New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Where to begin?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Where to begin?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  < 12 3>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/17/2015 at 09:48
stork23raz View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/10/2009
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 666
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

So how concerned should I be on the megapixel difference between the Sony (24P) and the Olympus M5 (16P)?

I understand that resolution will be better with the higher number, but how does that really translate in to the actual picture?

Is it noticeable when looking at the photo on a computer screen or when you are printing pictures or does it fall in to the subtle differences of alpha glass that only a select few notice, appreciate or need?
 
either will be just fine.  I have a D40, its only 6mp and  it that is fine for all my pictures. Below is a chart that translate megapixels to print size.   What you should be concerned with is the sensor size/quality and how well it handles cranking on the ISO.  My cell phone is a 5mp, and my DSLR is 6mp, but the image quality is not even compareable.


Edited by stork23raz - July/17/2015 at 10:03
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/17/2015 at 10:46
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577
Thanks Stork23.  Charts helps put things in context.

Is there a spec that would indicates how well the sensor size/quality can handle ISO adjustments?

If I'm reading the specs correctly, the Sony is adjustable from ISO 100-25,600.  The Olympus M5 from ISO 200-25,600.

Expect this will be a learning process for me.  Most of my shots will be taken with the camera set in auto mode.  As I get more experienced, I'll learn how to manipulate ISO, shutter speed, aperture...etc and understand the significance when I purchase another camera if I want to get more serious.

Judging by the number of cameras some folks have, they are purpose driven based on the objective.  (No wonder a camera thread is in a optics/gun forum.  Lot of similarities.)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/17/2015 at 11:05
stork23raz View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/10/2009
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 666
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

Thanks Stork23.  Charts helps put things in context.

Is there a spec that would indicates how well the sensor size/quality can handle ISO adjustments?

If I'm reading the specs correctly, the Sony is adjustable from ISO 100-25,600.  The Olympus M5 from ISO 200-25,600.

Expect this will be a learning process for me.  Most of my shots will be taken with the camera set in auto mode.  As I get more experienced, I'll learn how to manipulate ISO, shutter speed, aperture...etc and understand the significance when I purchase another camera if I want to get more serious.

Judging by the number of cameras some folks have, they are purpose driven based on the objective.  (No wonder a camera thread is in a optics/gun forum.  Lot of similarities.)

not really a chart, you have to eyeball it, and read reviews
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-A6000/10
if you scroll down to the cameras compared section. you can selection different cameras and at the bottom adjust the iso on them to get a good comparison.
Also i would read the reviews from this website on both the cameras your interested in. It might be a bit of overload, or you can skip the the last page for the overall rating
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-A6000/13
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/13
they also have sample images on both at the very very end of the review.


Edited by stork23raz - July/17/2015 at 11:47
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/17/2015 at 14:52
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14390
Mike --
Addressing your questions & comments on your latest posts:

On resolution (megapixels vs sensor size):
Either sensor has way more than enough megapixels. You would have to print HUGE photos before you'd approach the resolution limitations of either sensor.
Although the Sony has more megapixels @ 24 vs. the Olympus @ 16, the Sony has a larger APS-C sensor size (23.5 X 15.6mm) while the Olympus has a Micro Four Thirds size (17.3 X 13mm) sensor. The Sony's APS-C sensor therefore has 39% more surface area. However, although the Sony's sensor has more total megapixels, the Olympus's sensor actually has slightly greater pixel density. In other words, if you use uncropped images from both cameras, the Sony's image has greater resolution, but if you were to take the exact same photo at the same distance with both cameras and then crop the photo from the Sony at the same FOV as the tighter frame Olympus image, the Olympus image would then actually have slightly greater resolution due to its tighter pixel pitch. In actual use and with normal photo print sizes and viewing on computer monitors, you will not be able to discern the resolution difference between the two. Noise suppression and lens quality will have a greater influence on the quality of the images from both cameras than the MP count.

On ISO and noise:
In general, larger sensor sizes can use higher ISO settings before digital noise becomes noticeable than smaller sensors. But, a lot depends on which individual brand and type of sensor the manufacturers are using in each camera being compared too. A Micro Four Thirds sensor won't handle high ISO quite as well as an APS-C sensor, but they will be close in terms of "usable" ISO range. Ignore the available ISO range settings specs. That has nothing to do with how high you can go on ISO and still have usable images. Most cameras will allow you to set the ISO sensitivity way higher than you will ever dream of using if image quality is important. Better suppression of noise is one of the strongest arguments for going with a larger sensor size and a higher end camera. In this case, the two sensors are reasonably close in size to each other and the difference in practical high ISO usability should be pretty close. So, the question you have to ask yourself is "which is more important to me; slightly better low light performance and slightly shallower depth of field capability at the same focal length and aperture or greater effective reach (from the MFT's greater crop factor)?"

On "Most of my shots will be taken with the camera set in auto mode:"
Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm just trying to give you the best advice, but if you have the slightest thought of using Auto mode, even for a limited amount of time until you learn how to use the manual controls, you're better off buying a good point and shoot camera and saving a significant amount of $ until you know whether or not you'll enjoy photography. You'll get just as good photos from a high end P&S (at reasonably low ISO) as you will a CSC when shooting in Auto mode. The whole reason to spend a lot more on a replaceable lens system camera in the first place is to take advantage of greater creative control over your photos with selective depth of field, shutter speed, focus, color balance, and lens choice.

No camera is intelligent enough to know your creative intent and "get it right" the first time. You don't learn much of anything except maybe composition that is helpful in advancing your photographic knowledge by shooting in Auto. Auto is your camera's "best guess" at how to handle the light in the scene and what kind of shot you're going for. You're looking at getting a nice camera, with a nice lens, and getting the best possible image quality. Shooting in Auto with such a camera is a lot like buying a Ferrari and detuning the engine to get 50% of its original horsepower. Your cell phone can take decent photos in Auto; you don't need to spend $1200 just to get a higher MP version of compromised photos. The sooner you forget "Auto" mode even exists and learn the basics of exposure, the better off you and your photos will be. Learning the basics of how to use the 3 main controls (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) to get the exposure you want isn't that difficult, and there's plenty of instructional materials you can read and watch online to help you. Once you do a little experimentation, your knowledge of photography expands exponentially. The quest is part of the fun. If you get confused, several of us here will be happy to help you learn how to use Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Manual modes. The quicker you are able to dispense with the "auto" crutch, the more satisfied you will be with your significant investment. Don't let the tons of menu options on your camera and the thick owner's manual that came with it overwhelm you. You will seldom use half the features on your camera, and a high % of those features actually suck anyway. Keep it simple, shoot in RAW, read up on the "exposure triangle," and don't let your camera think for you. When you take total control over your photos, you will end up enjoying the hobby much more.

Here is some good reading material on sensors, crop factors, resolution, etc. A lot of reading, but some good info:

https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence

http://www.mdavid.com.au/photography/resolution.shtml

http://www.competitor .com/alc/0012046/article/Does-sensor-size-matter-YES
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/17/2015 at 16:03
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577
Ted:  Appreciate the candor and point is well taken.  I made it to a local Camera store to actually get a feel of the Olympus M1, M5 and Sony A6000.  I'm down to the M1 and M5.  While I prefer the M1, not sure it is worth the 2X in price.  Seriously looking at used/refurb gear to help with the price point; knowing, like guns, buyer beware.

Lenses include: (Appreciate the recommendations)

- Olympus M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8
- Olympus M.Zuiko 60 mm F/2.8 ED
- Olympus M Zuiko ED 40-150mm f2.8 (This one may have to wait for awhile)

I know I have a lot of reading and experimentation ahead of me, but looking forward to it.  After the hands on, it isn't as hard as I was making it out and since it is digital, I can erase my mistakes or watch the viewfinder as I manipulate the various settings to see the affect.  Expect during post processing I can clean up a lot of my errors.

Any experience with these folks?


The book seems like a good beginners guide and they also have a book on Lightroom 6.  Their videos seem pretty good and break things down so a knuckle dragger like me can understand.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/17/2015 at 17:07
stork23raz View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/10/2009
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 666
dont bother with auto, just jump right in. Do some reading, watch few videos. Set that thing to A or P in the beginning play with that. Adjust your iso up more as as lighting gets lower. P is great for shooting on the fly. I mainly use S for either really LONG exposure or the opposite a very short exposure(subject is generally moving) M is your setting up and fully composing every detail of that shot and it can require some time. Its and art and science alot like firearms shooting.  Remember to shoot in RAW, it gives you the most adjust-ability in editing
There are a ton of books and videos out there some its really advanced and hard to understand.
For editing software I use Lightroom mostly and I personally enjoy this guys videos and I can kinda follow him to learn.
https://www.youtube.com/user/AnthonyMorganti/featured
this guy has some good how to videos for beginners on using your camera, composition and editing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENHKjb8ltAM

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/17/2015 at 17:13
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14390
Mike --
The M1 is a more "pro-quality" body, with a bit more robust build quality. It also has no anti-aliasing or optical low pass filter (OLPF) in front of the sensor, so it has a bit better sharpness than the M5, but at the expense of introducing a phenomena called "moire" in some images on rare occasions. I won't get into trying to explain moire at this time, because it's something that's difficult to put into words. Suffice it to say, there are advantages and disadvantages to having vs. not having an OLPF. The M1 also has a faster buffer, so you can shoot in burst mode for longer duration before you have to pause to wait for your camera's processor buffer to clear before you can shoot another burst. This is only an issue if you plan to do a lot of fast action photography.

Those are all 3 good lenses to have. For your first lens, I would either get the 12-40 f/2.8 or (if your budget allows), the 40-150 f/2.8. Both are very nice lenses that cover a lot of ground, and both give you the advantage of fast f/2.8 aperture at all focal lengths. The 40-150 will give you a lot more reach (300mm equivalent at full zoom), so it's much more useful if you prefer to spend more time shooting subjects requiring more working distance, such as wildlife. The 12-40 is a better lens for landscape or other shots where you need a wider angle of view. Both cover useful focal lengths for portraits. The 12-40 also helps preserve the small size and weight advantage of the Micro Four Thirds system, whereas the 40-150 is fairly large and heavy compared to other CSC lenses, even though it's still much smaller than equivalent focal length lenses for APS-C and full frame sensor cameras. It boils down to what's more important to you -- wide angle capability or zoom reach, how important keeping weight and size to a minimum is to you, and how much you're willing to spend.

The 60mm f/2.8 is also a great lens, and you may wish to get it later, in addition to a couple other "primes" (fixed FL). It's a nice focal length for portraits and is a useful medium telephoto length on the MFT sensor. However, it wouldn't be an ideal "all-purpose" "walk-around" lens because FOV is too narrow for many landscape and "street" photography shots you'll encounter, and there will be times when your working distance will be too tight to use it. If you get either of the other 2 lenses, you will have the 60mm focal length covered anyway.

I have no experience with the Northrup materials, but that does look like a nice resource.

When you do get your camera gear, be sure to please participate in our monthly photo contests. It can be a lot of fun, and when you have to meet a pre-assigned theme each month, it forces you to have to get creative as opposed to just taking snapshots. As a result, you get outside your comfort zone and learn a bit more about your camera and photography in a shorter amount of time.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/18/2015 at 13:31
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577

I like that 40-150 lens as well, but talk about a budget buster.  That by itself is $1200-1500. 

Good advice on the 60mm.  I keep forgetting about the crop factor and might just add a pancake style lens to the mix for something that is a good walk around type lens.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/18/2015 at 23:53
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14390
I forgot to mention that that particular 60mm also has macro capability, so if you think you might enjoy taking super closeup photos of small objects, that's reason enough to consider getting it later. Macro is a whole separate world of photography that's fun and offers endless subject opportunities.

If you're looking for an all-around travel lens as your first lens, then I believe the 12-40 f/2.8 is your best bet. That provides 24-80 equivalent, coupled with a fast max aperture. I'd venture to say that unless you're really interested in super telephoto, that zoom range would cover 75% of your photography needs.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/19/2015 at 07:35
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577
Thanks Ted.  I guess what I was thinking was a lower profile lens but sounds like going with a fixed 17mm or such might make it easier to carry around, but comes at a cost of not being as useful for a wide range of picture scenarios.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/19/2015 at 10:10
tejas View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: March/08/2010
Location: Lone Star State
Status: Offline
Points: 353
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

I've been following this sub-forum with a lot of interest.  Most makes absolute no sense to me since my experience has been with point and shoot cameras and now my iPhone.  I've toyed with some underwater photography while scuba diving but found it is easier to spear fish and eat them instead of trying to take the picture.

Folks on this forum have steered me right on optics and expect the same to be true with cameras.

Looking for a mid-range general purpose DSLR camera.  Family shots, landscapes, wildlife, nature, action photos...etc.  Plan to shoot in both jpeg and RAW format.  The latter is when I pick up one of the photo editing/processing SW packages.

Entry level might be more appropriate for my skill level, but looking for something I can grow in to in the event I get the bug.

Budget for the body and lens is around the $650 mark +/-.

I'm interested in the Nikon D5300 or 5500 with the 18-55mm lens and add additional lens as I learn what I'm doing.  Based on reviews I've been reading, both seem to consistently bubble to the top and have features that may be useful as I get more experienced.

Good place to start?  Others you would recommend?




Heres something different to kick around. Look at buying some quality preowned gear, particularly the camera body itself. Like most technology, the DSLR bodies lose they're  value as they age. As an example, my D200 can shoot an image just as good as my D7000. The photographer is more important than the camera, and the glass is more important than the body. The point is, bodies lose there value quickly but lenses don't. The controls and menus aren't that differentness than on a newer body. To understand the theory behind what your doing you should practice with the camera in manual. That will enable you to learn the relationship between aperature and shutter speed, exposure and depth of field.

Hopefully Im not breaking the rules by posting these links. I'd start with something like this. The lens i recommended is great for all around use but has limitations. You can add a fast prime later.

https://www.keh.com/282970/nikon-d200-digital-camera-body-10-2-m-p

https://www.keh.com/209390/nikon-18-200mm-f-3-5-5-6-g-aspherical-ed-if-dx-af-s-vr-autofocus-lens-for-aps-c-sensor-dslrs-72
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/19/2015 at 10:29
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14390
A fixed 17mm (34mm equivalent on the MFT sensor bodies) would be a decent all-around "walk-about" lens if you're just interested in scenic and street photography. It's not the best choice for portraits because it doesn't quite give you enough working distance. Any focal length shorter than about 50mm equivalent gets you too close to your portrait subject to fill the frame and therefore distorts normal human perspective, exaggerating facial features like noses, which isn't flattering to your subject. It's fine for when you're taking portraits where you want a large portion of the scene around the subject included in the frame, but not close-up portraits. For close-up portraits, you need the depth compression that longer focal lengths provide. Also, remember that the shorter your focal length, the deeper the depth of field, so wider lenses cannot get the subject isolation that are desirable in portraits that longer focal lengths combined with large apertures give you. Sometimes, taking closeup portraits of people or animals with a wide angle lens provides a cool or comical look, but for most portrait photography, using at least 50mm is best, with 70-85mm considered ideal.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/19/2015 at 11:25
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14390
Tejas is correct; it's better to invest in good glass than to get the nicest body and try to save money on the lenses. It's kind of the same as buying a $2500 rifle and putting a $100 scope on it. The body is indeed less important than the lens. Where I disagree with him slightly is I personally would rather have less zoom range to get a faster, fixed max aperture, because it gives better subject isolation and better low light performance by allowing you to use lower ISO value. Anytime you see a lens with something like "f3.5 - 5.6" in the specs, this means that the max aperture changes as you zoom. As you increase zoom, you lose a stop of light; your max aperture goes to the larger f-number as you approach max zoom.

Whenever you see a single f-number in the specs such as "f/2.8," this means you have that aperture available at all focal lengths, i.e. It's a faster lens, and usually a better lens optically. This doesn't mean that variable aperture lenses are no good. Some are quite good, in fact. They just won't give you quite the speed and shallow DOF that is desirable for some shots (I.e. portraits) where you want greater creative control over DOF.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/19/2015 at 14:08
tejas View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: March/08/2010
Location: Lone Star State
Status: Offline
Points: 353
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Tejas is correct; it's better to invest in good glass than to get the nicest body and try to save money on the lenses. It's kind of the same as buying a $2500 rifle and putting a $100 scope on it. The body is indeed less important than the lens. Where I disagree with him slightly is I personally would rather have less zoom range to get a faster, fixed max aperture, because it gives better subject isolation and better low light performance by allowing you to use lower ISO value. Anytime you see a lens with something like "f3.5 - 5.6" in the specs, this means that the max aperture changes as you zoom. As you increase zoom, you lose a stop of light; your max aperture goes to the larger f-number as you approach max zoom.

Whenever you see a single f-number in the specs such as "f/2.8," this means you have that aperture available at all focal lengths, i.e. It's a faster lens, and usually a better lens optically. This doesn't mean that variable aperture lenses are no good. Some are quite good, in fact. They just won't give you quite the speed and shallow DOF that is desirable for some shots (I.e. portraits) where you want greater creative control over DOF.



You're right about the fixed aperture of course, I knew he was on a budget though. With the the exception of the 50mm F1.4 and the F1.8, generally, the smaller the f stop the bigger the price. The 18-200 is a versatile and sharp lens that can be had for a great price. If you have to use it to shoot low light sports for instance, you'll have to go to 1600 or so ISO, and your photos will be less than stellar. If you shop around you might find an old 80-200 F2.8. They are built like tanks and weigh about five pounds. The auto focus is slow but accurate, you can sometimes find these for 300ish.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/20/2015 at 14:45
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577

Tejas/Rifledude:  Appreciate the recommendations.  I've been trying to get my head wrapped around the fixed and variable f-number.  I could see that the small fixed f-number in the zooms meant the size and price were greater, but agree that the primary consideration is the quality of the lens.

Actually been bouncing around the idea of dropping down to an Olympus M5 or M10 and sticking with the Olympus M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 to get the price down, but the M5 package deals I'm seeing don't typically include that lens.  Those that do are only about $300 less than the Olympus M1 with that same lens.

I understand the wider field of view and limitations of getting close portrait shots using a 17mm or similar prime lens, but can't those limitations be address during post processing by cropping in close if you want a tight head shot?

Not sure how noisy it would get or other consequences, but it will be fun to learn.

For now I'm going to stick with the 12-40mm lens and figure out where the gaps are. Outside of smaller form factor, the 17mm pancake lens is already covered by the 12-40mm.

Local camera shop will also rent equipment.  If lenses are included in that offer, I'll give a few different lenses.

Heading to Lake Powell in UT next week, so just need to go with the gut and dive in or you all will be seeing iPhone pics of my trip.




Edited by Marine24 - July/20/2015 at 14:59
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/20/2015 at 15:16
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14390
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:


I understand the wider field of view and limitations of getting close portrait shots using a 17mm or similar prime lense, but can't those limitations be address during post processing by cropping in close if you want a tight head shot?



No, because it isn't just a field of view consideration involved. There's also the issue of depth of field perspective. No matter what you do, a shot taken with a wide angle lens will never look like a shot taken with either a "normal" (around 50mm effective focal length) or a telephoto lens. When you get close to a subject with a wide angle lens, it distorts the subject considerably because the distance between objects and surfaces closer to the lens and those further from the lens is exaggerated. this can make a person's nose or head look proportionally too large in relation to their face or body (or whatever is closest to the lens), depending on your shot angle. In addition, wide angle lenses also typically have significant barrel distortion. Therefore, if you take a reasonably close-up portrait of someone or if your subject is very far from the center of the frame, their features can be significantly distorted much like one of those comical carnival mirrors. The barrel distortion gives a cool creative effect that can be very dramatic to some scenes, but is typically very undesirable for portraits of people.

The longer your lens focal length, the more it compresses depth of field perspective, the same as viewing objects further away with any other optic or with your eyes. Objects in the foreground and beyond the foreground thus appear to be closer together. Additionally, lens distortion tends to be less prominent to non-existent in the focal lengths normally used for dedicated portrait photography (50mm and greater). The greater perspective compression is more flattering to your subject because it doesn't distort their features, and the subject appears more like you typically see the person with normal human vision.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/20/2015 at 15:50
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577
Dang.  Didn't think it was that simple.  Explains why my Aunt didn't much care for the close up I cropped of her from a wide angle group photo.

I get the strange feeling that if I decide to get in to this hobby further, I'm going to have more lenses and camera bodies than I do scopes and holsters.

Thanks for the encouragement and help.  Order is in for the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Camera, along with the M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, couple of extra batteries and a couple SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 32GB SD cards.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/20/2015 at 17:45
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14390
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

DOrder is in for the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Camera, along with the M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, couple of extra batteries and a couple SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 32GB SD cards.




I think you made a good choice.

Excellent choice on your SD card too.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/20/2015 at 17:58
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577
Thanks Ted.  The build should look very familiar.

Olympus doesn't waste any time.  Received an offer to purchase a M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 R for $99 off their website.  Sounds like an interesting kit lens even with the limitations on the variable f-number.

The M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f2.8 PRO that you recommended is still on the radar, but I'll need a few more bake sales and car washes before I can buy that one.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/20/2015 at 19:56
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14390
Originally posted by Marine24 Marine24 wrote:

Thanks Ted.  The build should look very familiar.

Olympus doesn't waste any time.  Received an offer to purchase a M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 R for $99 off their website.  Sounds like an interesting kit lens even with the limitations on the variable f-number.

The M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f2.8 PRO that you recommended is still on the radar, but I'll need a few more bake sales and car washes before I can buy that one.

Haha! Roger that on the bake sales!

You'll soon discover if you haven't already that this photography thing can get just as expensive as guns and optics. It's fun though, and that's the name of the game.

Please don't misunderstand on the variable max aperture thing. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have variable aperture on a lens, depending on how you plan to use it. If you typically lean toward deep DOF shots like landscapes and you shoot a lot on tripod, having that extra stop or 2 of light might not mean much when measured against the significant $ premium to get it, and you can still get good subject isolation with f/5.6 at long focal lengths, especially if you're much closer to the subject than the background detail. I thought it was best for you to have f/2.8 in your "all-purpose" lens if the budget allows so that as you progress in your photography skills, you have fast aperture available and can therefore "grow with the lens." It just gives you more options creatively.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/20/2015 at 21:58
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577
I'm tracking with you. It will be nice to have the zoom capability but understand the limitation of freezing action. Hard to argue at $99 as a gap filler until I can pick up something better.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/20/2015 at 23:16
tejas View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: March/08/2010
Location: Lone Star State
Status: Offline
Points: 353
If you use a wide angle lens to shoot individual portraits, face shots, you will have to get right in your subjects face. Might be okay with your wife or kids to invade they're space but strangers won't like it. Even worse, Nobody will like the result. You will make they're nose appear huge, if it's athe center of your photo.

The best portrait lens I know of, though I don't own one...yet, is the Nikon 105 mm micro f2.8 VR. The G series, not the older F although it's a great lens too. I have a Tokina 100mm F2.8 micro. It's a great lens as well and a good bit less expensive than the Nikon. The micro (Nikon marketing) series of lenses were made to be able to focus at very close distances-inches, for close ups of bugs, flowers, and so forth. They are ultra sharp at all distances though and make good all around lenses.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/21/2015 at 17:51
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577
I saw three pictures of the same girl using  a 35mm, 75mm and 170mm lens and cropped accordingly.  I see what you and Ted mean.  You'd swear it was a before and after shot of someone who had lost weight, but they were all taken in the same session.

Need to tell my wife I don't need to go on a diet after all.  Just need to start using the appropriate lens.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/22/2015 at 07:36
budperm View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
show me your sheep!!

Joined: January/01/2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 27724
If it were only that simple.... Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/05/2015 at 09:52
Marine24 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: June/07/2010
Location: Monument, CO
Status: Offline
Points: 577
I've been able to get a few hundred shots with the Olympus E-M1 with the M Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 and M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II lenses.

I've been shooting primary in aperture mode for shots where I want the blurred background and shutter mode when I was shooting while on a moving boat.

These are from Lake Powell, UT

Here is an interesting one that I should have switched to aperture mode


Shot this one and was surprised to see the plane in the background.  Obviously cropped:


Telephoto shot after rain and the waterfalls that followed.  I did some cropping and adjustments in Picasa.


I'm still learning what settings to use when, but open to comments/recommendations.



 Post Reply Post Reply Page  < 12 3>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Where to begin?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Let the cooking begin budperm Critter Cooking Café 6
Let the jealousy begin. helo18 Firearms 22
The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution Chris Farris Firearms 10


This page was generated in 0.218 seconds.