aman1

<p>Ariel, my recommendation of E-M5 is not based on image quality alone. I feel that its such a pleasant camera to use and makes picture taking so easy. Frankly speaking, I never had image quality issues using my old Nikon D40.</p>

<p>Plus I definitely recommend going for something which is weather sealed - in two weeks he should see rain pretty quite a few times in Kerala this time of the year.</p>

<p>If size is not such a big factor, then Pentax K-30 maybe?</p>

<p>Not sure why Olympus E-M5 is not the popular suggestion. It is now available body only also if you are not interested in the 12-50mm kit lens.<br>

I own it for a couple of months now and it is probably the perfect travel camera.<br>

Just curious: Where in India are you travelling? (I am an Indian)</p>

Metropolitan Museum New York<div></div>

<p>I agree that $7000 is a lot of money. If you are used to D40x, you will find something like a Nikon D7000 a huge upgrade. For 11x18 print size, and kind of shooting you do, I think the still available nikon D700 is perhaps the best camera for you. Combine it with good lenses, like:<br>

16-35mm f/4<br>

24-120mm f/4<br>

Sigma or Nikon 50mm f/1.4<br>

And something like Nikon/Tamron 70-300mm VR for longer reach<br>

I didn't have the kind of budget as you, but I just upgraded myself from Nikon D40 (which is identical to D40x except the resolution). I thought between D7000 vs Olympus E-M5, ultimately thought E-M5 is a good enough camera for me and smaller size is more important. Have been loving it so far. With your kind of money, you could buy the following lenses:<br>

12mm f/2<br>

12-35mm f/2.8<br>

25mm f/1.4<br>

45mm f/1.8<br>

and long lens like the Panasonic 100-300mm for wildlife.<br>

I am 100% sure you will not be disappointed by this kit as well.<br>

Just personal opinion - if I had that kind of money as you, I would buy my gear within 3k or so, and spend the rest of outstation travelling workshops with great photographers.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Tamron 60mm SP Macro lens is not listed.</p>

<p>Agree with Mark Drutz - 18-105mm lens is very good and you'll be happy with it. I know people who upgraded from 18-70 (non VR) or 18-55 to 18-105 and liked it more.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I tried converting to black and white. The hands were represented mostly by the red channel, so in bw conversion i tweaked the red slider to get the image below. This is what I wanted (and understood that white skin effect can come only in BW really). Thanks guys!<br>

<img src="http://lifewondr.smugmug.com/Aman-Photos/studio-experiments/aditichunnihighkey2bw/1256188335_r7Z7J8D-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I actually tried to re-edit, and I think I should have preserved more detail. The skin is nowhere near bright though.</p>

<p><img src="http://lifewondr.smugmug.com/Aman-Photos/studio-experiments/i-kT3pFR7/0/L/aditi_chunni_highkey2-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Hey,<br>

I am a beginner in lighting, and am learning different lighting setups. I was trying to learn to do high key lighting well, and am unable to figure out how to get the skin white. I have 3 monolight flashes/2 small softboxes/1 large softbox/1 umbrella.</p>

<p>My best attempt till now is:</p>

<p><img src="http://lifewondr.smugmug.com/Aman-Photos/studio-experiments/i-MZM8QHf/0/M/addu_chunni_highkey-M.jpg" alt="" width="343" height="450" /></p>

<p>The biggest problem is that when I try to expose such that skin is nearly white, everything else is pure white. I want to retain some texture in the clothing. Also, with such high overexpsure, the regions where white merges with non-white are not that smooth and don't look great.<br>

What I'm trying to achieve is something like this:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2931940-lg.jpg" alt="" width="548" height="548" /></p>

<p>I am with Paul. How do you get banned from a company? Was the company related to photography?</p>

<p>Another alternative long lens is the 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR. Its a pro lens (gold ring) with good reviews about its sharpness. It focuses slow, but that is not much of a concern for you I believe.</p>

<p>An important spec missed here: the viewfinder is a small pentamirror like D60, and not pentaprism like D90.<br>

I was thinking of upgrading my D40, but not to D5000 because of this viewfinder.</p>

<p>Have you tried using a faster lens, say the Nikon 50mm AF-S f/1.4, and maybe a soft-focus filter (there are software filters too, like part of Nik Color Efex plugin, which works great)? Can probably solve both your problems of shooting in low light and getting dreamier photos.<br>

I personally have been shooting Nikon D40 for almost 2 years, and I currently find no reason to abandon this camera. Compared with the many compact cameras I have had, even the best ones like Fujifilm F30 come nowhere close to image quality of Nikon D40 due to sensor size differences.<br>

Also, just considering the equipment, its definitely the lenses that have a larger impact on photos than the camera itself.</p>

<p>

I personally shifted from using Nikon F3/AIS lenses to Nikon D40 couple of years back, and I am very happy. The only things I dislike are 1) small viewfinder, 2) 1.5x focal length multiplication. Waiting to start my job in summers (I'm still in college) to get money for D700, which should solve both these problems, and significantly improve image quality!</p>

<p>If you can switch systems, looks like Nikon D700 will be perfect for you - full frame, high image quality, and manageable file sizes. With decent speed, and weather sealed body.</p>

<address>Thanks Bill. I am reading theoretical articles about optical design too - but this question was less about theory, and more about (costs,format size,MTF) combination, which theory doesnt cover.</address>

<p>Interesting. This suggests that lenses get less sharper as we go up the size of formats. Thanks, Peter.</p>

<p>I am sorry about Plaise, Peter. I typed in a hurry, and it sometimes happens when your mind is ahead of your fingers. Hope you didnt mind!</p>

<p>So, Plaise, what you want to say is that small sensor lenses are indeed much sharper than say a 50mm prime for DSLR, and they cost less just because their image circle is much smaller? And the 50mm prime is not as sharp, just because presently it does not need to be?<br>

(Sharpness here is used a bit technically, say to denote the MTF curve of the lens at 40 lp/mm at the lens' optimum aperture).</p>

<p>Probably wrong place for this thread. Technical is not that technical here, I guess!</p>

<p>@Starvy and John<br>

I don't think that is these are the answers to my question. The MTF curves of P&S lenses need to be good for a much higher value of line pairs/mm. Look at this article from a zeiss engineer:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf">http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf</a></p>

<p>On page 4, you will see some point spread functions - that is how a single real 'point' looks like when it reaches the sensor through the lens. These functions are compared to a pixel of much higher pixel pitch. If that white square were not one pixel, but say 100 pixels, then we have effectively said goodbye to 'per pixel' sharpness. Which is not the case - G10 exhibits very good per pixel sharpness.</p>

<p>@JC<br>

The objective of this discussion, or such discussions, is not to improve our photography. This is just to feed the curiosity of an engineer like me. Who knows, maybe someday I will contribute to photography from the technical side too!</p>

<p>I have been reading quite a lot recently how the 20+ MP DSLRS really need high resolution lenses due to their small pixel pitch in the sensors. I wonder how P&S cameras, which have much smaller pixel pitch, have lenses which can cope up, and the expensive pro level SLR lenses cannot. The P&S cameras definitely don't sacrifice in detail: see <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml">here, for how good Canon G10</a> is in good light.<br>

Any idea?</p>

<p>There are definitely many improvements possible. I am quite sure these things will improve with time:</p>

<ol>

<li>IQ - resolution, 'per pixel' sharpness, dynamic range, noise, and colour accuracy and space </li>

<li>Accurate Auto White Balance</li>

<li>More accurate metering</li>

<li>Faster and more accurate AF - both Phase Detect and Contrast Detect</li>

<li>Faster shooting speed</li>

<li>Better built and more easy to use bodies</li>

<li>Lenses will have more resolution and contrast, better colour reproduction, less distortions and aberrations, and better vibration reduction</li>

</ol>

<p>And this is true for all DSLRs from all companies. As with anything technology, improvements will never stop. We are just astounded by D3/D700 because it was a relatively bigger jump from what existed before.</p>

<p> </p>