Cameras

[The Folk Prophet]

There didn't seem to be an appropriate forum in the "Interest" area, so I went for general discussion.

I'm getting interested in cameras again. This stems, primarily, from the fact that I'm making extra money right now and can consider the hobby again. So here's my over-explained, no one really cares, history on the matter:

I didn't get interested in cameras until digital photography became a thing. For some reason then the bug caught me. But I was an early joiner. I got into the idea of digital photography long before it became popular.

The first digital camera we (my wife and I) owned was a Fujifilm FinePix bridge camera. I can't remember the exact model number, but it looked something like this:

I'm not sure if my memories of this camera (whichever model it was we had) being SO FUN are because it was new and therefore exciting or because it was actually such a fun camera. I tend towards the latter. This camera was fun and had technology that I've missed ever since, but it had some real weaknesses too -- being a point-and-shoot and all. So I wanted more.

So we sold it.

The second camera I owned was a Konica Minolta 7d.

Being really into "status" and wanting to look like a "pro" I got the extended grip for it too:

I loved this camera too! Loved the external dials, etc., but...still limited. It was, all in all, just too slow. But otherwise...loved it.

So we sold it.

Since then, I've been a Canon guy. Camera-wise I've had:

A 20d

A 30d:

...which I sold, but then purchased another one (which i still have)

and a 5d (1st generation):

And, yes...with the extended battery grip for all.

Lens-wise I've gone through quite a collection too. Typically when I sold a camera I'd sell the lenses I didn't any longer with it, and the more expensive lenses I'd often sell because I'd end up short on money for some reason or another (in part, because I spent too much on cameras and lenses.)

In the past many years I've been down to two cameras and a single lens. The 30d, the 5d, and a 70-200 f2.8 IS mark II.

 

Of all the lenses I've used over the years, this one has been my favorite, it's only real downside being the size and weight. Well...and the cost (around 1800...though I picked mine up as a gray market version for around 1300).

As of today, however ---    I AM DONE WITH CANON!

There. I said it.

I'm sick to death of it. This big, bloated company resting on it's market share giving the finger to the world for the past decade and charging twice as much for the privilege.

Sure, I haven't bought any of their newer cameras (though I've used many of them). But their newer cameras STILL don't have some of the features I had in my first two fun non-Canon cameras. Still!

I'm not saying Canons take bad pictures. They don't. They take great pictures. But feature-wise, they're pretty much stepped on by everyone else. And I'm sick of them and done with it. Their stuff isn't exciting any more. Their stuff isn't fun!

I'm not a pro. Sure, I dabbled with professional photography...did a few weddings, etc...but the pressure!! No thanks. Didn't care for it as a job. If I was a pro I'd probably stick with it. I'd probably look at getting myself a Canon 5d Mark IV:

...and several L series lenses.

But...as a hobby where my primary interest is taking pictures of my family... Yeah...these brick bodies with monster lenses that are no fun to use...no more!

Well the 5d I had broke a few months back and the 30d is too old to really sell for much anyhow (though I may sell it anyhow). But the lens...I can still get, probably, close to what I paid for it on ebay. So that's a grand at least I can sink into another system.

So where does that leave me system-wise?

Nikon?

NEVER!!

The only thing worse than Apple fanboys are Nikon people!

Okay...my biases are showing. Garr...it galls me when Nikon makes better cameras than Canon. (something they've been doing for a decade now...dang it Canon!!! Why!??!)

Still...Nikon's better than Canon, but they still have that resting-on-our-market-shares mentality just a bit. They innovate...but not...quite...enough.

Yes...Nikon and Canon both finally....FINALLY...developed mirrorless systems because Sony innovated and started stealing market-share...but the very fact that they took so long to do it is evidence of my exasperation with them. But either way...I'm a never-Nikon guy. Just...can't...even......consider......it. Biases too strong....can't....get......past......

So...Sony? The new mirrorless are killing it in the marketplace. They rock, I hear. And they're pretty much top tier for video stuff (not that I'm that interested in video...but...you never know...with great equipment......???)

But I don't like Sony as a company as much (probably more bias). But mostly I don't like the look and feel of their cameras. Just not my taste.

So then there's the smaller companies -- Fujifilm, Panasonic, and Olympus.

Ah...Olympus.

Innovative? Yes. Fun? Yes. Smaller systems? Yes. Attractive cameras? Oh yes.

Not to mention retro-cool!

I've become intrigued with their micro-four-thirds system.

Yes...I know. At higher ISOs they are noisier. And the depth-of-field (blurred backgrounds) is harder to deal with. But it can be dealt with. And...the noise, although worse than the newer Canon/Nikon/Sony fullframe stuff...is probably better than what I've been shooting with for years.

But mostly...it looks FUN. Photography might become fun again! These cameras actually use technology. Articulating touch screens. Wifi and bluetooth. In body image stabilization (best in the industry). Fun and light. Micro-four-thirds lens standards so lenses from different systems will work. Etc., etc.

Yep. I think I'm sold.

I believe I'll be selling my remaining Canon gear and buying into Olympus. Sure...naysayers are claiming four-thirds is dead. And maybe they're right. If so...c'est la vie. But I think I'm jumping in. This system seems to combine all the things I loved about the first two cameras I owned but with newer technology and quality that should live up to my needs. And I'm excited about it.

Edited January 23, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

A note on camera vanity:

I still have it. But it's shifted. I've moved away from the "wow--that camera is huge and professional looking", and am moving more into the, "wow--that camera is old-school retro cool looking" phase of my life apparently.

😆

I may still get the extended grip for whatever camera I end up with - a la: 

But that's because the grip was only partially to make the camera huge and impressive looking. Legitimately, for my hands, they make the camera's nicer to hold.

Look at that camera though! What a beaut!!

[mikbone]

Ok so I'm a photography idiot.

So here is the question.  With the camera on the iphone being so good, what advantage do I get with a real camera?

Talk to me like I'm a child.

Edited January 23, 2019 by mikbone

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Ok so I'm and photography idiot.

So here is the question.  With the camera on the iphone being so good, why advantage do I get with a real camera?

Talk to me like I'm a child.

It's like... with the toaster oven being so good, what advantage do I get with a real oven?  The answer depends on your level of competence in photography and how far you want to take it.  Like, you can bake some yummy stuff in a toaster oven but you can't bake gourmet cakes in one unless you're Gordon Ramsay.  And even then, if you're Ramsay, you may be able to pull off gourmet in a toaster oven, but you would rather do it in a real oven because there are so much more functionality you can control yourself instead of making the machine automatically control them for you.

In any case, I love good photography but I follow the principle of... the best camera is the one I have with me when an awesome shot goes through my line of vision.  So, that would, more often than not, be my smartphone.  Photoshop is a great invention to people like me even as I acknowledge that it is a bane to honest photography (was the sky REALLY that shade of orange?).

 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Ok so I'm and photography idiot.

So here is the question.  With the camera on the iphone being so good, why advantage do I get with a real camera?

Talk to me like I'm a child.

I haven't used the iphone (Apple...bleh....) but... The biggest problems I have with my phone camera are 1. Speed. I miss shots all the time even when I'm holding my phone and waiting for the shot. The time between pressing the "shutter" and the picture actually taking is too long. 2. The flash is stupid long and bright and blinds everyone! But without using the flash pictures are blurry if there's any movement at all. 3. You only have one lens. It is what it is and there's no switching. Explaining the advantages of different lenses and apertures and the like is beyond the "talk to me like I'm a child" explanation however.

Edited January 23, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

Oh. And don't forget the camera vanity thing.

No one sees someone taking a picture with their iPhone and says, "Oooh. Cool camera."

Edited January 23, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[omegaseamaster75]

FP, picture for picture I loved my 5dc the images it took were amazing. I have since upgraded to a 5dii and I can honestly say I enjoyed the film like quality of the 5dc better. I have owned a 7d and did not care for it.  I get moving to a smaller platform, I went out of town with my wife and took the 5dii with grip and 24-70 2.8L, I almost broke my neck.  I can't wrap my head around giving up the full frame or the noise increase at higher isos'.  Your gonna miss that 70-200l super sharp lens, and great for portraits. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by omegaseamaster75

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I haven't used the iphone (Apple...bleh....) but... The biggest problems I have with my phone camera are 1. Speed. I miss shots all the time even when I'm holding my phone and waiting for the shot. The time between pressing the "shutter" and the picture actually taking is too long. 2. The flash is stupid long and bright and blinds everyone! But without using the flash pictures are blurry if there's any movement at all. 3. You only have one lens. It is what it is and there's no switching. Explaining the advantages of different lenses and apertures and the like is beyond the "talk to me like I'm a child" explanation however.

Self quote:

Breaking these points down a bit re: the pros of "real" cameras:

1. The olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark II will shoot 60 frames per second. There's also a mode that starts taking pictures in the buffer (memory) the instance you half-depress the shutter so it covers images before and after the actual "click", just in case you miss the actual moment you were shooting for. The focus speed on all the "real" cameras is WAY faster than phones. Even the four-thirds cameras that are "slower" than the pro sports cameras (which cost $5000 and the like) are super quick.

2. With higher ISO, wide apertures (big opening in the lens to let in lots of light), and in body stabilization (so your hand shaking won't blur pictures taken with a slower shutter opening) you can get images in lower light without using a flash. Conversely, with a flash, a lot of these cameras use other means than the flash to focus (not always) so you don't get as much blinding flash light for the focusing in low light and the flash itself is a one-off pop. Moreover, with good external flash units you can point the flash so the light is bouncing off walls, etc., instead of pointing directly at the subject, which not only blinds less, but creates a nicer picture, as direct pointed flash light is not as pleasing as light coming from the sides, etc.

3. Quality pictures is more about the glass (lenses) than the camera. Yes, the camera matter some...but quality glass makes a bigger difference. Physics is physics, and you cannot get the same quality glass out of something a few millimeters diameter as you can from something larger. The best quality lenses are big, heavy, have lots of glass (lenses) in them, and render superb color and sharpness. On top of that the aperture options (once more, the size of the hole letting in light behind the glass) means you have options for very shallow depth of field. Extreme example:

Not that shallow depth of field is requisite for quality photography...but it's one of the tools one has with "real" cameras and lenses.

Phones are working to imitate this sort of thing with software, and may get there eventually.

[The Folk Prophet]

29 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I can't wrap my head around giving up the full frame or the noise increase at higher isos'. 

Well, like I said, the cameras I've had are older and I'm betting the new four-thirds compete and I won't notice a huge difference. If I'd been shooting with newer cameras that handle high ISO better...sure. This, honestly, is my one reservations.

29 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Your gonna miss that 70-200l super sharp lens, and great for portraits. 

I know. But...I don't use it. That's the real thing. I hardly ever pull it out. It's just too heavy. I used it when it was new because it was new and novel and fun. But it's just such a pain.

Plus...with the older cameras (not that Canon's newer cameras are that much better in some of these regards) I have to pull out my Compact Flash card, plug it into a converter, plug that into the computer, copy the files over, etc., etc., etc....argh! I'm not making money at this. I don't have time for all that. Get me wireless/bluetooth -- now!!

The point being...I end up using my phone instead. It does an okay job, after all. And it's SO much more convenient. I'm looking to bridge the gap between convenient and quality. And, from what I understand, the 4/3rds system has some pretty sweet lenses. Will any of them live up to the 70-200 2.8? Probably not. But if I'm using them and enjoying them and actually taking pictures instead of having a monstrous paperweight that I never use because it's such a pain.... (Another big problem with the 70-200 is the min focus distance. Makes it less usable for snapping quick pics of my kid being cute when she's close...so, once again...phone. But then I miss the pic because the phone's so slow. Of course I'd miss the pic with the huge lens too because I'd have to get up and go get it and then deal with all the pain of actually getting the picture to a place where I can put it on facebook....)

So...time will tell.

Edited January 23, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

41 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I can't wrap my head around giving up the full frame or the noise increase at higher isos'. 

Well, like I said, the cameras I've had are older and I'm betting the new four-thirds compete and I won't notice a huge difference. If I'd been shooting with newer cameras that handle high ISO better...sure. This, honestly, is my one reservations.

Also...I'm not joking about the "camera vanity" thing...except I am sort of. In other words, I don't care so much if people think my camera looks cool or not, but I do care if I think my camera looks cool. I care a great deal about it. I know I shouldn't. I know it's stupid. I know it makes no difference. But it matters to me.

If someone made a full frame camera that had the features of the Olympus and looked as good AND I could get a quality lens set up (with the right kind of compromises) that weren't so big but I liked the images (for example, the Canon 70-200 f4 is supposedly stellar) then I'd probably be sold. But it's not there. Canon isn't there. Nikon isn't there. Panasonic isn't there. Sony isn't there.

Honestly if Olympus made full frame versions of their OM cameras I'd probably be swayed.

As to the future, however, I think the low noise thing will work itself out. Tech improves. Sensors get better. And the idea that bigger is better is easy to see as a false idea if one simply looks at computers in general. The smaller chips of today are WAY WAY WAY more powerful, efficient, etc., than the huge chips of yesteryear. I can see no reason why the same won't be true of camera sensors.

Eventually, I suspect, phones will be there. The picture quality on phones is already stunningly good in many cases. Advances in tech will continue to improve and I think that eventually the idea that one has to have a full frame sensor to get good images will become laughable. For regular light situations it already is.

Edited January 23, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I haven't used the iphone (Apple...bleh....) but... The biggest problems I have with my phone camera are 1. Speed. I miss shots all the time even when I'm holding my phone and waiting for the shot. The time between pressing the "shutter" and the picture actually taking is too long. 2. The flash is stupid long and bright and blinds everyone! But without using the flash pictures are blurry if there's any movement at all. 3. You only have one lens. It is what it is and there's no switching. Explaining the advantages of different lenses and apertures and the like is beyond the "talk to me like I'm a child" explanation however.

How old is your phone?  And I guess it depends on what kind of phone you have.  The newish Samsungs and iPhones (the last 2 years) don't have these issues.  They have digitized zooms and panorama and portrait shots but can also take an attached zoom lens.  But yeah, the flash is what it is.  It's the same LED light used as a flashlight.  I don't like using it.

But yeah, phones are not really for enthusiasts unless you're one of those that don't have an issue with digital editing.  It's just not on the same ballpark as the equipment you're using especially since you preferred your old cameras where you get more control of the shot.

My sister-in-law's brother was who got me interested in photography (not enough to be a hobbyist though, just a whoa, that's cool type interest).  We used to fly these butterfly firecrackers - basically a little stick of firecracker that is balanced on a cardboard propeller, so when you light it, the cardboard spins and flies up spreading a circular light pattern.  We spent an entire evening trying to get the perfect shot of that firecracker and that's when I learned that he can manually control when the aperture opens and when it closes so he can get the flight of the firecracker burned into one film.  This was back in the 80's when everything was on film and man, we wasted so much film.  That's also when I learned how he processed film because if we would have sent the film out to be processed it would have cost an arm and a leg processing several rolls just to pick one shot.  With his own dark room, he just had to process the few decent shots.  And that's also when he waxed poetic about all the features of his Nikon. 

 

[omegaseamaster75]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Plus...with the older cameras (not that Canon's newer cameras are that much better in some of these regards) I have to pull out my Compact Flash card, plug it into a converter, plug that into the computer, copy the files over, etc., etc., etc....argh! I'm not making money at this. I don't have time for all that. Get me wireless/bluetooth -- now!!

You just made your own argument for getting the 5div, my brother has one it's the cats pajamas.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You just made your own argument for getting the 5div, my brother has one it's the cats pajamas.

Ohh... wireless/bluetooth is the cats pajamas.  That's how my uncle's wedding photos during the church ceremony was presented on awesome video production while the couple was entering the reception hall.  The video production guy was grabbing photos to put into the video while the photographer was still taking shots during the ceremony.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You just made your own argument for getting the 5div, my brother has one it's the cats pajamas.

No way!

And here's why:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682,594,ha,f

Yes, I know I'm not comparing like to like. But a rapier isn't "like" a broadsword either...but I'm done with broadswords. I'm moving on to rapiers. I'm too old to swing broadswords any more.

(Okay, okay...I'm still undecided actually. And that's partly why I'm discussing. So feel free to continue making the case. But....I think mirrorless either way. And if I'm going full frame for mirror-less I'll tell you now...no way will it be Canon. I'm done with Canon.)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I've moved away from the "wow--that camera is huge and professional looking", and am moving more into the, "wow--that camera is old-school retro cool looking" phase of my life apparently.

My father, the professional photographer, would buy antique cameras from time to time as a hobby.  But once, he bought a camera that was old enough to be called an antique, but new enough that could still use modern film.  It was a Nikon - some-number-and-letter-or-other.

For work, he'd use the modern cameras.  But for personal use, he'd use that Nikon.  He said he simply enjoyed using it.  Yes, the picture quality wasn't up to professional level.  But it was good enough for a family album.  And he liked it.

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

My father, the professional photographer, would buy antique cameras from time to time as a hobby.  But once, he bought a camera that was old enough to be called an antique, but new enough that could still use modern film.  It was a Nikon - some-number-and-letter-or-other.

For work, he'd use the modern cameras.  But for personal use, he'd use that Nikon.  He said he simply enjoyed using it.  Yes, the picture quality wasn't up to professional level.  But it was good enough for a family album.  And he liked it.

I've always liked things that look retro but perform modern. I would love, for example, to get an old muscle car and put in a modern engine, suspension, brakes, etc., plus modern seating, stereo (bluetooth), etc., but still have the old body. And I'm not talking about the new design of muscle cars...which are...okay...but something legit old-school.

This would be really cool that way, for example.:

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

The Olympus camera announced today (technically last night at 11 my time) is a bit of a disappointment. (OM-D E-M1X) Primarily, in my opinion, that's due to the EVF and the view screen which both have lower quality (less pixels, LCD, etc) specs. For a $3000 camera I can't understand that decision.

Well...I wasn't likely to shell out 3 grand for a camera anyhow unless it had some sort of magical new 4/3 sensor that could take noiseless pictures at ISO 2 billion or something. Then I might determine I needed to save up for it.

As it is...I am quite excited about the announcement of the silver OM-D E-M1 Mark II. I quite like the M1 Mark II but like the idea of a silver camera better. It's' a limited edition so I'll have to get it when it's available, but I think I can sell the lens I own for close to what I need to get it. Then I'll just have to save for a lens or two.

Here's some pics of it:

Yeah...I think I'll probably get it.

A lot of people think the silver looks cheesy and the black looks better.

I disagree though. The silver is better. Honestly I wish the knobs on top were silver too the way they did it with the Mark I version of the camera:

[mikbone]

so many knobs and buttons

[zil]

On 1/23/2019 at 11:56 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I've always liked things that look retro but perform modern. I would love, for example, to get an old muscle car and put in a modern engine, suspension, brakes, etc., plus modern seating, stereo (bluetooth), etc., but still have the old body.

And name it KITT?

[zil]

On 1/23/2019 at 10:35 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Plus...with the older cameras (not that Canon's newer cameras are that much better in some of these regards) I have to pull out my Compact Flash card, plug it into a converter, plug that into the computer, copy the files over, etc., etc., etc....argh! I'm not making money at this. I don't have time for all that. Get me wireless/bluetooth -- now!!

You know about wi-fi sd cards, right?  Just checkin'.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, zil said:

You know about wi-fi sd cards, right?  Just checkin'.

Yeah I have one. It's okay-...ish

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

so many knobs and buttons

I know! I love it!!

[The Folk Prophet]

I had missed this post before but I thought I'd respond now just for fun.

On 1/23/2019 at 10:52 AM, anatess2 said:

How old is your phone?  And I guess it depends on what kind of phone you have.  The newish Samsungs and iPhones (the last 2 years) don't have these issues.  They have digitized zooms and panorama and portrait shots but can also take an attached zoom lens.

Have you ever used a professional SLR with a quality lens?

On 1/23/2019 at 10:52 AM, anatess2 said:

  But yeah, the flash is what it is.  It's the same LED light used as a flashlight.  I don't like using it.

And yet, without it, the pictures are as likely as not to be blurry. Of course that's sometimes true with pro cameras too...but the flash can be less obnoxious (depending on how it's used).

On 1/23/2019 at 10:52 AM, anatess2 said:

But yeah, phones are not really for enthusiasts unless you're one of those that don't have an issue with digital editing.

It's just not on the same ballpark as the equipment you're using especially since you preferred your old cameras where you get more control of the shot.

Even with digital editing a phone cannot compete at this point. They're getting better all the time. But not yet.

Either way though, shooting pics with a phone is no fun for camera enthusiast. The experience is not just about getting images. That'd be like saying to a muscle car enthusiast that a Tesla can probably beat them in a drag race. It's true. It will. But that's not the only point.

On 1/23/2019 at 10:52 AM, anatess2 said:

My sister-in-law's brother was who got me interested in photography (not enough to be a hobbyist though, just a whoa, that's cool type interest).  We used to fly these butterfly firecrackers - basically a little stick of firecracker that is balanced on a cardboard propeller, so when you light it, the cardboard spins and flies up spreading a circular light pattern.  We spent an entire evening trying to get the perfect shot of that firecracker and that's when I learned that he can manually control when the aperture opens and when it closes so he can get the flight of the firecracker burned into one film.  This was back in the 80's when everything was on film and man, we wasted so much film.  That's also when I learned how he processed film because if we would have sent the film out to be processed it would have cost an arm and a leg processing several rolls just to pick one shot.  With his own dark room, he just had to process the few decent shots.  And that's also when he waxed poetic about all the features of his Nikon. 

 

Cool. Except the Nikon part. 🤮

Film never really interested me. Too lazy I guess.

[The Folk Prophet]

Alrighty then.... here's what I decided.

I don't need the M1 mark II. It's $1700, and I like the look of the mark I better. I found a Mark I on ebay that was an open box (store model) with only a few thousand shutter clicks on it for $700 and I just bought it!

That's a thousand dollars less and I think I'll be very happy with the Mark I.

Now I have to sell my 70-200 2.9 II IS to cover the cost and have some to get a lens.