simon_hickie1

<p>This seems to me to be an utterly pointless release with little that's innovative. The pricing is hideous and the AF / single card slot must surely reduce the appeal to professionals, given the available alternatives. A mirrorless response to the new Sony twins may have been more interesting and relevant. As an ex Nikon user (now m4/3 with Olympus) I see the beginning of a slippery downward slope both for Nikon and Canon especially in the consumer DSLR market.</p>

<p>I must confess to being a fan of the micro four thirds system for its combination of lightness and image quality. I sold all my Nikon gear to go down this route with the Olympus OM-D E-M5. This is out of your budget, but a Panasonic G5 and kit lens wouldn't be. The G6 is better still. However, the Olympus offers in body image stabilisation which means it works with all attached lenses.</p>

<p>However, it all depends on what you shoot really. The best camera is always the one you are likely to carry with you.</p>

<p>Further inspection of the image and playing around with 'Barnack' suggests a shooting distance of nearer 4m, giving a DoF of nearer 40cm. So 'sway' may have been less of an issue than focusing accuracy.</p>

<p>Photographer sway is the bane of my shooting life: DoF at 1.8 on a 7D with a 50mm lens and shooting distance of 200cm will be about 10cm, leaving very little room for focusing errors, subject sway or photographer sway. f2.8 would have given you about 15cm. A monopod might help here - not to reduce shake, but to help reduce sway and increase focus accuracy.</p>

<p>Yes indeed. However, the EVF may 'gain-up' so you can still see what you are doing!</p>

<p>I did some tests to determine where diffraction sets in on my E-M5. Softening is <em>just</em> perceptible at f8, quite obvious, but not disastrous at f11 and horrible at f16. I find f8 to give the best dof/diffraction balance (remember that dof will be equivalent to f16 on full frame and f11 on DX).</p>

<p>Anthony, there's nothing wrong with m43. The new E-M1 resolves the size issue for those with larger hands and in pretty well all 'real world' shooting provides IQ as good as the better APS-C DSLRs. Only battery life seems to be an issue for me.</p>

<p>I used to use an ME super and still have a Program A. I have seriously considered all Pentax DSLRs since the K10, but always came down to two issues: the flash system and lenses - areas in which Nikon have a superior offering.</p>

<p>Luckily I have small hands, so the controls on the E-M5 work well for me. On the weight front, it's lens lightness that's key: e.g. 220g for the all plastic 40-150mm; 115g for the utterly stunning 45mm f1.8; 130g for the almost as good 12mm f2; 155g for the excellent 9-18mm f4-5.6 and so on. With a bad back and knee, I need all the weight reduction I can get while still keeping the flexibility and quality of an ILC.</p>

<p>Laurentiu makes some interesting points. The E-M5 does indeed offer as many external controls as you need combined with class leading IBIS. I would also argue that the native m43 lens offerings are superior to those offered by Pentax (in 35mm equivalence: 24mm f2, 34mm f1.8, 40mm f1.7, 50mm f1.4, 90mm f1.8, 150mm f1.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 24-80mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8), all at lower price points than their nearest Pentax equivalents except the 50mm equiv. pana-leica.</p>

<p>The problem with mirrored APS-C is that it is stuck in the middle between the portability and lightness of m43 which has IQ close enough to the best APS-C sensors for it not to be an issue for 'real world' photography and the advantage of FF bodies with better control over DoF and better high ISO performance. In business terms being 'stuck in the middle' is not where you want to be. Until Pentax can offer a FF body and a better set of zooms both for FF and APS-C, it is destined to be a bit part player at best. Nikon and Canon users have clear upgrade paths from APS-C to FF. The new Sony twins represent a potential great leap forward, but need affordable decent quality lenses to make the system succesful isofar as they need to secure both enthusiast and professional users.</p>

<p>Some may argue that APS-C is a 'goldilocks' format and that may be true. However, it seems to me that mirrorless is the way forward for all sensor sizes. On sensor phase detect AF (like on the new Olympus OMD E-M1) just did away with the argument that m43 'cannot do action' and advances in display, processing and sensor technology must surely mean that the mirror will become increasingly pointless. The only thing now is to work on battery life - IMHO the weakest aspect of mirrorless systems. </p>

<p>The K-3 offers an interesting upgrade path for existing Pentax users and is a tempter for the new DSLR purchaser (but at too high a price point for the latter). I cannot see it attracting Canon or Nikon users into the system and as such, I see Pentax making little headway in the market.</p>

<p>Thanks Norman. Looks like I'll have to stick with Nikon for this and get some image stabilised lenses.</p>

<p>Yes, ISO 200 is the base on the E-M5 - which is a real PITA when trying fill flash as diffraction sets well in above f11 (hence the D7000 for when I use flash thanks to the excellent TTL flash system on Nikons) and nornal flash sync is 1/160th. At the other end, I tend to max out at ISO 2500.</p>

<p>BTW, how good is the P-TTL flash system on the K5 series? I'm particularly thinking of the pre-flash in TTL mode. I find TTL flash unusable on the E-M5 for people shots due to the pre-flash delay causing quite a lot of 'blinkies'. If it's negligible, I can forsee a switch to Pentax as my second system to take advantage of IBIS with prime lenses. I can deal with exposure variations and flash compensation.</p>

<p>Norman, I do know that the K range has IBIS. I also have a Nikon D7000 (as a back-up for weddings) and a bad back and arthritic knee. When out and about, it's the OMD every time. I cannot say that the D7000 produces better quality images than the OMD - mainly because it doesn't. I'm in contact with many OM-D users here in the UK, several of whom have ditched their APS-C and full frame Nikon and Canon kits in favour of the Olympus m4/3 system - and I'm talking professional wedding and portrait photographers here. One great feature the E-M5 offers is real-time under/over exposure on the EVF BEFORE taking the picture, allowing easy one finger exposure compensation or manual exposure adjustment to be set. I cannot say I've encountered any real world situation where the D7000 would have produced a better image than the E-M5.</p>

<p>For an alternative comparison of dynamic range, try dpreview and set the E-M5 gradation setting to 'auto'. I'm afraid the E-M5 betters the K5-2s in both shadows and highlights & significantly so in the former.</p>

<p>I can see both sides on this one. The K-3 would seem to offer about the best combination of features available in an APS-C camera at its particular price point. I ditched all my Nikon gear nearly a year ago to go down the Olympus OM-D E-M5 route and haven't looked back. The on-body controls are as good as a comparable DSLR. The light weight means I can (and do) carry the camera everywhere. Image quality is superior to my old Nikon D300. In body image stabilisation is outstanding and my experience is such that I would ot consider aother system which doesn not have it. The new Sony twins do not have IBIS and neither is the lens situation particularly appealing yet. Battery life on the Sonys looks poor looks even worse than my Olympus (and that's its weakest area IMO).</p>

<p>So in summary, the E-3 looks like the pick of the APS-C bodies right now, subject to the usual image quality resuts from testing. However, it's not enough to tempt me away from Olympus due to the weight of the system.</p>

<p>JC's advice is sound. The Olympus 45mm f1.8 will give you excellent quality on any MFT body, but especially on an Olympus PEN series body (I use an OM-D E-M5) with its in-body image stabilisation.</p>

<p>In terms of approaching wedding guests, my usual strategy is to approach them with a smile and an ice-breaking comment such as "I'm sorry, there's no escape!". A medium telephoto or equivalent setting helps to avoid getting into guests' faces (something like 90mm full frame equivalent). Also, once used to your presence, it's possible to be in stealth mode to capture more candid images (perhaps a longer focal length being useful). I usually try to get a head and shoulders shot of each guest as well as groups. A couple of weeks ago, a guest paid me the compliment of saying a shot I'd just taken of her as the best she'd ever seen.</p>

<p>I do all my editing on a laptop, thanks to back problems leaving me unable to sit at a desktop PC for any period of time. I'd recommend something with a 17 inch screen with a 1600x900 resolution if you plan to go down the laptop route. You can always add external hard drives if needed (I have 2 x2tb drives plus a couple of 500mb portable ones). My i3 based laptop runs CS5 and Lightroom with no real problems.</p>

<p>I found that as I acquired cameras with more automation, my photography improved as I tended to concentrate more on important things like composition and lighting than trying to get the exposure right by shooting in manual.</p>

<p>You could always get a payday loan with an APR of 2500%</p>

<p>Take a look at Fred Parker's ultimate exposure guide http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm and have a play! Also try looking at the histogram after taking an image: it should not <em>normally</em> be skewed completely to the right or left.</p>

<h2>"Won't an 18mm lens look like an 18mm lens, regardless of format (except for cropping the edges on smaller format), and doesn't it have a different look (perspective) from a 24mm lens?"</h2>

<p>Not necessarily. Wide angle shots exhibit anamorphic distortion. So a 24 mm lens on FX will have this distortion, but a 24mm lens on DX will have very little - hence a different look.</p>

<p>I forgot to comment on the weddings bit. I shoot 2-3 a year for family and friends. Even at this level, I have two sets of equipment: Nikon D7000 & 18-70mm and SB800 flash; Olympus OMD with five lenses (three zooms and two primes) and two flash guns. I have a flash bracket and cords for each camera, a lightsphere clone for each flash, other light modifiers; two tripods; one monopod plus other bits and pieces. I'm probably short of a couple of fast lenses for the D7000 and also a telezoom, but can shoot a whole wedding with the 18-70 on the Nikon, and whatever I need on the OMD (typically either the fast primes: 20mm f1.7 or 45mm f1.8 or the 40-150mm). At a pinch if all else failed, I could cover the whole thing with just the 20mm on the OMD and some flash as needed.</p>

<p>Andre, I'll try to answer your question on lighting. Your D90 has the ability to command an external flash via the built-in flash acting as commander. This means you can use a compatible flash either on camera or fired wirelessly. The camera and lens are fine for starters: I'd not get anything else on the lens front yet. For a flash, I'd recommend either a used SB600 or a used SB800. The latter has a bit more power but is bigger and more expensive. I'd recommend learning about bounce flash as well as various flash modifiers (try 'A Better Bounce Card' for starters and make your own).</p>

<p>The image below was taken with bounced flash with a tiltable rear reflector angled slightly back from 90 degrees putting in a little forward fill. The RAW file was converted in Lightroom 5 and post-processing in Photoshop CS5 with a couple of effects from Nik Color FX. There are of course cheaper ways of achieving similar results in post processing. The image still has shadows under the nose and chin, but it's still better than would be achieved with direct flash.</p><div></div>

<p>The Nikon MILCs sit unfomfortably between camera phones and the larger sensor MILCs. In business terms, it's 'stuck in the middle' and hardly is a niche product when compared with the rest of the market. Therefore, the results are very much what I would have expected in a difficult market.</p>

<p>Thinking things through and doing as much prep as possible are both good. I also spend quite a bit of time practicing, especially with flash. At the wedding itself, the key thing is to be able to respond quickly to changing situations and to adapt as necessary. At the last wedding I did (small register office affair) I was told where I had to stand by the registrar and what freedom I movement I had (basically backwards and forwards over about a metre range). The mock register signing was also in front of a fireplace with a large mirror above it which meant I could not shoot from where I wanted to.</p>

<p>Have you considered a used Sigma 70-200mm f2.8? Should be avalable for £400ish. The HSM version is pretty decent.</p>

<p>"To put it another way, there's no such thing as "perspective distortion"."</p>

<p>According to Wikipedia (if you trust such a source) it does! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29</p>