This is Moose's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Moose's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The 7S makes different trade-offs than the 7, in favor of high ISO performance, at the cost of less DR, better video, at the cost of less resolution for stills, etc. The 7R makes compromises for super high resolution. The 7 is the model best optimized for straight still shooting. Is the attraction of the 7S it's actual feature set, which seems not aimed at you, or that it's new - SHINY! - and you held it? If the images I've seen from you here over the years are any indication, you will get no better results from the A7S than you are now from the NEX-6. That's not a negative comment, but an observation that, the occasional testing of limits aside, your photography doesn't push the capabilities of an excellent camera like the NEX-6. If it's about the lens, and the 7S is just a vehicle, I think an A7 is a better match for you. If it's about the lens, can you first determine whether the new Zeiss, whether 'better' than the one you loved or not, makes images that you will like as much? It would be a bummer to drop that cash and find that the results aren't what you expect. In another couple of years, the A7S will be in the same position as the NEX-6. So why not continue to take good images with it and let it be in danger again then? Any help?
Toggle Commented Oct 28, 2014 on O Lawd Hep Me at The Online Photographer
"The great example of this that I can think of off the top of my head is Edward Weston, who made art out of a ceramic toilet ("Excusado") and a bell pepper ("Pepper No. 30") as well as a great many other mundane subjects." I'm not sure I agree. Both are common objects, but the prejudice that they are necessarily less interesting than their photographs I'm not willing to accept without further consideration. Might the enduring interest in them be in part because they are such perfect evocations of things inherently of interest to most people. Sort of B&W Platonic ideals in which we can see the beauty of their true forms. Perhaps Weston's talent lay not only in being able to make exquisite, tonally gorgeous prints, but in recognizing subjects that would be inherently interesting to most people and making beautiful images of them as ideals. The unanswered question in my mind has always been whether it was a green pepper, which is much less interesting to me, or a luscious red one. A problem with B&W. Then there are all the photographs of his wife, in many of which the subject transcends the photograph - to this male. Late Night Rambler Moose
What's small? to judge from replies so far, it includes cameras I would call gargantuan. Then, I pulled out an Oly OM-1 with 50/1.4 the other day, and the immediate thought that ran through my mind was how big and heavy it is. I think of them as my big cameras now, but apparently they aren't ... I use an E-M5 and GX7, usually as a two camera kit, Oly 12-50 on one and 75-300 on the other, when in the field. Other lenses in the bag, but those do most of the work. If I HAD to pick one, it would probably be the Panny, for the EFC silence and lack of shutter shock. For what I consider small, I love the Panny GM1. Same image quality as in the 'big' ones with few compromises. I have a long history of trying to find the perfect compact camera. With the advent of the GM1, I found my S100 and others went unused. And yet ... I want a compact with good zoom range in one lens. The GM1 with 12-32 is a lovely thing, but I do like tele and macro. Add the Panny 45-150 and an extension tube, and the kit is no longer really small and simple, although usable for many times and places. So now I'm trying out a Panny ZS40. 24-720 is a heckuva zoom range, twice as long as the 24-360 of the Samsung WB650. Same small sensor, but better IQ in JPEGs and, wonder of wonders, Raw output. Don't believe the reviews that say it doesn't much matter.. The pixel level difference in IQ with proper processing is great and, small sensor or not, there's a little headroom for recovering highlights, at least at low ISO. If it only had closer focus at the long end, sigh. Will propinquity grow into love? Only time will tell.
"The idea is that there are professions out there in the world with remunerative positions waiting to be filled—i.e., jobs that need doing—and that that's why the school exists: for training purposes ...This is fraudulent on the part of the art schools, of course. Think of it as one of the world's biggest white lies." They are far from alone. Religious education, seminaries and such, psychology, alternative health care modalities and others have similar problems. The schools prepare more people than are needed for the work available. And like art schools, they prepare them poorly, paying no attention to their actual aptitude and skills* and little or none to the practical sides of actual practice/employment. I was amazed when a good acquaintance decided to study psychology, impressed, but disturbed, as she stuck with it right through to the state license to practice. I was unsurprised when she was unable to turn all that into any sort of income to support her. Another forty-something for now living again with her Midwest parents - with a mountain of student debt. She could survive with the work she was doing before, but likely can't do that and pay her debt. The explosion of small, private 'Universities' over the last few decades is a vast con game, based on poorly designed and managed Federal student loan practices. It's far broader than what I've talked about above, including all sorts of academic and technical fields where poorly qualified professors baby sit poorly qualified students as they learn part of the skills and knowledge to succeed in jobs for which there are too many candidates for demand. Student debt is a hidden drag contributing to our long term economic malaise. "There is no art profession and there are no artist positions waiting to be filled." I don't believe this to be true. If you change it to read "fine artist positions", perhaps so. I believe there is a continuing shortage of really talented artists for the huge demand for 2 and 3D and moving images for commerce. The problem is much the same as for fine arts, many, many who are competent and few who are exceptional, but there are a lot more jobs that will support a person. "There isn't any need for a certifying process for artists, either. It's not a guild that can protect itself from interlopers or overcrowding by keeping membership exclusive." "And then you have to factor in the sobering likelihood that some of those 5–7% would have succeeded as artists anyway, even if they didn't have a B.F.A. or an M.F.A., because they happen to be particularly good, or particularly driven." One of my sons has drawn on what ever is at hand since he could smear finger paint and hold a pencil. He chose not to go to art school, mostly because he knew just what he wanted to create and wasn't interested in most of the curriculum. After a handful of lean years, he is so busy as a graphic artist that "I wake up, start drawing, draw all day, and fall asleep drawing." He has to turn down paying work. His wife has her art degree. For now, she is the support "team" without which he couldn't be nearly as successful. She's still in the field, as you put it. "particularly driven." is interesting, as it calls up an image of someone driven by the need to succeed, make money, etc. For artists there is another kind of drive (to which you refer below). My son's second major area of work started because he is driven - to draw. His drawings on napkins while waiting for lunch were seen by a right person. Luck, sure, but the drive to create let it happen. His creative talent and hard work have broadened it far beyond that first client. "For individuals who have an artistic temperament, not practicing art in some way or other can be unhealthy." A great truth. There are other, perfectly good, reasons, but the real reason I keep making images is that it feeds me to do so, whether or not anyone else sees and/or appreciates them. That I have a small fan club doesn't hurt, though. \;~)> Moose * This is not an exaggeration. I have a friend who teaches at a large, well known private 'University' of good reputation specializing in this sort of fields. You might find it hard to believe what pressures are put on teachers to keep students in the school, no matter what. A whole industry that produces little of value and ruins thousands of lives depends on government loans not to the industry, but to its customers.
Every Fall, I drive around Boston and the surrounding area. Every year, I swear I will avoid anything close to rush hour. Every year, I rediscover how long rush hours are. Many people have told me how bad Boston drivers are. That has not been my experience. It's been more like "This is hopeless, we're all in it together, go ahead, merge in ahead of me." It's not like we are all in the wrong lane intentionally; they weren't marked until too late. And I understand that the streets in old Boston started as cow paths. That doesn't seem to me to adequately explain the appallingly poor design of the newer parts, including the results of "The Big Dig". "Sure, let's merge in three entrances just before a major exit, but why bother to add half a mile of extra right lane? It'll only be creeping for a few hours, five days a week." And the signage! Much of which is a lack of same. Makes Maine signage look good, if only by comparison. Glad you got in one piece, on the same day you started. (Can you tell I was just driving there?) Moose
Very fine! Strong, simple composition, perfect exposure, lovely tonalities. 'Twere mine, I'd correct perspective distortion. I'd also consider making it like the camera was slightly to the right, so the edges of the windows aren't visible. Maybe, maybe not, I'd have to see it. Moose
Toggle Commented Sep 19, 2014 on Random Snap at The Online Photographer
"The Nikon We All Want" Fortunately, you seldom make such silly inclusive statements. Seismic reading here is zero. I liked my Ftn ... Moose
"The goal of learning all this is to get to know your lens." I agree wholeheartedly. "Many amateur photographers conceive of their lens kits in terms of wanting to "cover" all the focal lengths or "be able to handle" any actual or imagined situation. They also like toys. Therefore they tend to overbuy lenses and have too many in their arsenals." Guilty - and yet - it's through actual use that I discover which lenses really work for me. Am I supposed to buy on the basis of tests or user recommendations? Sometimes that has worked, sometimes not (as with the Zuiko 90/2 'Macro' above). So I (over) buy what seems likely to please, and find out which do through experience. "One common result: under-familiarity with their own lenses, especially since amateurs may not shoot very much or very often." Well, yeah, I only shot a little over 12,000 last year. (Still haven't dug out of that blizzard; it should be fewer this year.) "My feeling as a teacher is that one of the best things a hobbyist photographer can do to improve their seeing and their pictures is to limit the focal lengths available to them and use fewer lenses rather than more. Cartier-Bresson got by with one lens (although he often carried three, he only very seldomly used anything but the 50mm) and Sebastiao Salgado used three when he was making his early, formative work. You need more?" Buy what if I don't want to be Henri Bloody C-B? Both these people are photojournalists/street shooters. I am totally uninterested in photojournalism. I've done street shooting, quite successfully, to my mind, using a completely different approach than the HC-B style. But my real loves are elsewhere. I do take landscapes. I don't know how many lenses St. Ansel carried with him, and I don't care, as I find my own way to make the images I like. "My preference and my habit has always been to use one or two lenses at a time." I agree, and don't. I'd guess maybe 95% of my images are shot with three lenses. If I ignore more casual work with Panny GM1 and 12-32 (and before that, Pens with compact lenses, and a series of 'enthusiast' compacts), it's over 95% with two lenses, but they are zooms. And yet, were have wildly different photography habits. I like many different kinds of subjects, from macro to long tele, and most of my shooting is done on the road. These images from last Wednesday may be eclectic, but they are things I noticed and, to my mind, captured quite well. To do so required a great range of focal lengths and focal distances, although only two lenses. If that's what one wants, a couple of fixed focal length lenses will not work. Like HC-B, doing most of his shots with one of the three lenses he carried, I also carry a super wide zoom, 60/2.8 macro and, for low light, Panny 20/1.7. They may not get much use, but when the shot presents itself, in a place I may never visit again, in light I won't ever see exactly again, I'm ready. The beauty of µ4/3 is that they are small and light. Moose
"I've even used a few "Macro" lenses that are not actually optimized for the closeup range—the superb Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm ƒ/2 Macro (note: the film version, not the same lens I mentioned earlier) is one of these—thankfully, since that made it better as a general-purpose normal lens." True also of the OM Zuiko 90/2 Macro. This was a great disappointment to me. I bought this legendary lens, fool that I am, to do Macro shooting. It's IQ started to deteriorate closer than about 1:4. I've never understood why, given that they already had an excellent 85/2 for general work, Oly made a 90/2 "Macro" that isn't. I sold it on, and continued to use lenses labeled Macro that were actually designed for that purpose, The Zuiko 50/3.5, Kiron 105/2.8 and Tamron 90/2.5 (With matching teleconverter, also an excellent 180/5 macro). BTW: As far as I can tell without buying one, from tests and examples, the 50/2 Macro is no better for actual macro than the 50/3.5. BTW II: The Tamron 90/2.8 AF Macro lens is as good or better than any of the above @ 1:2 and 1:1 for flat field copy work. Only the 50/3.5, at 1:2, is competitive. Moose
I like alternate takes on the moon. Seems like every full moon brings yet more perfectly nice shots of the full moon - zzzzzzzzzzz I've been living with this one for a few weeks now. I'm starting to think I may prefer this simpler crop. Loony Moose
Congratulations!!! Moose
Toggle Commented Jul 6, 2014 on Sunday Open Mike: News! at The Online Photographer
"PS: also very curious to know the book printers mentioned (enigmatically) in one of the comments." Referring to my post? I didn't name names because things change and I haven't researched alternatives for quite a while. When I last looked, it seemed that My Publisher, inkjet, and Adorama, Fuji Crystal Acrhive, looked the best from a distance. I got sucked in by special offers from My Publisher. I like the way their printing comes out. If you look closely at undifferentiated areas like sky, you can see the inkjet dither pattern, but at normal book viewing distance it's invisible. They have both glossy and a semi-matte finish. I very slightly prefer the matte-ish one. The heavier paper choice is a sensual experience to turn. I've never had a negative comment from anyone who has seen them about book/print/color quality. I can't speak much to their book making software. In an early version, I had trouble getting portrait images to just fill the height of the page, but it's several versions later now. I make up my own pages at their full resolution, 1200x1600, and drop them into the software, which works perfectly for me. The down side is their high-low pricing strategy. They are forever sending email special offers, which can end up way lower than their 'regular' prices. For someone like me, who buys a copy or two occasionally, and not in a rush, that's a minor annoyance. Moose
Toggle Commented Jun 26, 2014 on Showing Just to Show at The Online Photographer
I 'show' in a different way. I've had books made of my images, three books with about 220 images, so far. More to come. If you haven't seen the quality of the better on-line book publishers, you are missing something. Excellent printing on lay-flat pages of heavy, beautiful stock are delicious. I find it fascinating watching people go through the books. Some just look, saying nothing until finished, sometimes little even then, although none have as yet expressed anything less than enjoyment. Others are quite interactive, saying what they like or don't, asking about and/or discussing the what, where, how, why of some images. Viewers have ranged from family through friends, through participants in workshops we've attended. Many have said I should publish commercial versions, but as yet, that's sounded like more trouble than it's likely worth. The oddest was when I was showing the family who run Grumpy's for Breakfast, our favorite restaurant on Mt. Desert Island, ME, an image taken there the year before. A woman at another table came over to look and ended up taking the book to go through. Effusively enthusiastic, wanting to know where she could get a copy; she never did email me. Add me to the list of those who like to show and experience reactions to their work, without making a business of it. Moose [Hi Moose, which online book publishers do you use? --Mike]
Toggle Commented Jun 23, 2014 on Showing Just to Show at The Online Photographer
Certainly a different game than photography. My current µ4/3 gear makes much better image files than my first DSLR, even better than my 5D. I'm betting today's high end stuff doesn't actually sound any better than yesterday's. Another approach to the vintage game is to buy good stuff new - and keep using it until it is vintage. \;~)> I think that's what I have done, without any conscious plan to do so. About 25 years ago, I spent a Lot of time and ear effort building a system. All I've had to replace is the CD player. The second time a mechanical part broke, I couldn't find a replacement part. Everything else is now well preserved vintage. Your comments about the bleeding pocketbook end seem pretty close to me. I was able to visit a couple of high end shops regularly, midday, midweek, so I got to listen to ridiculously expensive systems set up for real customers to audition, at some length. Yes, a couple were spectacular, but the edge over just really good, was pretty thin. And I'd have had to remodel my house to do them justice. After the tweeter in one of my first set of speakers had to be replaced, then a bass unit went out, and the maker was out of business. At the same time, Stereophile slipped, and rated the new B&W 805s, a pair of which cost significantly less than a new car, in their A - minimotor category. I checked them out and bought. The magazine soon realized their error. B&W brought out the same components, but with two base drivers per box. Clearly, letting such inexpensive speakers into Class A was a failure of judgement (editorial, not aural, IMO). And now they would seem foolish to have the new B&Ws, which must be better, as they cost more and have more drivers, so the 805s were demoted to 'B'. Oddly enough, they didn't sound any worse, and have graced my life with physical and aural beauty ever since. For real vintage, consider the drivers in my home built/modified subwoofer/surround boxes. Sometime around say '62, I made a custom center channel woofer to go with my home made, 'Sweet Sixteen' midranges with dome tweeters. I used a University 16" woofer with dual voice coils to mechanically mix the channels. Later, I bought another of the woofers, a pair of midrange horns, three way crossovers and rebuilt a pair of attractive walnut floor boxes so the panels didn't vibrate, to make three way, bass reflex tuned speakers. Now, one voicecoil of each bass unit receives subwoffer output from a surround sound amplifier, while the other and the midrange and high end drivers, output suitably adjusted, handle surround sound. Surround sound is from real speakers, not tiny, tinny things. Sub bass can be turned up so movies like Independence Day will lift you out of your seats, if I want. Mostly, they are balanced to subtly fill out the bass. The inexpensive center channel sub-woofers back in the early 90s were 'slow', handling transients poorly. Mine are 'fast'. So, are 60's drivers vintage? Or antique? I'll say one thing; they really built them back then. The woofer surrounds are still intact and supple. Moose
My first photo book had 100 images, plus cover. Although limited to a particular time and place, I choose specific images almost entirely to please myself, which, I think, gives the collection some overall coherence. I included some that I simply liked, and wanted there, but suspected no one else would much like. I've shown the book to quite a few people, family, friends, acquaintances and a handful of essentially strangers. Most times, I've been able to at least watch, often interact, as they thumb slowly, speed hastily, etc. through it. The lesson learned, and reinforced with subsequent books, is that tastes vary over a vast range. One person would enthuse over an image that some others would skim past. There were a number that elicited a response, comment or long look from almost everyone, but none that were universal. After quite a few viewers, I thought I'd only failed with one image, which no one had viewed for more than a second or commented on. Then a friend was moved to tears by it. Interestingly enough, it was an image I had kinda included because I though it would have wide appeal. My conclusion is that, absent client requirements, externally imposed theme, etc., a book/portfolio/set of ones images is best when chosen to please oneself. Two later books have solidified this opinion. Setting a theme, time, place, etc. may be a help in making the project manageable, but the choice and order of particular images should be to please the photographer. Oscar Wilde said "Be yourself, everyone else is already taken." BTW, apropos recent posts, making a book and sharing it with people is, at least in my experience, a way to have an interactive relationship with viewers. A possible antidote, for folks who feel isolated, un-viewed and unappreciated on their web sites. A sense of appreciation and fulfillment may be closer than you think. Most people are still best engaged by people and tangible things. People who pay little or no attention to a web gllery can respond quite differently with physical book in hand, pages to turn, and so on. Moose
Toggle Commented May 31, 2014 on Subtle Dilemma at The Online Photographer
" (Who said "resistance is useless"?)" That would be Vogons in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Cursory research would seem to indicate that this Vogon usage predates the Borg usage, " "resistance is futile.", starting in TNG and continuing on through various Star Trek incarnations. Moose
A dog? That's all? My last cutter was very pleasant to look at*, very easy to talk to and had a pet - a large boa constrictor. Of course, she was decades younger than I and had an age appropriate boyfriend, but that was really all to the good. When she left the shop, I quit, going the old guy ponytail route. Moose * What one might call 'smokin' hot'.
Toggle Commented May 19, 2014 on Sunday Open Mike: Dogs at The Online Photographer
I can't say I like either. The Note 3 has very odd edges, over sharpening and/or ??. They give it an immediate sense of clarity, but won't wear well. The 5DIII looks awfully soft. I've seen much better video from the lowlier 7D/60D. I'm no videographer, and know not if the following are possible on videos. If they were still shots, I'd say that some deconvolution, as Focus Magic, would vastly improve the 5DIII image. A blur layer masked with Find Edges would help the Note 3. Based solely on these clips, I wouldn't want to spent any time and effort doing video with either of them. I do occasional short video clips, and would say I've had better IQ, clearer, more natural images, from Canon S100 & 60D, Oly E-M5 and Panny GX7.
I don't have as broad experience of the metering behavior of various brands of cameras. with three Canon DSLRs, several Canon and a Samsung P&S and several Oly and Panny ILCs. But that experience is clear. All my cameras are set as default to -2/3 EV. That way, if I just grab, point and shoot, the chance of clipped highlights is minimal. Heavy overcast or other low contrast brings EV up; red/orange/yellow flowers in sun bring it down further. I can't believe how many images I see on the web where flower colors are obviously off and/or that where there should be details of tonal variation, there is just a big blob of a single color. This can happen with bright colors of any kind, but is worst with flowers, so Mike probably doesn't have to consider it. \;~)> I realize reading this that I have no idea how my cameras act in Manual Mode with Auto ISO. That seems an oxymoron to me. I'm a Aperture preferred mode guy, too. In those few situations where I use Manual, I have a specific goal, ISO is a part of it, and also set manually. Should I call it 3D Manual? All the cameras I use have an exposure guide available in Manual that lets me simply set my variation from the meter's opinion. Most days, I understand Ctein's descriptions of they way camera makers determine 'correct' exposure/ISOs. I understand why they would want most images to come out balanced looking for most, and especially casual, users. Nevertheless, the basic nature of all digital sensor systems I have used is that they clip highlights all too easily. So I am very willing, happy even, to get an overall underexposed looking shot where the highlights just kiss the top of the histogram, and adjust midtones and shadows in post. I don't think this varies in spirit from the Zone System or many other practices of film photographers - adjust exposure and processing to compensate for weaknesses in the sensor system/film and get the results desired. Moose
Toggle Commented Apr 17, 2014 on What Overrides What? at The Online Photographer
I made this move, and am quite happy with the GX7. It has not displaced my E-M5. In fact, for 'serious' outings, I have both around my neck, 75-300 on the Oly, 12-50 on the Panny, 9-18, 60/2.8 macro and 20/1.7 in the bag. The drawback is wildly different menu systems and control setups. But wandering through woods, gardens, fields seashores, etc., the advantage of responsiveness without changing lenses is really big. The GX7 adds an electronic shutter (with some limitations of its own). For me, that means a more responsive camera. To avoid shutter shock blurring, especially with the long lens, I have to set 1/8 second shutter delay on the M5. (It seems people aren't having that problem on the E-M1, but I'm not convinced it isn't just the heavier body helping damp it - and making the problem more subtle and insidious.) The Panny sensor is, fairly subtly, better than the Oly, especially at higher ISOs. The GX7 might be the answer to some left eyed shooter's prayers. With EVF on the far left corner and controls all on the far right, it's better than several other ILCs with central EVFs and controls scattered all over the back. I'm not entirely convinced how superior the Oly IBIS is to the GX7. I've found the M5 IBIS to indeed be superior to the older Pen system, most obviously in macro shots. And it 'should' be better than the GX7. But at least one web site test shows the Panny superior at very low speeds, blurry vs. less blurry, and at long focal lengths. Being a reluctant tester, more interested in shootin', I've not done my own. So far, using the long and macro lenses on the M5 has made the point moot. The GX7 is an excellent camera, with a relatively sensible control set-up and great customization flexibility. I've also been happy with the Panny 20/1.7, but I doubt I've ever used it with the GX7. It used to hang out on a compact camera, like the E-PM2. Recently, it spent some quality time taking a few hundred shots on a GM1, where it makes an incredibly small, light combo. With the camera set to silent mode, no one has any idea when it has taken a shot. That includes me, until I see the review image flash by on the back. With a rather wide viewing angle on the screen, it's an impressive stealth camera. The E-PM2 is better for static subjects in dim light, though, a bit bigger, but with IBIS. Moose
About the GPS fix. Phone GPS track app. I use GPX Master (free) on my iPhone. Unlike at least one other I tried, it does only one thing, well, and doesn't eat the battery excessively. I got a spare battery/charger, based on horror stories. I've yet to need it. Merge GPS locations from track(s) into images in GeoSetter (Win, free) or Mac equivalent. GeoSetter happily handles multiple tracks at once, so tracking may be turned on and off as appropriate during the day. I've turned it on, got a fix in a moment, then off, to get a location for just a shot or two. I've has GPS in two cameras. Slow to get that first fix in both, and generally clunky. The GPS in my iPhone5 and now 5s is both much quicker and more accurate. The newer generation is undoubtedly better, but I'd rather keep the cameras I have now until some other factor(s) drive something new. I'd rather choose in the future without letting the GPS feature tail wag the rest of the camera dog. Located Moose
Toggle Commented Apr 15, 2014 on Small Joke at The Online Photographer
Dave Sailer writes: "The Olympus PEN E-PM2 was available. Bottom-of-the line. $275 on closeout, black, or $249 for a silver body. I can mount my Voigtlander 12, 21, or 35 lenses (35mm equivalents of 24, 42, or 70mm), and still have something almost-pocketable." I've been a big fan of the E-PM2, 4400 shots in 8 months. I've used it right alongside the E-M5 and as coat pocketable. I'm now quite enamored with the Panny GM1. With it's kit 12-32 mm lens, it makes the E-PM2 with 14-42 seem giant. The sensor is from the GX7, excellent, and the lens is slowish for some, but makes excellent images. With the 20/1.7, it's very useful in dimmer places. Interestingly, it's focal range almost matches your primes. But no IS in the tiny body, so it's IS lenses or less usefulness. Moose
I think you are right - about camera bodies. Right too, I suppose, for those photographers who happily use only a couple of primes or a relatively short range zoom, and who are happy with relatively slow lenses. Once I was finally satisfied with a mirrorless system, µ4/3, I did what I've done before with the film OM system and a Canon digital system before, build a set of lenses to cover my range of interests. With 9-18, 12-50, 14-150, 20/1.7, 60/2.8 macro, 75-300, primarily for the E-M5 and Gx7, Panny X 14-42 for small Pen and especially compact 12-35 and 45-150 for GM1, I have a pretty fair investment in µ4/3 lenses. A casual fling with another ILC would mean an unsatisfying, for me, time with a far too limited lens or two. Fortunately, as you say, the practical difference in IQ between the latest ILCs is quite small, so I'm not sure I see the photographic point. It interests me that back in the old days of film DSLRs, few serious photographers, at least those with a lot of lenses, made such a monumental switch, say from Nikon to Canon. I went Nikon to OM in the early 70s, but as an impecunious youth, I only had one Nikkor and borrowed others from my father. There are of course, those whose financial situation allows them to buy a range of lenses, and accessories, including a few thousand $ of the big, fast ones, to go with whatever new, shiny catches their eye, and good for them, I say. BUT, we had this situation before, with film. The sensors were all equal, the boxes pretty competitive in the basics of IQ, exposure, and it was all about the lenses. AND, as some guy here has argued many times, using lenses to their best advantage takes learning them thoroughly. That stands against flitting about between camera systems, even if cost is not a problem. Yes, I have friends who use only a couple or a narrow range of focal lengths. And I have others who use digital bodies as backs for their collections of legacy, manual focus, FF lenses from the film era. For those who like Auto aperture, focus and exposure and a range of lens capabilities, a majority, I'm guessing, casual switching of body systems is not practical. Moose
You found his DP2M set? Moose
Good idea, bad idea, who knows? But it IS an idea, different, and I think that's good. One of my favorite photo books is Mother Earth: Through the Eyes of Women Photographers and Writers, Revised Tenth-Anniversary Edition Without knowing the title, I don't think anyone would think the images must be by women. Its more that women make images as good as the best men. Hmmm ... Then why is it a favorite of mine? Perhaps the selection/editing by Judith Boice. at least a couple of my favorite images are in this book. This newer edition adds images and the reproduction quality is excellent. Moose
Toggle Commented Mar 28, 2014 on For Women Readers at The Online Photographer