Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I also have the Olympus E-500. People are amazed by some of the shots I can capture with that thing. It's been a great camera for me. I take approx. 300 pics a week!
300 per week?? You must have a massive hard drive!
A few weeks ago, a local band asked me to do a photo shoot. We went to this abandoned ranch, complete with rusty silos and scaffoldings. We all sat around after to look at the pics and were also amazed by the quality that this camera can provide. I used to use a lot of the auto settings, but I've learned how to manually operate the camera a bit more and some of the photos turned out with gorgeous colors, lighting and crispness.
I also take a lot of pics of nature, and the color variations astound me sometimes.
OK another question. I know most companies make their image stabilization into the lens, but the Minolta Maxxum D5 and the Olympus E-510 has it in their bodies. What are your thoughts on the Konika/Minolta offerings and the different approach to stabilization?
I prefer the stabilization mode in the lens instead of the body. If one lens fails, i still can use the other lenses, although that makes the lens more expensive.
I like the idea of having it in the body but there are pros and cons. On the pro side you change bodies more frequently than lenses which makes it easier and less expensive to get the latest generation of stabilization. On the con side you make the body more fragile and damage to the stabilization system may make the camera completely unusable. If it's in the lens you can always switch to a different lens.
At any rate, so far the ones in the bodies have been less effective than the mature designs from manufacturers who put it in their lenses. I'm sure that will change in the next few years but until then I wouldn't make that one of my main criteria for choice.
300 per week?? You must have a massive hard drive!
.
I take that many or more every time I go out but it doesn't mean I keep a third of them.
If you use the burst (may be called different things by different camera brands, I don't know) feature of your camera when you photograph moving objects/people/animals/birds, it's easy to run up the photo count because every time you press down on the shutter you are running off 3 - 5 photos in fast sequence. You know, if the bird/animal doesn't move, you've got 2 - 5 photos that are practically the same and all but one can be deleted even while they're still in the camera
I take that many or more every time I go out but it doesn't mean I keep a third of them.
I'm right there with you on that, Laura, though mine is spread out over the week. Especially with Project 365. I think I took about 50 pictures yesterday, and only kept about 10.
I take that many or more every time I go out but it doesn't mean I keep a third of them.
Same here. I do macro photography and on a good day, I may have 10 keepers out of every 100 or so photos I take. Such is the life of a macro photographer.
Same here. I do macro photography and on a good day, I may have 10 keepers out of every 100 or so photos I take. Such is the life of a macro photographer.
I hear ya. I don't have enough time anymore, but I used to have a photo blog when I was finishing my degree and so I was taking a lot of photos every day too. Now, I take photos when I can, but I agree with your method. I took over 700 when I did the band photo shoot a few weeks ago. That's one of the reasons I love having a digital SLR
Do either of you have a photo blog? If not, you should so I can see the photos you take (unless they're personal). I love photo blogs because it's a kind of slice of life, even if they're all flower photos. You can see the world through someone else's eyes for a moment.
I'm happy to share mine, but are we allowed to link it?
I think so, as long as it's not a spam (I asked for it) I didn't see anything in the terms saying you can't post a link to a personal site or space, as long as you're not advertising something. Since it's on topic, I would think it's ok?
I would stay away from Minolta since the company went out of business in early 2006.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
