The cameras, systems, lenses and GAS thread

Hardware
1023

I think there are two interesting developments happening right now:

Manufacturers could increasingly try to take a piece of the “used market” pie.

I was reading today about how Lululemon, Arc’teryx, North Face and New Balance have official resale programs where people can return their items and get cash back or store credit, and those items get resold at a discount from the brand to those looking for a deal.

I can envisage the big camera brands embracing this more so that they can sell their new products at premium prices to those who can afford it, and then sell them used but cheaper to those shopping in the more affordable market.

I can see this being the new trend across all industries, and while some aspects of it has merit (less waste), I generally don’t like the idea of a tiered system where the new products will be targeting the wealthy.

The rise of scameras. With some more time and R&D, these so-called scameras may even be good enough for enthusiasts and casual shooting. Right now, I think a Kodak PixPro is the hottest selling camera in Asia. It’s not something I would want right now, but one day, they could be good enough to be an EDC type camera, kind of like in the golden age of compact digital cameras before smartphones took over, when we all thought they were good enough.
Manufacturers like Viltrox, DJI, Insta360, and others could also disrupt the sector with more affordable but still technically excellent cameras.

2 Likes
1024

The people I watch suddenly all use OM kits so I am rather interested in these but I can’t have four cameras :smiley:

2 Likes
1025

Yes, many camera YouTubers are unusual in the sense they typically use the thing they’re talking about for their output but in a way that most users won’t, unlike people showing off their makeup or whatever. So that’s got to skew their opinions, along with upselling pressure from manufacturers.

1026

this is a lie you are telling yourself. You absolutely CAN have 4 cameras! (says the guy who now has four cameras) :wink:

7 Likes
1027

I think OM did something like Hasselblad where they gave out a bunch of their gear to lots of YouTubers to spread the word. I noticed too how many videos cropped up with titles like “I tried the OM-3” and “Is M43 actually any good?” It was particularly interesting in the case of OM because I think they had to “convince” some of the influencers who had preconceived ideas about M43. Whereas Hasselblad really didn’t need to convince anyone. They just wanted influencers to gush over their high-end products.

One thing I’ve learned about OM and M43 after owning the OM-5 for a while now is that the system can absolutely compete with other formats, but it’s more important to get it right in camera. It rewards good technique whereas you can be a lot lazier with larger sensors.

The downside with M43 is that if you don’t get it right in camera, it’s less forgiving in post processing. Plus, you generally need to buy the focal length you want because cropping is more limited. With my 40MP Fuji and 61MP Sony, I know I can crop to get a focal length up to 1.5x or 2x over what my lens actually is. For me, that’s really valuable, but it’s probably not what everyone should care about.

3 Likes
1028

That’s pretty much what he said in the video as well, so you haven’t missed anything I think.

1 Like
1029

As a fellow 4-camera-haver, yes, this is absolutely a valid lifestyle.

(2 of those are the kids’ camera’s, old starter DSLRs, but still)

3 Likes
1030

The new macro lens is going to take some getting used to. The muscle memory I’ve become accustomed to is definitely going to change. The difference between magnification on an M43 sensor and Canon APS-C is a lot bigger than I anticipated. 1x magnification on the OM lens feels way more close.

waynesworld-extremecloseup-1252475294

On the plus side, my OM-5 + 90mm macro feels about the same weight as my R10 + 65mm Laowa lens. The manual focus feels pretty dang good for being electronic. I wish I could permanently have the focus peaking permanently on but you can set a button to toggle it on and off at least.

On the topic of buttons, there aren’t enough buttons on the OM-5 mk ii for all the functionality I want. Guess I’ll have to get an OM-1 eventually… Never had the problem on my R10 because there wasn’t really anything I needed to turn on and off.

1 Like
1031

One of mine is a drone. Bit it has a camera on it :upside_down_face:

1032

For those with a few tens of thousands of euros lying around: https://www.alpa.swiss/

1 Like
1033

wow those are amazing

1 Like
1034

Let’s face it, any dedicated camera is a wealth signal these days. They’re not everyday items any more, but clearly hobbyist gear for people with time abd money to spare on hobbies.

I never understood the reasoning behind “macro” magnification. A “0.5x” macro lens on APS-C is functionally equivalent to a 1x on FF. BuT it’s NoT mAcRo is really just marketing BS. If anything, one could argue about pixels per millimetre, but even that favors the smaller sensors.

1035

Imo the macro magnification metric is simple and allows you for some quick insights knowing just the sensor size.

1 Like
1036

I am not sure I agree… see eg the cameras suggested in this recent topic :wink:

Carrying a camera just signals interest in photography, just a hobby like many other hobbies.

Compared to a 25 Mp sensor (recent Panasonics), you can crop 26% more on a 40 Mp (\sqrt{40/25}), and 56% more on 61 Mp. (Of course compared to the 20Mp OM sensors, add approximately 12%.) Not insignificant, sure, but I am surprised Emily gets so excited about this in her Hasselblad video.

You are of course right when it comes to pulling shadows, larger sensors can just do so much more.

2 Likes
1037

How much is 1 stop of noise in the(deep) shadows?

1038

I don’t know what you mean by deep shadows. I am not interested in pulling up areas near the noise floor, but 1–2 stops can matter quite a bit when something interesting with texture is a bit dark. Think, for example, about a dog in a room, with light coming from one side, but the other side being lit too with reflected light.

Of course the issue may become irrelevant with ML-based NR.

2 Likes
1039

You’ll have to excuse my back-of-a-napkin math, but this is how I was thinking of it (and maybe Emily too):

I know reach is more to do with pixel pitch than pure resolution, but my rough calculations were based on an arbitrary “minimum” resolution I needed or could tolerate. So, let’s say that’s 14MP.

So, if I took three images with each camera with identical framing, e.g, the equivalent focal length of 60mm FF, I would use these lenses:
M43 = 30mm
APS-C = 40mm
FF = 60mm

To get my final 14MP image:

For 20MP M43, I could crop 30%, √(20/14), which is 1.2x tighter
For 40MP APS-C, I could crop 65%, √(40/14), which is 1.7x tighter
For 61MP FF, I could crop 77%, √(60/14), which is 2.1x tighter

With this crop, the resulting framing, and therefore lens focal length needed to achieve the same image, would be
M43 = 60 x 1.2 = 72mm equivalent (36mm on M43)
APS-C = 60 x 1.7 = 101mm equivalent (68mm on APS-C)
FF = 60 x 2.1 = 125mm

So if I were happy with 14MP or that was a requirement from a magazine, for example, my 60mm lens on the 61MP FF could act like a 60-125mm zoom, whereas on M43, my 30mm would only be a 30-36mm zoom.

Of course, none of this accounts for detail level on the subject or overall image quality, which are all influenced by pixel pitch, lens quality, diffraction, etc.
But it’s maybe where Emily was coming from because in terms of pure resolution, you can zoom in massively on a high MP image and still get files that you would happily print out large or submit to a magazine.

1 Like
1040

I may be mistaken on this, but I define a lens as “macro” (1:1 or larger) if the subject projected on the focus plane is life-size (or larger). The fact that there is a sensor of a specific size on the focus plane is irrelevant.

3 Likes
1041

I’ve always seen it described as relative to the sensor, i.e. if you plop something directly onto the sensor, that would be 1:1 magnification. So sensor size does matter as the subject would take up twice the proportional space of the sensor on micro four thirds compared to full frame.

I think what @bastibe was getting at is more that people are really pedantic about what “true” macro is (true being 1:1) even though you can use a different sensor to make the same image, i.e. an image shot at 1:1 on a FF sensor could be taken at 0.5:1 on a MFT sensor. The pedantics would consider one “true” macro, and the other not “true” macro, even though they are basically identical images.

I don’t think most people care too much, thankfully. I tend to just say I do insect photography, I barely pay attention to what magnification I’m at anyways.

4 Likes
1042

I’m not sure I understand – do you mean that the subject is the same size as the sensor? But that doesn’t make sense: I may be able to fit a wasp to my sensor, but not an aphid.

For what it’s worth, Wikipedia agrees with me: “a macro photograph is one in which the size of the image captured is life-size or larger”.

Same for me actually :smile: All I care about is that my macro lens lets me get really close.

1 Like