Oh My Goodness (digital OM)

I have to admit that, if the GXR wouldn't have been to my liking, I would use an E-P3 now...they have a few nice small fast primes for that system, and why not use a 12mm lens as a 24mm equiv...its f2 and focuses superbly close. Or that nice Panaleica 25/1.4...not that bad for how tiny the package is.
 
I am not supposed to talk about this till next month. Sorry about my previous post. The rumors on 43rumors are on the right track.
The E system is dead at Olympus. Looks like they are giving that sector of their cameras up.
 
gburger said:
I am not supposed to talk about this till next month. Sorry about my previous post. The rumors on 43rumors are on the right track.
The E system is dead at Olympus. Looks like they are giving that sector of their cameras up.
Click to expand...

I don't know about everyone else, but I am not expecting anything more than another m4/3rd camera the size (and shape) similar to OM-1/2/3/4.

I'm hopeful that Olympus had enough sense to give us manual dials instead of more buttons and deeper menus, but one can only hope.
 
zuiko85 said:
A digital OM is when I can unclip my film back from my OM-1 and clip on a digital back with the power supply and electronics fitting on the bottom about the same size and weight as a motor winder.

That is a 'digital OM' and will be available about the same time I flap my arms and fly to the moon!
Click to expand...

But that for OMs or other cameras would be neat for sure. I would love to have such an accessory for my Fujica or Contax 167mt. Dream on. 😛
 
shadowfox said:
I don't know about everyone else, but I am not expecting anything more than another m4/3rd camera the size (and shape) similar to OM-1/2/3/4.

I'm hopeful that Olympus had enough sense to give us manual dials instead of more buttons and deeper menus, but one can only hope.
Click to expand...

For many of us vintage camera users, this is our photo gear fantasy. Especially a similar set up for our Leica M's.
 
thoughts on the latest specs, anyone....?
http://www.43rumors.com/

the specs have me a lot more excited now and i can't wait to see real photos of the new camera. i am, however, still interested in the X-Pro 1. at least until i see real photos and reviews from/on both cameras.
 
Trius said:
Minimum sensitivity of ISO 200 is too high for my taste.
Click to expand...

Why is that a problem? The only problem might be open-aperture shots outdoors. Sunny 16 means that you'll need a fast enough shutter (1/8000 for f/1.4 outdoors) or use an ND filter, which coincidentally some newer cameras have built-in.

With today's sensor technology, you don't get all that much from low ISOs. The 5D MkII, for example, has a ISO 50 "L" mode, but this is just for people with old studio flashes; the imaging results at ISO 50 are actually worse than at the sensor's native ISO 100.
 
rxmd said:
With today's sensor technology, you don't get all that much from low ISOs. The 5D MkII, for example, has a ISO 50 "L" mode, but this is just for people with old studio flashes; the imaging results at ISO 50 are actually worse than at the sensor's native ISO 100.
Click to expand...

Depends - if you have a high contrast scene where highlights can easily blow out, iso 100 is slightly better. If you have a low contrast scene and want completely noise free/smooth shadows or the ability to lift the shadows without noise, iso 50 is quite a bit better.
 
nighstar said:
thoughts on the latest specs, anyone....?
http://www.43rumors.com/

the specs have me a lot more excited now and i can't wait to see real photos of the new camera. i am, however, still interested in the X-Pro 1. at least until i see real photos and reviews from/on both cameras.
Click to expand...

Looks to have an inbuilt flash, OM styling and the panasonic 16mp 4/3 sensor... I don't know about this one but then I LOVE the original OMs.
 
gavinlg said:
Depends - if you have a high contrast scene where highlights can easily blow out, iso 100 is slightly better. If you have a low contrast scene and want completely noise free/smooth shadows or the ability to lift the shadows without noise, iso 50 is quite a bit better.
Click to expand...

I can't replicate that from my own 5D. I thought so too in the beginning, but then I stopped using "L" (aka ISO 50) altogether because I didn't gain anything in the shadows. I have the impression that it's just a compensated 1-stop overexposure, with clipping at the high end and no net gain at the low end.

To my knowledge the 5D sensor has a native ISO of 100, which would corroborate that. A sensor can't go any lower than its native ISO. For every stop below this native ISO, it starts clipping and you lose one stop of dynamic range. I presume that "L" is really there only as a convenience for a few studio photographers who can't turn down their studio flashes all the way.
 
rxmd said:
I can't replicate that from my own 5D. I thought so too in the beginning, but then I stopped using "L" (aka ISO 50) altogether because I didn't gain anything in the shadows. I have the impression that it's just a compensated 1-stop overexposure, with clipping at the high end and no net gain at the low end.

To my knowledge the 5D sensor has a native ISO of 100, which would corroborate that. A sensor can't go any lower than its native ISO. For every stop below this native ISO, it starts clipping and you lose one stop of dynamic range. I presume that "L" is really there only as a convenience for a few studio photographers who can't turn down their studio flashes all the way.
Click to expand...

Try it again. Shoot 2 scenes with 100 and 50, same exposures, and then go into photoshop/lightroom and lift the shadows equally, and check the noise present. 50 is noticeably lower. You do lose about a stop or so of highlight room though - best to make sure you expose for the highlights in L.
 
gavinlg said:
Try it again. Shoot 2 scenes with 100 and 50, same exposures, and then go into photoshop/lightroom and lift the shadows equally, and check the noise present. 50 is noticeably lower. You do lose about a stop or so of highlight room though - best to make sure you expose for the highlights in L.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, I've done just that and the at best marginal difference in shadow noise was why I stopped using "L".

I propose a different experiment. Shoot one scene (not 2) with ISO 50, ISO 100 with 1-stop overexposure, and "regular" ISO 100. Go into Photoshop/Lightroom, darken the overexposed shot again by 1 stop and take a look at the highlights and shadows. You end up with shots with the same reduced dynamic range. You can put a step wedge in the scene if you want to know how much you lose, but it will be pretty close to 1 stop. In other words, all the camera really does for you at ISO 50 is the darkening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom