General Photography banter thread

Just haven't had the time to get out lately, sad times! Missing playing with my gear. I can feel my creativity lapsing :/

 

It never really goes, its like riding a bike Just make sure you go out again when you get a chance

 

It's a great camera, I love mine!

 

Went out for a few drinks yesterday and decided it'd been too long since I'd had the camera out with me and took it a long. Nothing particularly inspiring happened, forced out a few shots of various things. Nothing really excited me which isn't unusual for the sort of urban/street environment. Much more excited by wildlife and landscape I guess.

Anyhoo - I took a photo of a sculpture that's constructed out of twisted vertical metal pipes or slats that are close together. I was having a fiddle in ACDsee this morning and noticed that certain areas of the image of the sculpture have been heavily affected by moire. I've never come across this before with this camera (Pana G9 + PL 12-60mm f2.8-4.0).

I'm using a new combo of FastRawViewer and ACDsee Photo Studio ultimate to cull and edit after cancelling lightroom sub. But I just recently noticed that ACDSee doesn't officially support the Pana G9... If anyone has a moment would they mind trying the RAW file in LR and see if the artefact is still apparent? If so does the lens profile built into LR correct it? There's manual moire correction in ACDsee but I couldn't get it to affect it other than making it worse :/

Raw file (~24mb)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Gn3fzxIW35m52RG9_96XLfKU4ndfCsV8

 

Is that at 100%?

 

I just had a look. Present in Lightroom Classic as well. Visible at 1:1 but at 1:2 it is barely noticeable, the bottom right is more obvious. To the uninitiated it could just be an artifact of light/reflection.

And much as I like ACDsee their lag in supporting new cameras and lenses and often forcing you to upgrade to get support is a major turn off.

 

Yep. Less noticeable at 50% like kiwimeat says though.

Thank you heaps for checking that out!

Yeah - I'm beginning to see why so many people just stick to lightroom... I've invested money in Luminar and ACDsee as well as trialled DXO and on1. Nothing seems to be the complete package like the Adobe offering.

 

No profile for it in LR and the moire brush doesn't really help it either.

 

Light stand will often blow over with the slightest breeze without some kind of suitable weight, and only usable on flat surfaces
Tripod usable on many kinds of uneven surfaces, doesnt blow over when no weights are used since legs can be spread further. Even if needed weights the hook to hang something off the tripod is much more convenient then trying to find something heavy and small enough to fit in the leg gaps of a light stand.

Softbox on light stand wont spin in a circle since stud is not mounted on a screw
Softbox on the tripod spins in a circle with the slightest of breezes since the stud adapter is mounted to tripod plate by only one screw (washer didnt seem to help)

I much prefer using the tripod outdoors, how do I stop it spinning?

All I can think of is a tripod plate with two screws, and a stud adapter with two screw holes in the bottom, or a tripod plate with stud that is one piece.

 

Nobody has said anything about the new oly em1x yet? I know there are a few m42 fans on here so Im surprised.
Despite the hate, if I was going to be a pro tomorrow doing generic pj, sports, action etc I would definitely spring for something like this. Menu system sure is shitty though.

Alas, I am just a noob so i''ll stick with my d1x/rd1x and film stuff.

 

Too fuckin' exy...

 

Yeh probably, but then look at the lenses too. Maybe not to a pro but that depends on your definition of pro

 

I’m a pretty big m43 fan. Have a Panasonic G9 and love it. But that said the body, 12-60 f2.8-4 and 100-400 f4-6.3 cost me almost $5k buying on sale. No way I’d consider the extra coin for the Olympus now. I’m no pro but I’m going to suspect unless you’re doing stuff in broad daylight and need something like 800mm focal lengths and don’t have $12,000 to spend on a lens it doesn’t make sense versus a a7 III or even EOSR.

Which is exactly how I ended up on M43. Loved taken wildlife shots. Could afford an A7iii plus a Tamron 27-105 but nothing longer

 

For the rumoured price, I'd rather go full frame Sony.

 

yeah pass.
The biggest selling point of M43 is the size and they've gone away from that with the body (plus the price!)

Those that are in need of a built in gripped, pro level weather sealed AF body generally also need top notch AF and more importantly ISO performance and thin DOF which is what m43 lacks.
I love that they've had the balls to do it but i cant see it being well received

 

I've only read one review of the EM1X so far, and while it seems like an EM1 II on roids, it does seem to fall a little short in areas where their target demographic cares.... AF accuracy/speed and ISO performance.

 

Isn't ISO performance one of those endless journeys thing where no matter how good the ISO is for a m43 camera, it will always be lacking compared to ff ISO performance? Its kinda like reviewing a small car and then complaining about the interior space.

 

Yes, but it's just not good enough; I say so meself as an E-M1 user with a weak spot for the format.

If only Oly could make work with APSC sensors, at least - Sigma's DN lenses work on M43 and E mounts, so there is a sliver of ergonomic hope there...

 

I'm an M43 shooter, and maybe even a mild M43 fanboy, but the E-M1X makes no sense. It's an Em-1MkII on steroids, with all the wrong E-M1MkII parts still in place for near double the price.

Z...

 

woops nobody picked up on m42... here is an interesting thread on it all.

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/4-3rds-cameras/64880-new-olympus-high-end-m43-camera.html