Scott Bourne calls the E-P3 his "new favorite portrait camera"

mgowin · #1 November 14th, 2011, 05:18 AM

Scott Bourne: The Olympus E-P3 + Oly 45/1.8 = My New Favorite Portrait Camera.

I just picked up an E-P3 last week and am in the process of building a small body, fast prime kit with it. I have the Panny 20/1.7 and 14/2.5 lenses with the Oly 45/1.8 on the way. While I also own Nikon DSLRs and a stable of lenses and flashes for my wedding and portrait work, I've wanted to have a good system that I could easily carry anywhere. So far I'm finding that the E-P3 makes good images--in fact, startlingly good images, even when compared with files I get from my D700 and expensive Nikon glass. Plus the E-P3 is just plain fun to use.

It's interesting to me to see a number of longtime veteran photographers like Scott Bourne, Kirk Tuck, Larry Price and others embracing the smaller formats like MFT. They wouldn't, obviously, if the image quality was poor. But maybe, like me, they're also getting older and just tired of carting a boatload of gear around.

Cheers--

MG

soundimageplus · #2 November 14th, 2011, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgowin

It's interesting to me to see a number of longtime veteran photographers like Scott Bourne, Kirk Tuck, Larry Price and others embracing the smaller formats like MFT. They wouldn't, obviously, if the image quality was poor. But maybe, like me, they're also getting older and just tired of carting a boatload of gear around.

Thanks for the link. That was an excellent read. As someone who has also recently sold a Leica M9 to use both m4/3 and NEX, I can readily identify with that.

Having used these smaller systems for weddings, events and all sorts of commercial work, the advantages are numerous. I also believe that this notion of Big Camera = Pro is diminishing somewhat and that the people who get hung up on it are more likely to be the photographers rather than the clients. Since most of us get work and sell images on the quality of our work rather than because of the camera we use, its always been somewhat of a false argument anyway.

Nice to see. Add two more to the club!!

Iansky · #3 November 14th, 2011, 05:54 AM

I keep reading of well known UK photographers who are also using Mu43 cameras as their "Go to Fun cameras" and the list includes:

David Bailey (Long time advocate of Olympus)
Lee Frost (Currently uses GF1)
Grant Scott (GF1 images published in Vogue magazine last year)
Robert White (Uses GF1)

There are numerous others starting to proclaim their use of this format so OlySonic must be doing something right.

I know my GF1 is getting more use than my D700+M8.2 combined!!

Onwards and upwards and lets hope Olympus get through their current turmoil intact.

Ray Sachs · #4 November 14th, 2011, 06:33 AM

But it has an outdated sensor!!!!

Why isn't he shooting a Pany???? Etc, etc, etc.

Great read and great example. Thanks for posting that - I'd have never seen it otherwise. These cameras (Oly AND Pany) are both up for most jobs. OK, not serious long lens action shots like sports and wildlife, but most stuff it is MORE than good enough and the positive tradeoffs tend to more than compensate for the minor deficiencies. Nice to see someone talking about the upsides rather than obsessing over the minor deficiencies...

-Ray

Rick Waldroup · #5 November 14th, 2011, 06:36 AM

I shot Nikons for over 30 years. I made a decent living as a photographer. But for my personal work, I usually used my small rangefinder cameras with prime lenses. I started downsizing a few years back and I now shoot m4/3 exclusively.

Like many, the older I got, the more tired I became of lugging around all of that gear. I, too, own the 20 and 14 and plan on adding the 45 1.8 lens in the near future. That lineup will be almost identical to the lens lineup I used with my film rangefinder cameras.

LisaO · #6 November 14th, 2011, 08:53 AM

Scott Bourne has a new favorite camera every other week. I listen to his podcast sometimes but half the things he says are half truth. Sure it's a step in the right direction for m4/3 to be embracing some of the faster lens concepts of DSLRs. I'm sure Bourne isn't going to sell off his Canons, Nikons ( plus super long telephotos for shooting birds) and Leicas too fast, yes he has them all.

Another photographer that truly embraces the m4/3 system is David H. Wells

shnitz · #7 November 14th, 2011, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LisaO

Scott Bourne has a new favorite camera every other week. I listen to his podcast sometimes but half the things he says are half truth. Sure it's a step in the right direction for m4/3 to be embracing some of the faster lens concepts of DSLRs. I'm sure Bourne isn't going to sell off his Canons, Nikons ( plus super long telephotos for shooting birds) and Leicas too fast, yes he has them all.

Another photographer that truly embraces the m4/3 system is David H. Wells

Thanks for this, I feel exactly the same about his articles and podcasts. Even in this article, his comments about "less than $400" and "fast f/1.8 providing a depth of field" are both sort of true, sort of not.

First, $399 is close enough that it's $400. It's like those infomercials that say things like "over 65 uses for our product!" when it's 66 uses. Just say the number, man. In fact, right now there is no place in stock with it at $400, so if you want to buy from an authorized seller like Amazon or Cameta, you pay $430-$450.

Also, while f/1.8 does provide a decently small depth of field, let's do a quick comparison between an E-P3 with the 45mm, and a Canon 5D or Nikon D700 with an 85mm lens, which even gives the micro 4/3 camera a 5mm effective focal length advantage. The Olympus wide open, at f/1.8, has the same depth of field as the larger cameras at f/3.4 or so. With the E-P3 at f/2.2, you have the same depth of field as the larger cameras at f/4. So, while it does provide sufficient depth of field for portraits, if you really want those extra stops of light to create ultra-creamy backgrounds, you're out of luck. Give credit where credit is due.

Ned · #8 November 14th, 2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shnitz

Also, while f/1.8 does provide a decently small depth of field, let's do a quick comparison between an E-P3 with the 45mm, and a Canon 5D or Nikon D700 with an 85mm lens, which even gives the micro 4/3 camera a 5mm effective focal length advantage. The Olympus wide open, at f/1.8, has the same depth of field as the larger cameras at f/3.4 or so. With the E-P3 at f/2.2, you have the same depth of field as the larger cameras at f/4. So, while it does provide sufficient depth of field for portraits, if you really want those extra stops of light to create ultra-creamy backgrounds, you're out of luck. Give credit where credit is due.

Actually, you should read on further in the article. Scott Bourne makes it clear that he realizes the difficulties of working with paper-thin DOF and he does not sound like he wants it to be even shallower than it already is! He praises the Olympus CDAF system which picks up the more important contrasty area of a portrait (the eyes) rather than the closer area of the nose which the PDAF system of most DSLRs will go for first. As a commercial photographer, I completely understand where he's coming from. I am always struggling to achieve greater DOF not less, and the Four-Thirds system allows me to achieve that better without sacrificing precious lens speed. Sometimes I wish I had faster lens speed available, but the problem with that is that I'll have too little in focus or may be softening my image too much. I rarely ever think, "Gee, I wish I could get more of my image out of focus", or "Gee, I hate how my camera makes my images so sharp and defined". f/1.8 offers plenty shallow DOF for portrait work on a Four-Thirds sensor, and I don't see anywhere where Bourne is saying that the DOF of f/1.8 on a Four-Thirds system is as thin as f/1.8 on a Full Frame system. He only said that it's very thin - which applies to ANY system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Bourne

When you’re shooting at F/1.8 you’ll soon realize that it offers a wafer-thin depth-of-field. Since most DSLR AF systems default to the closest thing in the scene for determining the zone of focus, you often end up making tack-sharp pictures of people’s noses, not their eyes – when shooting at f/1.8. This Olympus system helps you get past that problem. It does it well. It’s brilliant.

stratokaster · #9 November 14th, 2011, 10:27 AM

Yes, Olympus's face detection system is pretty nifty. Better than Panasonic's. It even allows you to select which eye (left or right) you want to be in focus. When shooting in auto mode, it automatically focuses on the eye that is larger and therefore presumably closer to the camera. Great stuff.

Jonathan F/2 · #10 November 14th, 2011, 11:12 AM

I've been shooting with Nikon DSLRs for a long time now, but Olympus m43 cameras offer a pretty neat package which negates any of the disadvantages. The jpegs are amazingly good; m43 prime lenses are eye bleeding sharp; RC flash control is awesome with a camera the size of my iPhone and IBIS really works. It's truly a near-complete micro system. I don't really care if doesn't do great low light, I have a D3 for that. People seem to argue high ISO while ignoring the real advantages to the system.