DSLR

[Dune]

I sent it in, but they couldn't clean it. PS is easier indeed!

[matrix2003]

I had the same issue with my old Canon. Had to Photoshop out the same spot on every frame. Especially sky shots.

[inkydigit]

@matrix ...did you make an action for it?
I have had issues like this before, even pre digital camera era... batch process time! )
J

[Dune]

You can't really batch that, can you? Depends on where you need to clone it away from.

[PabloMack]

I know I'm late on this thread. My one and only true DSLR is a Pentax K-x. This is the camera I use in the studio for taking texture shots. What I like about Pentax over Nikon or Canon is that the lens motors and image stablization are in the body instead of every lens. You only pay for it once instead of buying it over again for every lens. This means the lenses are more compact and less expensive. I have a relative that has a Nikon and the lenses seem very bloated and bulky. Also, Pentax camera bodies take almost all Pentax lenses made over the past 50 years. These include the old film SLR lenses. Not so with Canon or Nikon. Unless you are a pro, I highly recommend Pentax if you are looking for a DSLR.

My other camera is a Fujifilm HS20. It is mirrorless but it has a 30X zoom range. Gone are the days of having to change lenses in the field. This camera also can take 360° panarama shots as well as HDRI and are processed in-body. It also takes video at 1080p 16:9 widescreen format. When you do video a mirror is useless anyway. This camera also uses standard AA batteries so they are easy to obtain when travelling. I use NiMH batteries and take a charger when on the road. The downside is that video uses battery charge very fast. But you can take a lot of stills on a charge.

I have two JVC camercorders that have CCD instead of CMOS sensors. CCD's are necessary if you ever want to do motion tracking on the videos you take. CMOS sensors are horrible for tracking moving objects because of their "rolling shutters".

[Upon Infinity]

I bought into the 4/3 system myself.  Olympus OM-D E-M5.  Mirrorless, compact system camera, pro quality.  Flickr feed here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94046993@N08/

[yossam]

Some really nice photos..................

[PabloMack]

I bought into the 4/3 system myself.  Olympus OM-D E-M5.  Mirrorless, compact system camera, pro quality.  Flickr feed here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94046993@N08/

Rationale for the 4/3 system(s) is(are) very appealing. I am still drooling over the Lumix GH3 and wish I had a rich uncle who would give one to me. It has a wonderful time lapse capability that would add something new to my photography arsenal. But from what I read, 4/3 is not standardized between manufacturers as well as you would expect. The real beauty of 4/3 is that it provides enough space to accommodate an adaptor for any (D)SLR lens that has ever been on the market. But it comes at the price of automatically having a 2X magnification effect when using full frame lenses. That is not good news if you are wanting a wide angle shot. What I find frustrating about mirrorless cameras is that you can never be as sure of a good focus as you can with an SLR. Different models have different mechanisms for using their limited view finder LCDs that inherently lack the resolution needed for obtaining precise focus. If you trust your camera's autofocus, that's one thing, but very frequently, especially in low light situations, I would have gotten a great picture but the autofocus on a mirrorless camera had no clue how much in focus the subject I wanted to be in focus was indeed in focus. Mirrorless cameras have ruined a lot of my otherwise good pictures. Your subject can be a little out of focus and it will still looks in focus on that little LCD. Those cameras that magnify the center of your image to let you see a blowup so that you can tell better what you are doing when using manual focus are a mixed blessing. More often than not, I completely lose track of what the camera is aiming at and my time window of opportunity closes before I can frame, focus and snap a shot. You really need to mount your camera on a tripod to use that feature. The best system I have seen for manually focusing with a mirrorless camera is what is called "focus assist". It is on both of my JVC camercorders so the feature is usually not available on DSLRs. The way it works is that, when in "focus assist" mode, the picture becomes monochrome but you get some blue edging for areas that are in sharp focus. This allows me to continuously maintain good framing of the picture while simultaneously being aware of what parts of the image are in sharp focus. I wish I had this feature on my Fujifilm HS20. Olympus makes some excellent pocket point and shoot cameras and I almost always get a good picture with that one. But its autozoom only goes to 3X. The more telephoto you go the more you need good focus. And when you have a frame with a lot of depth of field and you want to use bokeh, manual focus becomes important.

[Upon Infinity]

I've heard a lot of arguments against the 4/3 system, some good, some not so much, but focus has never been one of them.  Focus-assist or focus peaking is available on all the new micro 4/3 cameras, although not the gh3.  Practice manual focusing and a large lcd screen might help in this area.  The reason most dslr's do not have this feature is because of the mirror, coupled with the optical view finder (as opposed to an electronic view finder).

The 2x crop factor is both a blessing and a curse, depending on your point of view.  This might only affect people who use legacy glass with an adapter on a 4/3 camera and shoot wide angle.  But there are plenty of dedicated m43 lenses that are available and for a relatively decent cost that will cover the wides,  all the way down to the 7.5mm fisheyes.  Shooting telephoto or wildlife will obviously benefit from the crop factor. 

Typically, the arguments against 4/3 are resolution of the "small" sensor and lack of depth of field control (the 2x crop factor also includes doubling the depth of field, relative to a 35mm camera).  The resolution arguments are pretty much invalid with the new generation of sensors.  The out-of-the-camera jpeg's coming out of the e-m5 are very impressive.  Which leaves lack of depth-of-field control.  Admittedly, it will never be as thin as a 35mm-sized sensor, but it is still possible to achieve with the right lenses.  There are numerous f1.8 lenses available and some f0.95 lenses if you have the cash that will help achieve thin DOF.  Personally, I think overdone DOF effects are a crutch used by bad photographers, but to each their own.

The real benefits of m43 is the high quality coupled with take-anywhere portability.     With photography, it all comes down to a game of trade-offs.  Know the weaknesses of each system and accept and work around them.

[PabloMack]

I've heard a lot of arguments against the 4/3 system, some good, some not so much, but focus has never been one of them. 

Manual focus is not my argument against 4/3. It is my argument against mirrorless when taking stills. But all 4/3 cameras are mirrorless. You have some good points, though.

I agree that using a 4/3 lens on a 4/3 camera body would double the depth of field as compared to a comparable 35mm lens and a 35mm body. But using a 35mm lens on a 4/3 camera body gives you the same depth of field as you would have if you had used the same lens on a 35mm camera body. But it comes at a cost of 2X magnification because you are only using 1/4 of the image area.

[Upon Infinity]

I've heard a lot of arguments against the 4/3 system, some good, some not so much, but focus has never been one of them. 

I agree that using a 4/3 lens on a 4/3 camera body would double the depth of field as compared to a comparable 35mm lens and a 35mm body. But using a 35mm lens on a 4/3 camera body gives you the same depth of field as you would have if you had used the same lens on a 35mm camera body. But it comes at a cost of 2X magnification because you are only using 1/4 of the image area.

I don't believe that that is true.  The light physics work the same regardless of what the lens was designed for.  The only difference between the lenses is the size and area covered, except with a 35mm lens the area covered is simply discarded.  My Oly 45 1.8 still is a 45 1.8 but the 35mm equivalent is a 90 mm lens with the light gathering ability of 1.8 aperture but with a 3.6 DOF.  Conversely, my 50mm 1.8 Nikon lens will function as a 100mm 1.8 light gathering, but 3.6 DOF.

[PabloMack]

I think it is true. "Absolute Depth of Field" comes from the effective diameter of the lens, not the size of the sensor. "Out of focusness" due to a narrow depth of field is caused by the paralax seen from the incident light entering the different parts of the front of the objective lens. That's why bokeh decreases (i.e. increase the depth of field) when you close down the diaphragm. A point-sized lens diameter can not produce any bokeh at all regardless of the size of the sensor (but your light collecting ability converges to zero). It is the outer rim of the lens that contributes the greatest paralax. When you use a smaller sensor on the same lens, it is looking at the *exact same image* as when you look at it with a larger sensor (given that the diaphragm is open the same amount). You are just cropping the edges away with the smaller sensor. But it is the same image so all characteristics of the image have to be the same including "absolute depth of field". Granted, if you blow the image up with the 2X effect by virtue of using a half-sized (per dimension) sensor, you can argue that "relative depth of field" is changed. By "absolute depth of field", I mean the physical distance (in Z dimension) between objects you are photographing. By "relative depth of field" I mean apparent distance (in Z dimension) between objects relative to field of view. When you magnify bluriness, it becomes more blurry.

Many disagreements like this come from the different parties defining or using their terms differently or having different assumptions. That may be all this is. I had a disagreement with a second-cousin-in-law about what "Depth of Field" means. What he was calling "more depth of field" I was calling "less depth of field". The misunderstanding came from bokeh becoming more intense as the physical Z-distance from the focal plane where objects are considered to be in focus is narrowed. When he said "more depth of field" he meant "more bokeh effect" and this actually means decreasing the depth of field. I was using the term the way physicists would use it and he was using the term the way artists often use it. It is no wonder why they often don't understand each other.

[Upon Infinity]

Yes, in the technical sense, you are right.  The DOF does not change depending on what camera the lens it mounted, nor does the lens change the way it transmits light.  It's just what I'm saying is is a 50mm 1.8 lens will function the same that a 100mm 3.6 lens will function on a 35mm camera.  The conversion still applies whether or not the lens was designed for the 4/3 system or not.  If you can provide me with a link that says otherwise, I'd be happy to take a look at it.  Otherwise, why wouldn't m43 lens manufacturers simply design lenses for a 35mm sensor area to get around that limitation?