Look, I don't take photos any more. To go out of my way to buy a micro four thirds camera just to take up your challenge, when I am no longer a practising photographer, is just being childish. It is like a kid asking someone to behave like another kid. What I allude to in "what will the neighbours think......" is more intended for those who are now entrenched in the larger dlsr cameras. It is a teaser. Let us see if you, Cheung, will venture forth to something new like the micro four thirds.
You are on the right track. At least you are not blindly against the concept, except you have reservations on its quality. This is natural because humans do not feel comfortable with the unknown. Let us separate concepts and problems. Problems can be worked on. BTW, Leica is in a way into the four thirds and also micro four thirds lens. Remember, both Nikon and Canon started with copycat lenses and bodies that were sneered at when they first started. The simple slr pentaprism took many years to refine. Just look at the first reflex viewing from Exacta cameras about 70 years ago. All these were huge problems.
that's really ridiculious! u are the only one who say how wonderful the micro forth third is...........without using it! and now u want somebody to put his money and "venture" into it? gosh! u are just great! a real great person/collector/photographer! by the way, your said there were top professionals who took pictures of historical monuments and sights complain about the small size of the 24mm x 36mm sensor or negative as being totally useless for their job. can u tell me who they are now?
A curator friend of mine who was also a keen part time professional photographer with his Leica M4 told me about the use of large format cameras being used to take photos of artifacts and also historical buildings. I have lost touch with him for about 18 years now but he can still be seen at the Sotheby's auction in Hong Kong as a sort of honorable Sotheby regular guest. He left his curator job in China and then came to Hong Kong and went into business to sell both smuggled and fake artifacts to rich Taiwanese. He even had me conned into buying some of his treasures which turned out to be fake, but they were very good fakes with Chinese cups, vases and bowls that were paper thin and really lovely. I guess you can also try to google "Why are large format cameras preferred for artifacts and historical buildings".
If u can tell me earlier. Then I would be able to ask Mr. Kelvin Ching (Sotheby's HK CEO) about the story your old friend and why Sotheby's has treated such person as an honorable Sotheby's regular guest! You know, I just met Mr. Ching few days ago! Don't really need to google it. I know about the advantage of using a view camera on product shooting. But as i said, a real pro will bring the right gear to the right scene to deal with the right situation! Besides, i'd never heard of the term "a keen part time professional whatever"! was he an amateur?
If you looked & searched closely... ..or if you had used the internet you may and could find those photos. Badminton pics in the OG might not be printed on HK's hardcopy newspaper, but they could be available online/on their website. News media in other countries?.. Here, i'll let you check out this media/photo website to see those wonderful pics taken during last yr's OG. And yes, this website is one of a few official press photo agencies in the world. http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/S...8-01&eed=2008-08-30&p=badminton&src=standard# ..if you haven't seen them printed on newspaper, i'm sure you've heard of the internet/online newspaper websites..Now you understand why hardcopy newspapers around the globe are struggling financially if people could just get their news at their fingertips..That's where the photos are being shown.. See above link... ..he could be holding an iPhone or a cell phone..
Thank you Taneepak!! hahahahaha. What you wrote applies directly to yourself. Well done! To be honest, I do not discount the micro four thirds system. I do not think you can a post where I criticise the system. My only point is that you, who states it can be used for badminton photos, should go and prove it. Proof means letting the badminton community see the photo as well.
Perhaps the following may provide some interesting reading : 1. www.four-thirds.org/en/index.html. 2. Google "What are the advantages and disadvantages of micro four thirds for indoor sports photography". It is still difficult to see where digital photography is headed. A move to an open standard is made more difficult by the entrenched positions of the big boys because they have more to lose in an open standard system. Their immense vested interest in their legacy lenses, which are all non-open standard variety, makes it difficult for them to think conceptually of what is the future. Just imagine, if all the current digital formats are open standard systems prices will come down, quality will go up, the fittest will survive, and the greatest innovation in digital photography will ensue. We might even see a merging of still photography and video/movie to a much higher quality level, with its consequential potential as a breeding ground for great movie makers/directors of the future. Maybe a lesson from the film days can provide a useful reminder to manufacturers. The introduction by Kodak of the APS film format with flexibity to select 3 different sizes, APS-C, APS-H, and APS-P, was not a cooperative effort for an open standard but more a Kodak proprietary system to sell their new cameras and new format films. Although other camera manufacturers like Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc., joined in, they did it reluctantly for fear of being left out by coming out with cheapy APS cameras. Film APS never really took off as it was associated with something low end and cheap. Now many manufacturers are using the APS standard that actually has no open standard, not because it is an inherently good concept but more for the simple reason that it was the biggest sensor they could come out with at the beginning. It was a bit like cannibalizing a dying Kodak format and fitting it into their own new digital body. This is a dire sign of a lumbering giant. I expect some thinking outside the box but I see very little.
I mention before. 4/3 is there as new line. Its good option for people who want more photo quality compared to p&s but does not want the bulk of slr. But I don't think it can replace dslr for serious photography especially for sports. Well at least not now. Who knows in future? But the quality I seen from those 4/3 is rather flat.. and also the speed is not there yet. end of day it comes down to price, image quality, performance (example the speed of AF).
Yes, Four Thirds is new, Micro Four Thirds is even newer born only a month or two. BTW, there are more Four Third Cameras that are dslr than there are Micro Four Thirds that are not considered dslr. The term dslr is a name for any digital camera format that uses reflex viewing through one lens with the aid of a mirror box with or without a pentaprism. In the film days we had the TLR, one lens for viewing and another one for taking pictures.
Don't underrate the quality of four thirds. I am sure you may know of some sports or wild life photographers who have been using this system. Someone earlier did post about a professional photographer using Four Thirds for wild life. Internationally acclaimed renowned Japanese widlife or animal photographer Mitsuaki Iwago travels the globe to take wild life. His work has appeared in and on the cover of National Geographic, using Four Thirds. His "weapon" is the Olympus 300mm F/2.8 prime lens, which translates into a 600mm F/2.8 lens in FF "speak". Another renowned photographer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer also uses Four Thirds as a photojournalist. His tools are the Olympus 7-14mm F/4.0 lens and the Olympus 35-100mm F/2.0 lens. With the new Micro Four Thirds they can reduce the weight and size of their already small outfit gear even more, without any change in image quality. Now, just imagine having a Panasonic Micro GF1 with an Micro Olympus 300mm F/2.8 lens or a Micro 35-100mm F/2.0 lens!
Well, we are talking between 4/3 compared to the other dslr.. surely you understand right? or do we really need to be really pedantic here? By the way yes of course I know 4/3 also exist in form of dslr. and.. no, while you quote on me but you have not reply with what I was talking about.. as I mentioned sometime ago in another thread, please reply with something related, it just does not make sense I was talking about A and you reply with B.
Perhaps there should be another thread on this instead : " Which contemporary 'professional digital camera system' will taneepak buy and WHEN will we (if) ever see the photos taken by him using it ? "
I'm waiting to see this too ah you are right! while 4/3 can change the lens but it does not have the mirror box, the pentaprism.
You may want to take some photography lessons on how a camera works. Who says 4/3 cameras do not have a mirror box? Pls name me one 4/3 without one. To help you, here is a clue-there are currently only 3 micro 4/3 cameras without a mirror box or device called a pentaprism or pentamirror, coming to 4 pretty soon. All the others have a mirror box plus a device, some pentaprism, some pentamirror, to put things right like reversing left to right, right to left, and upside down to right side up. Maybe, today's digital gear took awy all the thinking required.
ok, 4/3 dslr has mirror. thus, their size is just slightly smaller than other dslr such as canon and nikon. not pocketable. micro 4/3 is for p&s camera line with interchangeable lenses and also not pocketable too. unless left pocket for camera body, right pocket for 1 lens. 4/3 dslr isnt going to replace canon or nikon system then. micro 4/3 interchangeable lens at normal p&s camera, this one i will buy. if they are still selling at lower end dslr's price, i am not willing to sacrifice the quality over price nor dimension/weight.
I looked at some sites about digital cameras and were truly shocked to find some photographic sites completely misunderstand what is a dslr. The only thing more ignorant that I have yet to see is that a rangefinder is a TLR. Maybe some of these so-called photographic sites have become digital automatic photographers-just press a button and presto everthing is taken care of. Has the digital age in photography dulled our minds? We must never allow that to happen. The photograhpher is the brain, the dslr is just a tool, not the other way.
