C'mon let's wake this forum up

[jev]

Actually, I consider the X-T1 to be a great street-photography tool. Slap on a 27/2.8 pancake and you'll have an unobtrusive looking box that is great for this goal. The 27/2.8 may not be weathersealed but it can withstand a drizzle or two. If you want something longer, the 35/1.4 is a good choice. Personally, I have a 18-55/2.8-4 which is a good allround lens (although it already looks like some serious glass which makes street photography harder).

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.

As for the assumed smearing: I work in JPEG these days and have no complaints. Capture One does an outstanding job on the RAF conversion but so far i haven't really found the need for it.

I'm starting to sound like a fanboy, which I certainly am not. So I'll just shut up now and let I@M do the Fuji-talking

[swifty]

The colour smearing is entirely an software issue, you do not see it in ( low iso ) jpegs from the camera. I will attach a couple of 3200 iso jpegs from the camera, no after the shot processing other than a small compositional crop. Any smearing in shots like that will come from noise reduction which is unable to be turned off.

It is NOT a Fuji fault or trait !!!!!

Good software shows no smearing in raw files at any iso, A$obe products do show it! My pick, which really does do a good job with Fuji colours is Photo Ninja. Cheap, fast enough and consistent with no huge learning curve.

I was under the impression demosiacing X-tran sensors are a little tricky due to the colour filtration pattern where not every pixel has all the colour information from adjacent pixels. They may be an extra pixel further away.
I wasn't implying it is a fault of Fuji cameras, just that there are pros and cons in changing that filter array from Bayer to X-Tran. The main advantage of course being more green pixels, hence more luminance info and why they bat above their weight division, noise wise.
Anyways, as software algorithm become smarter I'm sure this will be less of an issue (if at all in the first place). Unless the situation has changed where Adobe has improve X-tran conversion, unfortunately for me the workflow issue remains.
But as I don't own a camera with X-tran sensor, I'm not as up to date on how current software deals with the X-tran files, I'll have to bow out of this side discussion.

[Glen1]

Ok, so I'm a DSLR user who has been dragged into this conversation, as I'm now interested in a mirror less as a compact carry-around. What is the viewpoint on the Olympus OM-D EM-10?

Regards
Glen1

[mpb]

There are many arguments for the use of an EVF over an OVF, but at this point I think that while many are happy with the current state of technology, I reckon there are more people that aren't overly convinced by it.

Really, what do you base this on? I would suggest that of all the photos taken at the moment, the vast majority (very very vast majority) would be taken with non OVF cameras. In fact most don't have any view finders at all, just live view. This would suggest that most people prefer live view on an LCD over OVF or EVF.

Not saying I agree with them, just pointing out the facts.

[MissionMan]

Really, what do you base this on? I would suggest that of all the photos taken at the moment, the vast majority (very very vast majority) would be taken with non OVF cameras. In fact most don't have any view finders at all, just live view. This would suggest that most people prefer live view on an LCD over OVF or EVF.

Not saying I agree with them, just pointing out the facts.

On the contrary, given the price range of the majority of digital cameras, it simply points to the fact that they are manufactured using the cheapest possible method. A digital camera needs an LCD to display photos, so the cheapest option is to use this as the viewfinder.

[mpb]

OK, so they are happy (no really prefer) to use a camera without a view finder.
Most people are happy to use their phones to take photos and are not very discerning about the quality of the photos, let alone the quality of the equipment.

[MissionMan]

OK, so they are happy (no really prefer) to use a camera without a view finder.
Most people are happy to use their phones to take photos and are not very discerning about the quality of the photos, let alone the quality of the equipment.

Most people are happy to use their phones because they either don't give a shit about the quality or don't want to carry another camera. I often use my phone, but if I had a choice between my phone and a DSLR that i have with me, I would take the DSLR any day of the week.

That said, the types of users we are referring to in this topic are unlikely to be P&S photographer and are probably a little more discerning about photo quality.

[Hawthy]

That is true. However, I wonder if we are becoming the fringe-dwellers. I recently bought some off-camera lighting equipment and was looking at articles on the web about how to use it. One writer pointed out that it was only other photographers who looked at the reflected highlights in eyes to see how the shot was lit. Other people see it as just another nice shot. That brought a lot of things home to me.

My iPhone takes images as least as well as a Panasonic Lumix TZ-30 travel zoom that I bought two years ago. Plus I can text or email the photos straight away from the phone. I really love learning the technical details of photography via the DSLR but I think that most people don't acknowledge how hard it is to produce a really great shot when their phone can easily produce a reasonably good shot.

[MissionMan]

That is true. However, I wonder if we are becoming the fringe-dwellers. I recently bought some off-camera lighting equipment and was looking at articles on the web about how to use it. One writer pointed out that it was only other photographers who looked at the reflected highlights in eyes to see how the shot was lit. Other people see it as just another nice shot. That brought a lot of things home to me.

My iPhone takes images as least as well as a Panasonic Lumix TZ-30 travel zoom that I bought two years ago. Plus I can text or email the photos straight away from the phone. I really love learning the technical details of photography via the DSLR but I think that most people don't acknowledge how hard it is to produce a really great shot when their phone can easily produce a reasonably good shot.

I agree that it's easier to take good photos due to the technology but I disagree that people don't recognise it. If you showed people two photos, I have no doubt they would notice the quality difference between them, but whether they would pay for it is a difference is the question because the lower quality image is not longer an unacceptable level of quality.

[I @ M]

Capture One does an outstanding job on the RAF conversion but so far i haven't really found the need for it.

Good to know that there have been advancements made by C1 for processing, I haven' taken much notice software ( apart from A$obe users saying Fuji is at fault ) since I started using P Ninja.

I'm starting to sound like a fanboy, which I certainly am not. So I'll just shut up now and let I@M do the Fuji-talking

Joost, you of all people should know by now that I am not a fan boy of any one system or manufacturer.

I was under the impression demosiacing X-tran sensors are a little tricky due to the colour filtration pattern where not every pixel has all the colour information from adjacent pixels. They may be an extra pixel further away.
I wasn't implying it is a fault of Fuji cameras, just that there are pros and cons in changing that filter array from Bayer to X-Tran. The main advantage of course being more green pixels, hence more luminance info and why they bat above their weight division, noise wise.
Anyways, as software algorithm become smarter I'm sure this will be less of an issue (if at all in the first place). Unless the situation has changed where Adobe has improve X-tran conversion, unfortunately for me the workflow issue remains.

Swifty, I think that you are probably right on the money with your thoughts that demosiaicing the X trans files has presented a few problems for companies that have a " Bayer mindset", A$obe being one, but it does appear that they are improving their products albeit slowly. I think there is sufficient proof out there that good RAF file conversion can be done as evidenced by Fuji being able to build a good converter in camera to handle their proprietary files and then software makers who have spent the time to "get it right" rather than just do a 1/2 arsed job as an addition to their existing product.

I'll have to bow out of this side discussion.

Noooo, continue, share your thoughts and views, discussion empowers knowledge and with that photographers everywhere can make informed and rational decisions about gear and as the Fuji X trans sensor is at the heart of a totally mirrorless ( presently ) range of cameras it deserves to be discussed.

[arthurking83]

Really, what do you base this on? I would suggest that of all the photos taken at the moment, the vast majority (very very vast majority) would be taken with non OVF cameras. In fact most don't have any view finders at all, just live view. This would suggest that most people prefer live view on an LCD over OVF or EVF.

Not saying I agree with them, just pointing out the facts.

Ahhh! apologies.
I was referring to a more discerning type of photographer... more of the pro/amateur type.

Persons that are more than happy to take high quality photos with their smart phones most likely wouldn't care if their good cameras have mirrors or not.
They've conditioned themselves now, not to know/see/understand the difference the viewfinder can make.

So yes .. you are right. Whilst the vast majority of photos the world has to put up with are captured via non OVF cameras.
The vast majority of interchangeable lens cameras(of which we would categorise this group into serious photographers!!) still prefer OVF cameras.
Whether this is because an OVF has much better overall quality is unclear.
Most likely not, and price and brand is still the most likely reason for DSLRs still selling more than 3x the numbers of mirrorless cameras.
And this is when you still take into account the ever increasing numbers of mirrorless camera models coming to market over the past couple of years!

The number of models of DSLRs has stagnated now for about 5 years or so .. hence there is no new market for DSLR makers to push into.
Whereas mirrorless camera makers have been pushing into more market segments in those past 5 years, and still seemingly doing so with more new model types.
So that would partially account for increased sales in the mirrorless sector.

But once those market segments also mature, sales will follow the path of all the other camera segments too .. flat and or downwards.

So my (factual point) was not so much based on total photography levels .. but more so on what people still prefer to buy when they are looking into a new 'good camera'!
(where new good camera = anything other than the smart phone and can fit other lenses).

Worldwide sales of these higher end cameras are just over 3x in favour of the DSLR type.

[ricktas]

thanks for the feedback on my post asking what Mirrorless I should get.

[ricktas]

One of the big drawbacks for using a phone to take photos is the lack of optical zoom. The form factor of a mobile is such that putting a decent optical zoom on one, just doesn't really work. And the only one I recall ever seeing was from Samsung. With mirrorless and DSLR we get to choose a lens that suits our intended subject and distance.

A LOT more mobile phones are sold each year than DSLR and mirrorless. I would actually suggest that the tech development of sensors etc is driven these days by the mobile phone market. They push the boundaries of what they can fit on a tiny sensor and how well it performs in low light etc, and that tech research and development is then pushed through to the bigger camera sensors. My phone has a 16mp camera, on a tiny physical form (compared to m43, aps,ff). Considering the millions of phone sold each year, there is certainly a marketing advantage of saying you have the best camera in a phone, and we see that from Apple, Samsung etc in their advertising. I think the push to fit a better camera sensor into every phone is driving the R&D of sensors as a whole.

Under less than optimal conditions, you start to see noise, both granular and colour with these tiny sensors in phones, which is where those of us that value our photography a bit more start looking at larger sensors than what phones offer.

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.

Attachment 114923

[Arg]

Ok, so give me your advice. I want a mirrorless camera, the best I can get, with a larger sensor, that would be great for street photography. Must have tiltable lcd so I can shoot from the hip, something that works beautifully in low light (dark alleyways), has some waterproofing in case it rains. Of course I am awaiting to see if the rumours of the Nikon FF mirrorless are true, but until they prove to be, which current ones do you recommend, and why?

Ah, found it. Thanks for the friendly reminder, I was too busy yesterday.

I don't know ! That's a special purpose camera, I have never pursued that angle. The Sony A7s is the obvious first pick. I doubt if anything ticks all your boxes, including zoom lenses, perhaps some other readers can chime in?

An intriguing option would be the new Olympus EM5 II with the new Voigtlander 10.5mm f/0.95 lens. No AF, no zoom, no full frame, why would I even go there?

- - - Updated - - -

Most people are happy to use their phones because they either don't give a shit about the quality or don't want to carry another camera. I often use my phone,...

If you 'give a shit' about those photos with your phone, Panasonic make a phone with a 1" sensor and a 28mm equiv f/2.8 lens. Interesting?

- - - Updated - - -

Ok.. I know this question wasn't directed at me but here's my input anyways.
I don't think anything exists that fits your criteria exactly but here are a few thoughts.

The only FF mirrorless currently are the Sony FE and the A7s' current top dog for low light but does so at 12MP which as you know is low by today's standards but may/may not be suitable. My main issue with the FE's currently are the native lens choice. The 55/1.8 is very good.
The 35mm/1.4 and 28mm/2 are both just on the horizon but the 35mm looks quite large and negates some of the advantage of going mirrorless. And that's about it for the fast lenses so whilst you gain a stop or so on sensor performance there's less fast native lenses currently available so you may be back to square one.
They all have tilt LCDs but weather sealing is probably not one of its strong points.

The Fuji X-tran APS-C sensors approach FF performance for low light but there are some reports of small penalties such as colour smearing with some converters. This is my main problem since I'm a bit reluctant to change my LR workflow and Adobe's not one of the better RAW converters for X-trans sensors. But I may be tempted to just use the classic chrome jpeg setting. Its the first jpeg I've seen where I've consistently liked the results. But note not all the Fuji's use X-tran sensors.
But some of the advantages are the number of high quality fast primes that are reasonably sized.
My pick currently is the X-T1 which I think Jev owns so I'll leave the details to those with intimate experience with the camera. The LCD does tilt but the X-T1's closer to a DSLR replacement style camera so may be larger than what you want.
X-Pro 2's not likely due until at least later in the year so no point speculating.
The current enthusiast rangefinder style bodied X cameras (X-Pro 1 and X-E2) don't have tilt LCDs but their lower end more recent ones do. The trend seem to be to have the tilt LCDs so perhaps the replacements will get them.

Going smaller and you have the m43's. But I suspect you may feel the sensors are too small.
Advantages are lots of small fast primes which make up a little of the sensor disadvantage.
The higher end Olympus cameras in particularly are very well weather sealed.
There are patents for even faster primes from Olympus but again just speculations at this stage.
They pretty much all have tilt LCDs.

Sony E-mount? Similar issue with lenses.
Samsung NX: watch this space. Samsung's very ambitious but not proven. The NX1 seem to be a specs tour de force but is intended as a DSLR replacement style camera, so probably not what you're after. I'm not very familiar with their lens range.

Thanks swifty, I just saw this as I was catching up with the thread. Good summary, I agree.

Shooting in the dark raises the question of what the shooter wants the final image to look like. If the demand is "I want to see no noise when I pixel-peep at the shadows after boosting them by 5 stops on my computer", then that is more of a lab technician-type demand of technology of its own sake. OTOH if the final image is going to show dark areas as dark or pretty dark, and cropping is modest as befits a well-composed field shot, then current cameras can be put to good use in this situation.

My experience is that photos taken in the dark look best with large shadowy areas, and look weird when 'turned into daylight'. Also, in colour photography, the night light has a spectrum that I don't find makes the subject look attractive in a 'colourful' way. No doubt that's not universal, but in the end I think a lot of great night photography can be done with current cameras.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, so I'm a DSLR user who has been dragged into this conversation, as I'm now interested in a mirror less as a compact carry-around. What is the viewpoint on the Olympus OM-D EM-10?

Hi Glen, welcome! I'm hoping others who actually own it will chip in, but from what I have seen and heard from users, my opinion of it from a distance is that it is probably the very best option, in general camera terms, for a DSLR user, at its price point.

But, the emboldened part of your post gives me pause. Depending on how compact you need 'compact' to be, the Lumix GM5 is hard to believe when you hold it in hand. Which is the most I have personally done with one. Also, the matching Lumix 12-32mm pancake zoom is a genuine sharpie according to reviews and user reports.

Have you checked out the E-M10 in person?

[MissionMan]

Shooting in the dark raises the question of what the shooter wants the final image to look like. If the demand is "I want to see no noise when I pixel-peep at the shadows after boosting them by 5 stops on my computer", then that is more of a lab technician-type demand of technology of its own sake. OTOH if the final image is going to show dark areas as dark or pretty dark, and cropping is modest as befits a well-composed field shot, then current cameras can be put to good use in this situation.

My experience is that photos taken in the dark look best with large shadowy areas, and look weird when 'turned into daylight'. Also, in colour photography, the night light has a spectrum that I don't find makes the subject look attractive in a 'colourful' way. No doubt that's not universal, but in the end I think a lot of great night photography can be done with current cameras.

I'm guessing your camera doesn't leave auto mode much then. Lifting shadows has been done for years to counter for problems encountered with exposure. I'm assuming you know what bracketing is and that it's not only used for HDR's.

Then you would consider the possibility of user errors which happens remarkable often. For example, going out, taking some photos and only realising afterwards that you left bracketing on from your last set of photos and you now have a whole heap of photos over and under exposed. This could be something as simply as pulling out your camera to get a photo where you don't have the time to check settings or even change lenses.

Then we could use the example of metering as another way that you could get photos considerably under exposed. Taking photos with matrix metering on could result in the subject under exposed so if you're taking photos in a wider variety of conditions, have matrix metering enabled at the time could have created areas with considerable under exposure.

I often pick up issues with shooting sports where you have to shoot into the sun (no choice in some cases) which can result in having to recover shadows with low ISO.

The point with this is there are a whole heap of reasons that being able to lift shadows is a good thing. That's why increases in dynamic range are good, much the same as the reduction in noise at high ISO is good. You can't simply blow it off as pixel peeping when it provides value to people. Having the ability to meter based on highlights to know that you won't have any blown areas in a photo and recover shadows is a substantial advantage.

[Glen1]

Hi Arg,
I haven't checked out the Lumix as yet, but have noticed a few used EM-10's for sale on the net at reduced prices, which is more my budget.
I'll have to go and check it out in the flesh.

Regards
Glen1

[Arg]

@MM, taking your paragraphs in order:

You guess poorly, I use P,A,S, and M, mostly.

User errors I can deal with using the 'trash can' usually found in the bottom right of my computer screen, also found on a button on the back of my camera.

Taking photos in the dark should be done with preparation and care, not thoughtlessly and casually. Not if you want good results.

Shooting sports into the sun was not the topic of my post. You knew that.

I lift shadows when needed, with care and moderation. For night photos, don't meter for highlights, instead, blow the light globes (so to speak ). It is often said that the skilled photographer does not demand better equipment, instead, uses the available equipment intelligently to get great final images. Philosophically, I prefer that approach. Or there's the A7S, heh.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Arg,
I haven't checked out the Lumix as yet, but have noticed a few used EM-10's for sale on the net at reduced prices, which is more my budget.
I'll have to go and check it out in the flesh.

Regards
Glen1

Yes, I think for the budget level of a used E-M10, you can't beat it! The GM5 is a different price level at the moment.

[MissionMan]

[QUOTE=Arg;1278043]@MM, taking your paragraphs in order:

You guess poorly, I use P,A,S, and M, mostly.

User errors I can deal with using the 'trash can' usually found in the bottom right of my computer screen, also found on a button on the back of my camera.

Taking photos in the dark should be done with preparation and care, not thoughtlessly and casually. Not if you want good results.

Shooting sports into the sun was not the topic of my post. You knew that.

I lift shadows when needed, with care and moderation. For night photos, don't meter for highlights, instead, blow the light globes (so to speak ). It is often said that the skilled photographer does not demand better equipment, instead, uses the available equipment intelligently to get great final images. Philosophically, I prefer that approach. Or there's the A7S, heh.

- - - Updated - - -

okay, so lets cover some of the items:

1. Who says you can afford to lose a photo? You're making the assumption that because you can afford to delete a photo, everyone can. How about a professional? You think they don't make mistakes? How about everyone else? Just because you don't need it, doesn't mean you can claim it's pixel peeping (which you did), there are valid reasons for wanting to keep a photo. It might be the only photo of your daughter in a particular situation that you want. Personally, I don't get to go out and take photos often, and when I do, I try to take advantage of it. If the photos are crap, I see what I can do to recover them, not because I want to know how to recover, but because sometimes you understand more about how the photo should have been composed.

2. Taking photos in the dark doesn't always allow for preparation. It depends on the kind of photography you do, how much time you have etc. Again, you make the assumption that because you don't need it, everyone else doesn't. I.e. the pixel peeping comment. I've rushed down to the beach, had enough time to setup and take 2 photos and that was it. The photos turned out great, but I had no time to check things.

3. Shooting sports into the sun is still valid for pulling out shadows whether you meant it or not. Shoot a photo of someone into the sun and you get a silhouette or a blown out photo. That's why they have flash. But flash only works where you can light the subject with enough of a power to overpower the sun. Try do that with a surfer on a wave face from a distance. Yeah, flash is great, but it's not always available. Other examples include onstage performances, large areas etc.

4. If you are going to keeping going on about skills over equipment, you need to have something to back it up. You can say you don't want to post and that's all fine and well, but when you continue to use your skills as reason why you don't need a particular set of equipment, well, you know where this is going...

[swifty]

Noooo, continue, share your thoughts and views, discussion empowers knowledge and with that photographers everywhere can make informed and rational decisions about gear and as the Fuji X trans sensor is at the heart of a totally mirrorless ( presently ) range of cameras it deserves to be discussed.

Haha.. only in this side discussion about X-tran processing mate. I hate to repeat things I've read that perhaps have little or no real world relevance (eg. the colour smearing). This is where real world users should chime in to give context to supposed issues/non-issues.
Going back to our discussion about Fuji jpeg output. I've always been quite pleased with their jpegs (from my S5 Pro days) but the advantages of RAW, in particular the highlight recovery of my then camera really meant shooting jpegs meant underutilising the camera.
But I really like Classic Chrome and I had thought it would be great to shoot RAW + jpeg and wifi-ing jpegs processed in Classic Chrome to my phone for immediate use. As you know Fuji has a habit of updating firmware continuously and regularly so I think its just a matter of time before you get it on your X100s.

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.

Oh, that changes the landscape quite a bit I think. My sheep mentality had assumed you'd only be interested in fast primes in the semi wide to normal range.
But I feel when zooms are considered, the larger sensored mirrorless cameras really start to loose a lot of the advantage of going mirrorless. Unless of course we start to see collapsible designs but perhaps the complex number of elements and groups of optics limits how much volume saving you could get even by making it collapsible. Might not be worth the trouble.
But with the recent Nikon patent of a PF 24-70 (for DSLR), maybe we are at the cusp of seeing much smaller zoom lens designs using Phase Fresnel optics (or Diffraction Optics in Canon speak).
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.

[Arg]

@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?

- - - Updated - - -

...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.

And with interchangeable-lens cameras, you can really only do that with a DSLM. Try it with a DSLR and the viewfinder frame will not match the final image frame, and distortions or CA and vignetting might be visually unacceptable to the camera users (customers). So the makers won't do that with DSLR cameras. It's a real advantage, and not just in size and weight, but image quality too. People don't 'get it' when they are critical of software correction in lenses designed with software correction as an integral component. Technically, an important point that they seem to be overlooking, is that to overcome distortion, vignetting and astigmatism using purely optical techniques will also increase lens softness, possibly more than doing it in software. The use of a mirrorless viewfinder has released lens designers to innovate and progress the technology or art of lens design. I'm willing to bet that, for any given lens production cost and volume, the best image quality in the final output would be from an integrated lens design (some corrections in the optics, some in the software). We are all benefiting from this, yet some see such lenses as inherently inferior. Ironic.