![]() In practice an "image of quality" is a result of knowing how to take a good photo. Now I would preface this by saying that my view of "image quality" is that many people, particularly beginners, tend to make the mistake of thinking of that in terms of pixel level quality or technical tests of particular parameters (like ISO performance). In practice this is not a concern unless you have very demanding needs. If you shoot (at least primarily) in situations where a smaller sensor will work well (and given that size and weight are at an extreme premium for you), it might be worth considering something even smaller than four thirds. That does translate to smaller size and weight though-for example, the Nikon 1 series bodies are around 11 ounces apiece. I believe the Canons use an APS-C sensor (though Canon's version of APS-C is a bit smaller than everybody else's) and the Nikons use one that's substantially smaller (even smaller than four thirds). Canon and Nikon (for the two most obvious possibilities) offer mirrorless cameras as well. 12.4 ounces for the Olympus).Īs a disclaimer: no, I'm not really trying to push Sony in particular-as it happens I own a Sony camera, so I'm a little more familiar with what they offer than the other brands. For one example, the Sony A6300 has an APS-C sensor, but is still very close to the size and weight of the Olympus (12.7 ounces vs. If it were up to me, I'd think hard about a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor. On the other hand, if you were to take some pictures at night by the light of a camp-fire (to give only one obvious example) the differences due to sensor size will be much more noticeable-quite possibly to the point that you want to think hard about the larger sensor. So, if you're mostly taking pictures of the view from a mountain top in broad daylight, chances are that the Olympus will work beautifully (and even the much smaller sensors in most cell phones will also work quite nicely). As the light level drops, however, a large sensor (generally) gains a greater advantage. In particular, with bright light, a smaller sensor makes little or no difference in quality. and are a couple of reputable rental outfits (they do rent cameras as well as lenses).Ī great deal here depends on when you (generally) take pictures. You may want to try renting some equipment so you can really give it a good workout and see how you like it. ![]() For example you have to dig around to get to the place down in the menu where you can aim the camera at a gray card and shoot it to set the white balance - something I do all the time. I have an RX100M2 that I use a lot - great little camera with a not so great menu system. You can get some very nice compact cameras like the little Fujis or Sony RX100 series that fit into a tiny case and take great photos. I would even consider going a notch smaller. The Olympus 60mm macro is a real treat to use, as is the Samyang fisheye (also sold under a few other names mine is Rokinon) that sells for less than $300. One nice thing with Micro 4/3 is some of the specialty lenses you can get for it that are both light and compact and inexpensive too. Do you plan to bring several prime lenses, or just one zoom or two? Even more than the sensor, the glass is what will make the difference.Īnd what's your tolerance for extra bulk and weight vs. One thing I would ask yourself, especially for mountaineering, is what kinds of lenses you plan to carry. (Olympus E-P5, Olympus 75mm f/1.8 lens, crop of JPEG straight from the camera.) You can certainly get some fine shots with a Micro 4/3 camera. But it's in my pocket all the time, and when there is only a moment to grab a shot, there it is. ![]() Some of my favorite photos are shots I've taken with my three-year-old Samsung Galaxy Note 4, a phone with a decent camera but not a spectacular one. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "The best camera is the one you have with you."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |