Season 3, Episode 2: Making Family Vacation Photography Easy
Panasonic Lumix GM1 – Ideal Travel Companion… (Delightphoto).
Spanish GF7 review at Quesabesde.
New Housing for Panasonic LX-100 by Nauticam.
Some Thoughts on the M4/3 Format (Thewanderinglensman).
French LX100 test at Openpn.
CamsFormer – Next Generation TimeLapse, DSLR remote, High Speed Trigger, /w Pan/Tilt/Zoom (Kickstarter).
Eric: “I made Chrome camera profiles based on Fuji’s Classic Chrome film emulation. I made them for many Olympus and Panasonic cameras. You can find information here: http://www.mirrorlessjourney.com/blog/2015/1/chrome-camera-profile-for-micro-43”
Juha: “This is a little Shortfilm i shot for Greenpeace last year – which i wanted to share with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfagSc-9PAU. The entire movie was shot on a Gh4 in 1080p, 25 fps and 200mbps with the
12-35 2.8. Especially at the beginning of the movie, was it very early in the morning and very dark, the first scenes where shot with ISO 6400 and 3200th. Later when it got brighter had to use a Vari ND filter to keep the Lens at a decent stop. For the sound i used a Sennheiser EW 112 G3 -P with Lavalier Microphone dierekt recorded incamera. The Film was edited in Premiere Pro CS6.“
11 Responses
So, just the portrait has a short dof, the entire shooting hasn’t a some kind of normal dof (example the children in focus and the sea not, maybe f 5,6/8 on FF). This “style” is like a compact camera 1/1,7 or iphone.
You do know what when you take photographs from PEOPLE in LOCATION, you want BOTH to be in focus so you can recognize them?
Shallow depth of field is for n00bs and pixel peepers who doesn’t see forest from trees.
Juurikas here nobody speak about a shallow dof, i said “normal” dof, like the human eyes, because if you are on the beach and look a group of people in front of you (3/4 meters) the background/location for the brain it will not in focus.
This guy “spends” 1600 euro for shooting iso200 between f 16-f 32 (eq. ff) maybe the same result he can have with a canon s120 or if you are rich sony rx100 I 🙂
The “normal” dof doesn’t exist. As human brains build the background to be focus enough. Human eye only see couple degree cone sharp, everything else is totally blurry but human brains rebuilds everything from memory giving illusion that everything is sharp.
When you look people from that distance, the background is sharp, without you realizing it really isn’t unless you really get that it isn’t.
Thats why it is natural to have very deep depth of field as when you look the photo of people, everything else is blurry than the very tiny area you are focusing on. The reason to get shallow depth of field and get background blurry is to force viewer eyes not to wander elsewhere than the portion where photographer wanted.
The Micro 4/3 projection on Thewanderinglensman is pissing me off. The lad is perfectly happy with the performance and results he gets, but finds himself doubting the format’s future due to its perceived inferiority compared to the latest and greatest FF gear. Well, I’m a bit tired of technology geeks trying to tell photographers what’s right. Photography is not about engineering. It’s analogue in nature just like the eye and mind that create it.
M4/3 is so good these days that in almost all circumstances unsatisfactory results should be attributed to poor judgement on the photographer’s part. If one expects the camera to mitigate the operator’s mistakes then no gear in the world will suffice.
There isn’t really difference between any high-end cameras between manufacturers when it comes to image quality, especially if we compare it to 35mm film!
A 120 film still beats every digital camera out there (even 200Mpix Hasselblad with six shots) with colors, sharpness, exposure range, tonals and details. So if wanted top-quality and best post-process possibilities, film is the only way to go.
But avarage user, who were largest audience using 35mm film (pocket cameras) are more than happy with smartphones image quality. They are happy even about VGA/SVGA size photos!
Hobbyist photographers and professionals are more than happy with 10-12Mpix resolution and 16Mpix is far more than a great photographer needs.
But pixel peepers are not happy to anything, they want always more, they always say the *need* more, while they don’t as otherwise they would be shooting film with medium format cameras!
The only thing what the photographer really needs to focus these days is the user interface (that means every button, dial, switch, everything that user touch to operate the device, GUI is different, it is the graphical user interface, menus, information elements in EVF/LCD etc) that needs to serve the photographer needs. The camera weight, size, and especially functions the user can get quick access to is the most crucial reason to buy a specific body. Today you choose body, then you choose lenses. On film era it was otherway around, you choose lenses, then film and then body. Now you can’t swap image quality as film allowed to do, lenses doesn’t allow you to swap bodies so well. Take Canon or Nikon bodies example and some lenses doesn’t work well with newer bodies or older bodies. It is similar with Panasonic vs Olympus, focus speed can be dramatically different between bodies that give equivalent image quality.
A bad camera is one that doesn’t allow photographer to react to situation, to get the shot. That is impossible or hard to adjust to photographers needs. And that is about two things. A hardware (enough buttons, layout etc) and software (customization, adjustable settings etc).
If I can get great results with E-M1 that I can print as large I want (largest is now 180x50cm, single frame) with quality being awesome. And I can get results faster and easier without camera holding back like with any other camers, why I should change to “better” camera? Why I should change format or body? Unless Olympus really beats E-M1 successor to be better by some dramatic small changes, I am afraid I don’t upgrade as it is very easily worse than what it is now as its best camera out there (compared to anything else than Hasselblad that I haven’t yet used).
This is what I often tell camera enthusiasts:
More resolution? Learn how to steady your camera and how to focus your lens.
Cleaner high ISO? Look at some classic photography books instead of pixels. Oh, and print more often.
Wider DR? Learn how to expose.
Exactly.
Like I would love to buy back a 300mm lens for m4/3 but I don’t, why? Because that gives so narrow field of view that I very rarely have weather that would have so clean air that it would not lower quality. Like main reason many dislike or invalidate long telephoto lenses is because the air mass between camera and subjects is rarely clean/clear enough to really give great shots. So use a shorter focal length and move closer.
A more resolutions can be just pain in the arse. Like with Sony A7r or Nikon D800e and you need to use tripod all the time, not just any tripid but so damn sturdy that it doesn’t shake at all. How do you know is tripod sturdy enough? Place camera on it, position it as usually and take a long exposure shot (2-4 seconds) and while exposing photo, tap slighting with finger any of the legs. If you end up having a camera shake in the photo then the tripod isn’t sturdy enough and results easily unsharp photos!
High ISO can look great, don’t know who got the idea that every photo needs to be totally clean and smooth? No one gets such photos without any kind post processing.
And how wide exposure range we need? To ME 13 stops is far more than enough. I very rarely need at all more and if I do, then it is like shooting pitch black room what I want to lighten up while sun shines trough small hole directly at camera and I want to see that it is sun. That is then like 30 stop exposure range and incapable to be captured by any camera.
I just recomend every pixel peeper to get a 16-32Mpix memory card, set camera to 2Mpix quality with black and white and not delete any photo. Learn to get a 80% ratio to get great photos instead just shooting around like with machine gun.
these olympus videos are embarassing. see what fuji does with their affiliated photographers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stYeNPos4Co&list=PLZBHQMO9xZFHZyP0pZSFVnX2a3zt-ZQhz
Those are meant to beginners, who have bought E-M10 or E-PL7 kind cameras.
Olympus doesn’t want to show off with photos you can get but keep the level down on beginner level so they don’t get wrong illusion about “it is about gear” and it is simple and clear without specific style.
Once the advanced viewer understands that, it is easy to watch.
But I agree some how for your message, that Olympus needs new videos where the quality is given with the experience the Olympus photographers can give.
keep in mind they are featuring the EM1, a camera billed and priced at pro level (i.e. targeted at serious enthusiasts). if the videos featured stylus and pens, it’d make sense to explain the difference between Av and Tv.
season 1 was decent. season 2 with alex mcclure and those horrendous timelapses and this season 3? what a joke. you cant resonate with any audience if your “visionary” or “trailblazers” are pushing out snapshots