I have wood for this camera...

[scotticus]

http://gizmodo.com/5883224/olympus-om+d-e+m5-the-first-micro-four-thirds-camera-aimed-at-replacing-a-dslr

So it's not a Leica, or a high-end DSLR. But I don't have $10K for a camera, and I have a young family which means limited tolerance for lugging around heavy cameras and lenses... Resepectable resolution, ridiculous fps, pimp sounding EVF, promising soudning high ISO performance, compatible with my existing m4/3 lenses, and $1K pricepoint. Plus it looks an aweful lot like the Pentax K1000 that I learned photography on.

Yummy.

That is all.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

Do you comment there? I'm reycoasdwon.

The XKCD comic was funny today.

[scotticus]

Naw man, this place is the sum total of my *interactions* with the interwebs.

[KillerGriller]

mmmmm...4/3...I haven't touched that since my Holga days. It's be tonnes of fun to get into...tonnes o' cash too.

I hear ya on lugging around a big camera with kids. I've taken much better photos of my kids with my DSLR vs. our old point & shoot, but you do have that annoying trade off. Quality vs. Convenience. This summer we bought a PANASONIC DMCTS3R waterproof/shockproof P&S to take on vacation and it paid for itself in spades. Now I can pick and choose when to bring my DSLR, and when to stash the P&S in my pocket. Awesome.

[bigm141414]

D800 > 4/3s

Just saying...

[KillerGriller]

D800 > 4/3s

Just saying...

??

[bigm141414]

Nikon accounded the D700 replacement, ,called fittingly the D800. I would make sweet sweet love to that camera if I could....

[KillerGriller]

In still camera photography, the most common aspect ratios are 4:3, 3:2, and more recently being found in consumer cameras 16:9.[3] Other aspect ratios, such as 5:4, 6:7, and 1:1 (square format), are used in photography as well, particularly in medium format and large format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29

[scotticus]

D800 > 4/3s

Just saying...

No argument here. But it's bigger, costs 3x as much for a body, and 36+ megapixels aren't going to do anything or me except increase the amount of hard drive space that I need by a factor of 2. All this megapixel stuff is crazy. 99% of people only a) post photos on the web or print 4x6s - maybe 8 x 10s.

mmmmm...4/3...I haven't touched that since my Holga days. It's be tonnes of fun to get into...tonnes o' cash too.

I hear ya on lugging around a big camera with kids. I've taken much better photos of my kids with my DSLR vs. our old point & shoot, but you do have that annoying trade off. Quality vs. Convenience. This summer we bought a PANASONIC DMCTS3R waterproof/shockproof P&S to take on vacation and it paid for itself in spades. Now I can pick and choose when to bring my DSLR, and when to stash the P&S in my pocket. Awesome.

That was my trade off. DSLR will always be better when you really need to capture an image than p&s. That's why I find micro four thirds such a good trade off - you get about 75% of the full DSLR functionality, but at a fraction of the size. My Olympus E-PL1 is treating me pretty well.

[KillerGriller]

The one big issue I find is trying to shoot shallow DOF (which I do a lot) with tiny P&S lenses is ridiculous, and pretty much pointless. That being said, we used ours in the water all summer which has opened up a whole new world of photos for me, but it still doesn't provide the control DLSR (or semi-SLR) lens' provide.

[scotticus]

The one big issue I find is trying to shoot shallow DOF (which I do a lot) with tiny P&S lenses is ridiculous, and pretty much pointless. That being said, we used ours in the water all summer which has opened up a whole new world of photos for me.

True dat. I also prefer shallow depth of field in general. I've got a 45mm (90mm equiv) f/1.8 for my m4/3 camera, which does ok. In a perfect world, I would definitely own a full frame camera at a minumum, with a medium format sensor being ideal. If it wasn't so expensive to develop 120 around here, I would probably still be shooting medium format film as much as possible. Film development budget = $0 at the moment.

[Waldo]

No argument here. But it's bigger, costs 3x as much for a body, and 36+ megapixels aren't going to do anything or me except increase the amount of hard drive space that I need by a factor of 2. All this megapixel stuff is crazy. 99% of people only a) post photos on the web or print 4x6s - maybe 8 x 10s.

Not to mention most glass can't resolve that well anyway. Heck I have no urge to have any more than 8 MP, its more than good enough for everything I do, and the number and size of hard drives my computer has is already frightening.

Lugging the DSLR is a pain with kiddo. I wouldn't mind a PnS for that reason, but really would love it if my phone could take PnS level shots or close enough. I can handle crappy IQ for candid shots, but my iphone 3's camera is a close relative to garbage.

And seriously....are none of you Canon people?

[ajdelaware]

Micro 4/3 is all the rage right now. If I had to get a point and shoot right now, I would opt for those pretty new Nikons with the interchangeable lens system. But alas, I don't.

I will be getting a d800 though. WOOO. Currently I shoot on a d300/d300s (2 bodies...wooo!) I can justify the expense though, because its a business write off for me.

[KillerGriller]

Not to mention most glass can't resolve that well anyway. Heck I have no urge to have any more than 8 MP, its more than good enough for everything I do, and the number and size of hard drives my computer has is already frightening.

Lugging the DSLR is a pain with kiddo. I wouldn't mind a PnS for that reason, but really would love it if my phone could take PnS level shots or close enough. I can handle crappy IQ for candid shots, but my iphone 3's camera is a close relative to garbage.

And seriously....are none of you Canon people?

Canonite here - I just upgraded my Rebel XT to a T2i. It's not the best camera out there but it more than meets my needs and the price was right. I wholly agree with the 8mp thing, but people want to walk around with pro gear so it drives the market. Glass is the real kicker though. I could drop $2000-3000 right now and only moderately cover the ranges I want....it'd be fun though

[ajdelaware]

Glass is the real kicker though. I could drop $2000-3000 right now and only moderately cover the ranges I want....it'd be fun though

This is what I'm using now:

Nikon Zoom-Nikkor Telephoto zoom lens - 70 mm - 200 mm - F/2.8 - Nikon F - $1,900

Nikon Zoom-Nikkor Zoom lens - 24 mm - 70 mm - F/2.8 - Nikon F - $1,669

Nikon Fisheye-Nikkor Fisheye lens - 10.5 mm - F/2.8 - Nikon F - $639

Sigma EX Zoom lens - 24 mm - 70 mm - F/2.8 - NIKON F - $786 (a back up lens)

Plus some throw away kit lenses that I'm assembled over the years covering 18mm-300mm

In regards to megapixels, its a lot of hype, but it also depends on what you are shooting. If I need something that will be blown up in the 40"x40" range, my 12mp will get the job done, but you'll defnitely see some quality issues up close. Also, in a lot of product photography they want ridiculous detail, so thats also where some of these high mp range cameras come into play.

[Waldo]

Canonite here - I just upgraded my Rebel XT to a T2i. It's not the best camera out there but it more than meets my needs and the price was right. I wholly agree with the 8mp thing, but people want to walk around with pro gear so it drives the market. Glass is the real kicker though. I could drop $2000-3000 right now and only moderately cover the ranges I want....it'd be fun though

I'm still rolling with my XT.

Though I've got a 17-40 f/4L on it and have a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, and 50MM f/1.8 for use as needed, though they are rarely ever needed.

(my lens set is complete garbage compared to above, though the 17-40 takes amazing pics IMHO...)

[scotticus]

I'm still rolling with my XT.

Though I've got a 17-40 f/4L on it and have a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, and 50MM f/1.8 for use as needed, though they are rarely ever needed.

(my lens set is complete garbage compared to above, though the 17-40 takes amazing pics IMHO...)

I had a great copy of that lens too. Definitely a great piece of glass!

[ajdelaware]

I have the nikon version of the nifty fifty. People rant and rave about it, but I can't tell you the last time if left my case. I mean bang for your buck its the best fast lens you can buy, but I think I have a fear of prime lenses.

[Waldo]

I have the nikon version of the nifty fifty. People rant and rave about it, but I can't tell you the last time if left my case. I mean bang for your buck its the best fast lens you can buy, but I think I have a fear of prime lenses.

It was what I learned with (the Canon version). I just got a body and my 50 when I got my SLR, a pretty solid majority of my first 10K pictures were taken with it. Its a little beat up nowadays, I can't remember the last time it was on the camera. Can't beat IQ for price though. Its sharp but I think the shots are a little blah (guess the 17-40 spoiled me, that thing takes nuclear shots contrast/saturation-wise).

In the future I think that I'll buy mostly primes. I do want a 100mm macro or 70mm macro at some point. I find with zoom lenses, I more or less use them as if they are 2 primes in one lens. Rarely am I ever using anything other than the extreme ends of the spectrum.

[ajdelaware]

At one point I was toying with the idea of switching to all primes, but the thought of missing something at a wedding because I can't get to the right lens/position fast enough scares me, even with being able to have a different length on each body.

[KillerGriller]

My first camera & lens - was a Minolta Maxxum 7000i with a 50mm 2.8. I continually went back to that lens simply because it was faster and much sharper than my zooms. Also, I'm the type of shooter that doesn't mind running/moving positioning to get the shot I want so being restricted by non-zoom thing didn't bother me so much. Love the Nifty Fifty.

In regards to megapixels, its a lot of hype, but it also depends on what you are shooting. If I need something that will be blown up in the 40"x40" range, my 12mp will get the job done, but you'll defnitely see some quality issues up close. Also, in a lot of product photography they want ridiculous detail, so thats also where some of these high mp range cameras come into play

Of course, but how often does an amateur shooter blow up anything past 8x10? The majority of buyers go big MP because they want to keep up with the pros, or they use it as measuring stick for quality when they don't know what they are looking for. "A healthy balance of the Rich and Ignorant"

[Waldo]

The majority of buyers go big MP because they want to keep up with the pros, or they use it as measuring stick for quality when they don't know what they are looking for. "A healthy balance of the Rich and Ignorant"

It is a case of the latter not the former.

You can't sell IQ in an advertisment. While most people can ID a fantastic picture, very few can tell the difference between camera derived IQ in the lens/megapixels sense. What makes a picture fantastic is not the pixels or lens, it is the lighting of the scene. Most people don't realize the perception of sharpness has little to do with actual sharpness, and everything to do with microcontrast, whether a native quality in a lens or added via a software algorithm, either way merely an enhancement of the scene lighting.

Personally the most pixels I "need" on 99.999% of my shots is 2.074 MP, the number found in a 1080P monitor. That other small fraction never gets printed larger than 8x10 in a photoperfect way (I have one much larger on a canvas, however the printing method doesn't require high IQ, the pixels bleed so to speak, making more of a painting), and for 8x10, 8 MP is good enough.

I've got 4 TB of drives jam packed with RAW files (I never toss my negatives). I shudder to think how much mroe space I would need were I to ugrade to a 20+ MP camera.

[ajdelaware]

The majority of people never print in the first place! I can't tell you the last time I've printed an image that wasn't for a client or for business reasons. Companies should just sell cameras optimized for facebook output (some are actually!).

I swithc back and forth between raw and jpeg, depending on what I'm shooting. Wedding formals? RAW. Wedding reception? JPEG.

Also...I got new lighting gear last week, going to try it out tonite. Got a couple of strip boxes...going to throw them up tonite and see what falls out.

[Rosie]

I'm a proper nikon girl with the humble d40 that I started out with about 5 years ago! Currently saving up for this mothafudger though:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/78159/show.html

well I'll save up the £950 and see whats on offer on the market but I really really want a Nikon DSLR that does HD movies too. Considered switching to Canon as they are more affordable (especially as my boyfriend works for them and can get a discount) but I just cant bring myself to do it! Only 9 months to pay off my current credit card bill and that baby is mine!

[KillerGriller]

The majority of people never print in the first place! I can't tell you the last time I've printed an image that wasn't for a client or for business reasons. Companies should just sell cameras optimized for facebook output (some are actually!).

I swithc back and forth between raw and jpeg, depending on what I'm shooting. Wedding formals? RAW. Wedding reception? JPEG

Ditto. I used to shoot RAW for everything, then realized the futility in it. I still shoot RAW when I'm seriously shooting, but 75% that's not the case.