Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Yet another What-camera-to-buy-question

Expand Messages
  • Philipp B. Koch
    ... Actually I have a flash that is quite good. In the situation I described (tech talk shooting) I had to deal with a former electric power transformation
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      mrjimbo schrieb:
      > For what your trying to shhot ( people etc in adverse lighting) I'd try to
      > go a good flash first. I understand what your saying about teh noise. If a
      > flash image is acceptible that's the most cost effective.
      Actually I have a flash that is quite good. In the situation I described
      (tech talk shooting) I had to deal with a former electric power
      transformation substation; the ceiling is about 8 meters high, plus it
      is not white. So using a flash indirectly was not an option, and direct
      flash light was not possible as well (it would have disturbed the
      "show", and I was not close enough either (I was shooting with a 300mm
      zoom lens (full format equiv.)).

      > Your not really
      > saying where your budget is at..
      You're right -- I am rather trying to figure out how big or small my
      budget would have to be :-) I ran into situations where low light is an
      issue quite often in the past, but I could mostly solve it with ISO 100
      and looooong exposure times. But as soon as it comes to movement
      (people) in low light, that's of course not an option. I would need:
      Body, fisheye (can be cropped, no full circular necessary), and one or
      two lenses that cover a zoom range of about 28 - 300 (FF equivalent). I
      have no clue how much I would have to invest here, especially regarding
      the outstanding quality of my Zuiko lenses. For instance, my 14-54 has
      literally no barrel distorsion in the widest zoom position and is
      incredibly crisp.

      > The expense is way bigger then just the
      > camera body as you'll need a lens or two malso an da few other periferals. I
      > would check to see if Olympus has somethig already or on te horizon that
      > will get you out of teh box before switching to Canon or Nikon unless your
      > looking for an excuse to do so.
      I'm absolutely aware about the fact that it's not only the body to be
      bought... Actually, I have a 16mm (FF equi.) fisheye (excellent), a
      28-108mm (FF equiv.) zoom lens (excellent) and a 80-300mm (FF equiv.)
      zoom lens (OK, but not perfect), a system flash and a wireless remote
      control, and of course stuff like additional batteries, white-balance
      filter in the right size and so on. All this was expensive, and I love
      my camera, but it's just not the best choice for low- or even
      available-light-photography. Olympus sticks to the Four Thirds sensors
      (which is a good thing because they make good cameras, and they are
      really good for a variety of photography types). But -- noise is
      something Canon and Nikon seem to handle better, from all what I have
      heard and seen. So, waiting for a "better Four Thirds camera" does not
      seem to solve that noise problem for me, because it's simply a
      characteristic of the rather small FourThirds-sensors.

      In fact, I don't care too much about brands, so I don't need an excuse
      for switching :-) I just need better low-light performance, and Olympus'
      top-model (E-3) is not the answer here, I'm afraid.

      > Anyway all the newer or more recent models
      > both FX and DX have much improved noise issues at higher iso's.. With FX
      > doing the best but costing more of course.
      I'll have to investigate what the lower-priced Canons and Nikons can do,
      and how much good lenses (not the kit lenses) put on top monetarily.

      Anyway, thanks a lot for your response!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.