Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Bridge cameras

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
24 Feb 2013 - 11:59 PM


Quote: 4/3 cameras are just another form of a generic image capture device. End of.

Well said! Wink

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
24 Feb 2013 - 11:59 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318442 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 12:03 AM


Quote: The Ephotozine search feature is crap, found it impossible to find the EPZ review, used google and it found it straight away.

Sorry I can't let that slip away unnoticed Wink There are a few issues as Chris L pointed out but....a workman always blames his tools springs to mind in this case!!!!

Just type x-s1 into the search box that comes up when you click on the magnifier on the top right of the menu bar.

It will show you the site content (usually for the section you are in. So try it from here in the forum you will see forum posts relating to the X-S1. But look at the blue panel to the left. And click reviews and the review is top of the list. Easy and a two step process. And all the related content is neatly divided into areas of the site making it god to see other related stuff. In that respect it's far better than google.

search.jpg

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315158 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 3:44 AM

Look Chris this is what you said.


Quote: As for APSc and 4/3 being good enough for Pro use, it depends on the application

and this was my reply.


Quote: In most cases no, it depends on the individual

You see I wasn`t talking about skill, I was talking in terms of kit, personal likes, dislikes, choices and so on.


Quote: Perhaps you'd like to tell us then Paul why you think most professionals use larger format cameras if they don't offer any advantage over 4/3 format?

What`s all this about then ? I don`t think I`ve been talking about 4/3 or M4/3, this is between yourself and CB, but this might answer some of your questions, I`m not interested in your argument Smile

http://blog.giuliosciorio.com/?p=550



Quote: Sorry I can't let that slip away unnoticed

Sad Sad

Sorry Pete, looks like I had been miss typing, xs-1 instead of x-s1 Blush

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 5:28 AM

It is a personal preference whether you want a flapping mirror in your camera or not. If you don't, then size and weight can be saved.

The entire history of photographic equipment has miniaturisation as a thread running through it. This applies to the capture area of sensors as much as every other aspect.

In years to come we will, quite likely, be taking photos through something we wear - the Google Glasses are an early pointer.

Finally, in time the whole concept of 'professional photographer' may become about as relevant to the world as 'professional stagecoach maker'. Wink

Last Modified By Carabosse at 25 Feb 2013 - 5:34 AM
CP140
CP140  2 Canada
25 Feb 2013 - 6:41 AM

The FZ200 is a very capable camera... certainly more capable a camera than I am as a photographer Blush

I own both a FZ200 and a Pentax k-30 DSLR. To my way of thinking, the DSLR is a much easier camera to use.

Manual zoom is easier to use than "electronic" zoom. You have better control over the what the lens is doing.

The abilitiy to bring a camera up to the eye to scope out a distant subject without having to wait for the camera to power up is very useful.

Ability to use AA batteries as an "emergency" backup is a "life saver."

Any zoom lens is a comprimise. The less you have to zoom, the less the comprimise. Any decent DSLR matched with a couple of zoom lenses will beat an all-in-one ultra zoom when it comes down to image quality. Price is a different arguement.

Having said all that, a good photographer knows his/her equipment's strengths/weaknesses and adjusts his her technique to work with them. The rest of us (me included) shoot a bunch of images and hope for the best.

ChrisV
ChrisV  7763 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 12:36 PM


Quote: It is a personal preference whether you want a flapping mirror in your camera or not. If you don't, then size and weight can be saved.

The entire history of photographic equipment has miniaturisation as a thread running through it. This applies to the capture area of sensors as much as every other aspect.

You're right on the first point - it's why I have 4/3 kit with me as a matter of course. I use the 35mm when I know I have particular circumstances that will benefit from its use. In some respects with my own equipment it's a bit of an unfair comparison in any case because I have a body further up the scale in the larger format - and just as importantly - a range of higher quality lenses.

I do have one m4/3 prime and it makes a difference. But one thing that can't be got around is the fact that DoF is something like two stops down on the smaller format. Add to that the fact that any lens will give its sharpest results 2-3 stops above wide open and there are inevitable consequences. At the moment I don't see any technological advance which addresses this issue of subject isolation - it may come in future.

I agree absolutely that in many respects modern 4/3 sensors are capable of better fidelity of capture than 35mm format film was - but the format does still have a bearing on both control of image isolation and eking the most out of the lenses you have. Were this not the case I would be selling off my own larger format gear tomorrow and I wouldn't have advised the organisation I work for to purchase the larger camera/lenses for myself and a colleague to use on their behalf.

But I've just done a very mundane job this morning which I was thankful I could just carry my Panasonic G3 and a couple of small lenses and a tripod to do. For the purpose the shots will be put to, the kit was more than adequate. Last week I was in a studio and took the 5DII - the decision was a no-brainer for me.

Last Modified By ChrisV at 25 Feb 2013 - 12:39 PM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 12:47 PM

Ironically it is in the studio that cameras such as the Olympus OM-D seem to be finding favour.

That said, as well as the top pros already mentioned on this thread, I gather this chap - who does a lot of work for the Lonely Planet travel guides - favours a Panasonic GH2 for his work.

But we are getting a bit off the subject which is.......... bridge cameras! Having owned 3 of these and found them very compromised, I have a natural prejudice. But the Fuji X-S1 could be a mould-breaker.

Last Modified By Carabosse at 25 Feb 2013 - 12:49 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315158 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 2:38 PM


Quote: Last week I was in a studio and took the 5DII - the decision was a no-brainer for me

Like this

The studio is the one place where as you can get away with the most basic of kit, even a compact with a flash shoe will do, at the end of the day its down to the person behind the camera, not the kit.


Quote: Ironically it is in the studio that cameras such as the Olympus OM-D seem to be finding favour

Plus travel, wild life, macro, landscape etc, etc.

http://robknightphotography.com/blog/

But I still have no idea what all this has to do with the poster wanting a compact.

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 25 Feb 2013 - 2:39 PM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 2:41 PM


Quote: But I still have no idea what all this has to do with the poster wanting a compact.

Absolutely nothing......................... but, hey, this is EPZ! Grin

ChrisV
ChrisV  7763 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 4:44 PM

I may at some point buy the 45mm f1.8 and perhaps then it would be a fairer comparison for the studio. I still think it would narrow my options slightly, but the lens is a very important consideration...

Which brings us back to why bridge cameras are generally such a huge compromise. Super zooms for SLR generally don't perform all that well, but when you compound that with a tiny sensor [a small imagining circle enabling a huge zoom range from relatively compact optics] you're really looking at a concentration on the convenience factor which is going to be at the expense of quality.

Sometimes that can work out OK [I wouldn't own any m4/3 gear if I didn't think it was a reasonable compromise], sometimes it's a case of just getting something half reasonable when you can't carry much or afford much [I have an 'emergency' compact superzoom too].

As Scotty says: Ye cannae change the laws of physics.

I think a reasonably good analogy is recorded music formats: If you have really deep pockets and don't want any compromise at all, you buy Linn-Sondeck with a valve pre-amplifier (for those times you can't be bothered to hire an orchestra in). The vast majority of people are happy with the undoubted compromise of MP3 files for the convenience of having a shedload of their music collection in their pockets or available without having to have shelf-loads of discs cluttering up their living spaces.

I'm no more or less subject to that sort of thing than anyone else - and I choose to have my large music collection available as lossless AAC files. It's just a question of how much you value convenience or crave the ultimate in quality. We may all be at different points on this curve, but the curve exists whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

It would be a duller and more stagnant scene if these choices did not exist - we may as well be thankful for all of them.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 4:56 PM


Quote: I may at some point buy the 45mm f1.8

The Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro is a tack sharp lens, and could be a versatile alternative. I went for this rather than the 45mm/f1.8.

Oly's 75mm/f1.8 is their "official" portrait lens but this is equivalent to 150mm on FF and seems a bit long for the purpose.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315158 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 5:06 PM


Quote: Oly's 75mm/f1.8 is their "official" portrait lens but this is equivalent to 150mm on FF and seems a bit long for the purpose

135mm were once popular as a general out door portrait or indoor sports lens, both the 60mm and 75mm come pretty close to this Smile

I`d love the 75mm, but the 60mm does seem the best value.


Quote: Which brings us back to why bridge cameras are generally such a huge compromise. Super zooms for SLR generally don't perform all that well, but when you compound that with a tiny sensor [a small imagining circle enabling a huge zoom range from relatively compact optics] you're really looking at a concentration on the convenience factor which is going to be at the expense of quality

Hence my reason for recommending the X-S1, with its above average sensor size and a very good lens, it was a 700 camera when it was first released and its a bargain now.

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 25 Feb 2013 - 5:10 PM
ChrisV
ChrisV  7763 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 5:39 PM


Quote: I may at some point buy the 45mm f1.8

The Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro is a tack sharp lens, and could be a versatile alternative. I went for this rather than the 45mm/f1.8.

Oly's 75mm/f1.8 is their "official" portrait lens but this is equivalent to 150mm on FF and seems a bit long for the purpose.

Although I like the idea of the macro facility, a 120mm eq. field of view is probably just a tad on the long side for my purposes - I often have to set up ad hoc studios in moderately sized [not very small!] rooms.

I also think f2.8 might be a bit limiting for controlling DoF - especially if you wanted to get optimal sharpness by closing down a little bit. It goes without saying 150mm eq. would be too long, not to mention a bit expensive for the use I'd get out of it. The next pricey piece of glass I'm considering may be the Panny 12-35mm f2.8 - but again I'm torn over whether the expense would be worthwhile.

Ideally I'd like to trial one. Anyone any experience with one? It seems like the only premium standard zoom choice available for m4/3 at present.

mikesavage
mikesavage  12234 forum posts England2 Constructive Critique Points
25 Feb 2013 - 7:08 PM

I'd look very strongly at the Fuji range: they all have electronic viewfinders, which I'd regard as being pretty much essential for this type of camera.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.