C'mon let's wake this forum up

[MissionMan]

@MM, I anticipated all your answers, but still wrote what I did because, IMHO, it remains valid. I mean, if you really want your camera to be able to compensate for you not having properly prepared or anticipated for a shot, then you wouldn't have any photos taken with your phone, because you might miss 'the only photo of your daughter in a particular situation that you want', so you would always have the D750 on one shoulder, plus every lens you have on the other shoulder, plus all the other lenses you don't have, in a wheelie suitcase hooked onto your belt, just in case you need one -- plus a few extra bodies for when you need 36 MP (D810) or ISO100,000+ (Sony A7S). I think you are trying a bit too hard to disagree with me with minor exceptions to the general truths in my post, based on hypotheticals, yet you don't even believe in those exceptions yourself based on your choices, which, incidentally, I think are very reasonable.

P.S. how 'bout that Panasonic phone, eh?

I believe in the exceptions, I simply state that to call someone pixel peeping (which you did) because they demand more from their equipment than you is wrong and to state that they are attempting to get their gear to compensate is insulting to say the least, particularly when you have never posted a photo to this website.

To believe that only your requirements are the correct ones and anyone outside of these boundaries is unprepared or improperly anticipating a shot is also wrong. Some of the best photos I've seen are those that were taken in less than ideal situations with the wrong lens because there wasn't time to change a lens. To assume that all photos allow you to be adequately prepared is flawed. Photography is life and without being psychic, there is no way to predict the unpredictable. Unlike weddings where you have control of the elements, not all photography allows you to plan the perfect shot. I'm assuming you shoot RAW? If so, why? Isn't it for exactly the reason that you can fix something that you didn't have a chance to do at the time of taking a photo, like white balance variations due to changes in light? Or if what you are trying to say is correct, you should be shooting JPG and doing zero post processing because any post processing is as a result of you being unprepared or having raw compensate for you not being properly prepared or not having anticipated a shot.

The point is, camera technology is getting better and allows for you to compensate. Auto white balance, something we take for granted (no matter how bad it can be at times), along with every other pieces of functionality like auto focus, metering (which no longer requires you to carry a light meter), high ISO, etc. There are 36MP cameras that allow for you to crop because you don't have a 400mm lens with you. That's not being unprepared, that's making the best of your situation. There are high ISO's that compensate for that fact that you cannot use a flash in some circumstances. Again, that isn't lack of preparation, you can be prepared and not bring a flash because the circumstances don't allow you to use one.

So if you are practicing what you preach, I assume you shoot manual, carry a light meter, white balance every photo before taking it and shoot everything at night with flash.

[mpb]

Hey @Arg and @MM, its been somewhat entertaining however it has probably got to that stage where it is not really benefiting anyone.
Perhaps it is time to declare a cease fire and agree to disagree.
Photography does not have a right and wrong most of the time which is why I enjoy it and enjoy what other people do and the way they do it.

This interest we all share, and this forum, is supposed to be fun.

Anyway, have some fun and get out and take some photos.

[ameerat42]

...it has probably got to that stage where it is not really benefiting anyone...
...
This interest we all share, and this forum, is supposed to be fun.

Anyway, have some fun and get out and take some photos...

A very good summary and suggestion.

[Arg]

Done. I'll even let him have the last word.

Any readers using the Sony A7 series, what do you think of it?

[bcys1961]

Agree ! I stopped bothering to read this thread a few weeks ago!

[jev]

I want to dive into mirrorless ownership over a bridge camera, or a phone, simply for one reason, interchangeable lenses, in particular zoom!That alone gives me a great advantage over taking shots with my phone. The second advantage over a phone is low light performance, that is where phone cameras fall down every time. Even though my phone can capture a good pixel quality image.

http://camkix.com/product_category/cell-phone-lenses

(P.S.: You attachment doesn't work)

[ricktas]

http://camkix.com/product_category/cell-phone-lenses

(P.S.: You attachment doesn't work)

Yep, we are trying to sort out this attachment problem. Thanks for the link too, Joost! I have tried some of these lenses, that a friend has, and whilst they work, the Image Quality suffered.

[arthurking83]

.....
For constant aperture zoom lens, you'd have to go down to m43 sized sensors for something that is still quite compact (Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 and Olympus 12-40 f2.8). And even with those, there are fair amounts of software correction for distortion to achieve the petite lens sizes, but remains very sharp despite these corrections I have to add though.

I'm not a fan of disallowing in camera corrections, and a major reason I(personally) would avoid m4/3 cameras as they don't allow control of correction effects.
Of the Nikon cameras I have with allowances for correction they all have(to a degree) the ability to turn most effects ON/OFF .. with the exception of very high ISO noise reduction.
(For this really high ISO noise reduction control, you need Nikon's raw converters).


I've checked a few Olympus samples, and while the images look OK with this distortion correction, you're always kept wondering how much better can it be.

This is what Imaging Resource had to say about Olympus's in camera correction:

There is however going to be some loss of resolution in the corners as a result of such correction, because pixels in the corners of the frame are being "stretched" to correct for the distortion. Obviously, a lens that doesn't require such correction that is also sharp in the corners to begin with would be preferable, but relaxing constraints on barrel and pincushion distortion likely brings other benefits in the lens design, such as cost, size and weight.

The other issue with this(or such) systems is that it makes it harder for third parties to produce lenses for the camera system.

For example, Sigma would need to, not only spend money on the design and manufacture of any lenses for m4/3, but the added cost of software correction(if they are privy to the software ecosystem!!).
And while the two m4/3 makers may currently allow access to the software from third party lens makers .. this is not guaranteed into the future with any updated models.

So third party lens makers, who supply a good deal of optional lenses and lens types for DSLR systems, would be more reluctant to produce lenses of varying types and price ranges!

A quick look at Sigma's lens range sees many lenses for Canon/Pentax/Nikon/Sony-Minolta(ie. Sony DSLR) .. maybe 60 or more different lenses in their current lineup, and they have only three lenses for m4/3rds (and those same three for Sony's mirrorless E mount)

Two easily deduced reasons for this(in today's camera climate):

1/. Going by the very low and almost boring lens specs of 19 or 30mm and f/2.8!!) the lenses are designed with inherently well corrected optics. So they will natively produce little or no distortion and or CA. This is most likely due to the probability that Sigma won't have the in camera corrections allowances .. so in effect are 'on their own' in terms of maximising the optical qualities of their products. Those two quoted sample lenses are the FF equivalents of a 38mm f/5.6 and 60mm f/5.6 lens, and Sigma also has a 60mm f/2.8, which again has a rather ho hum FF equivalence rendering capability of a 120mm f/5.6.
Note that Tamron only produces one lens for the m4/3rd system, and this is a new superzoom lens(14-150mm). It'll be interesting to see optical results from this lens.
Tokina only produce one lens for m4/3, and this is a 300mm mirror lens which is manual focus.

The only reasonable conclusion for the lack of alternative lenses in the MFT arena is that Olympus and Panasonic have most bases covered, and or that the entry level for the technology required is too hard, which increases costs and hence product prices.

2/. The other reason for this lack of many third party lenses is that mirrorless isn't some perpetually increasing camera market that we're lead to believe it is!
If it were, others would attempt to cash in on the phenomenon.

And while it's easy to dismiss third party lens makers as irrelevant, my contention is that they most certainly are not!
Recent offerings from both Sigma and Tamron not only give us (DSLR users) lenses we just can't get from out choice camera brand, but in many instances do it batter in some way or another!
And Tokina have always had a very solid reputation for many years now .. they just seem a bit reluctant to be more adventurous.

While I'm not a current fan of mirrorless cameras(because of the current level of EVF tech) .. I'm even less of a fan of Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras.
Lack of control over what is in effect your property is a major limitation!

[swifty]

Its a compromise in the downsizing process.
Personally I don't believe going mirrorless' main goal is to go small. I mean, it is one advantage but as you've mentioned there are many other reasons such as reduced complexity and associated costs.
But in the m43 arena, size is very much high on the agenda I believe.
It took me a long time to grapple with this issue of software correction.
Relinquishing control is something I don't do well but its just another thing that doesn't bother me nearly as much anymore in practical use. So I guess it depends on the individual.

I suspect the lack of third party lens is closer to no.2 of your reasoning.
Compared to DSLRs, they are still quite small by volume. Perhaps they might start to gain critical mass in regional markets such as Asia and the Japanese domestic market soon.. who knows. I've become very sceptical of sale/shipment numbers and growth charts put out by interested parties so I can't say I trust any of the supposedly grown/decline trends.
But if the volume is there I'm sure we will see better third party support.

[ameerat42]

Swifty, what is software correction in this context?
Am.

[swifty]

Am: some of the m43 lenses are not well corrected for geometric distortion such as barrel, pincushion etc.
The cameras apply native software correction automatically to account for these distortions.
Some third party software are able to render an uncorrected RAW image where the distortions have been measured, some of which have been quite significant.

[ameerat42]

I see. Thanks for that.

[arthurking83]

I think I remember one of the m4/3 lenses .. a Panasonic lens maybe .. had barrel distortion of about 8% uncorrected, which reduced to about 1% or something when software that recognised the camera correction data was allowed to do it's thing.

I suppose if the need is simply just general photography then auto correction should be sufficient, and cameras are becoming more than powerful and capable enough to do some reasonable internal processing.
Some of the NR routines in camera nowadays are quite good(at least in Nikon terms).
Obviously not as clever and finely tuned as a more powerful computer based NR software ... but from some of the samples I've plucked along the way .. they're still quite good.

But when it comes to more 'serious' applications, for me this means something like macro or astro photography .. less processing is generally better.

FWIW: I turn off CA correction and distortion control in my cameras(where available) and prefer to see the warts as they are captured .. and obviously deal with them if they need it.
It still pains me that I can't fully turn NR off in camera tho when using high ISOs .. even tho NR in camera is always set to OFF.
From what I've noticed in some of my comparions trials too, I can (seemingly) turn off the hidden NR applied to raw images when shooting at high ISO, via Nikon's software, but it appears to be less effective when viewed with something like Lr(in my case 4).
I can't remember if my trial of Lr5 did the same thing .. but I have a feeling that Lr doesn't allow the option to fully turn off any applied hidden NR on the raw files.
(they always seem to have a slightly cleaner noise appearance in Lr than in Nikon software when all NR is set to off.

BTW: all cameras have this hidden application of NR when shooting at really high ISO(that I know of).

Another tidbit(and risking taking this thread wayyy OT!! ) .. there is a group dedicated to hacking into Nikon cameras firmwares(nikonhacker) where I've trialled a firmware hack to give pure raw files .. ie without any preprocessing .. for capturing astro images.
It's a strange and awkward implementation at the moment where you can't turn the camera off, or allow it to go to sleep(ie. meter off) mode or else this blackpoint hack reverts back to a non hacked firmware state.

So the operation is that you load the blackpoint firmware hack via the computer, and just keep the in an camera active state.
You take your series of image stacks and you have pure raw Nikon files for doing astro images.
The 'disconcerting' aspect is that all the images have a very magenta(purple-ish) look to them.

My next stage is to acquire a tracking system of some type and do a bit more astro imaging at some point in the future.

The point of this(and hence any semblance of relevance) to this thread) is that the manufacturers need to take into account the need for some folks to have all control over the devices.
They seem to have this fearful mentality that if they don't, then some idiot will do something incomprehensibly silly in trying to capture an image, and that somehow the manufacturer's reputation may be shot to pieces .. or something!


.. more control please .. not more automated witchcraft with no way to control it!

Sony! .... their incomprehensibly stupid 11 bit raw file decision!
While it may not make a difference to some, other's live by the ability to eke out as much quality when the need arises whether this comes from auto correction, or 11bit raw files.
I personally couldn't bring myself to purchase an A7 of any type simply because if I ever wanted to capture a high dynamic range scene(in one shot) .. this camera limits the ability to squeeze out that final little bit of image out of the raw file.
For me it turns it more so into a P&S camera .. where just capturing the photo is the goal .. no matter how good/bad/ugly it turns out .. more control = better.

Anyhow .. All I think I need is for me to have the option to capture an image(or set of images) with an intended goal.
If that goal is to achieve an image that is based more on an OCD of optimal data(as Thom puts it), then I think it should be my choice to do so .. not their choice to disallow me to do so.
(hence I look for alternatives, in the form of firmware hacks ... or disregard devices as too limited for all my purposes).

[ameerat42]

AK. WHOSE 11-bit raw file?

GHH!! and SPYUU!!

[arthurking83]

Sony A7's only do 11bit raw files.

Why?

12bit I can understand(but don't use) .. and what's wrong with 14bits?
One can only assume processing power .. which equals battery usage .. which means shots per charge .. which means ... err I dunno .. maybe EVFs draw too much power or something

[swifty]

AK: I understand where you're coming from. I think it comes down to design objectives.
When the m43 system does become broad enough to encompass more specialized lenses then the objective of the lens designer should in theory suit whatever the intended application is. Astrophotography lens that are super fast and coma free perhaps.
We should remember that not all m43 lens undergo such auto correction. It tends to be the more consumer-ish lens or lens where compactness was an obvious objective. Again I'll still state that the idea doesn't sit well with me but in practice its a forgotten issue for me.
I also have a 75mm f1.8 lens that renders so clinically it rivals any DSLR lens I've ever used. No correction required. The only thing I do manually to images from the 75mm is a little CA reduction.

I think we just have to live with some of these hidden parameters imposed by the camera manufacturers. You mentioned the NR issue for one, sometimes manufacturers appear to bake in the NR even in 'off' settings.
ISO is not much of a standard since it seems to differ for every model.
ISO gain compensation for T-stop light losses is another I've read about.

Sometimes it's easier to give in.

[arthurking83]

ISO ratings are totally understandable and everyone should be accepting of the variances.

The ISO standards actually allow for this in digital sensor photography.
The manufacturers have some leeway when rating ISO points for their products.

As long as within the acceptable range of allowance, the variation in actual ISO levels is OK.(ie. close enough)

Some of the problems with trying to specifically specify an ISO rating in a digital camera(that aligns perfectly with a film speed ISO rating) is the issue of software conversion/rendering etc.
At what point do you allow for acceptable noise within the image, and what is an acceptable exposure, are just two of the questions that are open to 'interpretation' more so with digital than with film.
Then we have the issue of raw file conversion software. There will be variances between the way different software demosaic a raw file .. hence different exposures, even tho you followed a strict exposure schedule!

..

Seen some samples and the reviews of that 75/1.8 .. and yeah! ... wow! super quality stuff.
I reckon the price is probably a little on the high side, but the quality of the lens redeems this (very subjective) downside.

note* The high price issue is only when compared to the price of an average 85mm f/1.8 from other manufacturers that is.

[jev]

I don't have enough experience with the camera yet to provide all the nitty gritty details, but every time I see the results from a couple of fellow X-T1 users I'm pretty impressed. Weather permitting I might just give it a go this weekend.

Okay, the weather wasn't too bad this weekend but it wasn't great either. So, instead of going into town, we went to see the National Millitary Museum in Soesterberg which is pretty close by. Here's an example of what the little Fuji is capable of. The image I attach here is taken in a small, pretty dark room. I kept the EXIF information intact but for your convenience: this was taken at 6400ISO, f/4 and 1/6", in JPEG. No postprocessing except for a bit of cut and resize - basically, what you see is straight from the camera.

The image illustrates a couple of things:

1. Even in pretty dark circumstances, it focusses acurately
2. Even at these pretty ridiculous exposure settings, there is no significant noise
3. The EVF is very good, I could not have seen enough using an optical viewfinder only
4. The image stabilizer is outstanding. I had the camera in my hands as usual and just leaned against a post

nmm_comando.jpg

[agb]

Okay, the weather wasn't too bad this weekend but it wasn't great either. So, instead of going into town, we went to see the National Millitary Museum in Soesterberg which is pretty close by. Here's an example of what the little Fuji is capable of. The image I attach here is taken in a small, pretty dark room. I kept the EXIF information intact but for your convenience: this was taken at 6400ISO, f/4 and 1/6", in JPEG. No postprocessing except for a bit of cut and resize - basically, what you see is straight from the camera.

The image illustrates a couple of things:

1. Even in pretty dark circumstances, it focusses acurately
2. Even at these pretty ridiculous exposure settings, there is no significant noise
3. The EVF is very good, I could not have seen enough using an optical viewfinder only
4. The image stabilizer is outstanding. I had the camera in my hands as usual and just leaned against a post

Thanks for posting. Seems a nice sharp image for where and what it was.
A couple of questions. Firstly how do you read the exif data for that image?
Second what lens was used to get that image that had image stabilizing?
Thanks.

[Arg]

Browsing the promotional blurb for the new Olympus E-M5 II, they claim "the world's shortest* shooting time lag", whatever that is, and the little asterisk leads to the disclaimer "*As of February 5, 2015 on interchangeable lens cameras. Based on Olympus testing using CIPA standards, when used with M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO at telephoto end, Single AF Target (single point at the centre), IS off."

Nevertheless, arguable though it be, I think the message is it ain't slow.