Photographer's thread

[everythingsablur]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I've had my 7-14mm (m4/3) for about a month now. It has about the same fov at the short end as your 10-24mm and yeah, it has been fun learning how to use it. Having said that at the "long" end it is surprisingly "normal".
This m4/3 camera is the first interchangeable lens camera I've owned since using film. I am still coming to grips with the whole one-lens-doesn't-do-everything. Also, the thought of changing lenses while out and about leaves me cold so if I'm thinking I'll want a wide angle lens today it means carrying two cameras. That's ok but I am still trying to work out how to juggle two at the same time.

Which 7-14 do you have; the old Panasonic f/4 constant, or the newer Olympus f/2.8 PRO? I bought the Panny ages ago and have always had good results from it, though I do crazy the weather sealing of the Olympus. Ultrawide is a tough lens to learn, but is one of those things that you just can't easily replicate. That's a tough lens to start with. :p

I have a disturbingly large collection of lenses that I really should sell, but I remember back when I had one camera body and a few lenses. Changing on the go is a pain, but it's something you sometimes have to do, especially if you are using a specialty lens like that 7-14. There's no amount of cropping that would substitute for a longer zoom lens if you want to capture something farther away, and similarly if you've got a telephoto on, wide angles are just not going to be possible. But like photographers have for decades, you learn to (or try to) anticipate it and switch accordingly. Then you decide you hate doing that and go one of two routes: buy a new lens that covers all/most of your walking around photography needs, or you buy a second camera body. Or you do both.

I've found I can generally, for most of my photography, just leave 12-40 f/2.8 on my E-M1. It's wide enough for most things (24mm equivalent), and long enough for most things (80mm equivalent), and generally fast enough as well. I will switch to a 25mm f1.4 (fast 50 equivalent) for portraits, or something where I need a lot of DOF separation. For long stuff, I have a 40-150 f/2.8 (80-300mm equivalent), which is great if you don't like being close to your subject, but is a little large for a walk around lens (really screams "hey I have a big camera, look at me", and it is relatively small by APS or FF standards of similar focal length).

On big trips out of the country, I do always bring a second body just in case something goes wrong. I use my older m43 cameras (E-P3, or GF1), though that means carrying extra chargers and batteries that aren't compatible. Best case you get something that shares some similar batteries so you have one less thing to deal with, and having similar control setups/menus makes things easier as well. So on those kinds of trips, I can have the main camera in hand or on a strap, then the secondary camera with a lens I think I'll use, but not that often is either in a bag or on a Capture clip (Peak Designs, great stuff). When I need to use it, I pop it out of the Capture, and put my main camera on the Capture, then switch back when done. I used to give the B camera and lens to the wife, but she's since fallen in love with a Sony RX100 I bought her (stupid me).

I've had BlackRapid straps in the past (or more accurately, the much much cheaper ebay knockoffs). They're alright. I never liked how the should pad would never stay where I wanted it to (my shoulder) without getting an under arm strap. Then you look very sports photographery (even more so with the crazy double strap).

This is just rambling now, and I've lost my train of thought (it's too damn hot this summer). Ultimately you'll have to decide what makes most sense; change the lens on the go, buy a lens that covers the entire range you might want to shoot, or get a second body. Financially, #1 is the most cost effective. #2 is fine if a lens exists that covers the range you want, at a size that's manageable, at a price that's reasonable, without other compromises (generally, probably going to be aperture speed). #3 is kind of the easy to get to long term solution if you just end up deciding you want a new camera body because of XYZ feature.

[VIP BRZ]

Originally Posted by everythingsablur

Will you see a difference? Generally, yes...

Very helpful, Thanks everyone for the reply's. Way more info

i would really like to keep the price under $300Max , I'm not worried about size or portability.

Am considering a refurbished Canon Powershot
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/ca...hs-refurbished

Yay? Nay?

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by everythingsablur

Which 7-14 do you have; the old Panasonic f/4 constant, or the newer Olympus f/2.8 PRO?

I have the Panny. I did not think 1 stop, the extra weight, size and price difference was worth it.

[everythingsablur]

Originally Posted by VIP BRZ

Very helpful, Thanks everyone for the reply's. Way more info

i would really like to keep the price under $300Max , I'm not worried about size or portability.

Am considering a refurbished Canon Powershot
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/ca...hs-refurbished

Yay? Nay?

Personally, I'd go nay. The monster zoom range is useful, but the quality always suffers when a lens is trying to cover that much range, especially when you have a tiny sensor to begin with. The physics of it are just not in its favour. That said, it reviews alright for what it is. http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...520_hs_review/

I would more look at stuff like this I found in a quick search of the LA area criagslist (assuming these are legit and the cameras are fully functioning):

• Canon T2i with 18-55 lens ($150): https://losangeles.craigslist.org/sf...724193474.html
• Nikon D3200 with 18-55 and 70-200mm lenses ($300): https://inlandempire.craigslist.org/pho/5711014378.html
• Sony RX100 Mk 2: https://orangecounty.craigslist.org/pho/5667379314.html

Truth be told, most SLR owners never buy another lens and just use the kit lens. While most hobbyists will bemoan and bad mouth most included lenses, some of them really aren't terrible, and they are still generally going to give you better results than most cheap P&S cameras will. At least you get options with an SLR.

[everythingsablur]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I have the Panny. I did not think 1 stop, the extra weight, size and price difference was worth it.

That's generally where I am with it. It's bigger, more expensive, and really all I'm gaining is the 1 stop and weather sealing. While I have used my E-M1 and 12-40 literally in a waterfall in Iceland, that's probably a very rare event.

[Captain Snooze]

Cameras -> "everything's a compromise©".

[everythingsablur]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Cameras -> "everything's a compromise©".

Truth.

Even with an unlimited budget, something will always be too big, too heavy, too expensive, not fast enough, not wide enough, not long enough, have the wrong mount, the wrong filter thread, from a brand you don't like, rings don't turn smooth enough, rings are too tight, rings are too loose, zoom lens creeps, aperture doesn't change smoothly enough, focus is fly by wire/not fly by wire, made of plastic, made in China/Mexico/Thailand/Hungary/insert country with outsourced manufacturing that you currently dislike that manufacturing has been outsourced to, is Leica/not Leica, and so on and so forth.

There is no one perfect camera, or lens.

[Captain Snooze]

I quite like this one. Sharp body, blurry wings.

[civicdrivr]

It's been awhile since I've posted anything in here. I tried astrophotography for the first time about a month ago. I can't wait to find some time to get out there again. There's a few things I'd do differently.

- Sony A99
- Rokinon 14mm
- f5.6
- ISO3200
- 20 second exposure

Re-edit by Morgan D, on Flickr

This one is from Cars and Coffee this past weekend:

- Sony A99
- Sony 35mm
- f2.8
- ISO400
- 1/4000th second exposure

DSC01721 by Morgan D, on Flickr

[MaximeT]

Yes a second hand Sony RX100 is a great camera.

[joe strummer]

Originally Posted by civicdrivr

Since you asked, the Vette logo is a boring, poorly executed photo. Among its issues- it has a blue color cast. I haven't seen a Corvette logo in a while, but I'd bet the white checks on the flag are actually white.

Nice idea with the diagonal. Diagonals usually show action in photos, but yours exits the pic near the middle, which pretty much defeats the purpose.

Next, the black void in the upper left-hand corner is just laziness. And, it pulls the eye away from the logo. Placing the center of attention in the lower right-hand corner de-emphasizes it to the point of irrelevance.

Here's a crop that improves the pic.

[MaximeT]

I shot Saturn and the ISS with 6D and the Tamron 150-600:

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by MaximeT

I shot Saturn and the ISS with 6D and the Tamron 150-600:

That's just crazy. Having said that I recognise Saturn but I have no idea what I'm looking at in the other pic.

[MaximeT]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

That's just crazy. Having said that I recognise Saturn but I have no idea what I'm looking at in the other pic.

This :