Ideal camera for AP from Olympus/Panasonic

[kaiviti]

Hi Folks

Check out this link for info on the new "Micro Four Thirds" system interchangeable lens cameras being developed by Olympus and Panasonic.This is a breath of fresh air
in the world of compacts with a larger sensor than the currently available "prosumer"
models which usually require a cumbersome wideangle converter for extreme WA shots. The weight of the cameras will be considerably less than the current small Olympus E-410 SLR. The first examples will hopefully get shown at Photokina in Germany in September this year. Watch this space for more info !

Cheers

Rob

Link: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08080501microfourthirds.asp

[kaiviti]

Here's another link I've just found. Note the intention to have the camera also shoot
movies - not just Mpegs available on current compacts.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/

Rob

[Cyborg]

All camera's are nice in one form or another. Each has it's own lil nitch it fills. I prefer a camera with at a minimum, the ability to capture in raw format. Until last year that needed to be a DSLR, not so anymore. The Canon G9 has a great setup for what it is. It will take great photographs within its boundaries (which are vast). It has a nice lens (thou fixed) with 35mm equivalents of 35 to 210 optically, and best of all it weighs in at a little under 12 ounces, plus battery (provided). If you are into raw conversion it has a great program that comes with it (I prefer Photoshop). The ability to correct before shutter, after you have already taken the shot is unbeatable in my folder. Oops off my soap box ( I enjoy Photography) when you work at what you like its so much more enjoyable. The G9 is not a full tilt Pro DSLR, it does how ever take breath taking Photographs, Pro DSLR's from 2000 to 8000, G9 500ish. which would you strap under a bird. I'm now carrying the G9 more often than not ( it's less obtrusive, not so heavy, MkIII with lens almost 6 pounds :wow2: ) oh and did I say its very light. It will be what I strap to my bird.
Cyborg

[dviry]

[quote=Cyborg;802216 I prefer a camera with at a minimum, the ability to capture in raw format. Until last year that needed to be a DSLR, not so anymore. [/quote]

I've been using my old tiny 3.2mp Nikon E3700 (released 2003) which could theoretically also take RAW pics... I also own a Canon 40D which I enjoy vastly - honestly the only reason to get a DSLR is the interchangeable lenses which give you endless possibilities. I can see how a "new" interchangeable lenses system for point-and-shoot would raise interest, even thought it was already possible before to have "add-ons" (like the most used "macro-kit" sold for a lot of those cameras). Question is, would it rate up with DSLRs? Probably not.... But then sometimes all you need is a good subject and lighting and even a one-time-kodak-carton-camera will take awesome pics...

Ah, freedom of choice :YeaBaby:

Peace

[Tonystott]

My Olympus SP350s have always had the ability to capture in RAW...

[kaiviti]

I'm particularly interestedin the relationship between the camera weight / sensor size - (reproduction quality) ratio. Theoretically - the bigger the sensor, the better image quality
if shot in raw or maxium resolution.

The three sensor sizes in SLR's (full frame, APS and fourthirds) usually tie in to the weight of the camera. The full frame Canon EOS's and Nikon D3 (soon to be joined by a 24mpg Sony) are heavy bulky cameras. Most of the rest are APS based and vary in weight whereas the four thirds sensor E-420 makes a claim to be the smallest/lightest in it's class. Unfortunately it does not have image stabilization like its sibling the E-520 which is a little bigger and heavier.
I see the advantage of having a sensor which is considerably bigger that what is currently available in prosumer models (G9, Coolpix - older Olympus C7070 etc) in a small light compact camera body. I feel that the SLR lenses are likely to be better than those in the latter cameras although any zoom lens function would not be motor driven.

[Cyborg]

Nikon makes a great camera. Photographers have been at odds with each other since the begging. Just like the fight over GM, Ford and Chy. At no time however was the E3700 capable of raw format, not even in theory. The 4 thirds system allows one manufacturers lens to work on another manufacturers body. The only reason for a DSLR is the interchangeable lens's, "NOT" True I am a Canon (fan) I have used them since junior high, and that is longer than some here are old. I have several friends who make there money with Nikon, I also have one photographer who lends a hand when I need more than my perspective at a shoot. They use a Nikon (I don't hold it against her). I by no means at any point was knocking the 4 thirds system. The G9 is simply what it is, ( lite, capable, sturdy) To debate DSLR here nope. I will say this, if you are gona bust my chops over why a DSLR is only better than non DSLR, please do your research and years of study well beforehand. What I will also say is non DSLR's have a place. I have used them from time to time for years. I can take salable photographs with them. Until I tried the G9, My array of DSLR's where all I used for street photography. Jpeg files editable? Of course. I can even force a Jpeg into a somewhat raw format in both photoshop and lightroom. Wanna argue the point go ahead, (if you like talking to yourself), wanna see what each will do, do a search on each camera and look at the photographs they produce. I will add however, in the right hands a pinhole camera will take outstanding photographs but, then again one can not mount a pinhole camera, to the bottom of a heli and expect to sell the work. People have for years been making what others say wont work, "WORK", want consistent files time after time, you do the math. Olympus, Nikon, Kodak, Canon to name a few all make great Camera's, what we each use well, it is what it is. If I could find a battery powered Heli that would heft up my MKIII, hold it there consistently safe for 8, maybe 10 minutes without possibility of crashing, then my MkIII would be what I use. Until then I'll use one of my G9's. My heart would sink were I to smack my MkIII on the ground, heck if I smacked one of my 40D's (great camera) off the street Id go bonkers, and yes if I'm on the street I use a neck strap. Not much good when you are posed low in the crowd and some clown :rolling (pun intended) waving at the crowd does not see you till well,, Oop's. :arggg: At least the D40's are less Bankege impact/able.
Cyborg
Heck I forgot all about Sony, they make great camera's also. Oh one other reason if there was no other, show up at a clients house with a point and shoot to do the work they have requested and see if they let you in. It took me year's to get my now client base use to the fact, I do not use medium format camera's. Brudder that's a hole nudder ball game.

[Tonystott]

Cyborg, you seem to have the knack to enter into an argument without any other participant. Strange...

[Cyborg]

The programmers said life among the flesher's would not be easy. :nanabobo
I told them I don't play well with others and that is on a good day.
:flamedevil

P.S. I use Canon. To change now is futile.

[dviry]

At no time however was the E3700 capable of raw format, not even in theory.

I beg to differ - we programmers should know anything is hackable... :lol:
ALL cameras use RAW format and only then compress to JPEG. Some will have the option to keep the RAW while others wont. The E3700 can be put into DIAG mode (http://www.camerahacker.com/Forums/DisplayComments.php?file=Digital%20Camera/Nikon/Enabling_RAW_mode_in_CoolPix.html) in which case you'll have access to the RAW files. I don't really use it since I prefer the RAWs from my 40D... But I'd never raise my 40D 400' in the air :shock:

Point-and-shoot cameras have come a long way and as soon as "glass-technology" will advance there will be no need for big bulky cameras to take good pics...

[Cyborg]

If theory were as such we all would have larger bank account's. Sadly even Nikon names its ("raw") file jpg. Converting data of the sensor is however in raw form as is 1's and 0's, standard form conversion programs convert it to pixel, if this is what you wish to call raw, then its slim theory. I do not however understand why if a jpeg file of 3 megs is the small file and the raw file in "theory" is the larger uncompressed file, why the raw file is 2.4 megs, which even without theory is smaller.
As I stated above if I couild find a crash free system 100% safe I would indeed hoist my 1Ds MkIII, the difference between point and shoot or DSLR are vastly more than just interchangeable lens's. Depth of Field is a good starting for differences.
You thought I was gona say Pixel count did'n Ya!? Naa
Since the 6 megs of the older but still useful camera's came out 35mm have had there (head stone) on order. 8x10 from a well shot 6 meg file equal 35mm is all but make one smidgen of depth in the shadows. With a little HDR trickery a 2 meg camera well set can scare the chip's right out of a medium format camera.
You are right in that, 40Ds have outstanding raw files, With a bit of DxO they scream print me on fine art photographic stock.
Cyborg