andrew00
Established
Hey,
Can anyone who uses the OM-D and/or GX1 please give some thoughts please.
I currently use a Sony Nex-7 for photos and video but recently tried a friends hacked GH2 and it was really impressive - really sharp and detailed in a way the Sony wasn't and I'm pondering the new GH3 for my video work, especially a short I want to make soon.
If I did make the switch, I'd also want to grab a smaller camera for stills and I'm looking at a GX1 as it's fairly cheap now for the body, or perhaps the OM-D if it was a smart call. I like shooting with flash so would prob use the FL-14 flash on the Panny or the Oly's slot in flash which google tells me is a 10GN flash.
In fact I've often shot with two cameras at the same time in the past to keep things quick, both so the flashes can recycle and the cameras can write to the cards, the latter of which is always a bugbear of mine (why I never warmed to the X100 for example as it was so slow), as I like to have a somewhat continuous, hypnotic flash going off. Hence why the appeal of the small m4/3's as you can duo them easily.
I was having a look on the web at GX1/OM-D images and was looking at the photographer Terry Richardson's tumblr and looking at his exif details saw that he's recently been using a GX1 and GF1 together.
The GF1 images were good, but I really like the quality of the GX1 images, they have a really flat feel that I like, the skin tones look smooth and accurate and they have a quality that I can't really describe but has an almost snapshot quality that is cool, almost nostalgic. Terry became famous for using snapshot cameras, but either way the GX1 images have this in a way the GF1 images don't, it's an evenness that I like.
Here are some examples - please note, as Terry is an edgy fashion photographer these are ALL NSFW so if you're sensitive then be warned.
GF1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/28054479701/stella-at-my-studio-2
GX1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31858448073/stella-at-my-studio-1
GF1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31923048897/bo-at-my-studio-2
GX1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31922957153/kristel-at-my-studio
GX1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31922299511/tessa-at-my-studio
GF1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/25784377215/georgina-at-my-studio
GX1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31922857540/jade-at-my-studio
Now, I don't know the lighting, I'm assuming from most his shots it's models on a wall by his big windows shot with on board flash, but certainly in the first two images the models is wearing the same short suggesting they were shot at the same time and the GX1 images are nicer imo.
I was wondering therefore if anyone can point out if this is normal behaviour for the GX1 or if there's some different processing going on here? As I said I like to shoot two cameras at once and if I can get two GX1's for the price of an OM-D and get images like the ones above then I'd be really happy.
So yes, can anyone please offer any thoughts on the above, am I seeing the GX1's magic or is there some PP mojo going on I'm not seeing.
Also, does the OM-D have the same ability to makes images like that and if so would y'all recommend it over the GX1 therefore?
The above GX1 image to me are nice because they have a snapshot quality, reminds me a bit of P+S film cameras, so I'm curious specifically about that look - i.e. I know it's a good camera, the Nex-7 is also a 'good' camera, but I'm curious specifically about the look in the above images that I really like, it's detailed but a little lofi. I don't know if that's good P+Ping, i.e. can be done with any camera, in theory, or if the GX1 has a special feel to it that I'd appreciate - flat, good skin tones and with a slight 'cheap' look to it.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
a x
Can anyone who uses the OM-D and/or GX1 please give some thoughts please.
I currently use a Sony Nex-7 for photos and video but recently tried a friends hacked GH2 and it was really impressive - really sharp and detailed in a way the Sony wasn't and I'm pondering the new GH3 for my video work, especially a short I want to make soon.
If I did make the switch, I'd also want to grab a smaller camera for stills and I'm looking at a GX1 as it's fairly cheap now for the body, or perhaps the OM-D if it was a smart call. I like shooting with flash so would prob use the FL-14 flash on the Panny or the Oly's slot in flash which google tells me is a 10GN flash.
In fact I've often shot with two cameras at the same time in the past to keep things quick, both so the flashes can recycle and the cameras can write to the cards, the latter of which is always a bugbear of mine (why I never warmed to the X100 for example as it was so slow), as I like to have a somewhat continuous, hypnotic flash going off. Hence why the appeal of the small m4/3's as you can duo them easily.
I was having a look on the web at GX1/OM-D images and was looking at the photographer Terry Richardson's tumblr and looking at his exif details saw that he's recently been using a GX1 and GF1 together.
The GF1 images were good, but I really like the quality of the GX1 images, they have a really flat feel that I like, the skin tones look smooth and accurate and they have a quality that I can't really describe but has an almost snapshot quality that is cool, almost nostalgic. Terry became famous for using snapshot cameras, but either way the GX1 images have this in a way the GF1 images don't, it's an evenness that I like.
Here are some examples - please note, as Terry is an edgy fashion photographer these are ALL NSFW so if you're sensitive then be warned.
GF1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/28054479701/stella-at-my-studio-2
GX1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31858448073/stella-at-my-studio-1
GF1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31923048897/bo-at-my-studio-2
GX1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31922957153/kristel-at-my-studio
GX1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31922299511/tessa-at-my-studio
GF1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/25784377215/georgina-at-my-studio
GX1 - http://www.terrysdiary.com/post/31922857540/jade-at-my-studio
Now, I don't know the lighting, I'm assuming from most his shots it's models on a wall by his big windows shot with on board flash, but certainly in the first two images the models is wearing the same short suggesting they were shot at the same time and the GX1 images are nicer imo.
I was wondering therefore if anyone can point out if this is normal behaviour for the GX1 or if there's some different processing going on here? As I said I like to shoot two cameras at once and if I can get two GX1's for the price of an OM-D and get images like the ones above then I'd be really happy.
So yes, can anyone please offer any thoughts on the above, am I seeing the GX1's magic or is there some PP mojo going on I'm not seeing.
Also, does the OM-D have the same ability to makes images like that and if so would y'all recommend it over the GX1 therefore?
The above GX1 image to me are nice because they have a snapshot quality, reminds me a bit of P+S film cameras, so I'm curious specifically about that look - i.e. I know it's a good camera, the Nex-7 is also a 'good' camera, but I'm curious specifically about the look in the above images that I really like, it's detailed but a little lofi. I don't know if that's good P+Ping, i.e. can be done with any camera, in theory, or if the GX1 has a special feel to it that I'd appreciate - flat, good skin tones and with a slight 'cheap' look to it.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
a x
gavinlg
Veteran
All the GF1 photos above were shot with natural window light coming in from the side of the models. All the GX1 photos above were shot with a direct on camera flash on the camera.
Knowing T. Richardsons style, these were probably just aperture priority and straight from camera. Difference is in the lighting. Either the OM-D, GX1, GF1 would do this, and you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them.
Knowing T. Richardsons style, these were probably just aperture priority and straight from camera. Difference is in the lighting. Either the OM-D, GX1, GF1 would do this, and you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them.
andrew00
Established
thanks for the reply!
do you think that it's simply the difference in lighting then? as when i see the images to my eyes it looks more to do with colour and the slightly lofi feel of the images vs specifically just the lighting.
although i do certainly agree the lighting source is different - aka the gx1 images do have more on camera.
do you think that it's simply the difference in lighting then? as when i see the images to my eyes it looks more to do with colour and the slightly lofi feel of the images vs specifically just the lighting.
although i do certainly agree the lighting source is different - aka the gx1 images do have more on camera.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Keep in mind that if you get two m-4/3 cameras, one an Olympus and the other a Lumix, you'll have to contend with two entirely different menu systems.
Also, the new Lumix G5 is on par with the GX1 image-wise, you might want to consider that.
~Joe
Also, the new Lumix G5 is on par with the GX1 image-wise, you might want to consider that.
~Joe
Archiver
Veteran
Terry Richardson got Kate Upton to do the Cat Daddy and posted it for the world to see. Praises to Terry can be sung purely on that basis. That, and he got Miranda Kerr to give him an injection in his bare behind.
Sorry, but I have nothing more to add to this thread.
Sorry, but I have nothing more to add to this thread.
richardhkirkando
Well-known
There must be some sort of Godwinesque law involving Terry Richardson.