Thread: OM-D and Fuji XE1 go live

Yesterday I was at a local gig with my omd + 45mm and xe1 35mm

Gotta some nice photos despite the small venue.
Working with the OMD was a joy , with the XE-1 not so much...
struggled so much with the AF
Though ofc the XE1 high iso is better, but the omd can keep iso much lower...

all photos can be seen at

B Brothers XL - a set on Flickr

OM-D


XE1


OMD


XE1

Nice set!

Oh next time shoot a vid or two of the guys playing, that would be awesome to add to the stills.

Yes but the problem was the space was too limited for that :(
just had to get in front for a few snaps and then leave again

Very nice. I have and love the Fuji X-Pro, but this is the kind of thing that keeps m43 more of a primary go-to system. It can do almost anything well, including low light performances like this. The Fuji is a great quality walk around type of camera and the lenses are nice, but m43 just never lets me down...

-Ray

You know, ray that's my main problem

I have the XE1 with the 18-55, which is a great lens

But i'm always doubting "should I take it ? because I often don't know how fast i'll need to AF or how much people / place there will be and how much time will i have to fiddle with the settings
And OMD can easly be used in P mode and it's will almost always nail the focus (and damn fast) .. Add the fact that it is weatherproof and the splendin touch focus which makes for a system that you'll take with you a lot easier

My rule of thumb is if I'm just going out to take photos of nothing terribly specific (usually a combination of scenics, abstract, and street) I'll generally grab the Fuji (or sometimes just the LX7 if I really want to travel light). Which at this point means the 18mm and sometimes the 35 in low light - I may or may not grow that lens collection or even stick with the X-Pro, possibly moving to the X100s if I decide not to really grow it as a system. I use zone focus for street work and AF speed isn't an issue for the other stuff I do. But if I go out with a specific task in mind, I almost always take the OMD and a specific lens or set of lenses. For family stuff, it's the 45 and 75. For a parade, it's the 14-150, for mostly street shooting I'll generally take the 12, and now that could also be the body cap and/or 17 f1.8. For a concert I'll take the 75mm and maybe something wider for context. For a graduation or baseball game or something, I'll take the 75-300. As a great all around travel kit I'll take two bodies, one with the 14-150 and the other with the 9-18, and a couple of fast primes in the bag for street and low light situations.

The Fuji is an enjoyable camera to use and it's got it's own signature look that I like, so it gets a lot of use. But if I have something I've just gotta nail, I take the Olympus.

-Ray

Originally Posted by Wolf

You know, ray that's my main problem

I have the XE1 with the 18-55, which is a great lens

But i'm always doubting "should I take it ? because I often don't know how fast i'll need to AF or how much people / place there will be and how much time will i have to fiddle with the settings
And OMD can easly be used in P mode and it's will almost always nail the focus (and damn fast) .. Add the fact that it is weatherproof and the splendin touch focus which makes for a system that you'll take with you a lot easier

When I first acquired the OM-D, I hard similar reservations but between my 1D's and OM-D's. Now I have gained so much confidence in the OM-D performance that my FF's are collecting dust. (I recently gave one away to my daughter.)

After reading Ray's comments I realized how differently Ray and I shoot. For Ray, physical action(s) of capturing an image is equally as importnat/enjoyable to Ray as the presentation of his images. Different cameras bring different working elements to the actual physical capture, hence, different enjoyments. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, horses for courses, but it does explain why so many people have some my different camera systems but shoot essentially the same subjects and style. I now sorta get it.

For me, nothing matters but the final image. When I arrive at a venu, I size it up, mentally I find the story I desire to tell/capture ... then I figure out my camera position(s), lens(es), settings and I pre-visualize in my little pea-brain the final image I desire. There, I'm done ... the actual physical part of shooting that image is redundant, almost boring because I've already mentally captured the exceptional image, the defining moment. Back in post, comparing what I captured to my mental pre-visualization is when I find my rewards and satisfaction. The closer my captured image is to my pre-visualized imaged the greater my personal satisfaction.

Of course with any evolving story, (a non-sedentary subject is an evolving story), the defining moment ... the exceptional image will also evolve heightening the challenge.

Gary

PS- Disclaimer for any who may interpret my comments as an attack against Ray: I love Ray's images. Ray knows I love his stuff. We just see the world differently. This world of photography, that we all enjoy, is so vast that there is plenty of room for different perspectives.
G

Nice images but it is interesting that I still have the opposite impression, I do not find the omd much better at locking on af but instead much better with slow shutter speeds because of the image stabilization system.
As of this weekend
I have already sold off over half of my OMD stuff, keeping one body 3 or 4 lens as I shoot more with the Fuji

The camera does not make the image. Any "shortcoming" a camera is perceived to have, the photographer learns to compensate for--AF, shutter lag, AE lag, the button you keep pressing with your nose, whatever it is. I have been doing that all my career. The camera does set the tone of how you work and will either add or subtract from that. It does not mean that the camera is effortless--I shot a series of portraits with a Linhof view camera and MFD back where I had to guess framing and focus because you cannot keep using the ground glass (I did have an DSLR at the time which would have been "easier."

Personally, the one quality I have found that kills photography in a camera is convenience. If a camera is simply convenient and easy, I simply get lazy. It is the best way to make boring pictures.