Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
I did a lot of research before moving on from my 20+ year Nikon d80/d300s/d500 dSLR lineage. These were all APS-C size sensor cameras, originally designed because full frame sensors were really expensive in the early digital days. But manufacturers quickly realized they could offer a new line of lenses optimized for these 1.5X crop sensors which would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper, which is what sold me on the platform. But after a few decades it became apparent that Nikon had decided not to offer their best lenses in the smaller format, and I wanted to move to better glass. The Micro Four Thirds system (primarily Panasonic and Olympus) by contrast, was starting over with a completely optimized system around a 2X crop sensor and a mirrorless design, and offered a good selection of lenses up to full-on pro lenses. I had been watching the progress of mirrorless cameras for some time and holding off until the viewfinders got better, and the Olympus (now OM Systems) cameras finally brought everything I wanted together. Mirrorless is a nice fit for the smaller sensor, because it's faster to read, allowing more computational tricks, faster burst performance, etc. Indeed, the MFT system has led the industry with many features. I've gotten interested in wildlife photography, and the OM system is really a game-changer here: lenses are way smaller, image stabilization is crazy good, and features like pre-capture let you take the shot after the action already occurred. The viewfinder design is finally superior to dSLR cameras: lag and brightness have been solved, and there are features like highlighting any areas of the image which are blown or lost in shadows.
It's certainly true that modern full-frame cameras have better low light performance, though the RAW noise reduction algorithms available now are amazing and getting better all the time. I take photos at ISO 20,000 with very good results once I run the images through the software.
The article quoted above is picking and choosing examples to support his choice - for instance he claims his Sigma wildlife lens is less expensive, but he is comparing it to "Big White", a super trick, hand crafted, optically and electrically sorted lens that is 5 times more expensive than the far more mainstream MFT model. He also comments that it's "only" 1.8 lbs heavier, but doesn't admit that most photographers consider it crossing into the territory of too heavy to hand hold for extended periods of time.
At the end of the day, what matters are the photos, and I feel that the MFT platform gives excellent results in real-world usage. In particular, I'm unaware of any Full-Frame lens equivalent to my 12-100mm f/4 Pro lens, which provides truly excellent image quality over an equivalent 24-200mm range (in other words, this is pretty much the only lens I need for most photography)
stop it. This could get expensive. The very first SLR I have held was an Olympus back in the 70s when I was just a kid. I was absolutely blown away by it. Just looking through the viewfinder was like entering a cinema.
So I love the look of the OM3 which rings all sorts of bells with me, and then also delivers apparently. crikey.
At the end of the day, what matters are the photos, and I feel that the MFT platform gives excellent results in real-world usage. In particular, I'm unaware of any Full-Frame lens equivalent to my 12-100mm f/4 Pro lens, which provides truly excellent image quality over an equivalent 24-200mm range (in other words, this is pretty much the only lens I need for most photography)
Thank you very much for your professional insight!
I didn't know that term but this article goes into more depth. I'm kind of hobo'ing off this conversation, sorry. We've been traveling a bit lately and I kind of want to be more thoughtful about photography (again). It's been a while though, so I'm starting at square one. What I Miss About Micro Four Thirds
I did a lot of research before moving on from my 20+ year Nikon d80/d300s/d500 dSLR lineage. These were all APS-C size sensor cameras, originally designed because full frame sensors were really expensive in the early digital days. But manufacturers quickly realized they could offer a new line of lenses optimized for these 1.5X crop sensors which would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper, which is what sold me on the platform. But after a few decades it became apparent that Nikon had decided not to offer their best lenses in the smaller format, and I wanted to move to better glass. The Micro Four Thirds system (primarily Panasonic and Olympus) by contrast, was starting over with a completely optimized system around a 2X crop sensor and a mirrorless design, and offered a good selection of lenses up to full-on pro lenses. I had been watching the progress of mirrorless cameras for some time and holding off until the viewfinders got better, and the Olympus (now OM Systems) cameras finally brought everything I wanted together. Mirrorless is a nice fit for the smaller sensor, because it's faster to read, allowing more computational tricks, faster burst performance, etc. Indeed, the MFT system has led the industry with many features. I've gotten interested in wildlife photography, and the OM system is really a game-changer here: lenses are way smaller, image stabilization is crazy good, and features like pre-capture let you take the shot after the action already occurred. The viewfinder design is finally superior to dSLR cameras: lag and brightness have been solved, and there are features like highlighting any areas of the image which are blown or lost in shadows.
It's certainly true that modern full-frame cameras have better low light performance, though the RAW noise reduction algorithms available now are amazing and getting better all the time. I take photos at ISO 20,000 with very good results once I run the images through the software.
The article quoted above is picking and choosing examples to support his choice - for instance he claims his Sigma wildlife lens is less expensive, but he is comparing it to "Big White", a super trick, hand crafted, optically and electrically sorted lens that is 5 times more expensive than the far more mainstream MFT model. He also comments that it's "only" 1.8 lbs heavier, but doesn't admit that most photographers consider it crossing into the territory of too heavy to hand hold for extended periods of time.
At the end of the day, what matters are the photos, and I feel that the MFT platform gives excellent results in real-world usage. In particular, I'm unaware of any Full-Frame lens equivalent to my 12-100mm f/4 Pro lens, which provides truly excellent image quality over an equivalent 24-200mm range (in other words, this is pretty much the only lens I need for most photography)
ok, now I suddenly want 5k more in disposable income this month. Not sure if he was consciously using reverse psychology, but by telling me he no longer uses it, he really made me want one.
damn.
Yea, right. The whole article (the whole website even) is nothing but industry-sponsored commercials dressed as "professional guidance".
I didn't know that term but this article goes into more depth. I'm kind of hobo'ing off this conversation, sorry. We've been traveling a bit lately and I kind of want to be more thoughtful about photography (again). It's been a while though, so I'm starting at square one. What I Miss About Micro Four Thirds
ok, now I suddenly want 5k more in disposable income this month. Not sure if he was consciously using reverse psychology, but by telling me he no longer uses it, he really made me want one.
Again, more good questions. I have gotten somewhat spoiled by my iPhone, but I'm not sure it's going to give me the photos I will want in Alaska. I do know that I won't want to carry around something weighty, or complicated.
You know, which ones come into account...
P.S.
I bought mine refurbished some 5 years ago for 300 bucks, and I can still sell it again for the same price (but I won't). And yes, over here all cameras are more expensive than in your country.
Digital technology has made it possible to shrink camera size and weight, including the lenses. I moved to a Micro Four Thirds system, which has a sensor 1/2 the height of the old 35mm "full frame" cameras. This allows the lenses to be half the size as well. So I'm able to have a pro-level camera for much less bulk and cost. Next, modern cameras automatically compensate for optical deficiencies in the lenses, allowing previously impossible designs such as very long zoom ranges while maintaining image quality. So a wide variety of systems are available. These days one of the most important considerations is what kind of an experience you want when using the camera. Do you like the old school feel of viewing the image through a viewfinder or do you prefer looking at the image projected on a screen on the back of the device? Do you like the camera being ready to shoot instantly when you pick it up, or are you OK waiting for a lens to deploy and focus? Do you want to isolate subjects from their backgrounds, or would you prefer as much as possible be in focus? And of course, how much weight are you willing to carry around with you.
Again, more good questions. I have gotten somewhat spoiled by my iPhone, but I'm not sure it's going to give me the photos I will want in Alaska. I do know that I won't want to carry around something weighty, or complicated.
Digital technology has made it possible to shrink camera size and weight, including the lenses. I moved to a Micro Four Thirds system, which has a sensor 1/2 the height of the old 35mm "full frame" cameras. This allows the lenses to be half the size as well. So I'm able to have a pro-level camera for much less bulk and cost. Next, modern cameras automatically compensate for optical deficiencies in the lenses, allowing previously impossible designs such as very long zoom ranges while maintaining image quality. So a wide variety of systems are available. These days one of the most important considerations is what kind of an experience you want when using the camera. Do you like the old school feel of viewing the image through a viewfinder or do you prefer looking at the image projected on a screen on the back of the device? Do you like the camera being ready to shoot instantly when you pick it up, or are you OK waiting for a lens to deploy and focus? Do you want to isolate subjects from their backgrounds, or would you prefer as much as possible be in focus? And of course, how much weight are you willing to carry around with you.
I didn't know that term but this article goes into more depth. I'm kind of hobo'ing off this conversation, sorry. We've been traveling a bit lately and I kind of want to be more thoughtful about photography (again). It's been a while though, so I'm starting at square one. What I Miss About Micro Four Thirds
I adored my film Pentax K1000, for many years, and had a number of lenses for it. That was one of the reasons I bought the digital Pentax, because the lenses would work on the new camera. I used the digital Pentax for a while, but eventually it became a pain to lug it around. I stopped using the K1000 due to the cost of film, and the "lugging around" issue. The Sony, a gift, got me back into photography, which I enjoy very much. I'm certainly not a serious photographer, but I do like taking a nicely composed shot, now and then (as evidenced by my participation in the photography threads). I don't do any post processing, and have no interest in doing that. The appeal of the Lumix is the zoom.
Thanks!
Digital technology has made it possible to shrink camera size and weight, including the lenses. I moved to a Micro Four Thirds system, which has a sensor 1/2 the height of the old 35mm "full frame" cameras. This allows the lenses to be half the size as well. So I'm able to have a pro-level camera for much less bulk and cost. Next, modern cameras automatically compensate for optical deficiencies in the lenses, allowing previously impossible designs such as very long zoom ranges while maintaining image quality. So a wide variety of systems are available. These days one of the most important considerations is what kind of an experience you want when using the camera. Do you like the old school feel of viewing the image through a viewfinder or do you prefer looking at the image projected on a screen on the back of the device? Do you like the camera being ready to shoot instantly when you pick it up, or are you OK waiting for a lens to deploy and focus? Do you want to isolate subjects from their backgrounds, or would you prefer as much as possible be in focus? And of course, how much weight are you willing to carry around with you.
OK, the Sony was a Point 'n Shoot, and the Pentax a mid-sized dSLR. Obviously the image quality of digital has improved a lot in the last 20+ years, but how did you feel about these choices when they were new? Did you prefer the convenient size of the Sony more than the speed and control of the Pentax? What do you feel is missing taking photos with your smartphone?
These are good, thought provoking questions.
I adored my film Pentax K1000, for many years, and had a number of lenses for it. That was one of the reasons I bought the digital Pentax, because the lenses would work on the new camera. I used the digital Pentax for a while, but eventually it became a pain to lug it around. I stopped using the K1000 due to the cost of film, and the "lugging around" issue. The Sony, a gift, got me back into photography, which I enjoy very much. I'm certainly not a serious photographer, but I do like taking a nicely composed shot, now and then (as evidenced by my participation in the photography threads). I don't do any post processing, and have no interest in doing that. The appeal of the Lumix is the zoom.
Well, there is the Argoflex that was my parents'. My Pentax K1000 that I got in college. A Sony Cybershot DSC-P9 that was a gift from an ex, and then the Pentax K100 D I splurged on. "Antiques" that I have soft spots for but can't practically use.
OK, the Sony was a Point 'n Shoot, and the Pentax a mid-sized dSLR. Obviously the image quality of digital has improved a lot in the last 20+ years, but how did you feel about these choices when they were new? Did you prefer the convenient size of the Sony more than the speed and control of the Pentax? What do you feel is missing taking photos with your smartphone?
Note that the price is the same at non-Amazon B & H
Yeah, my local Best Buy actually has one in stock, at the same price, and I thought about going by to look at it when I was in town earlier. But, I reached out to my former, former boss (who is an excellent photographer) and Iâm going to sit on it for a bit. I knew that if I liked it, and there was only one ⦠Iâd be all FOMO, and would buy it. Not sure I need to spend that money. Thanks everyone for the input!
Here's another, less expensive Lumix recommended by Wirecutter.
It's their new bridge camera model with super zoom. Even better than mine, which has that top Leica lens. CMOS Sensor is 18 MP, mine is only 12 MP. The more MPs the less light is needed to take a picture. The more expensive / pro cams usually have 20+ MegaPixel sensors.
But remember, if you want to shoot from a ship /boat or any longer distance, you can't have enough zoom.
I'm being urged to get a "real" camera before the Alaska trip next year. I own four "real" cameras, all old and unused for years. I don't want to spend a ton, and I'm stupid brand loyal (I'm looking at you Pentax) and am being tempted by this one, because of that.
I'd always gor for the Lumix. That lens is just top, plus that unbeatable zoom. The electronic stabilizer works well on mine which is much older and only 600mm optical zoom:
What don't you like about the four "real" cameras you referenced?
Well, there is the Argoflex that was my parents'. My Pentax K1000 that I got in college. A Sony Cybershot DSC-P9 that was a gift from an ex, and then the Pentax K100 D I splurged on. "Antiques" that I have soft spots for but can't practically use.
I'm being urged to get a "real" camera before the Alaska trip next year. I own four "real" cameras, all old and unused for years. I don't want to spend a ton, and I'm stupid brand loyal (I'm looking at you Pentax) and am being tempted by this one, because of that.
I bought the WG-8 a few weeks ago. I picked this camera cause I wanted to have an everyday camera that I can carry in my pocket. I would say itâs a good camera if you consider it for what it is : an old tech-based camera.
ISO is ok up to ~400/800 under good lighting conditions
-Poor dynamic range
-no Aperture prio/speed prio/ manual mode
-20 MP is overkill for the sensor size
-Only jpeg
-Pictures out of the camera donât have a lot of charm, most of the time.
But I love it and wouldnât return it. I donât expect the same results as my « more serious » cameras. When I post process the images from the WG-8 Iâm looking for a kind of vintage disposable camera look, and you donât need a good camera to achieve this kind of result so⦠(actually I crush down even more the already poor dynamic range ahah)
As a pro videographer I feel this camera brings back to me the pleasure of taking simple pictures with no specific purpose in mind, just because I always have the camera in my pocket.
Spec-wise I think the Olympus TG-6 & 7 are better. I chose the Pentax just because of the built-in ring light :)
On the Lumix, it sounds like it's about par with a decent phone camera, but it has a powerful zoom.
I'm always wanting a better point-and-shoot camera than my cheap phone but I always talk myself out of it.
Thanks! My iPhone has a 10x zoom. This Sony is a Wirecutter pick, but I don't want to spend $1500! And there are just too many options!!
