A bit of video from Oleg.
Oleg mounted the videos in just a couple of hours, which is very fast. It was interesting, but the rain ruined everything.
Oleg's works can be found on the websites http://olegasphoto.com.ua/ и http://olegasvideo.com.ua/. On his youtube channel there is interesting information about some things from the world of photographic equipment and photography.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Great interview! We look forward to continuing.
More such videos!
Mikra is a dead end. :)
It was interesting to listen! In principle, the motives of both participants are clear when choosing photographic equipment. In many matters I completely agree with Arkady, but not in all. Of course, only the lazy does not kick Mikru, which in the light of this conversation sounds rather contradictory and is the same bad form. Because if the wedding, according to Arkady, can be filmed on a smartphone’s camera and shot cool, what prevents it from shooting cool on Nikon1 / Olympus / Panas / Pentax / Fuji / Sigma, if it’s a couple of orders more convenient than a smartphone? Strange conclusion.
The same can be said about the statement that if you take mikra and some canon 5d first, then modern mikra will come forward along the DD. That is, on the first five-copecks weddings were filmed and nothing, norms, but on the current micrush cameras already fu? Or maybe jpeg files have since begun to accommodate a larger DD, and even the same fingerprints or people began to watch typhoid fever on 10-bit calibrated monitors? Yes, in general, no.
About the stub is also strange. Yes, he will not allow shooting in the dark, this is obvious, but the same staged and simple portraits at minimum ISO indoors without a flash are quite. A portrait of a person, if he is not in an epileptic seizure, is quite realistic to shoot with a shutter speed of up to 1 second, or even longer.
In general, any camera is a compromise, some restrictions and there will always be something better somewhere on the side, nevertheless, today you can shoot well with almost any camera without too much straining. And when a person takes pictures, he understands what's what - there he himself will decide what he needs or does not need to change.
This Oleg started up about mikra. You can take it off, but why if for the same money there is Sony or Kenon?
Well, not everyone likes Sony and Canon, for example ... Everyone has different tasks and preferences.
I agree. For a micro, the price should be micro: it is well known that small matrices are almost an order of magnitude cheaper than full-frame ones, since for them the yield of suitable chips is much higher. And then why did they come up with a micra at the price of a full frame ... But the Wishlist won't swell?
By the way, yes, it's funny! I climbed now to see the prices, indeed if we consider the top-fat micra, then you can get FF at about the same price tag, even sometimes cheaper ... well, there are also some nuances, for example, take Olympus omdem1mk2 + 12-40 (equiv. 24-80) 2.8, it would seem that sony a7.2 + 28-70 f3.5-5.6 is cheaper, but for example I need a focal 24mm, then sony a7.2 body + 24-70 f4 is more expensive. Well, there is also protection from splashes, cold, hunger on the side of the micro ... Olympus has a worse matrix, but much better stub and all sorts of interesting modes. Well, here everyone will select what he needs. And if you take Nikon d500 + 16-80, then it costs even more, despite the crop factor, although this is a professional DSLR ...
In general, it is worth noting that the micra is expensive and not compact when the FF tries to counter it. If you think positively, accept the capabilities of the sensor, do not take all the most top-end and bold, then it is quite compact and not too expensive.
I bought myself a mikra deliberately, this is Olympus omdem5mark2. After DSLRs Nikon D7000 and D90 chose between FF (Nikon DF, D610, D750), micro and 1.5 crop without a mirror, i.e. picture or compactness, chose the latter. The goal was to be able to take the camera with you at all times. And I succeeded - a camera with 2-3 lenses fits perfectly into a laptop-type shoulder bag with which I carry with me. I'm not a professional, I knew about the limitations of the sensor, I knew about autofocus (I, oh my God, contrast), but in general now I can't say that it was a mistake, I somehow even thought it would be much worse. I have experience with other cameras. Moreover, I am afraid that I will be lacking some features if I decide to switch to another system.
Naturally, the camera has many shortcomings, in addition to the sensor, but it also has many advantages that do not allow me to change it for something.
There is a lot of strange, one comparison of the new Pan and the used Can, what are they. Forgetting to say that adjustment is required at least ... And in any case, it is incorrect, everyone in the subject knows - micra is cheaper, and on the secondary market the price is bargain, if very good quality. And weight does not mean anything at all .. What is it? Arkady's arms and physique do not say that he worked in felling .. He probably would have died there .. I worked a little, and I’ll say that Mikru is only on the road and I take it, and I try without a zoom, it's too heavy ... DD, look at the DxO,https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II___795_1106_1136 , without comments .. And this is a comparison with a full cutter .. Maybe APS-C is not a system, following the same logic. They compared the nex to the phone, then I had a question, are the girls sitting in front of me, or are the photographers in experience? Would you compare the box , it’s better on the phone, portraits, especially. Yes 135mm without a stub in the basic ISO, weak? I live in the Baltic states, many of us have already joined the civilized way of life, 2-3 bottles of beer every day in the evening, you can have a bottle of wine after at least , and how to take it off? Even if your hands do not crack, even with a heavy, comfortable carcass, a tripod? And I forgot, and from 2000-3000, yes, yes .. I recently shot an event in a rather decent-sized oli5m2-sigma60mm hall from the middle of the hall, except for me there were two of.photographs with d5 and d850, I didn’t see the optics, but it seemed that there was one sigma. so what? I have f \ 2,8_3.2 (the latter value is more likely reinsurance), iso 320-640 (could be less, sometimes burn out, little experience), the competitors kept f \ 4, in groups of six, eight people in flu they didn’t fit in, 28-35-70mm, they took fast exposures, they understood that they would clamp the hole, you have to raise it even higher, and it was 1800-2200 anyway. The result, it turned out like mine imum is not worse. Considering non-powdered faces, terribly reflecting bright light. And a group of seventy people is a complete failure, what happened even on porn does not pull, maybe lovers just 2000-3000;) the hall was different, darker with natural light, puff wasn’t. And this is on Nikon. My version is 12-40f2.8 iso250_f \ 4_1 \ 30_15mm series. This was the first time that I firmly realized that I could hand over on a mic better than important gentlemen with large, black, expensive mega devices. I understand that people’s hands are crooked, but the event was tiered with invited government officials ami..And what about more passing events? I saw several captured weddings of ISO800 and went to the hall, street, puff .. Speaking of weddings, where you can apply 85mm1.2, in full frame, I don’t understand something .. U on a full-frame Nikon 50mm1.4 I don’t always get both eyes in flu, maybe for highly artistic purposes, for which I don’t understand anything. And I’m taking portraits of about thirty-five and shoot at f \ 4 and above, the collective farmer, what can I say? -system, there are advantages, there are drawbacks, I don’t like it, drown beyond the canon, at least until the pulse is lost. And on such videos only faces oh losing, it’s more like ordering in the Navalny style, a lot of hand movements, creatively also water, water. What you can agree with is the service, but in the places where I live it’s only canon steers, everything else needs to be sent to other countries !! ! Which led me to the transition to mirrorless, less, much less problems. The video on the behavior pattern is disgusting. I hope that at least it worked. And then half a day is lost, for someone else's flag.
Eka bombed you, didn’t you burn the chair there by accident?
Take already 2-3 bottles of beer, or even a bottle of wine from above and calm down, or else you’ll get hacked up as if someone (probably bulk) is taking these small-sized cameras from you by force.
Arkady, can you ban the next troll Onotole? Well, as long as possible, everywhere they impose a policy: "bulk", they are rude: "cackle", to be honest, it is unpleasant to read this.
You can't. And about bulk - see the post above in front of mine, I didn't mention it here in vain, but just reacted.
Yes, you’re right, I wanted to erase it, but it didn’t work out, I didn’t succeed. There was little practice, time appeared at work, I decided to write something. Today there’s nothing to do the same. It’s really nervous, people don’t like it. And there are different cameras I’m not selling it yet, the price is low, and the equipment is working. But in the future I’ll leave Mikra and a full-frame Nikon without a mirror.
Horses mixed in a bunch, people.
A strange conclusion can be drawn from your post. It would seem that 4/3 is suitable exclusively for former drinkers who saw logs, filming large drunk companies in the hall (provided that they do not have a phone with programmed bokeh in their hands).
Small matrices have a feature - large flu. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. If you shoot macro or drunk companies in a dark room without a flash - I agree, it will work. Light weight with good quality - I also agree.
In all other respects ... A professional photographer shooting "events" uses a flash with a softbox (strip of some kind). Or a large stationary flash into a light ceiling. Because he knows the nuances of working in such situations.
1.4 and 1.2 give a very small flu when shooting a large-scale portrait, this is also known. Therefore, the lens is covered up to 2.8 or 4 (or even 8-11-16 in the studio) - not news. But the portrait can be both full-length and full-length, and there 1.4 and 1.2 will make it possible to separate the object from the background in a wonderful way.
Each camera and each lens - for its own task.
About alcohol, it’s not about me if you didn’t understand. I’m sure that you can take a sharp 135mm photo with a long shutter speed, but for many healthy people this will be a problem. On the technical side, there’s nothing to argue about. Only again a substitute for concepts, it’s not about what the professional needs, it’s about the fact that the mikra is not a system.
I strongly disagree about the big weight as a disadvantage. I've made sure in practice that weight rules. I had a Canon 600D, then I decided to change it to 100D, buying into compactness and light weight. And I was horrified to find that the weave trembles more strongly when sighting than the XNUMX, and the tremor is small and disgusting, in contrast to the smooth rocking of the XNUMX, and this with a difference of only a couple of hundred grams! It's like driving a moped and a cruiser on gravel. I already began to think - shouldn't I screw a lead plate to a hundred square meters?) For those who find it difficult to hold a massive camera, I advise you to try the stand that is used for standing rifle shooting: feet shoulder-width apart, left leg slightly in front, body and right foot turned slightly to the right. The left hand supports the lens from below, like a forearm. The left elbow does not hang, but is necessarily pressed to the chest. The right hand is also pressed to the body. If your arms are short, try to prop the lens with your fist or outstretched fingers, or tilt the body back a little and move your head forward. If you have a tripod foot, great, hold on to it. You can even screw a wooden block to it from below as a kind of forend. I aim with my right eye, so the right cheekbone, when sighting, rests exactly on the thumb of my right hand, which lies in the notch of the back panel. Since the head is equipped with an excellent natural stabilizer, it further reduces shake. If you are shooting a portrait, do not be lazy to sit on one knee, putting your elbow on the other. When filming a video, you have to keep the camera on weight, but in this case, the neck strap is taut. If its length allows - put it obliquely - over your shoulder and armpit, or wrap it around your right wrist. Again, the weight of the camera stabilizes and smooths out sharp video jerks well. Is it hard to carry your bag? - excellent, and you will pump up your legs and endurance skill, you will drink and smoke less. People out there manage to shoot and hit from anti-tank rifles and elephants standing up!
It's a mistake to look through the viewfinder with your left eye.
Not really. It’s like with the weapons you mentioned. You must look into the viewfinder with your leading eye)
You don't understand anything - you look with your left eye, and you control the focus point with your nose ... :))
I look into the viewfinder with my left eye, because instinctively always close my right eye. Michael, so what is my leading eye then? I'm right handed.
When firing a pistol with one hand, army training manuals recommend aiming with the same eye as the pistol is in (but that's all, I perfectly shot 30 points, aiming with my left eye, with my right hand). With two hands - it doesn't matter which eye. And the SMERSH technique generally strongly recommends learning to shoot with both eyes open. I gave this example to demonstrate the similarity of shooting and photographing, because both there and there you need a rigid, but shock-absorbing rack to control the line of fire, sorry, sighting. Despite the fact that a pistol can weigh in the region of 1 kilogram, and a rifle - about 5, it is noticeably heavier than a camera.
If you laugh cleanly - joke, I will laugh too. Maybe I'm boring about my story?
Perhaps they themselves made the left eye the leading one - a matter of habit. But there is some truth about focusing - the cameras are made for the right eye and for right-handers. Lefties have to get used to it. Aiming with your left eye is at least inconvenient, and covering your eyes is generally a bad habit. This is not only written in training manuals.
I am not neighing, but quite seriously. I don’t know what is your leading eye, this is individual. You can check which one for yourself - it's not difficult. For most, this is right and the cameras do it based on this. In principle, you don't need to close your eyes while looking through the viewfinder
I am glad that for the benefit of the massive camera there is no objection :)
We look forward to continuing)!
Arkady is right, the camera is an instrument, and he’s right to pump the skill. Therefore, you need to go to courses.
Hello everybody! In some places of the interview, very limited reasoning of two WEDDING photographers who really don't need a stub, the client can stand. In travel shooting, better than the LIGHT Olympus with its double-crop and stub, there is really nothing else. Try to shoot with something else, for example, directly from the car, when the presence of the frame itself is important, and not its DD! At one time I switched from CANON 5D Mark III to OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5 Mark II, precisely because of the huge amount of smears in the brought pictures. For static, there is SONY A7 Mark II. And yet, a dead end is to blame everything on the system, not on hands. :) There are a large number of pictures at the same 500px, taken with the microscope, which arouse great interest, and exactly the same amount of garbage taken with the FF from its DD. All interesting shots! )
A wide DD usually implies a low noise level at average ISO values, which means you can set, for example, ISO800 - and calmly beat with short shutter speeds, avoiding lubrication. ;)
in dynamics, the stub will not help you, but with low DD and noise, low detail, you will not do anything either. and now by the way there is also FF and even SF with a stub)))
I am not a theorist, I am a practitioner. If there are many times less lubrication, I say that about it, even if this should not be theoretical. Well, there is a stabilizer in my full-frame Sony, there it is purely 100% theoretically, there’s no sense in it, even if there is a DD.
Sorry for the necroposting.
People fucking use the golden exposure rule 1 / EGF and you will be happy! These are common truths. A comrade has been shooting for 7 years now, using digital cropping, microcrops, film, and even format cameras, but he still neglects this rule - blurred frames all the time.
Oleg obviously wanted to talk about "pieces of iron". Big handle lover. That is, he really thought that Arkady, sitting on a bench, would begin to compare the convenience of opening the memory card compartment for different systems.
I liked the T-shirt! I'm Enot you are not! And I have known the answers to eternal questions for a long time :)
You're enot, I'm not.
+1 - T-shirt top!
Not knowledge of the subject from Oleg.
The 4/3 system from Panasonic takes photos in RAW 12 or 14 bit. Olympus has only 12 bit. Video shooting 10 bit.
It seemed that people of varying degrees of knowledge and skills were talking. Arkady sensibly argues and does not conduct provocations, and Oleg sometimes carries terrible game, he expresses some of his complexes that are of no interest to anyone.
stub - it's unnecessary for anyone, nowhere and never. It is necessary and better if it is there, there is nothing wrong with this function, especially since the stub can be turned off. but you cannot turn on the stub in the cell in which it is not.
Oleg needs to learn more and stop talking nonsense. And then he looks like a schoolboy numbing nothing. Any system has its own nuances, pluses and minuses, and for example, his favorite canon also has a huge number of minuses, especially the latest R and RP, what’s everything with color? or let's compare how Panasonic video shoots and your favorite keonon? who will merge whom.
in the photo, the main experience and stories, the ability to quickly and efficiently work. But not the buttons and the number of pixels in the screen)))
It is evident that Arkady has no prejudice Kenon or Nikon, he does not care and it’s great
I watched both videos.
And to be honest - I didn't like it.
The presenter seems to be quite good, but the questions are the same.
You could have gotten Arkady to talk - about the experience of Arkady, about what he started with, about some situations at work, about favorite and unloved lenses, etc., etc.
If we take service availability and the ability to rent equipment as a system criterion, I don’t know how it is in Ukraine, but in Russia outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg nothing is a system, because the concept of rental does not exist in principle, and if you please, please to get to the default city. I live in the capital is not the smallest region.
And if these criteria are discarded, then the micra is definitely a system. Under it, the fleet of relevant (currently produced) optics of different levels is the widest, flashes of all types and sizes are also no less than others. Moreover, if the fact that you chose not Panasonic and not Olympus, it will still work as a native, unlike third-party products on the same canons and nikonas. Well, yes, the frame is not complete, but compact.
I fully understand the position that, if necessary, you can remove it with a brick in your hands, especially if it's for the money, but to say that the difference in weight does not matter is an excess. In addition, why suddenly the main quality criterion becomes the ability to pull a photo taken with the wrong exposure? For some reason, I always thought and still think that it is important to remove the most correctly immediately in the analogue. Any refinement of a frame by digital processing to its normal state will always be a priori worse. Of course, I understand that there are situations when there is no way to get the right exposure, and you need to remove the blood from the nose. Therefore, as one of the advantages of a large sensor, this can be accepted, but it cannot be said that this determines everything. Simply, everyone will ultimately choose what is more convenient for him personally for his circle of tasks. And not all FF cameras are small megapixel. The same 5DSR has a sensor size that is quite comparable to that on current micro carcasses, which means it also comes out with slag, and physics will not allow it to be pulled out of it more than from micra.
Micra has its own serious advantages in front of a full frame, and there is no point arguing with this. But of course there are also disadvantages. But the main thing is that the system exists, lives, develops and provides an alternative. That it was said that the prices for mikru and FF are comparable, this is nonsense. It is necessary to compare models of cameras and lenses of a comparable level and purpose, and then it will be clear that the micra is significantly, just the same, dramatically cheaper than any existing FF.
It depends on what to shoot. In a landscape, you have to pull in 90% of cases and dd is very important, as well as the resolution of the system at infinity. The lot of micro is rather travel and street, there it will be enough and compactness plays a plus. With other types of photography, the optimum will be in a completely different place. Micra is not a panacea
Micra is at least more expensive than crop. And on the secondary, then at a price the crop is beyond competition - a huge selection, low prices. I don’t know how in Russia, but in Ukraine the choice is b. at. micro is very scarce, and prices are not encouraging.
But in b. at. segment a lot of Samsung NX and Sony Nex. They cannot be called a system either, because the choice of available optics is small, but through cheap adapters you can indulge in manuals.
Crop, apparently referring to the crop of the Nikon Canon SLR. Yes, they are cheaper, especially the primary and lower amateur ones. But they are made from compromise in all places (in fact, another word is being asked for, but it is indecent). Therefore, they are cheaper and on the secondary they are full for a penny. And for what other price can this junk be sold after a couple of years?
In general, in the context of systematicity, crop DSLRs of a non-professional level (professional crop, where crop was made for the sake of speed, until the technology otherwise knew how to leave aside) for me the phenomenon is strange. Can they be called a system if, for example, on the Nikon 7200 there is not a single (except 35 mm) specially designed cropped lens of a non-swill level? Why should I buy expensive expensive large full-frame lenses, and generally, why should I be content with a long working distance from a full-frame SLR (which affects both the quality and weight of the optics), when with the available size of the matrix and mirror, why should I buy it? could be smaller?
10.5, 35, 17-55, 12-24 - they forgot a lot about specially designed ones. Weight-size does not depend on the flange distance, only on the size of the matrix. The fact that manufacturers have hammered on a crop of 1.5 and do not develop this segment - however, there is nothing to be done
The weight depends on the working segment and the segment forces the use of not the most optimal schemes. For comparison, we take lenses similar in speed and level for any full-frame SLR and for a rangefinder watering can, and we are surprised that this smallest watering can also has a simpler scheme and the image quality is better. But the difference is only in the working segment
Alas, oh, if you're talking about a retro focus scheme. Only the watering can was able to make a more or less normal matrix, devoid of color shift. The lenses of the other comrades have a similar weight-size SLR.
Mishan (?), The answer is simple - manufacturers (Canon / Sony / Nikon) understand that crop is bought more often by amateurs than by pros. However, for the pros there is a 7DMk2 / D500.
And for them there are zooms with aperture 2.8 developed by Nikon / Canon.
And even under the crop. There are good glass for cropping in Tokina and Sigma.
It’s just that everyone pushes FF from the crop.
PS> And what about the prices of double-crop high-aperture glasses?
Can I drop the list of lenses here again and we’ll be surprised that the prices for double-crop lenses are somehow quite sectarian?
Before discussing the system, you need to think about who the buyer is.
The amateur segment is dying, and judging by the news, in recent 5 years it has been especially intense.
This means that the average bill will become higher, and the requirements for the production of photo companies will become higher.
Who will stay?
From buyers: Pros (portrait and landscape photography, for example, in extreme conditions), videographers, and those who have little camera capabilities of new smartphones.
From the manufacturers: Pentax / Ricoh will die and Sigma has already done this, entering the alliance with Panasonic and Lake. The problem is that manufacturers are not in a hurry to actively introduce BSi and generally work on their products, despite some losses.
But there is one significant advantage of the crop's long working distance. Thanks to it, an additional mirror of a normal size, which gives good coverage of the focus points. None of the FFs have this. No matter how marketers call the focusing units full-frame, they are the same size as on the crop due to the limitations in the size of the additional mirror. And they will not be able to do more, no matter how they want. Here the UPC is far ahead without the limitations of the last century design. And this is one of the reasons for my choice between crop and FF ZK.
LOTS OF LETTERS under the cut!
micra, full frame, crop and so on are just tools.
to get the result in specific conditions.
the size of the matrix is the noise level, the grip, the size and weight of the optics, the capabilities of the IBIS (chamber stub), the price of the system.
those. any tool is a balance of “wishes”, price, size / weight and quality of the final result - pictures.
Let's remember the story - a full frame matrix is the size of the film.
in those days, even making such a matrix was from unrealistic to very expensive.
(hence the non-standard crop 1.3, hence the failure of Fuja in the Super CCD ff).
therefore came up with a crop of 1.5 and 1.6. There was no sense in it except for those restrictions of that time.
Mikra was invented for a completely different reason.
- crop 2 still provides good quality (although noisy on ISO 200)
- the small matrix easily stabilizes, we get a cam stub up to 5.5 stops!
- telephoto lenses up to EGF 800mm (!) Keep reasonable weight and price
- a big grip opens up great opportunities for macro share, and we also add stacking
- the weight and dimensions of the system are much smaller / lighter than crop 1.5 and FF
- video capabilities are just an order of magnitude better, including because of the small matrix
No one has ever said that lenses for a micra should be super cheap, on the contrary, as a rule, miniaturization is always more expensive than standard dimensions. cameras are also not a fact, the matrix is cheaper, but everything else is not particularly.
Today, the micra has dozens of cameras, more than a hundred lenses, and of course this is a very popular system.
All complaints about mikra are related to misunderstanding and misuse of mikra as a tool. Well, as if you came to the Carpathians and said that this is not a vacation because there is no sea). Well, yes, no, but you didn’t know BEFORE going there?
There are no perfect tools. There are users who know and know how to use them, and those who do not know how to use, hence myths and fantasies appear.
Under certain conditions, the best choice is SF, or FF. Or mikra (crop 1.6-1.5 compromise and meaningless today). Or even a smartphone.
We started “for health” and ended with a strange conclusion (… the best choice is SF, or FF. Or micra). Let's look from the perspective of an advanced amateur, not an oligarch and a freelance photographer, who are interested in these things. SF for money is unrealistic; there were often replicas that, they say, why FF, if its cost is disproportionately higher than the difference in the quality of the picture of it and the crop (1,5), agreeing later that - yes, ISO, DD, the depth of field range is higher, it really matters for greater versatility. And crop 2? The indicated characteristics are even lower.
ISO and DD are higher, and the depth of field is smaller for a full frame
DOF from less to infinity - more range. Therefore, the above is the ability to highlight the object and even achieve a certain "airiness", with a suitable lens, of course.
ISO and DD are not always better for FF than for crop. Which FF and which crop depends - the generation and technology of the matrix. Hope you can understand that. Won't you argue? )
Of course, I mean more or less contemporaries.
DD depends primarily on the ADC on the matrix. Until recently, only Sony (and its affiliated factories) had this technology. Therefore, until 2017-2018, the Kenons were losing outright on DD cameras with Sony matrices and even mikre, for example, the top micra has better DD than Mark 2, Mark 3 or 6D.
Only after the implementation of the ADC on the matrix (Mark 4 and later) did the situation slightly improve, but even now Mark 4 / RP is at or even slightly worse in DD than the crop of the camera on modern Sony matrices, for example worse than the Sony A6500 crop.
“Therefore, the Kenons until 2017-2018 outright lost on DD cameras with Sony matrices and even a micra, for example, the top-end micra has better DD than Mark 2, Mark 3 or 6D.”
1) Not true.
2) And on which ISO? DD thing is not constant, you need to look at the curve and look at ISO 400, ISO 800, etc. etc. So interesting and honest.
I have long been accustomed to the fact that on "Radozhiv" most of the comments are devoted to "Nikon", and it is not surprising that Arkady himself shoots on Nikon, more Nikon reviews, well, this is not a formal strawberry. But lately it seems to me that this is a micro club. I have a huge request to users of this system, there is practically no open site for micro reviews, make a review and we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this system. Well, so this is all sofa talk
Oleg, I tested mikra at one time, oliki and Panasonic, thought about moving on. There is material, paired photos, practical experience, color profiles, etc. I sorted out the advantages and disadvantages in great detail with the guys on the forums. (if anything, I don’t have micra now, for a number of reasons).
To be honest, I don’t see any point in posting here - a very aggressive audience, people do not want to perceive anything new or different from what they already have or what they believe.
Again, trolls, rudeness, flood. Honestly, do you see the point in posting such material here?
An overview of the camera or lens would be appreciated with pleasure. I wonder how the fast aperture fifty-two-crop behaves.
Oleg, is highly dependent on the camera and lens. In short, the last oliki and Panasonic finished the color close to Kenon RP.
The specificity of the micro - there is a tent shock (not always and not for all cameras), sharp immediately on the open (no need to clamp to 4-5.6 like in FF), very sensitive to the quality of lenses, shadows are poorly drawn (like in Mark 3), makes noise even on basic ISO.
But if you take a 0.95 or 1.2 lens, you will get a very, very decent shot after completion, which is quite comparable with the 2.2F.
I completely agree. And the tent shock in a certain range is very noticeable. It is treated with an electronic shutter or the first curtain. This is omd5m2.
Strictly speaking, for serious work for portraits, especially if you used FF Mark 2 or the same level, mikra is not suitable (like crop 1.6 and 1.5) - you will not get the color and picture of the same level, it will be close but not quite the same. especially when editing RAV (although I personally liked the color of the olik more than with Nikon's FF).
But if you are critical in weight and size, then micra is justified.
Or if you need to shoot in conditions where there is little light and there is no way to use a tripod - the mic stub cam provides 5-5.5 stops, this is very noticeable at 50mm. In general, in what it is better, in what it is worse.
An overview of the camera or lens would be appreciated with pleasure. I wonder how the fast aperture fifty-two-crop behaves.
Like a portrait.
This is for DD https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II___795_1106_1136.Вот signal noise drops out, but not a word about it, apparently we were too keen on waving hands. Yes, technically any camera with a smaller pixel will lag behind, but we will not ask manufacturers to create a 6MP full frame, or will we? There will be fantastic dd and signal noise, and color rendition ... We managed to compare the phone with the nex. Certainly someone will shoot better on the phone, but not a photographer. Weight is not important. The interlocutors frankly do not differ in physical development, to put it mildly, and such statements. Rubbing fools who are heavier than 550d with a whale did not hold. I have a full frame, but I will never take it on the road. Compared a new and used lens, for different purposes, you guys Almost every thesis is controversial. The price of the system is frank lies, the used options are generally lower than the plinth. And if you follow the logic of the conversation, in the place where I live, only the canon can be considered a system, in the Baltic states only they have a service center Cameras from other manufacturers must be sent abroad. New things, for you - the canon is sharpened for constant maintenance in service, alignment, reliability of lenses. By the mirror, which service center is closer, such a camera should be bought). Mirrorless problems are much less, maneuver Warm greetings to the participants of the video, I hope there will be a worthy reward for half a day of shooting.
thank you for your opinion
I didn’t spam, I thought that the text can be edited, the first unsuccessful experience. You can delete it.
All ok, double erased, write more
Thank you
So there are sinewy. Compare the physique of Kobe Bryant with Shaquille Onil. And which of them is more productive?
oops how dexterously
All the same, Arkady is right - the physical size of the matrix decides.
Now I'm shooting on the D700, before that there were Nikon's crop of 3100 and 7000.
My wife has the first generation e-m10, which she really likes. From time to time I shoot it myself.
I got the impression that you need to shoot with the Olympus right away, and you will get a good / excellent result. Even at night, even at high sensitivity values, camera software and processor work wonders. And all because shooting in raw, practically, does not make sense, especially in difficult conditions - the files do not drag at all, in the shadows there is a terrible mess of colored noise. Especially in comparison with files from 700k. Even with 7000kom.
the physical size of the matrix decides - the average format is crying for you, feel like a man.