The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Olympus Air

Annna T

Active member
Thanks Anna,

However other Olympus bodies offer WIFI

Indeed and on the DPReview forum they are suggesting that the GM1 might actually be more pocketable than the Air - and cheaper.

I looked at the GM1 and tablet wifi display. What seemed a shame was that the image only covered half the screen - the controls being the other half. I'd not want that. I'd want most of the screen to be the image.

My gut reaction reading these Air posts is that what people like is the fact that the wifi software is almost open source and thus will enable developers to produce variations for people with various needs.

You seriously tempted me to swop my E-M5 for the version 2. But that would simply to get wifi as, for everything else the version 1 does what I want. Now my thoughts are to wait for the Air as I think the software will be smarter and wider ranging.

But thanks for removing my blinkers. That, for me, is what these forums so often can do.

Tony
Check for other cheaper Olympus bodies : other have WIFI and all will offer the same sensor and same AF and AF speed. It may cost you less to keep the E-M5 and get a back up body at reduced price than upgrading your E-M5, especially if the only thing you want is WIFI.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
However other Olympus bodies offer WIFI
...
My gut reaction reading these Air posts is that what people like is the fact that the wifi software is almost open source and thus will enable developers to produce variations for people with various needs.
The E-M1, E-M5II, E-M10, E-P5, E-PMx and later (can't remember which one), and E-PL7 and later all support WiFi in-camera and remote operation using the O.I.Share app, which allows a good deal of settings manipulation and capabilities. It's very easy to use. (I haven't yet used a Panasonic model with WiFi, but from what I've been told their control app is pretty similar.)

The Air is a different order of camera. It is essentially a lens mount (with all control protocols) and sensor, built in battery, and WiFi/Bluetooth interface - all the controls are supplied by the external app. The OA.Central app supports more controls than OIShare does because, well, it has to—it's the only way to control the camera.

Saying the GM5 is almost the same or better ignores the fact that the GM5 is designed to be a standalone camera that can be controlled remotely, where the Air is designed to be an exclusively remote-controlled camera unit. Neither is better or worse; it's just a matter of which one suits what you have in mind to do better.

I think of the Air as a relatively inexpensive, customizable, remote-controlled process camera. The whole point of it is to construct different kinds of equipment configurations and create controller apps that allow it to be used in ways that any standalone camera is awkward at, and conversely the Air will be awkward to use in any standard kind of situation that a standalone camera is designed to excel at.

G
 

4season

Well-known member
Isn't this the new reality: Everything has become an extension of the mobile phone. I feel so out of sync with popular culture by not having mine in my hands at all times, even leaving it behind on more than a few occasions. But lucky me, I've got no less than 2 cameras which can be controlled via mobile device, namely my Sony A7 and my brand-new Olympus TG4!

In a more-perfect world, my phone would do the necessary pairing via NFC, so all I'd have to do is bring phone and camera into close proximity. But as it stands right now, I have to manually switch my old iPhone 4's wifi connection to the camera's network. I see that the Olympus also offers Bluetooth which is certainly a way to get around this bother, but unless BT data transfer rates have improved by orders of magnitude, I'd expect this to be much slower than wifi.

On the other hand, at $299 for Air, they're getting right down into impulse-buy territory aren't they. It'd potentially make a killer microscope camera, replacing specialized Nikon instruments which sell for thousands.

But for me personally, I'm thinking it's a bit like the Lytro camera: Seems like there's potential there, but I'll be darned if I know how to tap into it.
 

henningw

Member
It may not have IBIS, but it does have stabilisation. Sort of. Digital stabilisation.

I'm thinking of using it as a copy camera for digitising slides and negs of 35mm and larger formats. m43 is ideal for that because you can use autofocus, and for most purposes m43 has sufficient quality. My scanners gets very little use now as m43 RAWs are easier to work with than Nikon 5000 or 8000 tiffs, and are produced an order of magnitude faster. Quality is extremely close to that produced by the 5000. In this use the built in battery is of no consequence, as you just plug in the USB charger. Same for the phone , and you can go all day.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Isn't this the new reality: Everything has become an extension of the mobile phone.
...
But for me personally, I'm thinking it's a bit like the Lytro camera: Seems like there's potential there, but I'll be darned if I know how to tap into it.
"The mobile phone," aka: modern "smartphone," is far less a phone than a versatile miniature computer that has extensive communications, imaging, and processing capabilities. So it's a natural fit to the notion of being a mobile, universal communications and control device. Create the peripherals you want, add the control protocol and comm capability, write a little app for the smartphone, and you have a system designed to do a job that you had in mind.

Unlike the Lytro, the Air is still strictured into standard still or motion 2D photographic notions. The Lytro camera is a leap in another direction entirely. Just think of the Air as a camera's hardware capture guts that an external, wireless controller can use to make photographs or movies.

G

- - - Updated - - -

It may not have IBIS, but it does have stabilisation. Sort of. Digital stabilisation.

I'm thinking of using it as a copy camera for digitising slides and negs of 35mm and larger formats. m43 is ideal for that because you can use autofocus, and for most purposes m43 has sufficient quality. My scanners gets very little use now as m43 RAWs are easier to work with than Nikon 5000 or 8000 tiffs, and are produced an order of magnitude faster. Quality is extremely close to that produced by the 5000. In this use the built in battery is of no consequence, as you just plug in the USB charger. Same for the phone , and you can go all day.
That's one of my initial uses for it as well. :)

G
 

4season

Well-known member
I'm thinking of using it as a copy camera for digitising slides and negs of 35mm and larger formats.
That's intriguing: What sort of lenses and light sources do you use for the task? Actually I wonder if M43 or even Nikon 1 might be great picks for this sort of task because of the deeper DOF one typically gets.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
That's intriguing: What sort of lenses and light sources do you use for the task? Actually I wonder if M43 or even Nikon 1 might be great picks for this sort of task because of the deeper DOF one typically gets.
A near-perfect setup:
- Olympus ZD 35/3.5 Macro fitted to MMF-2 mount adapter or Macro-Elmarit-DG 45/2.8, fitted to Air
- Nikon ES-1 slide stage for mounted 35mm slides
- An enlarger film carrier for 35mm or medium format negatives and transparencies, along with appropriate copy stand or tripod *
- Flat panel, color corrected light box for illumination
- iPad mini or iPhone used as controller

* I built a light baffle out of black construction paper when working with the film carrier

I've been using this same setup but with the E-M1 as the process camera. The Air simply makes it a bit simpler and smaller. The film carriers for a Beseler 23C enlarger are nearly perfect for this use, and are readily available in a wide variety of formats from Minox 8x11mm up to 6x9cm. A 35mm negative captures at the full width of the frame at ~1:2 magnification and nets a 14 Mpixel image; a 6x6cm negative captures at ~1:3 magnification and nets a 12 Mpixel image.

An alternative negative capture rig is to use the Leica M-P fitted to a BEOON copy stand. This nets a 16 Mpixel image from 6x6 and 24 Mpixel from 35mm formats.

The tricky one is Minox format. 8x11mm means I use the 35mm lens with 1.4x telextender to net a ~1.3:1 magnification with FourThirds format and a 40mm lens on the BEOON to get similar magnification with the Leica. ;-)

G
 

4season

Well-known member
A near-perfect setup:
Ah. On second thought, I'd better steer clear of this: I can see where a seemingly innocent $299 purchase could quickly morph into a $1500 "project", and I need one of those like I need another hole in my head. :loco: It'd be one thing if I already owned or planned to buy a BEOON and macro lens for M43, but I don't and hadn't.

I haven't shot 8x11 Minox film since I was a kid, but if I can ever find those negatives, I could digitize them with my Olympus TG4! Lousy photos, but they're some of my earliest memories of SF and BC.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
That's the thing ... For me, I have all those bits already so the $300 for a gizmo to put them to use is approachable as "play money."
Still have my Minox cameras, actually have a roll about half-done in the EC at present. :)

G
 

mazor

New member
I personally would prefer to use a descent flatbed scanner with negative and slide scanning capability rather than using a camera (olympus air) to digitize as with a proper scanner, one can extract more detail from the slides.
 
I personally would prefer to use a descent flatbed scanner with negative and slide scanning capability rather than using a camera (olympus air) to digitize as with a proper scanner, one can extract more detail from the slides.
But I want speed rather than detail.

Tony
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I have done number of tests with flatbed scanners, I owned the Nikon 5000 and even the Hasselblad X5 scanner and while IQ might be better from dedicated scanners if you know what you do and how to handle the scanner software, I also very much prefer the workflow of digitizing slides and negatives with a good DSLR or CSC and dedicated macro lenses.

Nothing tops the possibilities you get today when using RAW with either of the modern post processing tools like LR6 or C1Pro8. Dare I say that in my eyes results even already top the ones from dedicated scanners and definitely all works much faster and much more flawless!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I personally would prefer to use a descent flatbed scanner with negative and slide scanning capability rather than using a camera (olympus air) to digitize as with a proper scanner, one can extract more detail from the slides.
From my experience capturing film into digital with flatbed scanners, film scanners, and camera/optical capture, your statement isn't necessarily correct.

- Most flatbed scanners, although they can record higher density pixel counts, have resolution which tops out at around 2400-2900 ppi (Epson V700).
- 4000 ppi film scanners provide the highest resolution capture due to individualized, optimized focusing (Nikon Coolscan V and Super Coolscan 9000) at the trade off of being very slow to operate.
- Doing 1:1 capture with the Leica M-P nets an even larger scan file with 35mm (24 Mpixel vs 21 Mpixel with Coolscan V) and has more dynamic range, the raw files have more adjustability as well.

Capturing with the E-M1 (or by extension the Air) will net results between the M-P and the Coolscan V on 35mm format. For 6x6 format, the Nikon 9000 will produce the most detail and the largest file from 6x6 (83 Mpixel), which is very useful if the goal is to make very large prints. However, that's only very rarely my goal; the largest prints I ordinarily make are 13x19 inch from cropped 6x6cm. Most of my printing is much smaller sizes than that so a 12 Mpixel square image is sufficient for my print needs.

It's all plusses and minuses. I shoot 6x6 for the qualities of the camera/lens/FoV/DoF coupling, not because I'm looking to make enormous prints. If you want very large prints, get a dedicated film scanner or a larger sensor camera with more pixels... :)

G
 

henningw

Member
That's intriguing: What sort of lenses and light sources do you use for the task? Actually I wonder if M43 or even Nikon 1 might be great picks for this sort of task because of the deeper DOF one typically gets.
I use two different setups that I've had for a while. Once is a wall mounted copy stand (Bencher) that has a variable height table and camera holder. It also has arms for lights, and you can take out the table surface for very large stuff on the floor. For transparencies or negatives I put a light source (ColorPro) on the table with a small box that has no top or bottom on that, and a film/slide holder on that. The box is to separate the slide/negative from the light source so I don't get dust from the surface of the light source showing up. My lens of preference is the 45 Macro Elmarit.

I also have an Aristophot setup which is great for smaller items and general micro photography and I have various transmittance and reflectance light sources for that. But it's not as handy for 35mm slides or negatives because it works best with manual focus and the Leica lenses. On the other hand theres's nothing more sturdy and rigid than the Aristophot. On that I have a set of Leica Photar lenses. Putting an m43 camera on the back of that is easy.

m43 is so good for slide digitsing because the autofocus can work, because you're working at 1:2. With full frame cameras autofocus doesn't work because to focus, the camera-subject distance has to change, and moving or focussing the lens does nothing at 1:1. DOF of course is good to have, but f/8 is as small an aperture on m43 that I use. If you're trying to digitise slides without focussing on each one, dof won't cover it and a smaller aperture will result in diffraction losses.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... With full frame cameras autofocus doesn't work because to focus, the camera-subject distance has to change, and moving or focussing the lens does nothing at 1:1. ...
Hmm, I see the focus shift very clearly when using the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 pre-AI along with M-tube and ES-1 slide stage. No AF, of course, but the focus is critical and shifts enough as I turn the focusing ring that I can see it easily with either Nikon SLR optical viewfinder or with the Leica M-P EVF. FourThirds format does make it a lot easier ... more DoF and lower magnification is easier to manage.

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
That's intriguing: What sort of lenses and light sources do you use for the task? Actually I wonder if M43 or even Nikon 1 might be great picks for this sort of task because of the deeper DOF one typically gets.
The best lens for copy work and macro with this camera might be the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 for 4/3. Aside from being a stellar lens in most respects, it can be stopped down almost indefinitely without losing quality to diffraction. Even the dirt cheap Zuiko 35mm f/3.5, also for 4/3, is of great quality.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/35
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
The best lens for copy work and macro with this camera might be the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 for 4/3. Aside from being a stellar lens in most respects, it can be stopped down almost indefinitely without losing quality to diffraction. Even the dirt cheap Zuiko 35mm f/3.5, also for 4/3, is of great quality. ..
I had both, once upon a time. Both are excellent performers.

For flat art work (like capturing negatives or prints with a copystand) the 35 is more useful because you can work closer to the subject plane. With the 50mm, I was always racking the copy stand near to the top of its travel, which has implications on stability. Also, the 35 can be used with the EC-14 teleconverter to achieve 1.4:1 magnification.

When I returned to shooting with Micro-FourThirds, I almost bought another ZD 50mm lens ... but decided on the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45 instead.

G
 
You folk have got me thinking.

I am happy to use my V600 for quality scans but I do want a system that lets me pick up a roll of 35mm and crack it in five minutes.

I have just realised that my Oly 12-40 pro will produce 1:1 images.

I have ordered a cheapo stand from eBay and I have dug out an old transparency viewer box. I plan to put some cardboard guides on the box so I can slide a 6 image 35mm neg through and click on each frame. I like the idea of seeing the frame numbers in my files.

I then will put the images through a Picture Window Pro workflow to convert them to positive and do what needs to be done to rationalise the tones.

The results will not be masterpieces but they will show what negs exist and that is the prime purpose.

Way OT the Air - but if I got one I'd have a neater and even faster system.

Tony
 
Top