andreas_manessinger

This happens at times. Try to lightly (without force!) twist the lens. It will likely click audibly and the image will be there. I'm talking about an angle of half a degree or something like that.

If you think the lens sits well, press the lens releas button, remove the lens and mout it again.

If the lens is stuck, don't use force, ask a professional.

If you get to the same condition even after unmounting / mounting a few times, the contacts of lens or body may be dirty or damaged. If you have another lens, you could tryy this, or you could again ask for professional help.

Harry,

I suppose the Olympus firmware updater is another victim of Apple's newly introduced System Integrity Protection. Try to <a href="https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-turn-off-the-rootless-in-OS-X-El-Capitan-10-11">turn SIP off</a>, do the update and then turn SIP on again. I guess it will work.

You could also wait until Olympus comes out with their new Firmware for the E-M1 (announced for this month). I am sure they are aware of the problem and expect them to come out with a fixed updater.

When using the converter, you can specify the DNG version to convert to. Personally I haven't used the DNG converter in a long time, thus I can't say what the exact DNG version supported by CS3 is, but if you stick to the right version, CS3 can open it. As far as I remember, the converter tells you about compatibility levels in its help.

As Greg already said, you can just as well buy Lightroom, and for the few occasions when you need Photoshop (for instance when you want to use "Edit / Transform / Skew"), you let Lightroom render to a DNG, edit the DNG in Photoshop, and finally finish it in Lightroom. That's what I do.

Nope, no barrier :)

From the Olypmus E-P2 to the E-M5 I saw a big leap in high ISO performance, about equivalent to what I saw between Nikon D200 and D300. The E-M1 has no low-pass filter and therefore slightly different noise characteristics that could be seen as "more noise" when pixel peeping, but otherwise it is more or less the same as the E-M5.

Look at it this way: APS-C and FF will always have either bigger pixels at the same resolution, or more pixels of the same size. As nobody has access to exclusive technology, you can always expect bigger sensors to perform slightly better at high ISO. There is no reason to expect MFT to ever "catch up".

On the other hand, there is something that YOU use your camera for, and that is taking YOUR images. My images are mostly made of static subjects, I am no action shooter. Sometimes I like to play with shallow DOF (and I can with MFT), but more often I like the whole scene in focus. On MFT, f5.6 is fine for deep focus, at least if I don't focus too close. Think of architecture, landscape or street photography. On FF you'd have to stop down to f11 for the same DOF. These are two stops. Now compare this with a FF camera like, for instance, the Nikon D610.

On the E-M1, thanks to five-axis sensor stabilization, I can hold my 25/1.8 at 1/10s all the time, and that without a proper steady stance. In fact I have just tried with the 12-40/2.8 at 25mm: I can repeatedly take images of critical sharpness at 1/10s, and that while holding the camera in one hand and away from my body. Taking a proper stance I can always hold 1/6s.

You can't do that with an unstabilized 50mm prime lens on the unstabilized D610. The rule would be one over focal length, but let's assume you have steady hands and can reliably hold 1/30s. These are at least two more stops, and in sum that translates to the difference between ISO 200 and ISO 3200.

Is the D610 at ISO 3200 as clean as the E-M1 at ISO 200? It's not. It has slightly more resolution and with a little bit of noise reduction and scaling down to the same size you may come near. Dynamic range will suffer though.

Thus, for my applications the Nikon D610 has zero advantage in image quality. In all other respects it is worse. It's heavier, bigger, and the more lenses you add, the worse is the difference in size and weight.

Kyle,

I did make the change from the D300 (still own it) and 20 lenses (all but three sold) to Micro Four Thirds. I began with a used Olympus E-P2 as a second camera, and soon switched to the OM-D E-M5 as my main body. Presently I have the OM-D E-M1 and I couldn't be more satisfied.

The number one factor for me was size and weight. I currently have two bags, one small one for when I use the E-M1 with the superb 12-40/2.8 PRO, and a second bag for when I shoot with one of my primes (12/2.0, 17/1.8, 25/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8), the 9-18mm zoom or the cheap 40-150mm.

The first kit weighs under 1kg, the second under 1.5kg. Basically the more lenses you have, the bigger is the advantage over DSLRs or mirrorless systems with bigger sensors. Image quality is excellent and while some systems with bigger sensors offer less noise, Olympus 5-axis sensor stabilization allows me to shoot at much slower speeds and lower ISOs. Of course this does not apply to action shooting, but I don't do that.

The E-M1 has a much improved continuous AF mode, but it you rely on C-AF, I'd say you'd better keep your DSLR. Mirrorless is not yet there.

Using the primes, DOF is shallow enough for me and the difference to APS-C is not that big. If you're after extremely shallow DOF, you should consider full-frame though.

The electronic viewfinder of the E-M1 is a big improvement over the optical in the D300.

Like everything in life it's a compromise. For me size, weight, quality and price are perfect, YMMV.

<p>Not sure which lenses you talk about, I suppose you mean the Nikon primes, but let me point you for a moment to the three Sigma lenses 20/24/28 f1.8. I had the 20 and 28 while I used my D300, and all three lenses focus really near, much nearer than comparable primes. Thus, although wide lenses have inherently more DOF, if you only focus close enough, you can get beautiful bokeh even at 20mm. I've always called these my wide-angle macros :)<br>

<br />Fact is, wide angle and bokeh are rare together, but with these lenses you can have it for some interesting effects. Because of the different angle you can't produce these effects with longer lenses.<br>

<br />If you just shoot landscapes and only care about maximum sharpness, those lenses are not for you.<br>

<br />As examples of what I mean, consider these two images from my blog:<br>

http://manessinger.com/2007/08/299-re-make-re-model.html<br>

http://manessinger.com/2007/08/298-secret-life-of-plants.html<br>

They were made with the Sigma 20/1.8 at f1.8 on a D300. You can't shoot that with any other lens. Hope that helps.</p>

The 7-14 is extremely sensitive to strong lights in or slightly outside of the frame. Mine behaves just the

same. There is no denial, for some kinds of photography you'd better avoid it completely. Otoh, if you need

it that wide, there is simply no other choice.

Some people need stabilization, some don't. I do. Shooting mostly inanimate subjects, frequently in low

light, stabilization gives me a few extra stops. The unstabilized Nikon and Canon pro zooms are targeted at

the main pro markets wedding, event and journalism. I agree that stabilization is unnecessary there, but

that's only part of what people do in photography.

On Nikon the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is indeed your only option. On the full frame Sony A99 the sensor is

stabilized. Maybe that's also something to consider. It would give you the options of Sony/Zeiss, Tamron

and Sigma. Just a thought.

Sigma 70/2.8 Macro? It's a stellar lens on DX and it covers FX. It may have weaker corners (though I doubt

it), but who cares for portraits?

Happened to me as well. At the moment I can't reproduce it, but today I have upgraded firmware to 1.5.

This may well have been fixed.

As far as I remember, it always worked in the beginning, and sometimes later the troubles began. Maybe

the botched firmware 1.2? Other than many other people I managed to install it. What firmware do you

have?

I see only one real reason why I would go for FX, and that is shallow DOF. If your landscape photography is

not VERY non-traditional, this will most likely not apply. Wide angle lenses are something to consider, but

with the Sigma 8-16 around I don't see a reason either. It's not as good as the Nikon 14-24, but for less

than half the price it does not fall short by that much. And high ISO? For landscapes? Not really.

Personally I went the other way: I am currently selling my Nikon gear, D300 and about 20 lenses, and

completely switch to the Olympus OM-D. Its performance is equal to or better than that of the D300, and

its weight literally takes away a burden. One camera and four lenses in a small bag at 1kg total? Try that

with a DSLR!

That's just for a counterpoint :)

Yes it does on Olympus, but only on the new OM-D E-M5 is the image stabilized during composition. On

older cameras it is only stabilized for the actual exposure.

This means that on the OM-D the effect of stabilization is visible as soon as you half-press the shutter, just

like with lens-stabilized systems. With long lenses this greatly helps composing.

I had an E-P2 and its stabilization was touted to be more effective than that of the E-PL1. I felt it was less

effective than Nikon lens stabilization though. The OM-D has been much further improved and has the best

stabilization currently available for any system.

In any case, go on, use manual lenses on the E-PL1, you will be surprised how well it works. Keep in mind

the multiplier though.

Forget about the D7000. It will give you nothing that the OM-D does not. I have a D300 and an OM-D. I so

much enjoy the reduced size and weight, I'd never go back. The difference in DOF is there, but it is not so

dramatic. Use the 45/1.8 and get a little closer. Voilà. FX is another story though.

In any case I would wait until after Photokina and until whatever in FX land is announced there is really

available.

That's normal. The only way to judge moiré is at 1:1. Scaled down previews have a different raster, a

different ratio between pattern size in the image and pixel size. When you don't see it in 1:1 on screen,

you shouldn't see it in print either, and if you do when printing scaled down sizes, scale in Lightroom,

don't let the printer driver do the scaling.

Olympus' formula is fixed. It works well for (moderately) moving subjects and for people who don't want to

think about these things, but for me (and my mostly static subjects) it is a waste of perfectly good IBIS.

Thus, when I want to optimize ISO, I simply set the camera to shutter priority (S) mode and dial in the

shutter speed that I believe I can hold without a problem (or higher if aperture allows). It's not as convenient

as Auto ISO on Nikon cameras, but once you're used to it, it's acceptable.

Get a used 17/2.8 from eBay. It's not the fastest lens, it's not the best lens, but you should be able to get

one for less than 150$, maybe substantially less, and they are available in black as well. If I were you, I'd

get a used Panasonic 14/2.5 next. They are cheap as well. It you need longer reach, I'd get the Olympus

40-150.

All three lenses are available in numbers for around 150$ each, sometimes cheaper, if you buy used. I got my 40-15 and the 14/2.5 that way and I don't regret it.

If you go that route, you'll acquire a very cheap but capable kit of three lenses that gives you a range from

28-300 mm eq. Weight is around 300 g for all three, size of the pancakes is negligible. Not bad if you ask

me :)

As it happens, just yesterday I wrote about it on my blog: http://manessinger.com/2012/04/2009-aint-

heavy.html

The short version: as an owner of a Nikon D300, a Panasonic LX5 and recently an Olympus E-P2, it does

not worry me at all. I'm giving up on DSLRs and upgrade to the Olympus OM-D. There are big

advantages that literally outweigh megapixels :)

Sigma 10-20: there are two versions, one faster at f3.5 across the range. I have the slow one and was quite

satisfied, but my version stopped properly focusing with the D300. Should be no problem with a current

specimen though.

Tokina 11-16: overall for me a disappointment. Very limited zoom range, not real wide, when you're

accustomed to a 10-20. It's a good lens, but I don't like it.

Sigma 8-16: YEAHHH!!!! What a lens :)

The Sigma is obscenely wide, hard to use, but once you are past your first 100 failed shots, it is insanely

gratifying. I only use it once in a while, but when I do, it is sheer pleasure.

Forget filters, this lens is equivalent to 12mm on full frame. Regardless of what I say, you'll have to try it.

Btw, this is no cheap lens, and once you've tried it, you'll want to buy it. I'm just saying :)

Tokina 11-16/2.8. It's not as wide as others, but indoors f2.8 is more important. The lens is excellent and you won't find a better prime in that

focal range. Well, you'll hardly find any at all :)

Well, I have three wide zooms, a Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, a Tokina 11-16/2.8 and now the Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6.

Of these three the 8-16 is the most expensive, the most extreme, and it does not take filters.

My Sigma 10-20 was a good and versatile lens, but with the years it seems to have become de-centered.

Maybe it needs service. While I used it, it was a very good lens.

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 has a very restricted zoom range and it does not focus near enough for my taste

(30cm vs 24cm of all the others). It's of excellent quality, but you could as well use a wide prime. If you

have no problem with these restrictions, the Tokina is a fantastic lens. Personally I think it would do well for

interiors where you don't need 8 or 10mm and where you need a fast lens.

At the moment I am perfectly happy with the Sigma 8-16. I use it mostly for landscapes, and for that it is

no problem, that the lens is not really fast. It also obviously shines in large-scale interiors like cathedrals,

etc. Starting at only f4.5, the lens is surprisingly small, in fact it is the smallest of my three ultra-wides. At

the wide end, it really needs some practice, because it's almost as wide as a fish, and you also have many

of the same problems, for instance making sure that you keep your feet out of the image :)

If you don't need 8mm or can't live without filters, the probably best solution on DX is the Nikon 10-24. I

don't have it, but there seems to be general consensus, that it is at least as good as the Sigma 10-20, plus

it has an even more versatile range. It's the most expensive though.

I suppose the easiest to get used, will be the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6. I wouldn't recommend my copy though :)

No idea how they age in general. Make sure you try it before you buy.

Another choice that you may be able to get used, is the Nikon 12-24/4.

Kevin is right. Your images are very dark in the dark tones. Can it be your monitor? It would perfectly explain why other people see your

contrasts as too hard and you probably don't. Try to make a test: go to a shop with iPads on display. Normally they are connected to the

Internet. Now navigate to your site and look at your images. If they still look OK to you, chances are that you are a tough guy and like it that

way. If not, well, I'd invest in a new monitor or a calibration gadget.

Matt, there is no wide-angle problem on DX. None at all. You can get an 8-16 mm Sigma lens for DX, and that's equivalent to 12-24 mm on

FX. You can't possibly go wider on FX, at least not without a fisheye, but you have that option on DX as well. About the only three things

that I currently see, that could be hard reasons for why someone has to use FX, are a) the better high-ISO performance, b) the bigger

viewfinder and c) the need to use wide-angle tilt/shift lenses.

a) is no real problem. The D7000 is almost where the D700 is in terms of noise. Not exactly, but it's near. Less than a stop maybe. If you

want something better on FX, then you have to buy a D3s for more than double the price. Lens stabilization helps a lot, but admittedly not

for sports.

b) is tempting, but even a D700 has no 100% viewfinder, while the D300(s) and the D7000 have one. You trade a bigger viewfinder image for

less framing accuracy. You can have 100% on FX, but you have to buy a D3s or D3x

c) is the only issue that's left. A 24mm PC lens is a 36mm PC lens on DX, and that may be not wide enough for architecture or landscape.

On the other hand, you can't buy a stabilized 24-70/2.8 lens for FX, but there are two options for a roughly equivalent 17-50/2.8 stabilized

lens, one from Tamron (that I have) and a new one from Sigma. Yes, it does not help for action, but stabilization helps everywhere else.

Imagine a D7000, for the sake of the argument let's say that its noise is one stop worse than that of the D700. Now put a stabilized 17-

50/2.8 on the D7000 and a non-stabilized 24-70/2.8 on the D700. The advertised gain for stabilization is "up to four stops", but let's assume

it were only two stops. In reality it is more something between two and four, depending on the situation, your stance, etc, but let's assume

only two.

Even in that worst case scenario you gain one stop. Sure, motion blur will be a problem, but in a church or any other dark building you will

profit greatly. And, of course, a stabilized 24-70/2.8 would change the game completely.

But it's not only that. Yes, a 24mm lens is really as wide as 24mm on FX, but a 70-300mm lens is only a 300mm max, versus a 450mm

on DX. Or take a 70-200/2.8. It's a 300mm lens on DX. Sure, it's pretty expensive, but a 300/2.8 is more than twice the price. Yes, you can get a 300/4 prime cheaper, and its apparent DOF will be only slightly worse, but it's a prime and much less flexible.

Thus, I would recommend DX unless you explicitly want a camera for professional event or sports photography and can't possibly work with

flashes.

Which one?

I have a D300 and I won't buy a D7000, I consider upgrading to the to-be-announced D400 though. There is not much difference between

my D300 and the D7000. The D7000 has the better sensor, the D300 the better AF module. I don't want to live without the "one press for

100% review" functionality though. Instant sharpness verification with one button press. On the D300 this is an option for the center button,

and Nikon reserves that for their "professional" models. Other than that, the D7000 would be my next camera.

If I were in your situation, I would go for the D7000 or contemplate a (possibly refurbished) D300(s). Both will be a spectacular upgrade for

you. Just decide between slightly higher image quality and better handling. Or wait for the D400 and get both.

Tamron 17-50/2.8 without stabilization. This is the cheapest solution. It's also available stabilized (with VC for "vibration control"), and then

there is the new Sigma 17-50/2.8, it's stabilized as well. The most expensive solution would be the Nikon 17-55/2.8, built like a tank, not

stabilized, like all the others DX only.

The Nikon is twice as much as the Sigma and more than four times the price of the non-stabilized Tamron. Personally I have the stabilized

Tamron and had major quality problems, although as long as it works, it is a killer lens. I'm going to buy the Sigma in a few days.

Stabilization won't help you for event photography, as you need to freeze motion, but to have it is very handy in all sorts of other situations.

Think of photographing in a church, etc. Sure, a tripod stabilizes even better, but in our times of routine harassment of photographers, it is not

uncommon that tripods are not allowed. Thus, my recommendation would be a stabilized lens, otherwise the non-stabilized Tamron, and if

you really can't stand the idea of putting a third-party lens on your Nikon, you know what you need :)

Hmm ... having a D300 and waiting for another DX body, most likely the D400, I seriously doubt my suckerness (suckicity?). FX is about two stops ahead of DX in terms of image purity at high ISOs, but even in short focal lengths FX demands at least twice the price for lenses - at similar performance levels. Now look at 400+ mm. A 70-300 VR gives you 450mm at quite good quality. The 80-400 is thrice the price, the next option at 400mm cost ten times the price.

On the other hand, the wide-angle problem for DX is solved. The Sigma 8-16 is a stellar lens. In mid-range we have two f2.8 zooms that give you sharp images AND are stabilized, something that you don't get for FX at all, at least not from Nikon. Using DX, I have bought around 20 lenses over the last four years. On FX I would have had to be much more selective, but how can you be selective when you don't know what fits your style? I strongly suppose DX is a better option for the majority of photographers. But then, that all is a matter of philosophy and religion :D

And video? Even on the 5D MKII? just look at what the professionals use: Yes, they use a 5D, but only along with all kinds of extremely expensive accessories, that turn the humble DSLR into a camera of cinema-style proportions. This encompasses supports for shoulder-holding the camera, focusing helpers, viewfinder extensions and so on and so forth.

Thus: even if you are really into DSLR video, expect the camera to be the cheap part :)