Post your photography skills! (self-gloss) - Page 203

Well, keep in mind, current EVFs are a first generation feature. They will only get better. The disadvantages of mirrors, on the other hand, aren't going away.

Oh I understand, there are a ton of advantages in pellicle mirror systems. Oh and they have been around for a while just so you know. Just now they are becoming popular.

I'm not talking about semi-transparent mirrors. I think totally mirrorless EVF-based systems are the future for professional cameras. They offer the form factor advantage of old range finders, with the see-what-the-lense sees advantage of SLRs. The best current example is Sony's NEX-7. A full-frame NEX with an even better EVF would be a true DSLR killer.

As soon as Nikon and Canon embraced CMOS sensors in their SLRs, using a mirror stopped making any sense on a fundamental level.

I've looked at the NEX cameras. Very impresive. My only real concern is lenses. If they make arrangements with Zeiss and put out some good prime and zoom lenses I would seriously have to think about that system. Of course I'm already heavily invested in the Alpha A system so in my case switching over may not have any real advantage. The same goes with my Minolta film system. I have 3 solid working bodies and a bunch of good glass that's already paid for. To tell you the truth if I was to spend a bunch of money it would be on a film camera. A Leica M3 would be nice but I'm thinking more along the lines of a medium format Mamiya.

Thanks, SB. Here's a colour version of a previous wash batch:



(Notice the black stones! )

I think developments in screen technology/polarizers might help with that.. I don't know if it will ever be perfect, but they will get better for sure.
yes.. they will be around for a while, I just think their market share will shrink drastically. The better your iphone gets, the less they will sell. I think the PandS OEMs are lucky that Apple didn't come up with the PureView (nokia) tech first, otherwise they are capable of causing a lot of damage to the industry, kind of like what they did with the CD player market with the iPod.
I see.. ya, the 800 is kind of a novelty I guess. I love shooting with a 50mm lens, problem is I need to get an FF.. right now I have an old Canon Xti, and the crop doesn't work that well with 50mm. lenses.

Aren't the reviews of the Zeiss NEX lenses very positive?

Anyway, the beauty of that system is you can mount anything on it with a simple adaptor. When a full frame version comes out, I will be very tempted to use it as a digital body for my Leica M glass.

The one great weakness of the NEX system is the lack of good native lenses, and that includes the Zeiss 24, which is not great. That is surprising considering that they have the Minolta team, and those guys have made some pretty fantastic lenses. You can always adapt the Alpha lenses with full functionality, or pretty much any other lens with manual focus to the NEX (or m43 for that matter). Someone recently quipped that Sony makes interchangeable camera systems.

Micro 4/3s has a much better and wider variety of native lenses right now.

Another thing to consider is are the current NEX lenses going to work on a camera with a full frame sensor? I know they will "work" but will the image be cropped? I have a couple of the lenses made for the APS-C sized sensor but everything else is made for a full frame camera. (pretty much doubles the cost of a lens) Another thing is how is it built? I find no mention of the body being dust and water resistant which is a problem for me. My next digital body has to have this feature first and foremost. As it stands now the A77 is probably my best choice. It looks like Sony has dropped the A900 so what's next, an A99? Some have said the A77 is the next generation A700. I'm thinking Sony has something in the works that'll be 40 or so megapixels with a full frame sensor that can rip through 15 fps.

Now with all that said the A700 and 900 are very good cameras. The A700 can be had at bargain prices and in a year or two the 900 will be in the same boat. Neither model is loaded with all kinds of whiz bang stuff nor do they have video capability. They are straightforward high quality still cameras and nothing more. Something to keep in mind if you're looking for the best bang for your buck or limited financially.

Remember I'm also the guy that warns people about not falling into the dreaded equipment trap. I know plenty of people with 10K camera setups and the pics they take are no better than ones they took with a 300 buck P&S. By better I mean artistic composition, use of light and shadow and so on. It's a give me that the images are better rendered but that's not the point.

Like I said, I think the long-term trend is toward mirrorless and the potential of the technology suggests there will be little reason to keep using SLRs. I'm not talking about a specific model, though I think the NEX line is a good indicator of what's possible. So, while the upcoming full-frame NEX camera is unlikely to serve as a full-on replacement for pro DSLRS like the 5D or D800, the features that separate them (like weather sealing) will not represent any real technical barriers. It will be more about about whether any of the manufacturers want to make a pro-level mirrorless camera, not whether they can.

So, I don't think the limitations of the current line-up of NEX lenses really matter. Beyond the fact that we are talking about fundamental advances in technology that will affect the entire digital camera industry, not just one line of cameras from one company, the appeal of NEX cameras is largely that they can accept pretty much any lens you can think of. I would buy one to use with my Leica M lenses, not for the native Zeiss options.

As far as the question of artistic composition versus image quality versus equipment expense, I take a different line--as you can observe from my artistically vapid pictures. I see no fault in simply wanting better image quality (or a different sort of image), and being willing to pay for it.

I think this statement is generally true. On recent photo outings to the zoo and to the DC monuments, these two categories composed the vast majority of the cameras I saw, with DSLRs dominating. I did a lot of research on a camera to buy for an upcoming safari, however, and decided to go with a superzoom (Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150) after initially thinking I was going to get a DSLR. I didn't want the added expense and hassle of bringing multiple lenses that I would have to switch out. I'm under no illusion that my photographs are going to be as good as ones taken with a DSLR, but I'm not selling them to National Geographic either.

And that's a perfectly acceptable reason in and of itself Foo. You made a decision with your eyes open which unfortunately a lot of people don't do. Back in the film days if you had a decent body you worried about glass more than anything else.

These days it's megapixels, HDR, sweep panorama, a bizzilion scene settings, movie capabilities, GPS stamping, wireless uploads, hyper ISO settings and so on. Most of the time all this "cool" stuff is coupled with a POS kit lens and guess what you end up with? Garbage. We can go back and forth all day long about the technology but in the end the glass on the business end of the camera means more than anything else. A camera does nothing other than capture light.

Here's my take on the whole digital technology thing. I look at features this way. Does it make my job as a photographer easier or harder? Do the features help get the equipment out of my way so I can concentrate on just making the picture? If they make my job easier then it's a system I will look at. I look at about 7 things very carefully. Is the body sealed or not? What native system lenses are available? What is the ISO and shutter speed range? Does it shoot RAW? Are the primary manual controls easy to find and use? Does it have enough megapixels to get the job done adequately? How many clicks is the shutter rated for?

Everything else is fluff IMO and sometimes that fluff costs a lot of money.

You shoot a Leica M3 film camera right? In some circles that body is considered the best that's ever been built. No doubt the glass is some of the best there is as well. Oh and just for the sake of history. Did you know that Leica was so impressed with Minolta's lens making abilities that they actually had Minolta build there lenses for years?

I'm shooting a Leica MP with a 50mm Summilux ASPH. I've heard the same about the M3, but I wanted a new body, and preferred to have an internal light meter.

I agree too many people buy the "best" of something without understanding how to use it. Months ago I was at a camera store in NYC looking at lenses when a guy came in to pick-up a brand new Noctilux lens ($10k, f/0.95) for his new M9. He asked the salesperson for confirmation, "So, this is the best lens for my camera right? I want the top of the line." It was disgusting. He didn't understand anything about focal length or why such a fast lens is beneficial or why you don't want such a gigantic, niche lens as your main glass. He just cared that it was the "best." I can only assume the idiot doesn't even realize his M9 isn't an SLR.