Has everyone gone mad?

[Mike Peters]

Hi Mike, I think I should apologise here for awarding you a "funny" for the above photo.
I was under the impression you were just taking a photo of a billboard.
If my brain has now registered this correctly, you took the billboard photo?

That's ok. I took the photo on the billboard, and of the billboard. Most people think it's funny that you can get a billboard from m4/3. But the resolution needed to make them is ridiculously low. In reality, any camera can make an image suitable for a billboard.

 

[PakkyT]

Upgrading from a Lumix TZ80

Curious why? Seems like that camera is probably well up to the current task, especially if most of his work is daytime stuff. Is there something about the current one that he does not like or gives him issues?

 

[Brownie]

Asking for a member of my U3A photo group. A recommendation for a camera body, £1000 and lenses to take photos of trains, both static and moving. Upgrading from a Lumix TZ80. he is aged in his late ‘70,s, frail, shaky but a nice bloke. I suggested a GX9 For size and weight.

The GX9 is not the most ergonomic camera, and with no grip I would be reluctant to recommend it to anyone in their late 70's, frail, and shaky. If the G9 is too big, I would recommend...never thought I'd say this...a G90/95. Small, easy to hold, and the better sensor. Plus that 12-60 3.5 kit is a dang fine lens, it's still my main walk around lens.

 

[Holoholo55]

That's ok. I took the photo on the billboard, and of the billboard. Most people think it's funny that you can get a billboard from m4/3. But the resolution needed to make them is ridiculously low. In reality, any camera can make an image suitable for a billboard.

That's true. Apple made building sized billboards shot on iPhones.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Curious why? Seems like that camera is probably well up to the current task, especially if most of his work is daytime stuff. Is there something about the current one that he does not like or gives him issues?

Apparently, he has been through a few cameras, looking for something new, different, camera envy, GAS, never come across this before.

 

[doady]

So people are buying 24-200mm lenses for full frame, as a direct alternative to getting 12-100mm for m4/3. People think a lens can offer the same zoom range for a full frame sensor as for a m4/3 sensor without any sacrifices? Why not take more advantage of full frame's strengths? Why not the usual 24-70 and 70-200 combo? And/or some primes? The 12-100mm F4 IS was one of the main reasons I got into Micro Four Thirds, and maybe smaller sensor was a sacrifice I had to make. If you go full frame, you will have to make sacrifices too, and maybe pro-quality 8x zooms is one of those?

I think, somehow, people pay too much attention to the differences between formats, and yet at the same time they don't pay enough attention to the differences between formats. Ignoring the advantages of m4/3 to go FF, but at the same time ignoring the advantages of FF to try to make it more like m4/3. I just find it odd. Look at the Fuji GFX system: mostly primes, and all the zooms are 2x max. That's more what I would expect from a system actually designed with the strengths and weaknesses of medium format in mind.

So much energy from to full frame crowd to bash m4/3 and yet trying to emulate m4/3 at the same time, it just reeks of desperation to me. Is it "everyone"? Nah, probably most people don't care, otherwise smartphones wouldn't have destroyed the point-and-shoot market. Don't let the aggression of a vocal minority on internet message boards get to you. It's not representative of photographers. It's probably not even representative of full frame users. I see this kind of tribalism everywhere with any kind of tech or gear talk: Ryzen vs. Intel, Radeon vs. GeForce, vinyl vs. digital, film vs. digital, and so on. It's nothing new.

 

[demiro]

...
... Don't let the aggression of a vocal minority on internet message boards get to you. It's not representative of photographers. It's probably not even representative of full frame users. I see this kind of tribalism everywhere with any kind of tech or gear talk: Ryzen vs. Intel, Radeon vs. GeForce, vinyl vs. digital, film vs. digital, and so on. It's nothing new.

Yeah. Not sure why a vocal minority here just can't shoot and be happy with m4/3s and not always take the format war bait.

In the early days around here we certainly knew that our gear wasn't quite up to snuff. But we also had a bit of cockiness about us because we sort of knew about something that the majority of the photography world didn't know about yet. After the E-M5 made the battle with APS-C more of a fair fight more people found their way to the format and this forum. I guess the fact that m4/3s was challenging the conventional wisdom caused some folks to attack it, and some folks to get defensive about it.

I tend to think that people who are overly defensive with regard to their camera or phone or car or whatever often have some feeling of inadequacy. My advice is to get back to that cockiness of the early days. If someone is attacking the format be quietly smug about it. You know more than they do.

 

[WRay]

Asking for a member of my U3A photo group. A recommendation for a camera body, £1000 and lenses to take photos of trains, both static and moving. Upgrading from a Lumix TZ80. he is aged in his late ‘70,s, frail, shaky but a nice bloke. I suggested a GX9 For size and weight.

I’m 75 with peripheral neuropathy and own both the gx9 and g95 (g90 elsewhere in the civilized world). Your instinct is correct about the gx9. It is most likely the best camera for your friend.

 

[gnarlydog australia]

I have mentioned that here in the past. Besides Lensbaby stuff or adapting old film lenses, no one has made a proper shift lens for m43 and I think there would be enough interest that Olympus might have gained a customer or two by doing a shift lens for m43. They had one back in the OM days, so they knew how to do it. I know speciality lenses are just that and don't result in significant sales for a camera or lens company, but it would have added something to their catalog that would have made the m43 system maybe something to consider for some people who may have passed it over.

With the new company, there probably is no way it will happen now.

I have used shift lenses in the past (film era) but I fail to see a real benefit to have such lens for digital.
Unless of course I would want to have OCC perspective corrected lines, but since all of my images are post processed any disturbing non-parallel building views are easily fixed (I was an architectural photographer back in the day)
What kind of photography do you have in mind where a shift lens would be useful?

 

[gnarlydog australia]

I tend to think that people who are overly defensive with regard to their camera or phone or car or whatever often have some feeling of inadequacy.

THIS, about 98%. The remaining 2% have a legitimate reason

 

[John King]

All the best.

I will look for the URLs in the morning. Too hard on a bloody tablet, and I'm too tired now. I take a pretty fair handful og medications every night - not my best time! .

Please remind me if I forget.

@amit Some references:

Smugmug:

https://help.smugmug.com/resolution-requirements-for-printing-H1GleDkNSz

The Online Phototgrapher:

https://theonlinephotographer.typep...-is-your-printer-how-sharp-are-your-eyes.html

Imaging Resource:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-ii-image-quality.htm

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m10-ii/olympus-e-m10-ii-image-quality.htm

KNathan Photo (follow links to his other pages of samples):

https://knathanphoto.com/real-world-usage-of-full-frame-and-m43-part-1-images-for-very-large-print/

I cannot easily find the format comparison prints I referred to, unfortunately.

They are bookmarked somewhere (I use three PCs, a laptop and a tablet. And five different browsers ... ).

 

[NCV]

So people are buying 24-200mm lenses for full frame, as a direct alternative to getting 12-100mm for m4/3. People think a lens can offer the same zoom range for a full frame sensor as for a m4/3 sensor without any sacrifices? Why not take more advantage of full frame's strengths? Why not the usual 24-70 and 70-200 combo? And/or some primes? The 12-100mm F4 IS was one of the main reasons I got into Micro Four Thirds, and maybe smaller sensor was a sacrifice I had to make. If you go full frame, you will have to make sacrifices too, and maybe pro-quality 8x zooms is one of those?

I think, somehow, people pay too much attention to the differences between formats, and yet at the same time they don't pay enough attention to the differences between formats. Ignoring the advantages of m4/3 to go FF, but at the same time ignoring the advantages of FF to try to make it more like m4/3. I just find it odd. Look at the Fuji GFX system: mostly primes, and all the zooms are 2x max. That's more what I would expect from a system actually designed with the strengths and weaknesses of medium format in mind.

So much energy from to full frame crowd to bash m4/3 and yet trying to emulate m4/3 at the same time, it just reeks of desperation to me. Is it "everyone"? Nah, probably most people don't care, otherwise smartphones wouldn't have destroyed the point-and-shoot market. Don't let the aggression of a vocal minority on internet message boards get to you. It's not representative of photographers. It's probably not even representative of full frame users. I see this kind of tribalism everywhere with any kind of tech or gear talk: Ryzen vs. Intel, Radeon vs. GeForce, vinyl vs. digital, film vs. digital, and so on. It's nothing new.

I guess you are referring to my post, so here is my reply.

An EM1 with a 12-100 weighs almost the same as a Z7 with a 24-200. Both are excellent lenses and when I was making my choice, I was considering this as a one lens solution for hiking and travel. Both setups do the task I was interested in equally well and it is wrong to say that with the Z7 -24-200 combination I am trying to mimic M43 with a FF. The 24-200 is an incredibly good lens optically and mechanically. The two setups had the ability to do the job equally well for me.

Why did I plump for the Z7 + 24-200. Well as I explained, I can also use the Z7 with my shift lenses which need a FF sensor to take advantage of their native field of view. I have other lenses too. My 14-30 is lighter and better optically than my old Olympus 7-14. I have other Z lenses for when optical quality is important. I can also share Nikon F lenses with my DSLR.

Nobody is trying to bash anything or anybody. I was just trying to explain the logic behind my choice. I was able to halve the amount of camera gear I own. So stuff gets used more and I eliminated a lot of duplication.

My EM5's were in need of replacement as they were well worn and technology has progressed since 2014. I think I did well to look beyond the M43 garden wall to see what other alternatives existed. I a few years time when I update and replace again I will look at all the alternatives.

 

[NCV]

I have used shift lenses in the past (film era) but I fail to see a real benefit to have such lens for digital.
Unless of course I would want to have OCC perspective corrected lines, but since all of my images are post processed any disturbing non-parallel building views are easily fixed (I was an architectural photographer back in the day)
What kind of photography do you have in mind where a shift lens would be useful?

The big advantage of using a shift lens is that you can compose in camera and avoid having to quess how much you will lose by the inevitable cropping from the frame when you straighten in post.

A shift lens is the right tool for architectural photography, doing it in post is a workaround. Shots taken with a shift lens maybe, look more natural too as the correction is done optically.

I use my shift lenses for architectural photography.

 

[Aristophanes]

Large format photography is almost always tilt shift for landscape and architecture.
There are many product photographer pros who rely on TS lenses. Likely why Canon is likely to release an RF TS in 2021.
There are numerous excellent threads on FM detailing how PS cannot emulate a TS, and how many shots, especially in vaulting interiors, can only be achieved with a TS lens.

 

[John King]

@amit

Some examinations by Dennis Mook

https://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-between-full.html

https://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-part-2-between.html

Interesting thoughts.

And some further info here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58273784

 

[NCV]

Large format photography is almost always tilt shift for landscape and architecture.
There are many product photographer pros who rely on TS lenses. Likely why Canon is likely to release an RF TS in 2021.
There are numerous excellent threads on FM detailing how PS cannot emulate a TS, and how many shots, especially in vaulting interiors, can only be achieved with a TS lens.

I would love to see a link to some of the FM threads where "detailing how PS cannot emulate a TS, and how many shots, especially in vaulting interiors, can only be achieved with a TS lens."

I have seen this in my own pictures, but some other opinions would be interesting.

 

[Brownie]

I’m 75 with peripheral neuropathy and own both the gx9 and g95 (g90 elsewhere in the civilized world). Your instinct is correct about the gx9. It is most likely the best camera for your friend.

What makes it better for you? Maybe it's just me, maybe I just don't care for rangefinder style cameras. I always found the grip on my G7 to be much easier to hang onto than my GX9. Less chance of dropping it too. I am seriously thinking about selling it and looking for a G95 as a backup. Would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Brownie]

@John King
@amit

Summer of '19 I was at the drag strip with my grandkids. A very nice female driver took a liking to my grandson and let him sit in her dragster, which naturally led to several photos. When his birthday came around he wanted a Hot Wheels party, so I took one of the photos and had it blown up to 24" x 30". Having heard all about small sensors cameras and large prints I had no idea how it would turn out. It was beautiful, looked just like a pro shot. Perfectly clear and easy to look at no matter the distance. Used a G9 and the Lumix 12-60 3.5.

Since my granddaughter's birthday is the same day (not twins, 2 years apart) they always have a joint party. The only thing I could find suitable for enlarging was a shot of her splashing around in lake. This particular shot was made with a ZS-70, a 20MP 1/2.3 sensor. I enlarged it to 16" x 20". While this one was no where as near as sharp as the G9 shot, it still turned out more than acceptable and is easily viewed from a few feet away. An 11" x 14" would be a no brainer.

Both of these prints were made at Nation's Photo Lab.

Looking at @Mike Peters shots is always a reality check. If you really want to see the ability of Mike and his camera, poke around for the work he did in a college admissions office. Amazing wall-sized prints.

I still want to mess with a FF, but just because I want to mess with one. The first paragraph alone proves I don't need one. The number of photos I'll have enlarged to 24" x 30" in my lifetime has probably already been achieved!

 

[Petrochemist]

So, I've got 20 mp in my little Lumix. That's all I needed for the first 25 years of my career, and it's all I need right now, in reality. For what I do, it's more than enough.

However, if I was a landscape shooter who printed giant art prints, I'd just get the GFX100 and be done with it. In my mind, FF has become the irrelevant format. Too damn big, heavy and expensive to be fun anymore, and not enough real estate on the sensor. The faux MF sensors in the Fuji, Hasselblad and Leica S cameras are the winners in the IQ category.

If I really need more than what I have, then that's where I'll go. But I don't. So, I won't. Can't afford it anyway, and my clients don't need it either.

I find it curious haw many of the FF zealots dismiss MF. With the exception of familiarity any reason why FF is 'better' than crop, applies equally to why MF is better than FF. There is a cost & weight penalty for those advantages just as FF has over APSC...

I fail to see that familiarity is significant with cameras. When I pick up a new model with a different sensor format it doesn't take me long to become familiar with how its FOV varies with it's lenses. There are variations with the user interface that need to be mastered but you get that switching from one FF body to it's replacement.

Every camera has it's own set of compromises, but you have to look hard these days to find one thats not capable of giving great results.
I admit I'd like to add a decent MF system or a LF digital back to my collection of photography toys, but I doubt either would improve my photography.

 

[Aristophanes]

I would love to see a link to some of the FM threads where "detailing how PS cannot emulate a TS, and how many shots, especially in vaulting interiors, can only be achieved with a TS lens."

I have seen this in my own pictures, but some other opinions would be interesting.

Look up Peter Figen on FM. He's on the below thread. There's usually one per year and a few specialists chime in.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1630100/0

Also, TS is where more megapixels greatly assists. Hence its prevalence in LF.

The faux miniature look that was a "thing" a few years ago is based on perspective control. Used in video, too.