Mike Ip
Vagabond Light Collector
You are right. I am arguing something that doesn't matter. And this all started with me just saying I voted no because I have no use for this camera - which I labeled an amateur one.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
No , are we not still classifying wide as 24mm ... 35mm in 135 terms and beyond that super-wide.
Anyway the addition of 8/3.5 (rectilinear), 17/1.8 and 25/1.8 weather sealed primes would be nice
Mike Ip
Vagabond Light Collector
No , are we not still classifying wide as 24mm ... 35mm in 135 terms and beyond that super-wide.
Anyway the addition of 8/3.5 (rectilinear), 17/1.8 and 25/1.8 weather sealed primes would be nice
24 mm is still very wide. But other than that there are no real fast wide angle primes. What might seem to be wide, is no more normal-ish
17/1.8 would be nice.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Overall, the market for smaller sensor cameras prefers zooms and telephoto lenses, with wider than 35mm equivalent being a pretty small market. So it's not surprising that the choices for truly wide primes is limited.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
There is no such thing as an amateur camera. There is such a thing as an amateur photographer. It means 'not getting paid for your work'.
I have always been, and will always be, an amateur photographer. Still, my images have been used for countless publications, artwork like posters and CD-covers, websites and magazines. Up to and including national newspapers with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands.
The funny thing is, that absolutely no-one has ever said: 'Oh, are your pictures made with an amateur camera? Then we cannot publish them!'.
But then again, as an amateur photographer, what can I possibly know about it?
I have always been, and will always be, an amateur photographer. Still, my images have been used for countless publications, artwork like posters and CD-covers, websites and magazines. Up to and including national newspapers with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands.
The funny thing is, that absolutely no-one has ever said: 'Oh, are your pictures made with an amateur camera? Then we cannot publish them!'.
But then again, as an amateur photographer, what can I possibly know about it?
plummerl
Well-known
Would 17/0.95 be qualify? The Nokton 17mm/f0.95 was just announced by Cosina.... for M43.
cmedin
Well-known
My take on it is that a professional is one who doesn't worry about whether their equipment is "pro" or not. How many pros do you see sitting around reading spec sheets and comparing DXO scores?
JonasYip
Well-known
Perhaps this is what's causing all the bickering. The terms generally applied to gear levels seem to be "consumer", "pro-sumer", and "professional".
OTOH, "amateur" vs "professional" is a whole different distinction as people are pointing out and getting worked up about.
I fall into the camp of "no such thing as an amateur camera". To me they're all just cameras.
Well, except my Fuji cameras that all seem to have "professional" emblazoned on the body... so they *must* be ;-)
j
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Professional cameras are made to take the strain of daily constant use. As an amateur, you don't need that. Some of us do. By the way, if your work REALLY has been used so extensively, why do you call yourself an amateur? Please tell me you were smart enough to get paid for these uses. If you did, and your work has been used 'countless times', then you're a professional.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Mamiya made several cameras with Professional or Pro written on the body (and in the model's name). C330 Professional, RZ67 Pro, 645 Pro, RB-67 Pro-S, etc.
Nikon Marketed the F-series 35mm cameras as professional models because they were built to take heavy use. Same with the digital D1, D2, D3 series, and Canon's EOS1 series film and digital bodies.
JonasYip
Well-known
Dude i was kidding... that's a winky/smiley thing at the end of the sentence. I actually agree at the Professional end of the camera label (and have the RZ and the Nikons myself) . I was pointing out that the disagreement seems to be on the labeling of the other end... that is "amateur" vs "consumer".
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
No. As I clearly stated I was never paid and will never be paid. You can call that naive or even stupid (as in 'not smart'), but photography is my hobby. I do it because it is fun. Being under any sort of obligation while doing it isn't. That is why I call myself an amateur. I don't want to carry any responsibility, and I gladly (or should I say gleefully?) accept working for free in return.
The reason that I was published 'countless times' (which just means 'more times than I care to remember') is that when I started doing concert photography as a volunteer, I got regular requests from bands, venues and magazines to use my pictures. Would that be because my pictures could be had for free OR because the were actually any good? I'll leave that to the judges.
In any case, dismissing the OM-D as an 'amateur camera' doesn't sit well with me. Sure, if you REALLY need Canon or Nikon support, photography probably feeds your family and good luck to you. However, I have seen too many people with the best possible gear who were really quite clueless what they were doing. Call me cynical, but the man is more important than the machine. And the OM-D is in all probability a wonderful machine too.
Bingley
Veteran
OK, so I voted no. The OM-D looks like a really interesting camera. If I didn't already have a digicam, I might be more interested. But I've already got an Oly E-PL1 which I like for its small size and excellent jpegs. It pretty much satisfies my digital camera needs. I do like the m4/3 format, btw, and am glad to see Olympus continuing to bring new m4/3d offerings to market. Still, I'm more interested at present in concentrating on b&w film photography and developing a "look" I like in that medium. YMMV.
OK, chaps, carry on...
OK, chaps, carry on...
MaxElmar
Well-known
I'm not sure there's any rational reason to get all worked up over this - especially since the Panasonic G3 is easily available and much cheaper with the same "engine" er, sensor... Yeah, the Oly OOC jpegs are very nice, but I'll always be a raw shooter anyways. The weather sealing doesn't count until there are some (more?) weather sealed lenses to go with it. Gosh darn menus and easily displaced controls drove me nuts on the E-PL2. And before I buy a load of marketing BS about the "world's fastest AF" I'll want to see the professional sports and bird-in-flight shots that are the real test af an AF system, thank you very much.
I voted for a new album from OMD - that would be cool.
I voted for a new album from OMD - that would be cool.
gavinlg
Veteran
Umm.. you obviously don't have much experience with the famous olympus weather sealed DSLRs. They're sealed at a much higher level than even the canon 1 series and nikon Dx series.
15 hours in snow & rain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A15MgHHS_M8&feature=related
There's many more examples of this sort of testing on youtube. Some people have even completely submerged their E-series cameras with no problems. The e-m5 is supposed to be the same level of weather sealing as the E-1/3/5.
Mike Ip
Vagabond Light Collector
As a matter of fact I have no experience with Olympus DSLRs. I know their film cameras were spectacular, but I've never used one of their digitals.
Mike Ip
Vagabond Light Collector
For sure that would qualify. I've used some Cosina lens before. I bet that is a spectacular lens.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Although I like the feature set better, I find this new Olympus to be uglier than the new Pentax mirror-less camera. I think this OM-D looks like a patchwork of parts. IMHO.
