We're not even disagreeing Moose. If you recall, it all started with the
rather odd but interesting 15mm f/8 lens, and I merely remarked on the
irony of the unusual aperture, putting it into perspective in terms of
35mm, which really highlights how unusual it is (30mm f/16).
Surprising as it is, I do sometimes use small apertures, but they are
rare indeed. Ironically, some of my best work...
I'm not at all judging your use of small apertures, never have. You
conclude your message with the sort of "agree to disagree" that often
concludes large flame wars like SLR/Rangefinder, Film/Digital, etc. It's
nothing like that, we are 100% in agreement.
Enjoy your travels!
Dawid
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 10:36 -0400, Moose wrote:
> On 9/25/2012 2:39 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 22:46 -0400, Moose wrote:
> >> My problem was that the vast majority of photographers will understand
> >> unmodified comments about f-stops to refer to
> >> lens 'speed', and that's how I understood your comment.
> > That is however not what my comment said - I believe it was completely
> > unambiguous :-)
>
> Well, I've gone back and looked, and you are correct. In my travel addled
> state, I misread it.
>
> > You guys are just too used to bashing from 35mm enthusiasts.
>
> Not sure what you mean here. I've only recently acquired my first µ4/3 gear,
> and have never had any 4/3 gear. My
> experience with the E-M5 agrees with dpreview and DxO. It is fully
> competitive with APS-C and gives away very little to
> FF. I've got all three, and use what I am using through choice.
>
> If there are FF people bashing me for the E-M5, I'm not aware of it. The
> E-PL1 that I got for $0.05 as backup camera
> might deserve it. It's is not a bad camera in IQ, but certainly well short of
> the E-M5, 60D and 5D.
>
> > Since both are miniature formats to me, I happily use them
> > both when required, and have no personal issues about them. Facts are
> > facts.
> >
> >> Even on an MF digital sensor? Isn't even generally true on the 5D, in my
> >> experience. Did you not mean to refer to sensor
> >> size, rather than film vs. digital?
> > I don't believe there is a rectangular sensor array on the market
> > anymore that is of such low resolution to render higher quality images
> > at f/16 than, say, at f/11, unless your lens *really* sucks.
> >
> > I stand by my statements 100%.
>
> I'm on the road, traveling to beautiful places and taking many images a day,
> and will be for almost three more weeks. I
> don't have the time, nor access to the images, to argue with you with
> examples. My experience with the 5D with many
> images taken at both apertures, is that f11 and f16 were essentially
> equivalent, for my subjects and style. Any loss of
> focal plane detail, which I almost never could see at 100% on a 22" screen,
> was offset by gain in DOF.
>
> Given your style, I'm surprised that you have ever shot at f11, let alone
> f16. ;-) But seriously, in most of my
> photography, I am forever looking for more DOF, so I have often shot at both
> f11 and f16, and sometimes also f8 and/or
> f22. At f22, things do really go downhill.
>
> Perhaps we can agree to disagree, and go on taking the images we love with
> the equipment we like, in the way we prefer.
>
> Conciliatory Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|