Robin Smith

I am not sure I would go to Leica digital just because you have one lens. I would be tempted to sell it and get in on a new system at the bottom. S/h systems offer the best prices. Since you are an M-user then a mirrorless camera would seem best for you rather than a DSLR. I'll take a guess and suggest that you check out the offerings from Sony (FF), Fuji (APS) and Olympus (4/3) to look at prices and systems. I haven't suggested Nikon or Canon, because they have not been in the FF game for so long, so have fewer lenses, although all of these systems offer very good lenses.Canon and Nikon have less available at present, but this will change in the future and quite rapidly. I think you will find going digital to be a revelation.

Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus (OM Systems) offer the best, full system small sized cameras. Full frame cameras may be able to use your adapted lenses OK. Some <2000 full frame cameras are available, but not that many. You could buy secondhand which would increase your choice. Buying a DSLR that uses the lenses you have would be a good option, but mirrorless cameras are more future proof going forward. For best advice we need to know what you have now.

That's because there's nothing to get. Unfortunately ignoring her (if it is a her) doesn't make her go away.

I think it was the lack of a full system compared with Canon, Nikon, Minolta, or Olympus. In those days 3rd party lenses were "also rans" not like today, and they got not a lot of respect either (with a few exceptions).

Ludmilla: if you were offended by that then you have paper thin skin.

hes the reason ill never buy an olympus camera if they are associated with him Well that's really weird. I'm never buying a Zeiss lens because Leni Riefenstahl used them. And what about that guy Peter Hurley, he uses Canon? I don't like him, so no Canon for me. Ansel Adams made apologies for Japanese internment camps, so Hasselblad is out. I hear Cartier-Bresson was a racist, no Leica for me either. Damn I'll have to make my own cameras.

I agree, copy use a macro/repro lens and digital camera. Easier and quicker and with better results. Lots of stuff on photonet about this, just do a search.

Better informed in Crimea? You jest. I hope your family are enjoying life under Putin.

A bold claim, suitable for debate, but not here. However why, if Ukraine was "just fine" until 2014, did the people kick out their Putin-loving leader and send him scurrying back to Russia, and why are they fighting now, if the Russians are their friends?

Sam, I really didn't need a lecture about language. Your point is obvious. I still understood what Arthur originally meant, as apparently did you. I did not feel it necessary to point out to him that he was using the "wrong" words to describe others behavior. Luckily or unluckily we have you to do that for us.

Got to say, I knew what Arthur meant when he said "mentally ill". He could have been attacking those who are truly mentally ill, but knowing his posts, and in the context of whole discussion, I understood that was the least likely interpretation.

I got 3 out of 5 right. Given a 50:50 chance each time my choice means nothing. So I could not tell the difference That is what I would have expected for this quiz, given we cannot observe resolution differences.

There are many excellent photographers buried in Photonet, but many or most of these contributors are usually not the main contributors to the forums. It is a bit of the case of "those who do, do" and "those who don't, talk about it". That's probably a little unfair, but you catch my drift, I hope.

I am not enamored of the bench which seems to occupy a large part of an otherwise interesting image. Agree that cropping off all the empty sky and making it a panorama much improves it. We are often taught to fill empty foregrounds, but it might have been nice to have people in the foreground, if possible, sitting on the bench. My guess it there was no one there, or you would have done it, and I can see it is difficult to get this shot without a bench.

The flash is an unfortunate aspect to this photo, adds to the "snapshot" look. Given that the flash is unsubtle I feel the black and white rendition moderates the look a bit and is therefore better. Perhaps he is waiting for a fare, but to me he just seems to be thinking or contemplating the eternal. He does not seem to be trying to catch your eye for a fare, if he was it would be a more interesting shot to me.

Russians can't blame the Nazis this time though, unless you swallow their ridiculous Ukrainians=Nazi line in which case everything is Ukraine's fault. After all they are shelling their own hospitals according to Putin

I agree with Sam that the portfolio and galleries and critiquing of photos is obscure and complicated with too many screens within screens. It looks good superficially to the outsider, but once you start to look at someone's portfolio or want to work on your own you will see what I mean. Another beef of mine is the non-functioning Editor picks, POTD and POTW. I think these have been frozen for about 5 years. If they are not working, don't pretend they are "Live". Just remove them.

Very commonly stated, but I am not sure this is correct. I would rather say it is largely due to sensor design and the degree of miniaturisation rather than just the pixels. I agree with Gary though. Of course, once a print gets very large then resolution of lack thereof will begin to tell. How much it will matter will depend on the observer's views/prejudices, the strength of the image, and the image content. Anyway, how many people actually print anything and how many who do routinely print more than one "very large" print in a year?

I, too, prefer the B&W, and I am primarily a color photographer

Love a fisheye. Nothing like them when used "sensibly".

Most mirrorless cameras allow you to simulate an OVF, so perhaps you should use that. Also useful when using flash. You could dedicate a button to switching between EVF/OVF simulation.

Best advice is to come back another time when the sun is somewhere else. The hat might work, but not if the sun is too close to the field of view of the lens,. Move the camera so the sun is blocked by a tree.

I think it is a well done piece that poses all sorts of questions about what it means. It is enigmatic, which in this case is a good thing. It would have made a nice album cover in the days when albums really were a thing.

This is true in the sense that miniaturization benefits all sensor sizes, bigger and smaller. But in terms of perceived quality they rapidly converge to a point where extreme magnifications or ISO becomes necessary to perceive benefit. Differences in depth of field in the angle of view probably affect image perception more.

I think someone makes an EF to m4/3 adapter that works. Yes but the cost of one that may work is very high and the reports are equivocal. Unreliable focusing is useless. The issue for me is the smoothness and ease of turning the zoom ring. Interesting, I haven't noticed this. For basketball I have used the 25/1.2, 45/1.2, and 75 1.8 all which work quite well, although the EM1 MkII blackout makes shooting not so pleasant. But even at 3200 or 6400, which is what I need to freeze the action the noise is worse than with the Canon. Some of these gyms are really dark. As you say the new OM1 promises better performance in low light, so we shall see.