which camera?

I have to say thanks to both John and Nick for making me think again about this issue.

My initial reaction was that John's modification of a picture clearly in the public domain wasn't at all unreasonable. But now Nick's explained it from his point of view I've changed my mind.

I suppose changing a digital image isn't really different from altering the sense of a typed post. I would certainly be upset if someone changed "I think MEW is wonderful" to "I think MEW is dreadful", and the new wording was apparently signed by me.

I don't suppose for a moment that John intended to cause offence. And a beneficial side-effect is that I've been educated again by forum opinion.

Regards

Dave

No sharpening at all Nick. Sorry and etc but I have deleted the photo from the album but it looks like that doesn't change what's in the post. If Neil or one of the other mods don't notice I'll ask them to remove it.

Afraid it does look blurred in places to me. I had noticed that the camera can be set to do that and there is a similar example on canon's own page on it on their web site.

As mentioned the only reason I did it was to show that photo's can be changed in none obvious ways. I don't like the result either. I'm surprised that you can get that sort of result with a rather small sensor without deliberately focusing short. To me looking at the face against other aspects, the rope and other part of the body it looked processed.

John

-

John, I thought you knew all about computers, try clearing your cache and the photo won't be there. Simples

The Forum software is also likely to have reduced Nicks original to a fraction of its original detail.

Edited By JasonB on 30/05/2016 20:02:11

.

No neither do I. - That is why I offered him some images to play with if photo editing is his thing.

Back to the original question. The girl that lives with me is a photographic model and as such travels about working with lots of different photographers so gets many different and unbiased opinions.

A budget end SLR type held in good regard is the Fuji XT10 it seems. So much so that she has purchased one. I have not used it myself and neither has she much as yet. But the results I have seen so far have been very good.

It's a retro styled camera that looks to be well made for the money. She is away working in Belgium ATM where she has been putting it to use whenever she can. So when she gets back I would think she will have lots to edit. ............ She likes editing. I as said previously don't.

Nick

Then again, with an m4/3 camera and the appropriate lens you can now do some amazing stuff with in camera focus stacking. I've not played yet myself, and it's limited to the latest bodies and just a few of the later lenses; Have a look HERE as an example

Thanks for that. I brought up this idea with a mate some years ago but I didn't realise that one of the manufacturers had actually implemented it! Is it just Olympus or are there other manufacturers that offer it?

As far as I know, just Olympus, and then only with the latest software revision.

Currently I believe Focus Stacking (i.e. in camera) only works with the m4/3 60mm, 12-40mm F2.8, & 40-150mm F2.8 lenses and then only on the E-M1, I'm assuming that the new 300mm F2.8 will also work, or will be updated in firmware soon. the 1.4 converter can be used with the 40-150mm as well.

Focus Bracketing works with the E-M1, E-M5 Mk2 and E-M10 Mk2 and all M4/3s lenses (where the images are saved separately for post processing combination; Maybe only the Olympus m4/3s lenses, I'm not sure)

See HERE

Edited By peak4 on 30/05/2016 21:54:14

Edited By peak4 on 30/05/2016 21:55:24

The problem with the Olympus macro lens really is that the focal length is too short. At 1:1 and even with less it's way too close to the insect and many fly or crawl away. That's why I generally use the 75-300mm with a close up lens. A lucky buy on the close up lens. It's an achromatic one Sigma did for one of their zooms that really would do macro. It also makes it easier to use flash if needed. I often find it is.

I have the 40-150mm 2.8 but in some ways am disappointed as it's a pretty heavy lens. Like many I went for the format to reduce size and weight. I've not tried that on macro really yet but suspect I wont be able to get the mag I will often need.

For static stuff even with a microscope I can't bring myself to kill insects just to photograph them. If they are causing me or others I have no problem swatting them so some species shouldn't trouble me really but many can be hard to find.

To be honest I may revert to APS for macro. Nothing else though as I don't think that there is much point. Just marginal improvements in noise. To go even smaller I have been playing with a Nikon 1. They would be brilliant if they had put a lower resolution low noise higher dynamic range sensor in them but as they are the one I have has more noise than the next model down as it has more pixels and exposure can be tricky when the important bits need to be dead right there's scarcely any room for error even from raw.

Anyway sounds like I should update the firmware in my EM1 after making sure I don't loose anything that I use,

John

-

I just cleared my cache Jason and it's still there. Just add maybe it's in some one else's ISP etc.

John

-

Edited By Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 23:59:40

If you have the cash, and a 4/3-m4/3 adaptor, there's always the Sigma 150mm F2.8, a spectacular performer in most people's estimations.

Incidentally, my previous post should have read 300mm F4 :The 300mm F2.8 is the larger 4/3s format lens.

There's one for sale at a very good price on the UK Olympus forum HERE

Edited By peak4 on 31/05/2016 00:27:17

Years ago, it used to be suggested that a quick puff of the "freezing spray" used during electronic trouble shooting - then wait a few seconds for the residue to boil off - is enough to slow the insect down for photographic purposes.

Never tried it myself but it sounded good.

A friend of mine who photographs butterflies puts them in the fridge for a few minutes to stop them moving

There is a chemical that can be used to subdue insects that a friend of mine tried but it proved to be fatal on a number of occasions so he stopped using it. Even popping them in the fridge for a while can be fatal. It's surprising how tough they are when you want to get rid of them and how fragile they can be when you don't!

Funny you should mention the Sigma 150mm macro. Often when I have sold bits and pieces I buy something else so bought one a few weeks ago. Canon fit as my son gave me his 100D and I also have some Canon stuff with the original Rebel I've kept. This is why i decided to sell my Nikon gear. My son's off to America for 3 weeks and for some reason just had to go full frame. He also has a 7D II so no idea why. I must admit that the new 5D's are smaller and lighter than my original 5D but I can't see myself going that way again.

Canon do seem to have tried to make the 100D convenient for some one who is really interested in photography and no need to worry about it crawling around in fields. So I am going to give it a try. If m 4/3 proves easier the lens should be easy to sell. The problem with the long zoom with the close up lens on is sometimes it's better to use it without and it has to be unscrewed. That's made worse by the flash I use. I dismantled one of their tiny flash guns they provide with the camera and arranged for it to mount on the lens hood. There has been several case where I could have photo'd some insect with the close up off but couldn't get close enough with it on.

Actually there is also a small telescopic aerial on the part that now clips into the camera flash socket but I haven't tried mounting the flash on the end of it yet.

I have tried several of the older 4/3 lenses with an adapter but feel that lenses have moved on since they were made. I mean the do coat all of the separate lenses in the lens now. As surprising as it may sound the often didn't in the past which is why modern dslr lenses tend to give more contrast.

John

-

This one of mine has reasonable DoF:

Fuji S2 Pro, Nikon 105mm Macro lens, ISO 200, f/22, 1/125 + ringflash, handheld, taken in 2006 in my back garden.

As to the OPs question, budget will be the prime factor determining what is available to choose from.

Don't ignore second hand items - nearly all of my current equipment was bought S/H from 'the bay'

Don't get caught up with megapixel arguments - easy sell for a salesman - 'this one has more so must be better', you need a huge increase in MP to increase the actual image quality since all you are doing is adding a strip of pixels along 2 sides to create the difference between a smaller and a larger pixel number. 8MP is not double the pixels of 4MP, 16MP is double the pixels of 4MP.

Also what size are you going to produce your prints (if at all) a 4x6 image at 150dpi (what most people are happy with) requires 600x900 pixels (0.54MP) or at 300DPI (professional photographer) requires 1200x1800 pixels (2.1MP).

Be wary of large memory cards - how many photos will you lose if it corrupts or is lost? - I use 1GB cards and my camera will store 210 pictures per card (I have 10 cards) - I am happy with that loss rate if a card corrupts or is lost, what are you happy with losing in one hit?

Bridge cameras, as already mentioned are a good 'all in one' solution from macro to telephoto in a portable package, with DSLRs you are buying into a system, the DSLR itself is a consumable item with a steady stream of new models from the vendor, the lenses are where you spend the bulk of your money.

These days for pretty much anything with a relatively stationary subject I use either a small compact P&S or my iPhone, I only bring out the DSLR for difficult lighting conditions, action shots and macro work, or when I really feel like carrying several kilos of equipment around with me - carrying a DSLR with a 50-500mm zoom gets old pretty fast, even carrying my S2 Pro with a 18-200mm lens is still around 1.5Kg in my hand.

There are also many 'lower end' DSLRs available with 'kit' lenses which are much lighter and cheaper (under 1kg in the hand).

JPG vs RAW - I don't have time to post process all my pictures, so I just save as JPG, RAW formats change and may not be supported in the future, you can do pretty much anything to a JPG that you can to a RAW in Photoshop, Gimp, etc anyway.

Edited By Timothy Moores on 06/06/2016 16:03:35

.

Good post Timothy. - I totally agree with 95% of what you have said.

Nick

You lose a lot of information if you shoot in JPEG that you can never get back. I'll stick with RAW thanks.

**LINK**

I've spent less on lenses so no, it's not where I've personally spent the most money. Buying lenses is a choice, not an obligation. I reckon the vast majority of DSLR bodies sold only ever get one or two different lenses put on them.

There are equally good arguments for shooting JPG, Ken Rockwell puts forward some good ones, personally I can't be bothered with the post processing or extra storage space requirements associated with RAW - each to their own.

One could argue if someone is only ever going to use 1 or 2, most likely kit lenses, they might be better off with a bridge camera - less chance of dust, less weight and decent wide to telephoto range all in a handy package, probably cheaper too.

The main point of a (D)SLR is that you have the option to add whatever speciality lens, flash, bellows, etc you want in order to meet a specific requirement, as well as being able to use it as a glorified point and shoot - fit a moderate zoom, 35 or 50mm prime and set it to full program and let the camera take care of everything.

The problem with bridge cameras and compacts is that they never go wide enough for landscape work. I've got a 8-16mm wide angle for my DSLR. You're lucky to get a 24mm equivalent on a bridge camera. The lenses on them also aren't very fast and the sensors on many are too small.

Sadly a lot of Ken Rockwells stuff is out of date and simply wrong. That article is seven years old.