What Images are Expected of Members

[Bidkev]

So about me not reading everything - this is what you wrote:

So?..............is it OK/Allowed to post images other than M4/3 in a generalised thread that is simply titled "Street Photography" or is it expected, this forum being named what it is, that only M4/3 images should be posted?
not to mention your thread title.

Did I not read this? Did you not write the above? I’m really confused.

So am I. You seem to be constantly telling me what M4/3 is capable of which I am fully aware of and have stated so. As for the above quote, I have absolutely no idea as to what you are referring?? What you have quoted, be it my question or the title thread, is merely my attempt to gauge forum rules as to what is acceptable. If you want to interpret that as my asking if I can post other medium, then there's little I can do about that. That may be my intent, but I didn't state it.

I'm done with this conversation as I didn't expect a mere question as to what medium is acceptable to post on the forum to result in a rabid defence of the M4/3 system. My apologies to anyone I may have offended. I'll keep it in mind that some seem very touchy about the M4/3 medium in future

 

[pdk42]

Bit of an odd thread this. The basic point about posting images with EXIF has been pretty well covered, but I'm surprised that the question as to whether m43 is good enough to produce outstanding images had to be asked at all. We all know that good photographs are made by good photographers rather than good cameras. Browsing example images on forums is more likely to tell you something about the posters than the cameras/lenses. I've recently been eyeing up a Sony RX1Rii and browsed images on another forum. 90% or more of the images there could have been taken with an iPhone, let alone a m43 camera. They were, as @50orsohours says, snapshots, showing in no way what the camera's 42Mp FF sensor and Zeiss lens is capable of.

There is little that m43 can't do in the right hands. Bobby Tan's work is superb, as is Ronnie Cole's (@Phocal).

 

[Bidkev]

Bit of an odd thread this. The basic point about posting images with EXIF has been pretty well covered, but I'm surprised that the question as to whether m43 is good enough to produce outstanding images had to be asked at all.

Ya see!!!!??? There we go again Nowhere did I question whether m43 is good enough to produce outstanding images. I give up!

 

[pdk42]

Ya see!!!!??? There we go again Nowhere did I question whether m43 is good enough to produce outstanding images. I give up!

Some of these pics are exceptional for M4/3, which is why I look for the exif (to learn) and if hosted at flickr I hope to see with what gear, and how those pics have been achieved. A few of them satisfy my curiosity, but many of them show no exif at flickr either...........Call me cynical, Call me Doubting Thomas, In fact, call me anything you like but based on IQ and format... quite a few of them are not M4/3.

Ermmm... Sorry, but that's exactly what your original post said. I'm really not looking for an argument and I do see that you are not trashing anyone or m43, but my response was likewise in that spirit

 

[wjiang]

Ya see!!!!??? There we go again Nowhere did I question whether m43 is good enough to produce outstanding images. I give up!

I agree with your original sentiment regarding EXIF. For your specific goal, however, I think you would have been better off with a post asking specifically for the best examples of say, BIF photography in m4/3. I think some frequent forum goers here know what those examples might be, but forget that not everybody does.

I also wouldn't try to second-guess where an image came from purely based on IQ and format... people crop to all sorts of aspect ratios, and you never know whether somebody is actually using an exotic SHG or speedboosted lens in front of their m4/3 body...

 

[Bidkev]

I agree with your original sentiment regarding EXIF. For your specific goal, however, I think you would have been better off with a post asking specifically for the best examples of say, BIF photography in m4/3. I think some frequent forum goers here know what those examples might be, but forget that not everybody does.

I also wouldn't try to second-guess where an image came from purely based on IQ and format... people crop to all sorts of aspect ratios, and you never know whether somebody is actually using an exotic SHG or speedboosted lens in front of their m4/3 body...

The images that I referred to, and no, I will not point them out, had IQ as good as, if not better, than this image and showed no exif which is why my OP arose. Now if anyone can point me in the direction of m43 images on a par with this, then I will consider that the images I refer to were indeed shot with m43 with gear that doesn't cost a squillion dollars. I'm not showcasing my own image here, merely trying to ascertain if this result could be achieved with m43 and I would welcome any suggestions at to which lens can produce similar IQ as all the reviews that I've looked at don't showcase any images anywhere near this sort of IQ despite bulling up the camera or lens. This is a 50% crop, but anyways, I didn't come to argue the merits of apsc or full frame or to discredit m43 so

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

Nankeen Kestrel (4) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr


And just to add: I'd be quite happy to switch fully if I could have the reach along with the IQ of these I took with the "kit" lens the Olly 40-150mm. From what I've read, both the olly 75-300 and the Panny 100-300 are nowhere near as sharp at the long end as this lens. have to say, it really surprised me!

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

Succulent flower Olympus Zuicko 40-150 test (4) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

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

Test shots Olympus Zuicko 40-150 (1) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

 

[TNcasual]

I'm not sure why you simply will not ask the poster. If this mythical image is so outstanding and you want to know more about it, just ask. I am absolutely positive that they will tell you whatever you want to know.

Yes, your OP asked the question about what is allowed to post and the missing EXIF info. But it did so with an assumption that mft couldn't possibly produce the results you were looking at. I say do away with your preconceptions. This is a mft forum. You are most likely looking at a mft image. Nearly every time it isn't, the poster labels it as such. So those amazing images are being made by mft gear.

To reiterate someone else, if you are worried about detail in nature shots using mft gear: just look at @Phocal posts. That will assuage any of your concerns.

 

[wjiang]

Now if anyone can point me in the direction of m43 images on a par with this, then I will consider that the images I refer to were indeed shot with m43 with gear that doesn't cost a squillion dollars.

This is a very particular requirement - so it has to be high IQ, but not the most expensive m4/3 gear?

I was going to point out these recent threads where the author has clearly identified the gear to be m4/3:
To MC or Not............... - E-M1 Mk1 + 300mm f/4 PRO + MC-14 TC
Hummingbirds with the Pana-Leica 100-400 (image heavy) - GX8 + 100-400mm f/4-6.3

But they both happened to have used the two most expensive super-telephotos in the system...

So here are two from me, using a second-hand 100-300mm Mk2 on a second-hand E-M1. Just bear in mind that I am a complete novice when it comes to birds and super-telephotos - these two shots were taken today on my first real outing with a super-telephoto. First time with the lens, first time with a super-telephoto, in the shade, with crummy light, hand-held at 300mm wide-open. EXIF is all there.

I won't event try to pretend that they are anywhere near as good as yours, but with more skill and experience you can't do worse than this right?

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

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

Edit: I just realised that the forum image compression is a bit unkind to feather detail...

 

[panamike]

After reading this thread i feel the OP should indicate the images he is talking about, this thread is going no where and will not untill we have more details.

I have no interest as to is this or that format the best, my bank balance will confirm i have had and used most .

The camera listed for the head shot is a 6D is that a full frame, if so a 50% crop is equal to a full sensor image with the FOV of m4/3 this image is a crop from m4/3

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

P3021250 by electric.mike, on Flickr

• Olympus E-M10MarkII
  LEICA DG 100-400/F4.0-6.3
• ƒ/5.9
• 350.0 mm
• 1/1250
• 250

Not going into is it better or worse, it is what it is but it leaves me with no desire to go back to full frame and that is the important thing.

 

[Bidkev]

This is a very particular requirement - so it has to be high IQ, but not the most expensive m4/3 gear?

I was going to point out these recent threads where the author has clearly identified the gear to be m4/3:
To MC or Not............... - E-M1 Mk1 + 300mm f/4 PRO + MC-14 TC
Hummingbirds with the Pana-Leica 100-400 (image heavy) - GX8 + 100-400mm f/4-6.3

But they both happened to have used the two most expensive super-telephotos in the system...

So here are two from me, using a second-hand 100-300mm Mk2 on a second-hand E-M1. Just bear in mind that I am a complete novice when it comes to birds and super-telephotos - these two shots were taken today on my first real outing with a super-telephoto. First time with the lens, first time with a super-telephoto, in the shade, with crummy light, hand-held at 300mm wide-open. EXIF is all there.

I won't event try to pretend that they are anywhere near as good as yours, but with more skill and experience you can't do worse than this right?

View attachment 613906

View attachment 613907

Edit: I just realised that the forum image compression is a bit unkind to feather detail...

Often the case in many forums and hosting sites and I congratulate you on your first attempt as they are outstanding considering you class yourself as a novice

 

[Bidkev]

After reading this thread i feel the OP should indicate the images he is talking about, this thread is going no where and will not untill we have more details.

That'll suit me just fine as I would never single anyone out. I think I've caused enough damage, albeit inadvertantly. I would appreciate it if the mods will close the thread now.

 

[TNcasual]

Also, there is private messaging in the forum. If you don't want anyone else to know your request, you can do so privately.

 

[pdk42]

The images that I referred to, and no, I will not point them out, had IQ as good as, if not better, than this image and showed no exif which is why my OP arose. Now if anyone can point me in the direction of m43 images on a par with this, then I will consider that the images I refer to were indeed shot with m43 with gear that doesn't cost a squillion dollars. I'm not showcasing my own image here, merely trying to ascertain if this result could be achieved with m43 and I would welcome any suggestions at to which lens can produce similar IQ as all the reviews that I've looked at don't showcase any images anywhere near this sort of IQ despite bulling up the camera or lens. This is a 50% crop, but anyways, I didn't come to argue the merits of apsc or full frame or to discredit m43 so

View attachment 613899 Nankeen Kestrel (4) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr


And just to add: I'd be quite happy to switch fully if I could have the reach along with the IQ of these I took with the "kit" lens the Olly 40-150mm. From what I've read, both the olly 75-300 and the Panny 100-300 are nowhere near as sharp at the long end as this lens. have to say, it really surprised me!

View attachment 613900 Succulent flower Olympus Zuicko 40-150 test (4) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

View attachment 613901 Test shots Olympus Zuicko 40-150 (1) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

That's a really nice image of the bird of prey.

Almost as sharp/detailed - here's one from me with the E-M1ii + 300/4:

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

Mute Swan by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

 

[NoSeconds]

How hard is it to note the gear used to obtain an image when posting in this forum? ie Panasonic G9 & P 100-400 . Maybe the moderators can persuade the administrator to amend the TOS. Just one old farts opinion !!!

Should we show our papers too as we move from one section of the forum to another...?


I’ll provide all my exif data at the low rate of just $15 per image upon request...

 

[Mountain]

Wow, @Bidkev this thread has taken a life of its own! Might as well put in my 2cents:
- The admins say its ok to post from other systems.
- Many users come here for m4/3 pics, and would appreciate that it's noted when different systems are used, and that the bulk of the content comes from said kit.
- Dedicated threads with other systems probably belong in the "other systems" category
- Implying that another poster was passing other stuff off as m4/3 ruffled some feathers, and I'm sure you already regret going down that path.
- Many of us come here for the pics, so share what you've got (in the appropriate section and/or labelled if not m4/3). I do usually go to other places for my non-m4/3 image fix, though.
- My own comment here for a personal pet peeve: when posting pics back to back to back, make them one post. Seeing 10 posts in a row of single pics from the same outing that totally dominates a page in the thread is super annoying. More so when they are from other systems. There is no reason for doing this except getting more "likes" for your posts, which is a silly thing to be worried about.
- This site is full of passionate and skilled photographers who love m4/3. Most threads don't get crazy like this. People are sensitive in defending their choice of equipment. Rightly so, sometimes, in a forum designed explicitly for m4/3.

 

[SVQuant]

The images that I referred to, and no, I will not point them out, had IQ as good as, if not better, than this image and showed no exif which is why my OP arose. Now if anyone can point me in the direction of m43 images on a par with this, then I will consider that the images I refer to were indeed shot with m43 with gear that doesn't cost a squillion dollars. I'm not showcasing my own image here, merely trying to ascertain if this result could be achieved with m43 and I would welcome any suggestions at to which lens can produce similar IQ as all the reviews that I've looked at don't showcase any images anywhere near this sort of IQ despite bulling up the camera or lens. This is a 50% crop, but anyways, I didn't come to argue the merits of apsc or full frame or to discredit m43 so

Kevin,
Nice image. I am no bird photographer, but I will direct you to this shot of mine taken with the E-M1 + O50-200SWD.

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

Posted earlier in Share Birds

And, the birds thread contains numerous images better than mine with camera and lens information intact.

[Edit]
And to add, I paid just over a thousand dollars for the camera + lens a year and half ago. The camera was bought new and was released over 3 years ago. The lens is at least 10 years old in design.

 

[BrentC]

em1.2 + 300mm

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

Sleeping Screech Owl by Brent Cameron, on Flickr

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

Male Mallards by Brent Cameron, on Flickr

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

House Sparrow preening by Brent Cameron, on Flickr

 

[Drdave944]

Kevin,
Nice. Image. I am no bird photographer, but I will direct you to this shot of mine taken with the E-M1 + O50-200SWD.
View attachment 613998
Posted earlier in Share Birds

And, the birds thread contains numerous images better than mine with camera and lens information intact.

[Edit]
And to add, I paid just over a thousand dollars for the camera + lens a year and half ago. The camera was bought new and was released over 3 years ago. The lens is at least 10 years old in design.

WOW! Now I will never let go of my trusty SWD, no matter if there are critics.

 

[Rambling Sam]

Regarding the issue as to whether an image was produced by a 4/3rds camera or not, if the images shown here have been resized by the poster, to (say, a maximum of1000 pixels along its longest side) to fit the website's layout or indeed resized automatically by the website's software to fit its pages, are viewers actually going to see how good the original image actually was, or indeed see much difference between an image taken on a 6mp camera, or a 50mp camera?

 

[BosseBe]

The images that I referred to, and no, I will not point them out, had IQ as good as, if not better, than this image and showed no exif which is why my OP arose. Now if anyone can point me in the direction of m43 images on a par with this, then I will consider that the images I refer to were indeed shot with m43 with gear that doesn't cost a squillion dollars. I'm not showcasing my own image here, merely trying to ascertain if this result could be achieved with m43 and I would welcome any suggestions at to which lens can produce similar IQ as all the reviews that I've looked at don't showcase any images anywhere near this sort of IQ despite bulling up the camera or lens. This is a 50% crop, but anyways, I didn't come to argue the merits of apsc or full frame or to discredit m43 so

View attachment 613899 Nankeen Kestrel (4) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr


And just to add: I'd be quite happy to switch fully if I could have the reach along with the IQ of these I took with the "kit" lens the Olly 40-150mm. From what I've read, both the olly 75-300 and the Panny 100-300 are nowhere near as sharp at the long end as this lens. have to say, it really surprised me!

View attachment 613900 Succulent flower Olympus Zuicko 40-150 test (4) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

View attachment 613901 Test shots Olympus Zuicko 40-150 (1) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

I just wonder where is the EXIF?