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

[Rudi]

There's always something shinier and newer at some point but, in the end, they're all just tools to help us make pictures. And making pictures is what it's all about, no?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Now THAT I will agree with 100%.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[snkenai]

Good enough?

I think this subject has been beat to death. But, I could drop a comment here, please? And no disagreement intended.

Opinions are like navels, we all have them, and they are not transferable. I have been buying and selling cameras for over 20 years, looking for the perfect setup, for ME. And just when I think I may have found it, I get restless. It's just not quite right. Why? Too many reasons to list, but most of the time it's handling and features, not image quality. How do I know? Because I see the work done by others with the same equipment, that is so much better.
I have the E-620, on Ebay right now. Why? It does very nice work, when I do my part. But, even a small DSLR is just too big, for my personal preference, in my old lazy days of retirement. The wife will share the E-p2, until I purchase the next "new favorite"!

Happy hunting, :smile:

 

[Rudi]

Happy hunting, :smile:

It's definitely a journey and not a destination! And everybody's journey is personal. :smile:

 

[Luckypenguin]

Isn't trying out a different camera every other week just a way for these bloggers come up with something new to write about? If I switched cameras as much as these guys do I could probably start a blog about it...

 

[snkenai]

I DO switch, almost as much as they do, but too lazy to blog.

 

[dhazeghi]

It's also interesting to see Kirk Tuck return to shooting portraits on medium format film lately, with his Hasselblad. So he clearly does not believe that his Olympus cameras are the final answer. In fact, in a lot of his latest posts, he has moved away from his Olympus :43: gear to other systems, systems better suited to the job at hand (he has a new Sony DSLR, etc).

I don't think that conclusion is warranted. Kirk likes experimenting. I'm sure within a few months he'll be shooting m4/3 again (perhaps an E-M5 or a G5) and a few months after that he'll be off shooting something else. The only constant with him is change, and no setup lasts more than a month or two, m4/3 or otherwise.

DH

 

[jlim76]

It's just like many other things. You get bored after a while. Perhaps a new lens or accessory once a while to refresh. Unless you've invested too much in the system?

 

[Bhupinder2002]

I don't think that conclusion is warranted. Kirk likes experimenting. I'm sure within a few months he'll be shooting m4/3 again (perhaps an E-M5 or a G5) and a few months after that he'll be off shooting something else. The only constant with him is change, and no setup lasts more than a month or two, m4/3 or otherwise.

DH

I have been using 45 mm 1.8 for the last couple of months. I didnt use high end lenses from Nikon or Canon or No experiment with so called medium format . But I did use 50 mm Canon 1.4 and Canon 85 mm 1.8 lens , I dont see whats the big deal about it? I have Sony alpha 580 with SAM 50 mm 1.8 lens and I do use it but I dont see any major difference . Shooting portrait is not something u cant do with EP3 and 45 mm 1.8 and now we have 75 mm 1.8 which is a spectacular lens . I dont think MFT needs any acceptance or rejection from anyone anymore .This system is serving us well now and maturing . In Portrait only thread Ned posted one shot with EPL2 and Oly 14-54 mm Mrk II lens which is a superb shot . Its good to switch formats and use different cameras but that doenst make any system unsuitable or not capable of doing the job etc etc .
Cheers

 

[Amin]

But I have to ask: Why do people in these forums have to keep reaffirming their decision to shoot with :43:?

It's just human nature. Almost everyone has these base tendencies. If you buy a car and someone points out a review that says that the car you chose is the greatest, it doesn't help you a bit. You already bought the car. However, most of us still get a warm feeling when we see that review.

It's good to recognize and fight that aspect of our nature, at least to an extent--but if you're pointing it out as a behavior that you have no part in, then you are very special in that regard.

 

[Rudi]

It's just human nature. Almost everyone has these base tendencies. If you buy a car and someone points out a review that says that the car you chose is the greatest, it doesn't help you a bit. You already bought the car. However, most of us still get a warm feeling when we see that review.

It's good to recognize and fight that aspect of our nature, at least to an extent--but if you're pointing it out as a behavior that you have no part in, then you are very special in that regard.

Oh, I'm special! Just ask my mum...

I know the aspect of human nature that you are referring to, Amin, and I understand that bit. But it still has to be said - I have yet to come across another photo forum that has such a large percentage of threads seemingly designed to reassure the poster that his/her decision to go with the gear that they bought was the right one. (Leica forums come close, but they have to reassure themselves, after spending all that money :tongue: ). I haven't read many Medium Format forums where posters were reassuring themselves about their choices, or any forums to do with DSLR gear.

So what makes :43: shooters so insecure about their choice (he asks only half-jokingly)? Is it because we know we are making a compromise? If so, that is the case right up and down the gamut of photography - medium format shooters are probably snubbed by guys that shoot large format cameras, etc.

Or is it just a religious difference? Like Canon vs. Nikon, Mac vs. PC, and Olympus vs. Panasonic?

 

[Rudi]

I don't think that conclusion is warranted.

I don't think either conclusion is warranted. That was my point! Some people here would have you believe that :43: is the answer for anything photographic. It's not. :smile:

 

[Amin]

But it still has to be said - I have yet to come across another photo forum that has such a large percentage of threads seemingly designed to reassure the poster that his/her decision to go with the gear that they bought was the right one.

Every forum I've spent a lot of time on (DPR, FM, POTN, GetDPI, S.C., RFF, LUF, etc) has seemed to me similar in this regard, so I disagree.

Whatever minor differences there may be, if there are any, can be explained by the fact that many MFT users are either using it in addition to another system or have switched to it from another system, whereas for example many Canon DSLR users only use that system and didn't switch to it from another one.

So what makes :43: shooters so insecure about their choice

False premise, IMO.

 

[Bhupinder2002]

Oh, I'm special! Just ask my mum...

I know the aspect of human nature that you are referring to, Amin, and I understand that bit. But it still has to be said - I have yet to come across another photo forum that has such a large percentage of threads seemingly designed to reassure the poster that his/her decision to go with the gear that they bought was the right one. (Leica forums come close, but they have to reassure themselves, after spending all that money :tongue: ). I haven't read many Medium Format forums where posters were reassuring themselves about their choices, or any forums to do with DSLR gear.

So what makes :43: shooters so insecure about their choice (he asks only half-jokingly)? Is it because we know we are making a compromise? If so, that is the case right up and down the gamut of photography - medium format shooters are probably snubbed by guys that shoot large format cameras, etc.

Or is it just a religious difference? Like Canon vs. Nikon, Mac vs. PC, and Olympus vs. Panasonic?

Yes Rudi , I also have failed to understand why we need reassurance again and again on multiple occasions .. just before buying a camera , once we have bought a MFT camera or lens and then again one we start using them and even when people have sold their gear , there will be athread seeking some kind of assurance .Lets be honest and ask ourselves .. are u totally comfortable with MFT? I think most of us believe collectively that its a right format but when they are alone or confront an other format , the confidence shakes and then tend to seek reassurance from each other .
There is nothing wrong with any format as long as you why and how you intend to use it .
Cheers
Bhupinder

 

[Rudi]

Yes Rudi , I also have failed to understand why we need reassurance again and again on multiple occasions .. just before buying a camera , once we have bought a MFT camera or lens and then again one we start using them and even when people have sold their gear , there will be athread seeking some kind of assurance .Lets be honest and ask ourselves .. are u totally comfortable with MFT? I think most of us believe collectively that its a right format but when they are alone or confront an other format , the confidence shakes and then tend to seek reassurance from each other .
There is nothing wrong with any format as long as you why and how you intend to use it .
Cheers
Bhupinder

I don't need reassurance, I just need more money!

 

[Bhupinder2002]

I don't need reassurance, I just need more money!

Lol.. I am not talking about you ..u are special remember ??
Cheers

 

[Luckypenguin]

So what makes :43: shooters so insecure about their choice (he asks only half-jokingly)? Is it because we know we are making a compromise? If so, that is the case right up and down the gamut of photography - medium format shooters are probably snubbed by guys that shoot large format cameras, etc.

Or is it just a religious difference? Like Canon vs. Nikon, Mac vs. PC, and Olympus vs. Panasonic?

Probably for the same reason that mirrorless cameras seem to receive more trolling in online forums than most, and mostly because there is such a large mass of DSLR users who considers their cameras and themselves above it. Even dual system users who own a mirrorless camera will dismiss it as their second/compact/travel camera, and "not for serious photography". What is serious photography anyway? What if I consider things like travel or street photography to be serious? If one person acting like a pretentious w***ker tells you that you are wrong, does that make you wrong? What about 10, or 100, or 1000? Some of them may be right about certain things, but when you're drowning in a sea of w***kers it's difficult for people to know who or what to believe.

 

[jloden]

Thanks for posting the link. The Olympus E-P3 + Oly 45/1.8 was my favourite :43: combination too. But I have to ask: Why do people in these forums have to keep reaffirming their decision to shoot with :43:? It's often touted as the right choice (vs. I assume the *wrong* choice). And it's always an example of someone famous (or infamous) also shooting with :43: gear.

At least for me, it's not so much about reaffirming my choice, it's more about validation of the format. This is good for two reasons:

1) There are a lot of naysayers out there, and it's nice to see validation from pros (who gain a certain amount of automatic respect in the photo world simply by being full time image makers). It's someone who does this for a living saying "yep, I agree, it has some great qualities" - as opposed to the many people who feel compelled to dismiss the format, or even outright disparage it for no real reason I can fathom.

2) The more validation and encouragement placed in m4/3, the more it will grow and the longer it's likely to stick around. I've invested heavily into this system, and I very much want to continue to see high sales numbers. NOT so I can boast about how popular "my" system is, but because that means new bodies and lenses will be developed and our choices as end users will grow, which is fantastic thing.

Oh, and:

3) If another photographer can get great/professional looking results with the same gear I have, then I can too. The limiting factor is my skill, rather than not having a "professional" camera

 

[jloden]

I thought this part was really interesting:

1. The smaller camera/lens is less intimidating to my clients. They are universally more relaxed around the smaller cameras than the monster DSLRs. (Some photographers might say they need a “professional-looking” camera to convince the clients that they know what they are doing. Sorry, but if you’re relying on LOOKING cool rather than being able to do the job, you’re in the wrong spot.)

I can totally see how that would work in one's favor as a portrait photographer, especially for non-models. I've witnessed this even with just the difference between using a 14-140mm lens on the same camera versus the diminutive 45mm. I'm not a pro of course, but I can definitely see how people can feel like big cameras = pro. Heck, I get that with the 14-140 or 100-300 on my camera, suddenly people are like "oh, are you a photographer?" - don't get that with the 20mm pancake haha. So I thought it was an interesting point to look at that as a plus for being so much less intimidating, rather than focusing on how the tiny camera looks too much like a pocket camera for a pro shoot.

 

[DHart]

Positive affirmation for this format we enjoy so much, especially from people with influence (whether rightly earned or not) is very good for those of us who are investing in the format... for the very reasons Jay mentions. We are to a great degree biologically programmed to be quite sheep-like... when people see opinion leaders and others doing something, they tend to follow right along.

Continued mentions of the use of m4/3 by those with an audience is, no doubt, helping the format is growing vigorously. This growth is evidenced by the breadth of lens and body options available today and things are looking VERY good for a slew of new announcements for the format from both Pany and Oly in September.

I'm looking forward to seeing much more growth, however, specifically in the USA and I think the latter half of 2012 is when that will really start to take off... helped, in part, by the attention the E-M5 has garnered here and with the EOS-M bringing ever more attention to mirror-less.

Life is good in the m4/3 lane these days. :smile:

 

[Rudi]

First of all: Thanks for thinking about and answering my questions. I really appreciate it. I half-expected some pretty harsh knee-jerk replies. Glad to see that we can discuss this rationally.

Even dual system users who own a mirrorless camera will dismiss it as their second/compact/travel camera, and "not for serious photography".

Maybe they genuinely feel that way, though! Why feel inadequate because of it? An example: I am sure that some commercial shooters using medium format digital backs (and pretty much all Leica S2 shooters :tongue would consider a full frame DSLR as their second camera, if they owned one. That is not to say that their primary choice is better, it's just better for what they shoot and the way they choose to shoot it.

The more validation and encouragement placed in m4/3, the more it will grow and the longer it's likely to stick around. I've invested heavily into this system, and I very much want to continue to see high sales numbers. NOT so I can boast about how popular "my" system is, but because that means new bodies and lenses will be developed and our choices as end users will grow, which is fantastic thing.

THAT I understand! It's always scary to invest in a "new" system, and knowing that it will be around for along time makes it easier.

I can totally see how that would work in one's favor as a portrait photographer, especially for non-models.

Yep, some cameras tend to become invisible. I find this especially true with my Fuji X100. I think it has an Invisibility Cloak Mode, except I can't find it in the User Manual.

Positive affirmation for this format we enjoy so much, especially from people with influence (whether rightly earned or not) is very good for those of us who are investing in the format... for the very reasons Jay mentions. We are to a great degree biologically programmed to be quite sheep-like... when people see opinion leaders and others doing something, they tend to follow right along.

Continued mentions of the use of m4/3 by those with an audience is, no doubt, helping the format is growing vigorously. This growth is evidenced by the breadth of lens and body options available today and things are looking VERY good for a slew of new announcements for the format from both Pany and Oly in September.

I'm looking forward to seeing much more growth, however, specifically in the USA and I think the latter half of 2012 is when that will really start to take off... helped, in part, by the attention the E-M5 has garnered here and with the EOS-M bringing ever more attention to mirror-less.

Life is good in the m4/3 lane these days. :smile:

Again, I can understand that completely. :43: is not a cheap format to get into! Quite the contrary, a reasonable :43: outfit can be quite a bit more expensive than a consumer DSLR outfit, at least in my part of the world. Having confidence in the continuing health of the system is an important component of the purchasing decision process. I'm just not sure whether the fact that Scott Bourne now shoots with an E-P3 makes any difference. :smile: