Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 1919 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 39  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:48 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Craster wrote:
If Canon or Nikon launched a micro 4/3 with a range of lenses to match (which I expect they will at some point), I'll strongly consider making the jump.

Nikon 1, innit: http://www.nikon1.co.uk/en_GB_N1/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:50 
User avatar
Sitting balls-back folder

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10065
My Panasonic has a Leica lens on it. Is Leica okay? Not that it matters, it can't be replaced.

I've not been over the moon with it really. That's my own stupid fault for not buying a DSLR I suppose. Also not buying a book so I tend to just use iA mode all the time.

At least it's visibly shitloads better than my Nokia's camera.

Oh, and I/we are considering a compact to go with it now, for 'out drinking' type affairs where a bridge is too big.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:50 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Isn't there an extent to which bigger is inevitably better when it comes to producing good optics. Or else why are the 3rd gen or whatever you want to call them cameras the size that they are? Why not even smaller? It's all about compromise, even current DSLRs are. I agree on the point about having a mirror flicking around becoming largely unnecessary, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:51 
User avatar
Sitting balls-back folder

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10065
Also, I saw a Sony thing of some sort, super thin body with a big pancake lens on the front. Had an Alpha symbol on the front. Mirrorless I think. Absolutely astonishing low light performance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:52 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
BikNorton wrote:
Also, I saw a Sony thing of some sort, super thin body with a big pancake lens on the front. Had an Alpha symbol on the front. Mirrorless I think. Astonishing low light performance.

My friend has one. It is indeed excellent in low light. Pain in the arse to use though. Constant menu flicking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:55 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Craster wrote:
If Canon or Nikon launched a micro 4/3 with a range of lenses to match (which I expect they will at some point), I'll strongly consider making the jump.

Nikon 1, innit: http://www.nikon1.co.uk/en_GB_N1/


Well that's fuck ugly.

BikNorton wrote:
My Panasonic has a Leica lens on it. Is Leica okay? Not that it matters, it can't be replaced.


Leica are famously great lens manufacturers. However, when you're paying £250-odd quid for the whole camera/lens, they will obviously be not producing the same quality lens as you might get if you paid £400 for just a lens.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:56 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Craster wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:


I find it hard to really disagree with any of that.


Yeah, I've always been resistant to DSLRs since I tried my first (completely shit) digital compact in about 1997. SLR is for photography nerds, and I dispute that there's anything inherently benefical about the moving mirror. I want a live view off the sensor, inside the viewfinder (or on the screen as a second best) - that's the closest you'll get to the finished image and the best way to compose the photo.

DSLRs are guess and try again - which is the whole point of the art and skill of taking photos with an SLR, but it's something I lost interest in when I stopped using film.

Quote:
If Canon or Nikon launched a micro 4/3 with a range of lenses to match (which I expect they will at some point), I'll strongly consider making the jump.


Explain-me 4/3rds please. I thought it was just DSLR but smaller..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:57 
User avatar
Master of dodgy spelling....

Joined: 25th Sep, 2008
Posts: 22533
Location: shropshire, uk
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Craster wrote:
If Canon or Nikon launched a micro 4/3 with a range of lenses to match (which I expect they will at some point), I'll strongly consider making the jump.

Nikon 1, innit: http://www.nikon1.co.uk/en_GB_N1/



I like that...

_________________
MetalAngel wrote:
Kovacs: From 'unresponsive' to 'kebab' in 3.5 seconds


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:59 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
kalmar wrote:
Explain-me 4/3rds please. I thought it was just DSLR but smaller..


It's sensor size, not camera size:

Image

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:03 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
kalmar wrote:
Yeah, I've always been resistant to DSLRs since I tried my first (completely shit) digital compact in about 1997. SLR is for photography nerds, and I dispute that there's anything inherently benefical about the moving mirror. I want a live view off the sensor, inside the viewfinder (or on the screen as a second best) - that's the closest you'll get to the finished image and the best way to compose the photo.
Quote:
Explain-me 4/3rds please. I thought it was just DSLR but smaller..
Micro four-thirds is exactly what you described in your first paragraph. SLR sized sensors (more or less) in a mirror less body. One of a number such technologies, produced by Panasonic and Olympus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:03 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Oh, wait - that doesn't explain very well. That pic shows you what a 4/3 sensor is, micro 4/3 is basically 4/3 but without a mirror mechanism.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:04 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Micro four-thirds is exactly what you described in your first paragraph. SLR sized sensors (more or less) in a mirror less body.


Well, not quite. It's 4/3 sensors in a mirrorless body. SLRs are generally either full frame or APS-C.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:08 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
A 4/3rds sensor is far closer to SLR class than compact class, though. And other EVIL cameras have larger sensors, like the Sony one Bik mentioned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:08 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
kalmar wrote:
Craster wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:


I find it hard to really disagree with any of that.


Yeah, I've always been resistant to DSLRs since I tried my first (completely shit) digital compact in about 1997. SLR is for photography nerds, and I dispute that there's anything inherently benefical about the moving mirror.

There's certainly something inherently better vs every LCD viewfinder I've ever looked through so far. I agree with much of that article but especially his disclaimer about current digital viewfinders being laggy, pixelated crud.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:10 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
So... 4/3rds of what, exactly? Sorry, I could google it easily but am enjoying the potential for technical pedantry :p

Micro 4/3rds sounds like my next camera choice though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:11 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Not reading one link, eh, Kalmar?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:13 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Or looking at one picture :)

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:19 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Craster wrote:
Or looking at one picture :)


The picture is what posed the question. 4/3rds of what? It looks like 1/4 of a 35mm frame. And about 3/4s of an APS-C sensor size. Not 4/3rds of anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:20 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
An inch, I believe.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:25 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Craster wrote:
An inch, I believe.


Really? 4 thirds of an inch is about 34mm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:26 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Correct.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:27 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Why not just call it that then?

Four thirds of an inch indeed. Americans I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:28 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Craster wrote:
Correct.


Except it clearly isn't 34mm, as your drawing shows.


FFS. I've wikipedia'd it. The sensor size is about 22mm diagonal, where the APS-C is about 27mm. They may as well have called it "crocodile satellite format" for all the relevance it has to anything.

edit: except aspect ratio. Which is 4:3.

Right, who wants to buy my EOS 400D :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:42 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
Tenner. Final offer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:43 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
I think I know a reasonable amount of techie stuff, but just to keep my feet on the ground I come in this thread every now and again to be utterly baffled by everything everyone says.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:45 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
myp wrote:
I think I know a reasonable amount of techie stuff, but just to keep my feet on the ground I come in this thread every now and again to be utterly baffled by everything everyone says.

It means "ten pounds"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 15:48 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
DavPaz wrote:
myp wrote:
I think I know a reasonable amount of techie stuff, but just to keep my feet on the ground I come in this thread every now and again to be utterly baffled by everything everyone says.

It means "ten pounds"

I think I now know what it feels like to be Alberto in every single thread about something other than video games or baseball.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:02 
User avatar
Ticket to Ride World Champion

Joined: 18th Apr, 2008
Posts: 11843
Quote:
Some people have called this evolution “mirrorless” cameras. In my judgment, that is a ridiculous name. You don’t name a category of technology by what it is not. I suppose we did use to call an “automobile” a “horseless buggy,” but now we look back on that quaint term and laugh. So, of course we will not call these cameras “mirrorless” for long.
And so the term “3rd Gen Cameras” is much better for this new phase of digital photography.


No it fucking isn't you cunt! Cars aren't called 3rd gen horses! It doesn't tell you anything about the technology, therefore it is a fucking useless name.

_________________
No, it was a giant robot castle!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:05 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Bobbyaro wrote:
No it fucking isn't you cunt! Cars aren't called 3rd gen horses! It doesn't tell you anything about the technology, therefore it is a fucking useless name.


So's 4/3rds though, to be fair.

They should call it Straight Light Route, as in straight from the lens to the sensor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:26 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
kalmar wrote:
They should call it Straight Light Route, as in straight from the lens to the sensor.

:)

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:31 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Craster wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Craster wrote:
If Canon or Nikon launched a micro 4/3 with a range of lenses to match (which I expect they will at some point), I'll strongly consider making the jump.

Nikon 1, innit: http://www.nikon1.co.uk/en_GB_N1/

Well that's fuck ugly.

So are you, but some of the picture you take are quite good ;)

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:34 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
What's so ugly about it?

The camera, not Craster.

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:37 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
It looks like a pencil case with a lens glued to the front. I like technology to look like technology.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:38 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
I like it! Looks Apple-y.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:38 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
kalmar wrote:
I like it! Looks Apple-y.


Exactly.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:38 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
I think it looks quite classy and understated, though it reminds me more of a Nad amp or something than anything Apple. And at least it's not trying to look like ye olde worlde camera as seems to be the trend with lots of the smaller ones now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:39 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
I don't mind the white one, but the black one is horrible.

/Ed Miliband

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:44 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
markg wrote:
I think it looks quite classy and understated, though it reminds me more of a Nad amp or something than anything Apple. And at least it's not trying to look like ye olde worlde camera as seems to be the trend with lots of the smaller ones now.

Yeah, what's with that?

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:48 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
markg wrote:
And at least it's not trying to look like ye olde worlde camera as seems to be the trend with lots of the smaller ones now.


See, I think that is what it's trying to look like, and that's one of the reasons I don't like it. The shape of the body immediately makes me think of this:

Image

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:53 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
kalmar wrote:
I like it! Looks Apple-y.

Red, round and fleshy?

No wait, that's Craster again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 16:57 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Craster wrote:
markg wrote:
And at least it's not trying to look like ye olde worlde camera as seems to be the trend with lots of the smaller ones now.


See, I think that is what it's trying to look like, and that's one of the reasons I don't like it. The shape of the body immediately makes me think of this:
I'm not really sure it's trying to look like anything, I guess it's a bit like that in so far as it is camera-shaped. But the minimal design to me just says that it's a thing for using not for gawping at. Bit like the amps that I mentioned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 17:02 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
I suppose the ends of the case don't "need" to be the same shape as a roll of film any more, but it doesn't strike me as oldy-worldy apart from that. The relatively massive diameter lens kind of dispels that image anyway.

Hang on, where's the flash mount, or indeed the flash??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 17:10 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
It's a built-in flash, which I can only assume is that little hole in the top right.

I don't know, I just don't like it. Any camera that comes in pink isn't a real camera


/grump.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 17:11 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 8018
Location: Cardiff
I'm afraid to say that I really don't like the look of the Nikon V1. It looks like a thin slab of laminated cheese with a bump on it. This is frustrating, as I love the look and feel of their DSLR's. I much prefer Fujifilm's X100, which is far sexier and old stylee. Honestly, people who think a featureless sleek thing is better than the oldschool 35mm look are insane. Would you rather be in something that looked like the Oldsmobile from Supernatural, or a Punto? Exactly.

I'm also skeptical about the desirability of a thin, mirrorless camera. If the output is better, sure. But these things seem just too thin to nicely balance even a moderately long lens. There's nowt there to really comfortably wrap your fingers round. Lighter is better, yes, but not if my fingers cramp trying to get purchase while using a big zoom. The DSLR doesn't have any menu hunting either but big buttons that speed you up. How can they fit all that in handy twiddle positions on a small V1 type affair?

Don't get me wrong, I don't thing DSLR's will be around forever, but I'm definitely not sold on this new way of things. No siree.

Now go look at Russian Rocket Girl pics in the other people's photo thread. She's awesome.

_________________
"Peter you've lost the NEWS!"

Bored? Why not look at some pretty pictures on my photography blog? Here: http://petetakespictures.com

Come & See My Flickery Pics Here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nervouspete/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 17:13 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Pete, but it fits in your pocket! (nearly). And is available in pink.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 17:16 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
NervousPete wrote:
I'm afraid to say that I really don't like the look of the Nikon V1. It looks like a thin slab of laminated cheese with a bump on it. This is frustrating, as I love the look and feel of their DSLR's. I much prefer Fujifilm's X100, which is far sexier and old stylee. Honestly, people who think a featureless sleek thing is better than the oldschool 35mm look are insane. Would you rather be in something that looked like the Oldsmobile from Supernatural, or a Punto? Exactly.

Don't get me wrong I don't think it's exceptionally beautiful. I guess I just prefer its honest-looking design to that mock tudor Fujifilm thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 17:18 
User avatar
baron of techno

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 24136
Location: fife
Do you get micro 4/3s with a touch screen for exposure and focus adjustment, like on an iPhone? Because that would be a good thing.

edit: :facepalm: After reading a review of the Nikon 1, the first thing it says is that it's not a micro 4/3rds camera anyway, the sensor is far smaller at just 16mm and the lenses won't interchange with other manufacturers like 4/3s will.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/660015 ... e-nikon-v1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 17:24 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
I definitely agree with Pete in that twiddly knobs is what you want for that, you don't want to be constantly putting your eye to the viewfinder then moving it away again to mess with a touchscreen that you can hardly see because it's too sunny or something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 17:59 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 23rd Jun, 2010
Posts: 2282
This thread grew.
BikNorton wrote:
I've not been over the moon with it really. That's my own stupid fault for not buying a DSLR I suppose. Also not buying a book so I tend to just use iA mode all the time.



Which one do you have?
A couple of pages back I linked to some test shots I did on my Panasonic GF3, (one of the latest gen M 4/3 cameras), iA mode was consistently getting better (less blown out) shots than aperture mode. It was the same story with my lumix TZ10 with iA, (as it is with the Tz20 my mum has) and a lot of the reviewers for that camera said the same thing. Panasonic have reached a point where the software can do a better job of determining what you need and instantly switch to it. For example, the wind started blowing and the camera instantly switched to tracking mode in iA and then back to single point when it stopped. It all depends on the lens, my m4/3 is nowhere near as good as the nikon D300 shot quality wise. This is entirely down to the lens being a bit naff, it's only 3.5 wide open at 17mm, 5.6 at 42, you don't get much bokeh and it's sweet spot is f/8 (the software knows this and will tend to aim for f/8 with that lens on), so fuck it, I'll stick it in iA. if I got the 20mm 1.7 prime then it would be on a par with the D300 with 35mm 1.8, I've seen some shots taken by a contact who has the same lens and they are sharp as a tack so A mode would be better.

full frame fujifim people, full frame in a light body with amazing glass and one of the best viewfinders ever made and it look looks stunning and all for under £1000, if it's really the successor to the X100 then this camera could be a M9 beater at 1/10 of the price.

_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/learnin_curve/
Children's BBC 1986: Phillip Schofield sings Ulysses 31!
crazy amazing riot video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wpEGRW7mSU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Camera gear
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 18:00 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 23rd Jun, 2010
Posts: 2282
kalmar wrote:
Do you get micro 4/3s with a touch screen for exposure and focus adjustment, like on an iPhone? Because that would be a good thing.


yes the Panasonic G/GF3/GX1 and the Sony NEX 5n but the 5n has DSLR sensor in it.

_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/learnin_curve/
Children's BBC 1986: Phillip Schofield sings Ulysses 31!
crazy amazing riot video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wpEGRW7mSU


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 1919 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 39  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Greys and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.