[Jeroen]

Nice video, that explains the differences well. But it proofs my point, photography is not about theory. There are many video’s out there along similar lines.

But an image comes together by using a range of different techniques. Through the optics in the lens, onto the sensor, processing in the body, conversion to get it onto a memory card onto your phone/laptop, conversion from one file format to the next, and subsequent editing by one or multiple software tools, converting to another format for permanent storage and finally it emerges on a phone screen, laptop screen, life size poster print, post card size print etc.

Focussing on one element where the technical difference have become small has not so much practical use I find. It is a more a theoretical debate about what is best. Without taking all the other elements into consideration and how much they add or impact the end result I find it is not that useful. In fact I find you should or can not claim one is better than the other. And this is just the technical stuff, let alone the impact light, composition and the photographers creativity has on the final image.

It is a bit similar to the debate, whether a manual transmission allows for faster 0-100 km/h acceleration than an auto box. On many cars if you look at the specification the manual might appear a bit faster. But very few of us will be able to do so. And guess what; for most of us the auto box car will allow us to out accelerate most that drive the similar car/engine with the manual box. The difference if any, is a theoretical one. One that can be proven theoretical and even measured on the test track. But in practice so many other factors come into play that it just not might be relevant for the end result. Or only under very specific conditions.

If you believe it is relevant for your photography by all means of course.

We are currently exhibiting a range of our Chapter’s images. All printed A3 size. One of them has been taken by iPhone. A lot of people when looking at the images are impressed by them. Very often they will ask, what camera / lenses are you guys using? I always tell them, one of these 30 images is shot with an iPhone. See if you can tell which one. I havent had anybody identify the correct image yet.

The main reason I choose my Olympic system is the weight and size factor. I can take all I need in one small back pack. And I believe it does not limit me in any way for the sort of photography. The technical limitations are more around my editing screen, Ma Book Pro and the 10 colour photo printer I have.

The biggest limiting factor with a huge impact on the end result is me! All the others more technical limitations, compared to my skill levels are theoretical at best.

The weight and volume advantages are very really for me. My OMD is also weather proof and most of my photography is outside, so that is a real life advantage for me. Also an OMD looks like what I think a camera ought to look like. I don’t like the new Olympus at all. Even current Canon and Nikons, undoubtedly great cameras, just do not look very cool. They all look bloated, just like so many new cars compared to previous models. No impact of course how a camera looks and what it can produce. Still, I enjoy my OMD for the way it way it looks. Same for my Pen F

Jeroen

[Thad E Ginathom]

If I had known what I was mostly going to shoot, before buying my camera a couple of years ago, I would not have bought the deal with two kit lens, because I now seldom use either of them!

I don't know how else I would have learnt, though, other than by making mistakes.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

If I had known what I was mostly going to shoot, before buying my camera a couple of years ago, I would not have bought the deal with two kit lens, because I now seldom use either of them!

I don't know how else I would have learnt, though, other than by making mistakes.

True. And then again, our choice on what we like to shoot might change over time. So that might mean adjusting your kit a bit here and there as well.

Later this year we are going to have a workshop on macro and close up photography. Haven't done much in those genres at all. Not sure how close I can get with my current kit or to what extend I can produce a macro image at all. Kit is definitely a limiting factor in Macro photography.

I like to explore some new stuff in parallel by trying to improve what I already know or practice. Many years ago I took a course on using flash photography. Hugely interesting. Bought some fancy stuff and did quite a bit of flash work. Must be at least twenty years ago. Currently I do not even own a proper flash.

Comes and goes.

Jeroen

[sgiitk]

Interesting thread from YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ezKmawMEUs

Good explanation of Mirror and Mirrorless cameras.

[navin_bhp]

Wow.. The Canon EOS RP looks very interesting. Nice to see they included the RF to EF adapter with the body and a little grip.

[download2live]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Olympus is putting a small sensor in a big body. As a technology demonstrator it is great, but I wonder about the product roadmap rationale.

They want to move into the territory occupied by Canon Nikon. Smartphone are eating up small cameras. Including mirrorless.
One market which will never be challenged will be that of full frame big professional cameras.

Personally I find that mirrorless cameras and lenses especially are more expensive compared to Canon and Nikon offerings.

I am willing to pay more for small size factor. But when it is at this size factor, I will stick with Canon or Nikon. They and the lenses are cheaper. There is lot of third party accessories available. All at good rates. Not to mention old legacy lenses floating around.

I never upgraded from Original Olympus E-M5.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by download2live

They want to move into the territory occupied by Canon Nikon. Smartphone are eating up small cameras. Including mirrorless.
One market which will never be challenged will be that of full frame big professional cameras.

I am aware of camera market dynamics. It isi a shrinking market. Everyone is trying to retain or improve their relative market position. They are not really competing with Canon or Nikon here, they can't. Not if it is a big body, as you have pointed out.

The USP of the 4/3 system is the size advantage. Once that is gone, then other systems have many other advantages. All the cool stuff about better AF and FPS etc. do not matter. Because other systems are as good if not better.

Originally Posted by download2live

I am willing to pay more for small size factor. But when it is at this size factor, I will stick with Canon or Nikon. They and the lenses are cheaper. There is lot of third party accessories available. All at good rates. Not to mention old legacy lenses floating around.

I never upgraded from Original Olympus E-M5.

True.

[sgiitk]

The basic point is that with the need for an SLR mirror gone, we get some benefits

1. the optics has no constraint with regards to the behind the lens activities.
2. The lens can be made much smaller and more compact.

I may add that we should give up the crazy MP race. A top A4 print needs under 4MP so why the 20/24MP game. There can be some specialized higher resolution stuff at a price.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

The basic point is that with the need for an SLR mirror gone, we get some benefits.

This is a 10 year old thread on mirrorless cameras. So the pros and cons of not having the mirror have been discussed countless times since then.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

The USP of the 4/3 system is the size advantage. Once that is gone, then other systems have many other advantages.

Micro 4/3 system can no more claim the size advantage. Fuji's APS-C cameras and as small as Micro 4/3 and lenses are tiny as well. Without considering the lenses even the new Canon RP is super light at 485g for a FF camera.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I may add that we should give up the crazy MP race. A top A4 print needs under 4MP so why the 20/24MP game. There can be some specialized higher resolution stuff at a price.

I don't like to get technical here. But there are many advantages (and of course disadvantages - e.g. slow processing throughput, limited buffer, more noise due to pixel density when viewing at 1:1, requirement for more storage and processing power etc.) of a high MP body.

Three basic advantages :
* Ability to print big
* Noise reduction and sharpness increase when downsizing
* Ability to crop without much of a penalty. Important for certain genres.

If you play with the files of 5DSR or D850, you just might fall in love with them.

Or see the output from medium or large format bodies. I have never used them, but sometimes I go 'ooh'. Of course, that is also because of the photographer who is using such a body :-)
-------
Typed from mobile, excuse typos.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I just ordered a Sony a6500, But Why? Answers other than my own are welcome!

When I bought my a6000 nearly two years ago, I was fairly sure that the a6500 was the better choice, but...

-- It's years since I took more than the occasional snap with the compact that lived in my bag. I simply did not know if I would redevelop photography enthusiasm. But I did know that I wanted to get better photos than my compact would take.

-- The price difference. Not insurmountable if I waited a few more months. But WIN (Want it now (then)). And if I hadn't developed the enthusiasm: more money sitting on the shelf.

-- The two-kit-lens a6000 deal seemed to be giving me the most for my money.

Only the last item was a complete mistake. I quickly found that I needed a faster prime lens or two, and the kit lenses are the least used.

Enthusiasm was not a problem. I don't take the camera everywhere, but always to weddings, functions, outings, and the several carnatic concerts a week that I attend. I have taken more photos than I have time to look at properly. Although I do have enough time to know that I take better concert portraits now than I did two years ago. And I am able to share them with some of the artists. Not to mention millions of cat pics, of course, although it is hard to know if the cats actually like them, whereas I get positive remarks from the musicians .

So, it turns out that the camera spends very little time on the shelf. And I really like the weight, size and feel of my a6000. So I have ordered a heavier, slightly larger a6500! Why?

I had been thinking to post, "Given the same photographer, does an a6500 take in-any-way-better pictures than an a6000?" Too late: it is on the way. I'm going to be finding out anyway. None the less, any thoughts and/or reasons-why/not are welcome. It is the same sensor, but the electronics are different. It's faster... but I photograph music rather than dance, so how burst, etc, behaves is not very important to me.

IBIS is the main thing. The number one reason. I want all the help I can get. And some help with non-Sony-OSS lenses is going to be better than nothing.

Custom Buttons one extra, plus the MF-AF/AEL switched button. I am going to use all those things.

Level It's going to be nice to be able to see a level in the viewfinder. I've improved, but I'm not good enough. (Yes, it is a lot cheaper to correct in Gimp)

Body with extra sturdiness, weather and dust resistance. Although I don't think that any of my lenses are ???. But lenses are things that can and will happen in the future.

Auto-Focus* seems to be seriously updated. Difference in practice I have yet to find out.

Better menu layout: Well, it couldn't be worse! Seriously, a positive, if a smaller one.

Touch Screen I used to think would be wonderful. The internet seems to think otherwise, especially for those of us who prefer eye-to-EVF-nose-to-screen over using the LCD for taking pics. So the other (apart from IBIS) major change is not a priority for me, and I am well-prepared for it to be a disappointment.

I'm doing my homework --- enthusiastically! I've leafed through the Sony manual online, and I'm reading the Friedman guide. There are dozens of small differences (A lot are movie-related: I don't really do video) and I'm interested to know anything that others suggest I should put at the top of the list to check out. Especially if they have done a similar upgrade. Or if you all think I am a fool with too much money and too much GAS (Actually, it cleared out my non-family savings )

And, If I have anything useful to say, I'll add my experience when it happens.

It is probably important to add that, whilst I sometimes go on holiday and take snaps of the world, and even take the occasional macro of a bug or flower (much more practice needed), most of my photography takes place in concert halls and weddings. Relatively low light and subjects that don't sit still.

By the way. Did I consider...

-- The a6400. No: no IBIS.

-- The a???? probably on the way. Yes: I expect it will be everything I've ever dreamed of, and have a price to match.



*I predict that the new Sony APS-C camera battery will only last five minutes unless the focus on what you are thinking about feature is disabled. How else are they going to be able to continually claim World's fastest auto-focus? lol.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I just ordered a Sony a6500, But Why? Answers other than my own are welcome!

You can enjoy the bigger buffer and fps compared to the A6000. It will significantly increase the number of keepers you can get especially when taking pics of kids. Also the eye detect should be handy. Looks like you know what you are getting into and I hope the IBIS satisfies your needs. You could sell the a6000 and add a cool lens to your kit. :-)

I would suggest adding an L bracket that will provide better grip and a place to rest your pinky finger which means atleast a half stop worth of IS

https://www.smallrig.com/smallrig-l-...4.html?afmc=36

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

You can enjoy the bigger buffer and fps compared to the A6000. It will significantly increase the number of keepers you can get especially when taking pics of kids. Also the eye detect should be handy. Looks like you know what you are getting into and I hope the IBIS satisfies your needs. You could sell the a6000 and add a cool lens to your kit. :-)

It's going to be sad parting with the a6000, but I should probably do so, yes. It is far too nice a camera to be going mouldy on a shelf, and I am not photographer enough for two bodies: not by half!* But it is quite a bargain new now. Any sales earnings will go to replenishing the nest egg almost totally depleted by the a6500 purchase.

All I'm hoping for on the eye-detect is that it works better than the a6000! All that stuff has been significantly beefed up on the a6400, but I prioritised IBIS. I expect it will all, and more, be included in the a????, along with all sorts of other goodies, at a price of... rather a lot more, is my guess. I think the new top-of-the-range APS-C will leave the a6[35]000 as mid and low price, with the a6000 falling away.

I would suggest adding an L bracket that will provide better grip and a place to rest your pinky finger which means atleast a half stop worth of IS

I have an L bracket, which is marked as a6300-compatible. I recall reading that it fits the a6300 and the a6000, but not the a6500. I'll see. anyway, it is just a plain bracket: nicely made, but no match for the
SmallRig thingy. It looks lovely, but I do not want to make the camera bigger. I intend that it should fit the same space in the same bag: a Tenba DNA8, which is so easy to carry.


*Well, ok, yes: by half

[condor]

Does a Nikon J1 make sense today ? Not as a primary camera, but as an additional body (use my Nikkor lenses with adapters).

It's a 2012 design, 10 MP camera.