Peter, as I think I may already have mentioned, I do not understand why she
limited herself to ISO 3200. I guess now that you tell me she shot JPG, I
understand it a bit better. I shoot only RAW on all my cameras. My K5 does blow
my M8 out of the water in low light. I have f1.4 and f1.8 lenses for it, and I
have taken pictures at ISO 6400 that are cleaner than my M8 at 640.
If the light is adequate, no question the Leica lenses outperform anything
else. When I shoot Leica I do not have to apply sharpening to the images; when
I shoot Pentax (and Canon, and Olympus before) I do. But if the light is low, I
know which system will deliver the best images.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
YNWA
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:57 PM, Peter Klein wrote:
> Chuck: Yes, there was.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I shot an evening wedding reception with my M8 and
> 35/1.4 ASPH v.1. I was the "friend of the family" who was asked to bring
> my camera. They also hired a pro who shot with a D700 and 24-70/2.8 Sigma
> zoom. Over 5 pounds around her neck, about two around mine.
>
> When I saw the pro's pictures, I realized my M8 was not at as much of a
> disadvantage as I thought. In fact, in many respects I prefer the M8
> rendering. A zoom is nice at an event, and a max aperture of f/2.8 gives
> more DOF. But the Leica just has more detail. Since I'm reasonably good at
> shooting at 1/15 and 1/30, I did fine. The pro preferred not to go above
> ISO 3200. So her f/2.8 at 3200 was really even, shutter-speed wise, with
> my f/1.4 at ISO 640 (really 800).
>
> All this was quite an eye-opener, as I had expected the pro's D700
> pictures to blow mine out of the water. Perhaps if she'd been using f/1.4
> prime lenses she would have had more of an advantage. She also shot JPG, I
> guess because then she can offer a "no frills" package with minimum
> postprocessing.
>
> Anyway, if the D700 didn't blow the M8 out of the water, I suspect a K5 or
> D7000 wouldn't either. There are valid reasons to use either of those
> wunderbricks, but they are not quite the low-light panaceae I thought they
> might be.
>
> I still might spring for a D700 if the price goes down enough when the
> replacement is announced. Or maybe a 5D. And a native C or N 50/1.4. But I
> don't feel like it's worth it to go to APS-C and change all lenses and
> accessories on my "other" system. And Olympus is what I've got for an SLR:
> The E-510 and 14-54 v.1. Plus the 40-150 f/3.5-4.5, which I really, really
> like.
>
> --Peter
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> So was there something other than price and having to replace all your
>> lenses that turned you off to the Nikons and Pentax? The D700 would
> certainly fix your viewfinder problem. :-)
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>>> On 9/20/2011 3:53 PM, Peter Klein wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone here have hands-on familiarity with the E-30? I'm wondering
>>> if it would be worth upgrading my E-510 to a low milage used or
>>> refurbished E-30?
>>>
>>> Right now the E-510 is my third camera, behind the M8 and the Panny G1. A
>>> recent low-light wedding reception shoot, where I shot my M8 side-by-side
>>> with a pro using a D700, has made me think that maybe I don't want a D700,
>>> D7000 or K-5 as much as I thought I did. Which might just mean sticking
>>> with the DSLR system I have, but maybe upgrading the body.
>>>
>>> The main issue I have with the E-510 is the tiny viewfinder and its lack
>>> of eye relief (I wear glasses). This may be why I don't use it that much.
>>> Supposedly the E-30 is much better, though not quite in the same league as
>>> the E-3/E-5.
>>>
>>> According to this site, which matches dpreviews figures closely...
>>> http://www.neocamera.com/article/viewfinder_sizes
>>>
>>> ...the E-520 (same VF as the 510) has a magnification of 0.44x, the E-30
>>> is 0.5x. The E-3/E-5 is 0.58x.
>>>
>>> Right now I'm using the E-510 with a third-party 1.1x magnifier. This
>>> gives me a magnification of .485x, which is getting close to the E-30.
>>> But the eye relief is still way too low. I can't see the far corners of
>>> the image, and I have to shift my eye to see the shooting information.
>>>
>>> The E-510 supposedly has a weaker anti-alias filter than many of the later
>>> models, I don't know how that compares with the E-30.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? From what I've read, many people prefer the E-30 to the E-3.
>>> The E-5 has some genuine improvements, but is too big/expensive,
>>> especially for a second or third camera.
>>>
>>> --Peter
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|