AG Schnozz wrote:
> Moose wrote a harrowing tale about photographing a low-light scene:
>
LOL. That's about the best laugh I've had off the list in some time. Thanks!
>> So the point is, I would never have been able to get the shot
>> I wanted, and was lucky enough to make, with any of the
>> current E system bodies.
>>
> Maybe. In this type of situation, I'll underexpose (to get the
> shot) by up to two stops and correct the exposure during RAW
> conversion. The result isn't "perfect", but in some cases more
> powerful.
Well, I was careful to say "to get the shot I wanted", not "the shot
somebody else wanted". I certainly agree with you that noise/grain can
often add to a look one wants. On the other hand, it can also add a
gritty quality where it isn't what is wanted. Here, I was trying for
that elusive, but wonderful, quality of softness without obvious lack of
sharpness. The subject is about soft, warm, loving intimacy, and more
than a little grain/noise would lose that - for me.
As to intentional underexposure, that's a last resort for me with this
camera for this purpose. I do often set it to 2/3 stop under when
shooting outdoors in bright, contrasty conditions. Here, however, I
didn't need to choose between iso 3200 and the noise effects in shadows
of pulling the exposure up in RAW conversion. The combo of shutter
speed, iso and aperture got what I was after.
I'd love to feel free to post this shot, but that wouldn't feel right.
> I take the attitude of "why fight noise?" It's
> there, I might as well embrace it. Just like film grain in B&W
> photography. You can use it to an advantage.
And I take the attitude "Why put up with noise if I don't have to." Just
like the grainless look of low iso, LF film, I can use it to my advantage.
> Still, this is another reason why I usually have a tripod handy.
Tripod, IS, VR; they all depend on a static subject. These were living,
breathing (literally) people, the baby wasn't moving much, but some, and
I wasn't about to give stage directions. The baby wouldn't take them
anyway. :-) Lower shutter speed was out. I had several tripods a few
feet away, but didn't think they would work for several reasons,
including physical constraints and time.
> I'd grab and do the quick handheld shots and then quickly setup a tripod.
> They're not going anywhere quickly.
>
In a different situation, I would have tried several other combinations,
but I wasn't comfortable doing that in this case. I was part of a
complex, warm and wonderful human moment with people I'm in close
relationship with and was not interested in backing out of that to
become observer and recorder. Some things are more important to me
(gasp!) than photography. And besides, the shots worked!
>> So now I'm faced with a dilemma. E-330 for easier shooting in
>> normal
>> light and super macro capability, or another Can*n for low
>> light AF and
>> iso performance? The sample images show the 5D to be really
>> astonishing
>> at iso 3200, with decent AF in practically darkness.
>>
> Well, the advantage of the 5D is quantity of pixels as well as
> the low-light performance. Even with full-tilt noise, the pixel
> density means that anything under 8x10 in size will have almost
> invisible noise. If anything, it'll look a little more edgy.
>
Yes, I suspect it will never look noisy at any size I'm likely to print.
Upside is it would turn my WAs back into WAs. Downside is it would turn
my much loved 28-300 back from a 45-480 into a 28-300 and might reveal
feet of clay hidden outside of the sweet spot by the smaller sensor.
Other down side, it's still kinda expensive. I could get an E-330 with
14-45 and 18-180 for over $1,000 less than a 5D. Why the 14-45? I don't
know about other folks, but I figure an electronic lens is more likely
to crap out on me than a mechanical old MF one. I have an EF 24-85 that
goes along on anything other than casual shoots with the 300D, so $70-80
for back-up insurance on an E-thingie seems reasonable to me.
> There are many reasons to like the E-system, but it honestly
> isn't for everyone. Speaking of such, I just showed my wife some
> pictures from an event the other night and she said "those were
> taken with the Olympus, weren't they?" I asked her how she knew
> and she said the people's skin looked better. "Except for that
> one--what happened there?" That was a picture taken with a
> different camera.
>
Here, we have different situations. I don't do pro event photography. I
can see where getting ready to sell images in bulk without post
processing is enormously important to you. In my case, fussing for a bit
with individual shots, or a lot with very special ones, is not much
trouble and sometimes fun. Finding that I could successfully merge two
shots with different focal points to get the effect I wanted was a real
joy. In the case at hand, the mixture of outdoor light from an overcast
sky with tungsten would probably not have come out with perfect skin
tones perfect from any camera without post.
> Save yourself the grief, Moose. Just stick with Canon bodies.
> Get the E-330 for the convenience aspect of the live view, but
> you're going to appreciate the Canon line more.
You are probably right. But I've been an Oly guy for over 30 years. And
I still want them to make a digi that I can love. I find it hard to see
an E-330 for one kind of shots and other gear with incompatable AF
lenses for other shots as a good solution. I've never been good at
carrying tons of gear and, unlike many pro situations, I can't really
predict what I'll want to shoot ahead of time. The F10 along with OM or
DSLR gear, but not both, works pretty well.
The F10 is really an astonishingly capable camera. An F30 and 5D are
probably in my future, and will serve me well, but .... sigh.
But hey, it's time to put another roll of film in an OM and go hunting
for TOPE! Maybe it's OM-1 time again, haven't done that for months.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|