around the net, volume 5
May 16, 2008 – 12:30 amI have to start by mentioning an arresting photo that Strobist ran a couple days ago. This is honestly the cutest photograph I’ve ever seen. No amount of propping, styling or casting can create an image like that, it’s the real deal. Plus the lighting is so painterly…it really is beautiful.
Are there many prophotolife readers in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area? I’d enjoy a chance to meet you if so, just to hang out and talk photography for a couple of hours. We could plan something at the studio for a couple weeks from now. Let me know by email if you’re interested and we’ll put it together.
 |
| from my photo series “solemn places” |
Do you strive for greater quality, care and reproduction of your images? Serious photographers (both professional and amateur) should all spend some time at UPDIG (Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines). This is the technical “mother of all digital photo sites”, in my opinion. For the past couple years this group has been working with industry professionals to establish standards for file color managment, archiving and delivery. If you are serious about your digital files, you’ll understand what a gift this site is.
And here’s a little more info on the upcoming prophotolife series of lighting videos (did you see the equipment guide previews earlier this week?). I’ve received so much good input worth incorporating into the videos that content is still being finalized. The lighting series will run for 6 weeks starting on Monday, May 26, and will cover a range of topics: achieving different qualities of light and portrait, food and product lighting techniques. If there’s good response we’ll see where it goes from there…
 |
| from my photo series “solemn places” |
I want to mention that this coming Monday’s video is one of my personal favorites, mainly because I got to learn some things from a fellow photographer. If you like nature photography (particulary things that go “tweet”) then be sure to tune in for Monday’s video.
And a question for you: are any readers using Olympus DSLRs? I’m a long time user of Canon and Nikon but want to buy a new “carry around” DSLR and would like to try something different. The new Olympus E-520 looks interesting to me since they’ve reportedly improved the capture of highlight detail. Any strong opinions on the Olympus, Pentax or Sony cameras (around $800 US)?
That’s it for this week, thanks your great input in the post comments. Have a good weekend, see you on Monday…
- Jim T.
Related Posts:
If this article was helpful then please consider subscribing to pro photo life by email or full feed RSS.
7 Responses to “around the net, volume 5”
I’ve been using the smaller Olympus the 410 since Christmas. Great carry around camera since it’s so lite my only issue with it is being small it’s sometimes hard to steady it at slow shutters speed with the partial grip I can get on it.
By Robert on May 16, 2008
I’ve used Olympus dSLRs for a few years, currently using the E-510. I love this camera, though I bet I would also love a Nikon kit if I had it instead.
I haven’t any *strong* opinions about it; the photographer makes the image, right? I do have lots to say about my Oly, though.
The sensor size difference could be a negative (bokeh quality) or positive (greater DoF). That said, the difference between Oly’s sensor and APS-C isn’t much. In fact, the *height* difference is miniscule. The 3:2 width (vs. Oly’s 4:3) is where most of the difference is.
I love the E-510’s feature-rich plethora of options. I like having choice, and this camera brings it in spades.
The in-body Image Stabilization works as advertised; it is NOT a gimmick. Neither is the dust elimination.
Live View is a great and useful tool for any who understand its limitations (focus and shutter lag). It’s incredibly handy for macro shots and other still-life tripod situations.
I could go on and on about it. I’d write a post if there were interest. I don’t want to waste your comment space though.
I would like to add one point: the differences between the E-510 and E-520 in the article you linked don’t seem terribly big. If you’re looking at this camera it might be worth it to go with the E-510 and save money (or reallocate it to lenses).
By NormMonkey on May 16, 2008
If you are a prime shooter/lover it’s hard to go wrong with the pentax k200d and Limited “pancake” Primes for a compact walkaround kit. A touch bigger than the 420, but still *very* compact. And the Pentax limited primes are absolutely *spectacular* pieces of glass. Plus in-body IS is awesome - stabilized primes FTW! the k200d plus DA21mm DA40mm and DA70mm will give you a 32-135mm range in a package of <3lbs I believe, and will fit into a very small bag.
By Ed Z on May 16, 2008
I just bought a Pentax K200D as my first dSLR & so far I’m loving it. My only problem so far has been not having enough time to get out and shoot, and the days I do have free have been interrupted by this SW Ohio rain.
My choice came down to the Sony vs. the Pentax. Both took pictures I liked, I just felt the Pentax was more for me.
I just started reading your blog and so far its a great resource to me. I’m just up the road in Dayton. I actually used to work less than a mile from your studio.
By JoBu on May 16, 2008
I’ve been using Olympus DSLR’s exclusively since I learned digital photography. I have to say they offer some great features but sure aren’t without their drawbacks. I am currently using the E-3 and also own the e-510 as a backup.
The 4/3rds system is awesome if you can get over the smaller sensor as the image quality is still outstanding. The lenses are some of the best I’ve worked with and every one I use, performs excellently. Also as stated before, the image stabilzation and live view modes perform just as advertised.
My biggest gripe with the 510 is that it will wash out highlights without hesitation, allthough its not as bad as everyone says it is. If they claim to have fixed the problem with the newer model, hats off to olympus. The prices of the higher quality lenses are more expensive than nikons and canons, but they offer a much more compact size.
Look into getting the 25mm 2.8 pancake prime that was just released for an even smaller solution, it looks like a cool little lens and would probably make the camera lighter than it already is. I recommend it for a carry around camera and if you like the features consider getting an E-3, its awesome too.
By Pete on May 16, 2008
It’s good to hear from people actively using these cameras, thanks for your help. You’ve all hit on certain “hot buttons” that are the reasons I’m considering an Olympus or Pentax. Buying a camera for the studio is easy in comparison, it comes down to the best ROI (return on investment). For a personal camera I’m way more interested in having fun with a new toy!
For that reason I’m leaning toward Olympus and the 4/3 sensor: because it’s totally different. It sounds like it would be worth the wait to get the E-520, though, they’ve reportedly made some improvements to the dynamic range with a new sensor. And the little 25mm f2.8 lens is sweet. I have that darn $800 US budget to deal with, though, so it will have to be a camera and zoom kit lens, probably. The quality of Olympus lenses is certainly well known.
The Pentax with the prime lenses sounds like my dream. That takes me back to my favorite film camera focal lengths: 35mm, 50mm and 105mm. And I really like that Pentax RAW files are in the universal DNG format.
I’m getting itchy, though, and as soon as I’ve been “economically stimulated” by the US Government (tax rebate check comes in) I’ll make a purchase. I’ll keep you posted!
By Jim Talkington on May 17, 2008
Ooh, I didn’t realize the E-520 has an updated sensor!
I thought it had the same sensor as the E-510 and E-3, with updates to the TruePic processor - in which case JPG shooters will notice a difference but not us RAW monkeys.
This site: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_E-520/verdict.shtml
… says that the sensor is indeed updated. The DPReview of the E-520 noted a change in overall pixel count (11.8M vs. 10.9M, though both have 10.0M effective) which further suggests a different sensor.
Interesting!
By NormMonkey on May 20, 2008