo.net, but why would the other mark have disappeared? Does this mean that one of the 6/6 raters went and anonymously browsed the category and changed their rating? If that is the case, is it a good idea to allow people to change ratings after several days?<br>

I am somewhat confused!<br>

Any ideas?<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p> </p>

I must admit that I haven't really noticed any problems. I believe that the life of a single battery is about 550 shots, so I think you should expect about 1000 with HLD-4, which is about what I've been getting.

I hope that is of some use.

Rob

Go with the 12-60mm with the Sonic Wave Drive. I think it has replaced the 14-54, although don't quote me on that. It is a kick ar2e lense and gets rave reviews everywhere.

It isn't overly expensive either - about $800 I think.

All the best,

Rob

Anyway I think we should name the formula the Wilson-Laur rule. Matt and I will be presenting a paper to the Royal Photographic Society shortly!

:)

I am working on a new photographic formula, and I think I shall call it 'Wilson's Rule' just to be egotistical about it ;).

I've noticed that ever since I've been relatively serious about taking pictures and had a decent camera I've been

regulared asked to take someone's snap for them. I always oblige, take their point and shoot, snap a couple of

shots and do my best to take a good picture for them. I've always wondered if they recognise (or mistake?) me for a

talent photographer?!

(I've only nearly told someone 'no' once, at Machu Picchu at dawn. Unfortunately, my sense of decency didn't allow

me to do that and I ended up taking someone's picture and missing the best light on a once in a lifetime visit... Oh

dear).

During my trip to Peru, my E510 broke and I was cameraless of the rest of the trip. My fiance on the other hand was

still strolling around with her D80 being constantly asked to take someone's picture.

Now I've upgraded to an E3 with a vertical control grip I am asked all the time - often by people who don't speak

English who just hand the camera over and smile.

So, from this research here is 'Wilson's Formula':-

The amount of times you will be asked to take a person's picture for them is directly proportional to the size of your

camera.

Does anyone concur with this piece of splendidly unacademic research?

Cheers

Rob