Gary Naka

Everyone is different. It depends on what you shoot, and with what gear. I am OFTEN over ISO 400. Shooting high school sports on the soccer field at night and in the gym. A couple of weeks ago, I was up to ISO 20,000 on the soccer field. And yesterday, I was up to ISO 10,000 in the gym, at f/2.8.

I wish. YEARS ago, I had a Sony CRT monitor with a brightness toggle button. Bright for pictures, dim for working on Excel/Word, and it worked great. Easy to switch back and forth. Except for that one monitor, I have not run into a monitor with a bright/dim switch. You had to go into the settings to dim the monitor.

Well that did not work out. I did not like the global color change on other forums and web sites :(

Figured it out. Do it in Firefox Settings, and it does it globally.

Is there a way to make the photo.net screen darker? Something like a mid gray Looking at a WHITE screen makes my eyes hurt. Cranking up the light level for photos makes an all WHITE screen even brighter. That is the same problem that Word and Excel have. User Interface design has ignored the effect of looking at a BRIGHT screen for a LONG time. I much prefer the old orange or green on black screens of the pre-Windows world, or even Win 3.1.

Up in a tree. Elevation angle makes that more difficult. I am more used to shooting level, or close to level. 300mm on a m4/3 camera, so approx 600mm on a FF camera. 2x crop. 12x magnification. I don't have anything longer for m4/3. Although, I did not have much trouble using a 500 mirror on the m4/3. 20x magnification. But that was just an experiment to see if the IBIS would work with the mirror lens, which it did. :D I don't normally use the 500 on my m4/3 camera.

When I shoot sports, I do not zoom in tight. On a tight zoom, I have little to no room for error if the subject moves in a direction I was not prepared for. So, I do a "loose" zoom in the camera, and crop the image later. When getting ready for a shot, like you, I lift the camera to just below my sight line, so that I can sight along the top of the lens, like a shotgun. When I am ready to shoot, I just lift the camera up, and 90+% of the time I am on the subject. With practice you can get pretty darn good lining up a shot, even with a LONG lens. Note, this is much easier if you hold the lens with your thumb and index finger forward, like holding a shotgun. If you hold the lens reversed, with the thumb and index finger back, it is much more difficult. This is because the thumb and index finger naturally point, but not the heel of your hand.

Yup, got a second free battery. So I start with two batteries, then see if I need a third. Which I think I will need. The OM1 battery capacity is about 28% greater than the EM1-mk2/mk3 battery. Hopefully the processor won't use up most of the capacity increase, leaving more for a longer run time. For me, the dual charger is to avoid carrying two chargers when traveling. Then I only use one AC outlet instead of two. Cuz I still need to charge my phone. Yes, I would be very upset if it charged the batteries in sequence. For me, the whole idea of a dual charger is to charge TWO batteries at the same time. Otherwise I would just use two single chargers. Because on a trip, as soon as I got to the hotel, I would charge two batteries (shift 1), then before going to sleep, I would put in the second pair of batteries and charge overnight (shift 2), to get four batteries charged. I have not gone beyond 300mm; that is with the 40-150/2.8 + MC20, or the 75-300. I figured IF I really end up needing to go beyond 300, then I would look at the 100-400. Otherwise the 40-150 + MC20 was a cheaper alternative, since I had the 40-150. And so far it has worked out OK. I normally try to limit my kit to two or three lenses, just to keep the kit weight down. The MC20 is so small and light, that it does not count. I only have a few options below 40mm. 12-40 or 12-100 and the light P-Lumix 12-60. Nothing below 12mm. For the WIDE shots, I have been relying on stitching, for now. But I have been looking at the 8-25, ever since it was announced, and I might break down and get one. Update: Looks like the charger will charge both batteries at the same time: BCX-1 Lithium-Ion Battery Charger This dedicated charger can simultaneously charge two BLX-1 Lithium-Ion Rechargeable Batteries. Batteries are fully charged in approximately 150 minutes.

I just placed my pre-order for the OM1 and a dual battery charger. :D The single chargers were often a pain, with me having to use two single chargers, to get the batteries charged quickly.

Like others, several film cameras, some not used in over a decade.

There is only so much time. What else do you have to do? Kids will gobble up a LOT of your time, and when the kids are in bed, all you want to do is collapse and rest. If you have a time consuming job, it is like kids, you don't have much if any time for yourself. Been there, done that. Worked 6 days a week, woke up, breakfast, then off to work. Came home and went to bed. Day 7 was doing laundry, grocery shopping, and everything else that could not get done during the week. What spare time? If you have hobby X, do you have any time for photography? Sometimes you can combine the two, like take a camera when you go fishing or camping. I have many hobbies, but can only do maybe two at the same time. The other hobbies go into hibernation, until I pull one out of hibernation and send another one into hibernation. IF you want to stay in photography, you will try to squeeze in some camera time, if you can. It may be in conjunction with something else, so not a dedicated photo outing. And not for as long as you may otherwise want. Something is better than nothing. You make time for what you WANT to do. The rest fall behind, and go into hibernation.

I think someone makes an EF to m4/3 adapter that works. I agree a 135/2 on a m4/3 would be cool. On the field (football, soccer and lacrosse) I use the 40-150/2.8. I am down on the field. The issue for me is the smoothness and ease of turning the zoom ring. When I am turning the zoom ring for a few hours, a STIFF ring gets harder and harder to turn, as I get tired. I've thought of trying the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, and one day I may scratch that itch and get one. I am hoping that the zoom ring is as easy as the P-Lumix 12-60. On the field at night, I would rather not give up the f/2.8 lens speed, if I can help it. So the 40-150/4 would be a last choice lens. Although the OM1 would make it work. In the gym (basketball and volleyball) I use the 12-40/2.8 at ISO 6400. I am hoping that with the higher max ISO of the OM1, that I can use the 12-100/4 in the gym, at ISO 12800. That would give me the reach to the far court, that I don't have with the 12-40. Although . . . a 2nd camera with the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 would probably work OK. hmmm

But on a rifle, - The scope mount is SOLD, the scope does NOT move relative to the barrel. - - As you said the hot shoe is a disaster in terms of a solid mount. - You spend a LOT of time and effort sighting in the scope/rifle so that the scope is aimed at where the rifle shoots. A similar setup is the finder scope attached to astronomical telescopes, for the same reason. And there they have a similar problem, the finder scope has to be aligned to the telescope. But astronomical telescopes are not subject to handling like a camera lens, so the finder scopes are not "rugged," because they do not have to be rugged. So the lens would have to have an attached finder scope, with a SOLID mount, on the lens barrel, not the hood. Or . . . K I S S Go back to the 1970s and earlier. Put a metal sight (front and rear) on the lens, and do your preliminary aiming with the sights, then transition to the EVF. Back in the 1970s, my brother's 600mm had a basic sight like that. Granted the metal sight is not as convenient as a toggle image in the EVF.

Some think the 12-40/2.8 ii was made to put the OMDS logo on the 12-40. With the weather sealing as an upgrade feature. I don't see anything in the mk2 lens to make me want it over my mk1 lens.

Mary, I don't view it as an either/or. Both the Olympus m4/3 and Nikon have their places. I switched to Olympus to reduce the carry weight of my kit. But . . . As much as I want to standardize on the Olympus, the Nikon 70-200/4 handles soooo much better on the football/soccer/lacrosse field than ANY of the Olympus lenses. So the lens chose the camera, and I will probably have to replace the D7200 when it wears out, to keep using the lens. Until the OM1, I viewed DX/FX as better for use in the dim high school gym. I use a 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 on my D7200, with all the limitations of a prime lens. I am hoping that the OM1 will let me use the 12-100 in the gym. The increased low light (higher max ISO) is one of the biggest thing that I am looking forward to. If the OM1 really lives up to the hype/new specs, I may end up selling both EM1-mk2 to get another OM1, to have two OM1. I found in situations where I am using two cameras, it is a lot less confusing when they are identical cameras. Right now two mk2, in the future maybe two OM1.

I am steeling up my nerve to press the [buy] button.

I used black liquid electrical tape. But that was on a 4x5 camera where the bellows don't pack so tight.

Then maybe the ink that was used to make the print is leaching out a chemical to discolor the facing page.

I suspect residual chemicals that were not completely washed out. There is a balancing act, you need to wash enough to stabilize the print, yet you don't want to wash too much and damage/weaken the paper. The later RC (resin coated) papers reduced the chemical penetration into the paper, so washing was easier.

I used to use plastic bags. They were CHEAP. But were not easy to configure, with rubber bands and masking tape. After using a camera "raincoat" I switched. The "raincoat" was easier to setup around the camera than the plastic bag, and easier to use. I still carry plastic bags to cover/put my bag and gear into. And as was mentioned, it is faster to yank the plastic bag out of my pocket and cover the camera, than to put the camera into a "raincoat." One thing that I learned, thankfully not the hard way, was that when shutting down, I had to be careful how I removed the "raincoat." A lot of water ends up on the raincoat, and has to be drained off before removing the raincoat, or that water could drain onto the camera.

What I liked about the Nikon 500/8 reflex/mirror is that it easily goes into my regular camera bag. That is something that a refractor lens cannot do. They were called "stove pipe" lenses for a reason. The Olympus 500/8 mirror is even smaller. So taking a LONG lens on a shoot became much easier.

My thoughts. Check the mirror surfaces. If they are foggy, you won't get a good image. Although the lens is closed so you should not get the kind of stuff that collects on the mirror of reflector astronomical telescopes. If you have a Nikon Z camera, you have IBIS, and you now have a stabilized mirror lens. :D With a 500mm lens, I would shoot at 1/1000 sec, or faster. I don't know if Tokina made one of the better mirror lenses. There are a LOT of poor mirror lenses out there. Do some research. 500mm on a FX camera is 10x magnification. That is hard to hand hold, even with IBIS. Look for something SOLID to rest/stabilize against. A tripod is your friend. Or at least a monopod. I have a Nikon 500mm mirror. The lens hood is less than one inch long :eek:. That short length makes no sense to me. Sunlight from the side will easily hit the front element. If you can, make a longer lens hood out of black construction paper, or similar DARK material, to shield the front element. The farther your subject is from you, the more air is between you and the subject. That means, there is more "stuff" in the air also. Stuff like: smoke, dust, pollen, smog, water vapor, etc, etc. I have seen the air around me where the subject just a hundred yards away (the other end of the football field) is hazy, because of "stuff" in the air. As @conrad_hoffman said, thermals is another issue. I had thought it was only heat, but thermals also happen in the COLD. I found that shooting moving subjects moving towards me, was HARD. It is hard to follow focus on a fast moving subject, like tennis. It is much easier when the subject is stationary, moving left/right, or SLOWLY moving. You have to practice manual focusing on YOUR camera. I found for a moving sport like tennis, that a gimbal head on a tripod worked the best. The gimbal head let me easily move in both azimuth (horizontal) and elevation (vertical). Enjoy your new toy.

Sad to say, but it is a BAD time everywhere. STAYcation.

Not if the picture is cropped. At the SAME distance, the perspective of different lenses is the SAME Experience with using different lenses at different subject distances, and in similar situations. IOW, what lens would I use to duplicate that shot? If I am indoors shooting a group pic, it will 98% of the time be a WIDE lens. So I expect the lens used in a similar pic to be a WIDE lens. The smaller the room, the wider the lens. A shot on the football field from the bleachers, a 300+mm lens, simply because of the distance. A shot from outfield to home plate, a 600+mm lens, again simply because of the distance, and what lens I use to do that shot.

If I were starting fresh, I would go mirrorless. BUT . . . there always are buts. 3rd party lenses. Sony has 3rd party lenses. Nikon and Canon mirrorless do not have 3rd party lenses. So you have to pay premium OEM prices. Nikon and Canon dSLRs have 3rd party lenses. [*]Lens system Sony has a fleshed out lens systems. Nikon and Canon are still building their mirrorless lens system, and do not yet have all the lenses that they have in their dSLR line (such as the 70-200/4). So, for those lenses, you have to use dSLR lenses via an adapter. Nikon and Canon dSLRs have a decent APS-C and nice FF lens systems. Canon APS-C mirrorless cameras CANNOT use the FF mirrorless lenses, because the lens mount is different. Whereas the APS-C dSLR can use FF dSLR lenses, because the lens mount is the same. [*]During this shift to mirrorless, you can find some GREAT deals on dSLR cameras and lenses, as those owners move to mirrorless. [*]While Nikon and Canon may not make any new dSLR models, there still is support for the dSLRs, and lots of lenses from the OEMs and 3rd party mfg. [*]Check the weight specs. I think the mirrorless cameras may be LIGHTER than your D200. So you may loose "heft." The Nikon Z50,Z6, and Z7 are all lighter than my D7200. [*]Depending on what and how you shoot, a mirrorless may not buy you much more functionality than a dSLR. I LOVE the Electronic Viewfinder, for use in difficult lighting conditions. I can see and adjust my exposure in real time. That is MUCH easier than shooting a dSLR. [*]Mirrorless SUCKS battery power. The battery in my D7200 will go all weekend on a single charge. I only use ONE battery. The battery in my Olympus EM1-mk2 will only last about 3 hours (continuous). :eek: I have and use FOUR batteries. Variable: Some lenses suck more power than others. [*]The "power ON" time seems to be more relevant for battery life on a mirrorless. Whereas on a dSLR it is shutter actuation. [*]I do not know what the battery life is on the Sony, Nikon and Canon mirrorless. As for lens. For FF, I would personally go with a Canon/Sony 24-105/4 or Nikon 24-120/4 as my GP lens. I prefer the longer zoom range, over the 24-70. For APS-C, I would go with a Canon 18-135 or Nikon 18-140, as my GP lens. Gud Luk