[Samurai]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Samurai, I'm of the opposite view. I think a flash will help.

To answer your question joslicx, a flash gun attached to the camera's hotshoe will help to fill in the shadow areas, especially the kids faces, with light. A built in camera flash won't help. You need something with more power and throw.

To light up the faces at 20ft on a sunny day, you'll need a very powerful external flash. People buy OM-D for the convenience of a very competent camera in a very small package. How many OM-D owners will buy an external flash that is bigger than OM-D itself?

Originally Posted by StarScream

For continuous shooting you'll need an external battery pack for the flash to reduce recycle time and then you'll need a bracket to mount it off camera.

OM-D does have an optional battery pack, no need for bracket.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by Samurai

To light up the faces at 20ft on a sunny day, you'll need a very powerful external flash. People buy OM-D for the convenience of a very competent camera in a very small package. How many OM-D owners will buy an external flash that is bigger than OM-D itself?

OM-D does have an optional battery pack, no need for bracket.

I have no idea about the OM-D. You may very well be right but I was answering the general question of whether a flash would help in that situation - and a powerful external flash would.

And btw most external flashguns are bigger (at least in length) than bodies be it from Canon or Nikon. My SB-600 dwarfs my D-90. I don't carry it during walkaround unless I have my camera back pack with me. Good lighting can make such a difference to photos and I'm a big fan of fill flash.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by StarScream

I have no idea about the OM-D. You may very well be right but I was answering the general question of whether a flash would help in that situation - and a powerful external flash would.

The original question was OM-D specific, so I negated the external flash option.

Originally Posted by StarScream

And btw most external flashguns are bigger (at least in length) than bodies be it from Canon or Nikon.

But EVIL people think differently. We buy EVIL mainly for size advantage, despite them costing lot more than dSLR counterparts. I recently sold my primary dSLR + 3 high grade lenses to make way for OM-D.

[vivekiny2k]

I bought my Nex primarily for size, innovations, and freedom to use other lenses with adapters. But that doesn't mean I will not shoot anything that regular DSLR users shoot. for me EVIL's usage is a superset of DSLR's use. i.e. occasionally for a good result, I will not mind using slave flashes, softboxes, the whole works. Just that 60-90% times I will be able to travel light with an EVIL.


EDIT: I also agree, a secondary flash (closer to the runners) will help in the picture in question if you just wanted to illuminate their faces. But I think even otherwise the picture looks just fine (a little adjustment could have been made by a pro though). HDR will not work because it's a moving object and camera can not take multiple exposures.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

Just that 60-90% times I will be able to travel light with an EVIL.

In other words, you won't be carrying a big flash most of the time.

When I negated the flash for that situation, I was thinking about the bundled flash (FL-LM2) that comes with OM-D. If somebody wants to carry powerful external flash to a daylight event, I guess that should do.

[vivekiny2k]

While I don't completely agree with the arguments in this site, it does have good examples. I use flash myself in such occasions.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/fill-flash.htm

[Samurai]

Well, even I would use flash under those circumstances. Those are conditions (close up) where built-in flash or bundled flash would suffice.

[joe1980]

Just thought of sharing with you guys this new E mount lens from Jackar.

http://snapshooter.jackarlens.com/eng/pageSpec.php

Seems like it has a wider aperture.

[KnightRider77]

Complete co-incidence, but:
Sony's message to people who own DSLR's

Who doesn't like a nice hot cup of controversy, eh? Mind you, I kind of agree with most points in the ad.

[joslicx]

Ok so to summarize the feedback:
1. Different Metering technique could have helped. I am not so sure but probably I was in matrix metering mode. Could/should have been in spot metering (with focus lock on an object in the shade). This would have blown out the objects in the sunlit background but at least the kids in the foreground would have been exposed properly?
2. A dedicated or powerful enough flash could have helped.
3. HDR can help in such scenarios (though not in this particular one as there was movement in this scene).

Good feedback to work on any future work.

I am sticking with the stock 12-50 lens for the moment. I want to see how far I can go before I can definitively say I need a brighter/faster lens. I feel theres still a long way to go, judging by some really wonderful snaps people are sharing on some forums taken with this lens.

By the way sometime back I shot some videos indoors with this combo (OMD + 12-50) and the quality is really excellent! I shot in both 1080p as well as 720p and both are very good, almost a dedicated video camera like. I shot all the videos handheld (about 40 mins of videography) and there is no jerkiness in the videos! That stabilization works pretty well in video mode and is really handy. And you can zoom in and out without losing focus. very neat.

I have another question. I acquired a UV filter recently and have been shooting with the filter on the lens, even indoors. Should I take it off, at least when there is no obvious need? Does/could it affect picture quality/colors in any way?

[KnightRider77]

Originally Posted by joslicx

I have another question. I acquired a UV filter recently and have been shooting with the filter on the lens, even indoors. Should I take it off, at least when there is no obvious need? Does/could it affect picture quality/colors in any way?

I've heard many arguments for and against it and having tested it myself, I have to say I cannot spot any difference with and without the UV filter. At least, not with the naked eye.

This of course also depends on the quality of the UV filter itself. A cheap knock-off will likely cause some cause of quality loss, but with a decent one on, I don't think you need to worry about taking it on and off.

There is also an argument that says there is no need for a UV filter in the first place and that it would be better to invest in a polarizing filter of some sort, but let's not go there because all this is very subjective. Horses for courses etc.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by joslicx

I have another question. I acquired a UV filter recently and have been shooting with the filter on the lens, even indoors. Should I take it off, at least when there is no obvious need? Does/could it affect picture quality/colors in any way?

This was another reason I stayed away from the pancake lens. Does it allow the filter(s) (and hood) to stay attached when retracted? I use UV filter to protect the actual lens surface. Mush easier to wipe the UV filter with my shirt occasionally and not have to worry about the lens getting scratched.

Two clips I made using the Minolta lens. I wish the tripod was a little shorter so I didn't have to point it down to the glasses. But I was just experimenting. Aperture wide open, manual focus.

PS: at close range, manual focusing can be a nightmare! may be I will get better with practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CleLmTquP6c

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by joslicx

Ok so to summarize the feedback:
I have another question. I acquired a UV filter recently and have been shooting with the filter on the lens, even indoors. Should I take it off, at least when there is no obvious need? Does/could it affect picture quality/colors in any way?

I use a UV filter on all my lenses always, under all conditions. A good filter will have a minimum of loss, so you really don't have to worry about it.

Although in theory it will affect a mostly positive effect on the colors, in practice it might be difficult to spot. For me the main purpose is protection of the lens itself. I'd rather scratch a filter than my lens.

When I use a polarizer filter, or others, I do take it off. For two reasons, you adding loss and also on wide angle you might get some vignetting.

Jeroen

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by joslicx

I am sticking with the stock 12-50 lens for the moment.

I have another question. I acquired a UV filter recently and have been shooting with the filter on the lens, even indoors.

Just realized you are talking about Oly 12-50, I had 16-50 pancake from sony in mind when I said retract. Never mind.

[Samurai]

And so I too became an OM-D owner. I bought it with the 12-50mm lens, but I also have a 9-18mm lens.

Here the pic shows OM-D with 9-18mm lens, have placed it on a CD for size reference.