shutterbud

<p>I don't believe for one minute these laws have been passed to protect the general public. It is to protect privilege and increase revenue. I would also add that the disgusting antics of the Papparazzi still go on. So they make money out of showing a starlet's knickers (or lack thereof) while enthusiasts are penalised for no good reason. IF you decided to parade aroumd the Pompidou Centre with your lover and get found out, that's your fault. I strongly respect the rights of individuals not to be harassed or portrayed in a deliberately humiliating light, but, as ever, its one law for "those and such as those"...and another for "us"</p>

<p>I ditched my Nikon gear because I was so fed up with Nikon's lack of q.c. and the general contempt for their customers that they have shown in the last few years. They are not the company they used to be and care far more about their profit margin than making their cameras properly these days. Also, giving with oee hand and taking with another is now an established decision in their camera line-up. And their lens line-up makes no sense.<br> Panasonic give a damn and it seems almost every new thing they do is an improvement. Ditto Olympus and Fuji.</p>

<p>I only own digital bodies, but from the get-go I decided that primes were for me. I have occasionally thought of buying a better zoom than the bundled lens [which I never use now] but there always a kick-ass prime at that price point. I have shot with a 28,35 and 50 and concentrate mostly on SP. I can't quite understand the current fad of 35mm for SP, but loads of people seem to be happy to ignore the perspective issue and/or not fill the frame these days. It seems that wide is cool and never mind the distortion. I spent several months with a 28 and boy it was demanding for SP. Filling the frame in such a way as to make the subject look natural was difficult- you have to get very close. I remember going for an informal portrait with a 35mm on a couple of colleagues and you could see their smiles freezing over as the lens got closer and closer. I reckon it had to be within a foot for a full headshot and then it just looked wrong. Perhaps if I was shooting with a classic 35 mm film body, the distortion would be much reduced? Shooting with u4/3 the actual FL is halved, which I am sure makes a big difference. But the 25mm, which equates to 50 EFL, seems quite natural and has done me for a while now. But whenever I have used a zoom, I tended to use the long end, around 75mm EFL quite a lot</p>

<p>Hi all<br> This is an honest question. I am on The Inspired Eye mailing list and I clicked on this link and thought, "Eh?" then looked at some of the comments below. I would really like to know if there is something in these phtographs which I am missing, because apart from "Green Wall" I can't see why the photographer took these frames. </p> <p>http://www.theinspiredeye.net/parramatta-road/</p>

<p>I have given some initial impressions on an tangent in the u4/3 forum and feel it is wrong to continue with it, hence this new thread here. Would all M owners please share their experiences with this new, quite controversial camera?</p>