jhindle

<p>It makes a pleasant change to see an Olympus camera being the one that Pentax should have made (it's usually the other way round).</p>

Well Aperture runs effortlessly on my 2011 model Air (with 4GB), so I'm guessing Elements will be fine. Of course, what

you're snapping with will make a difference. The Air is great with files from my 12MP DSLR and CSC cameras but file

size maybe a consideration, depending your camera.

The re-developed uptown area and the old tramway are worth an afternoon if you also want to fit in lunch and a latte or

two (the old tramway starts very close to City Place DART station). There's also the grounds of the Texas State Fair.

Clearly, the Norks must have viewed the stragglers as showing signs of weakness to the imperialist Americans and their

stooges in the South.

<p>Hmmm...... Is anyone else thinking a wireless version of the <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Polaroid-Digital-Photo-Printer-Technology/dp/B001APNVTQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324994358&sr=8-1">Polaroid Pogo</a> would be a better solution?</p>

<p>Any lenses that Sigma produce for Micro Four Thirds will likely be a lens that was first designed for NEX, and will therefore be bigger than any equivalent lens from Panasonic or Olympus. What Sigma may bring is lenses that are simply not available from Panasonic or Olympus.</p>

<p>For pure, technical geekery alone, I'd say the NEX7, though Nikon 1 comes a close second IMO. I feel the Fuji is a bit too much of a niche camera. </p>

<p>Well, Samyang and <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?q=voigtlander&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=18377925342492420334&sa=X&ei=sl_3TpmbG4iXOpH4zKcB&ved=0CFgQ8wIwAw">Votignlander</a> both manufacture lenses for Micro Four Thirds and Sigma has signalled their intention to do so. That siad, the NEX market is somewhat easier to break into than the Micro Four Thirds market, bearing in mind the gaps in the E Mount lens lineup at the moment.</p>

 

<p>I actually enjoy putting a bit of a slideshow together to tell a story of what I was doing. I've found both Flickr and Smugmug nice for achieving this entirely online.</p>

 

<p>Well since the NEX7 probably smokes every APS-C DSLR at there at the moment, at least in the image quality department, I'd hazard that the quality of images from your vacation will be the least of your worries. Not that the NEX system is without problems at the moment (thinking a relatively small lens lineup, to name one). </p>

<p>The closest to what you want would, I suspect be a Fuji X100. It's a great camera but limited to a single focal length. Other manufacturers are looking at viewfinders that combine electronics with natural light. Rangefinder style focusing? I suspect only Leica do this at the moment (at least with digital).</p>

<p>Since mirror-less cameras actually predate DSLRs, I'd hardly call them a fad. The current mirror-less digital systems pick up where camera like the Olympus Pen and the film rangefinders left off and are made possible by advances in viewfinder technology and, increasingly the processing power to do AF as fast as DSLRs.</p>

<p>The BBC has asked some well known press photographers to reflect on their year and these can be found on the BBC web site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-16265835">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-16265835</a></p>

<p>There's some pretty good photography in there and some discussion over the equipment used, especially in the bog I've linked (the passage about "getting the shot" at the Royal wedding is quite interesting).</p>

<p>Well I think Brad's square (presumably Instagram?) photos are actually very, very good but I don't think I'm going to be getting an iPhone 4 anytime soon.<br>

I use an Olympus E-Pl1 for both my serious and none serious photography. With a Panasonic 14mm f2.5 attached (or alternatively, my 20mm f1.7), it goes pretty everywhere I go and if I see something I like, I take a photo. If need be, I can take an external flash along for off camera work. As far as a phone goes, I'm super happy with my iPhone 3GS and see nothing compelling enough about about the 4S to make me want to upgrade (sorry, Siri).<br>

Oh, and as bad a snapper as the iPhone 3GS is, someone did produce a book of pretty decent photos taken with it (well before Instagram was a twinkle in a hipster's eye). Just trying to find it..... Ahh, here we go:<br>

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Camera-One-Thats-You/dp/0321684788<br>

It has been a while since my 3GS was last the only camera I had with me though.</p>

<p>The cell phone (or at least the celular network) will come into its own for the serious photographer when one of two things happen:<br>

- We start getting large sensor cameras will built in SIM card holders (and the corresponding radio hardware) <br>

- Or see a smart phone that can take Ricoh style modules (unlikely, I think).<br>

We may see either of the above happen with 4G (LTE). With 3G, the bandwidth just isn't there (especially for big event photography where you may get 100s of photographers connecting to the same cell at the same time).<br>

Caveat IMHO.</p>

<p>I happily had OOC JPEGs (with some post processing from a pre-set in Aperture) printed to A3 size but I wouldn't think there is any harm in in doing a raw to TIFF export. There certainly is a difference between raw->TIFF and raw to JPEG if you inspect closely. If you were printing large, or inspecting your prints critically, I guess you may see a difference.</p>

 

<p>Err, it's small, discreet, cheap and it works. Mine lives on a Panasonic L1 and is a nice lens for use in the street. It doesn't get used as much since I got the 20mm 1.7 for my Pen though. Its distortion properties are nothing that couldn't be dealt in post if they present a problem. </p>

 

<p>As long as they don't ban my Olympus E-PL1 + 20mm f1.7 + 14mm f2.5 (thinking of buying a 12mm f2 also) I'm fine with their ban.</p>

Elements is pretty good value for money and it can do a lot, but it is also a bit of a resource hog. I don't think the current

version would run at all well on a 10 year old computer.

<p>Yes, you are both correct. I'm not in any rush to do anything with my shot, once I've nailed it 8-).</p>

I recently upgraded from a standard 2008 white MacBook to a 2011 MacBook Air and Aperture's performance has greatly

improved for me. Before, it was liveable, as long as it was the only thing I was running (and if I made a point of going and

making myself a cup of tea after starting exports). Now, I can run Aperture alongside any other programs I want and

compared to what I had before, everything is pretty much instant.

<p>You don't want condensation to be forming on/in your camera or lens. Condensation typically occurs when you exit a nice air conditioned hotel room or car with your camera and forms because the camera is cold relative to the external conditions. Avoiding this is simple:</p>

<p>1. Seal your camera in a plastic bag for a while when moving from a cool environment to the outside (on visits to Fiji, I've never had to do this for more than 30 minutes but YMMV).</p>

<p>2. If catching taxis, or driving around with your camera, get used to doing so without the air conditioning on and with the windows wound down.</p>

 

<p>With a few notable exceptions, I tend to regard all those settings as pretty gimmicky. Yes, I can shoot at my camera's most vivid setting and set the sharpness as high as it will go, and max out the contrast while losing a third of a stop or more of dynamic range in the process (not to mention sharpening artefacts, blown highlights around edges due to sharpening and so on). Both my main cameras can even be programmed to give the output a pop art look, but all I want is to be able to set aperture, shutter speed, ISO and shoot, knowing that I'll have the best degree of control I can get over the end result. That means either a fairly muted JPEG that responds well to my presets or, the situation requires it, raw.</p>

<p>If I wanted my images straight out of the camera with no image manipulation required, Casio and Kodak both make cameras that will do this.</p>

 

<p>I think the output of a modern digital SLR is pretty much designed with post processing in mind. With my equipment, I tend to shoot very muted, flat looking photos which tends to protect the highlights and keep blocked shadows to a minimum. Then in post processing, I bring them out, more often than not with a simple preset for levels, saturation sharpening and so on.<br>

For screen viewing and small prints, some of the best OOC output, needing no manipulation seems to come from consumer point and shoot cameras, who's users often wouldn't bother with post processing. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/rethinking_talent.shtml">Interesting article I read today</a>. It contains some interesting thoughts on the subject of talent and photography (and the process of becoming a better photographer). It is by no means prescriptive; rather the story of one man's path to becoming a better photographer.</p>