From: SMS on
Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:51:48 -0700, Paul Furman <>
> wrote:
>> BTW, I didn't realize different brand m4/3 lenses were actually
>> compatible for electrical connections, metering, AF, etc... That's got
>> to be a first in the industry, ever.
> There have been incompatibilities, especially with Olympus lenses used
> on Panasonic bodies. However, the co-operation between the two
> companies to solve these problems has been particularly impressive.
> It's a pity that there are no third party manufacturers making a range
> of lenses for Four Thirds. Yes, I know about Sigma, but the lenses
> are adaptations of Sigma lenses for other formats, particularly APS-C,
> rather than being designed from scratch for Four Thirds.

The market share for four-thirds is so tiny that there's just no
incentive for third-party manufacturers to spend much money on
development. It doesn't cost Sigma much to slap on a four-thirds mount
on their existing lenses, but the result is less than optimal.

It's ironic how four-thirds is touted as an open standard when in fact
the non-open-standard Nikon and Canon mounts have far greater
availability in lenses from third party manufacturers. You've even had
third-party manufacturers making bodies that used Nikon or Canon lenses,
so you could theoretically have put together a system with no Nikon or
Canon equipment, but that used a Nikon or Canon mount.
From: SMS on
nospam wrote:

> the photographer does matter, but equipment is not irrelevant. knowing
> when to use a particular camera and/or lens is a skill that seasoned
> amateurs and pros should have (but not all do, sadly).

This is especially true in terms of wide-angle, where there's a big
difference between the very low-end extreme wide-angle lenses and decent
ones (or g-d forbid using lens adapters and converters on a P&S).

However, ironically, digital has somewhat mitigated the need for those
extreme wide-angle lenses because it's so much easier to do stitched
panoramics. Though there are drawbacks to the panoramic approach, it is
adequate for the typical P&S user.

The need for extreme wide-angle is probably #3 in the reasons why
digital SLRs continue to increase in sales faster than P&S cameras (#1
being low-light/high ISO capability, and #2 being AF lag).
From: SMS on
RichA wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2:19 pm, "/dev/null/" <d...(a)null.invalid> wrote:
>> Your point is moot, neither Panasonic or Olympus are pro cameras.
> At some point in the near future, pro will no longer always include
> bulk.

There will either need to be some major advancements in sensor and
optical technology for that to happen, or several laws of physics will
need to be repealed.
From: SMS on
Rich wrote:


> Go shoot a close-in sports even and say that. All equipment has
> limitations, some a lot more than others and the photographer (no matter
> how good) is at a disadvantage because of it.

That's the bottom line. There are certainly situations where excellent
results can be obtained with equipment that has limitations that don't
matter much for the specific situation. But there are many times when
the equipment makes a huge difference, and without the proper equipment
you would not even bother to try to get the shot because you know that
it's just not possible.

It reminds me of when Cingular was touting "fewest dropped calls" in an
ad campaign that even the research firm that performed the study
disavowed. Yesterday I was out on the Northern California coast and at
the end of the day I asked someone why she hadn't called me to meet for
lunch in Mendocino as we had planned. The answer was that he had had no
cell phone coverage after he left Fort Bragg, and indeed a later check
of the coverage maps showed that AT&T had no coverage at all where he
was (and for hundreds of square miles around him). On the plus side, he
did not have a single dropped call in the area with no coverage! I had
good coverage (roaming onto U.S. Cellular) other than a few valleys, but
I did have a dropped call at one point. Clearly this proves that AT&T
has fewer dropped calls! Of course the reality is that I had the right
equipment for the situation and she did not.

About the best you can do in the P&S arena is to buy a Canon P&S and
install CHDK. I hesitate to tout CHDK, since our favorite troll also
touts it, but the reality is that it does enable the use of a P&S in
more situations than would normally be the case. Since I use it
extensively, and since I contributed to the documentation for it, I try
to spread the word about it. But CHDK doesn't turn a P&S into a D-SLR.
The photographer matters a lot, but equipment matters a lot too. You
need both.
From: Bruce on
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:08:04 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:

>On 2010-06-22 02:47:42 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)> said:
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:33:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)>
>> wrote:
>>> On Jun 21, 2:19�pm, "/dev/null/" <d...(a)null.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Your point is moot, neither Panasonic or Olympus are pro cameras.
>>> At some point in the near future, pro will no longer always include
>>> bulk.
>> So you agree that small senor P&S camera have something to offer the
>> professional?
>> ;-)
>Is that small senor P&S camera designed for Mexican midgets? ;-)

No, it's designed for the man (or woman) from Peru. ;-)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?