You snipped the part where I wrote that the adapter was "free
(mostly)" because I realize that it was not free everywhere.
Nevertheless, it was free in some places. I suspect this was a
decision made by Olympus in each area of the world rather than by
Olympus Japan.
Given your experience with AF and mine (E-1, E-330 somewhat spotty
with 50-200, otherwise good; E-3 FANTASTIC!), I'd say either you are
overly critical or I am not critical enough. Perhaps it is a bit of
both. Every marque has owners who think the AF of their camera is
crap and I'm sure many of them are right. The consumer is part of the
quality control stream, judging from all of the products I have bought
in recent years, many of which have involved my returning them for
repair or replacement.
Joel W.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM, C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> May be not OM exclusively, I planned to use only the Tamron 70-300 (my only
> AF lens for Canon) for stage shots and I may even replace it with Zuiko
> 50-250 (did it on the 40D before).
>
> May be I was unlucky, all Olympus DSLR I owned had AF problem (E-300 was the
> best among all, I should have kept it), the E-1 usually failed at the most
> critical moment (group photo...etc.). For E-3 and E-520, they fail all the
> time.
>
> I hate to rely on AF only, I like to confirm with my eyes. The problem with
> 4/3 is short focal length, you can never confirm focus with the 11-22 at
> wide end even with a good viewfinder.
>
> BTW, we have to pay for the 4/3 adapter, there was no free lunch here.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joel Wilcox" <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>>
>> I don't know a single person who uses OM glass exclusively on a
>> digital body. Obviously, most of us don't really enjoy stop-down
>> metering, etc. This goes for 5D users as well, as far as I can tell.
>> Most people's practice has tended to validate exactly what Olympus
>> said prior to releasing the free adapter! (Ken Norton may be the most
>> notable exception to this, but I think he still uses the 14-54 quite a
>> bit. I'll be interested in his comments.)
>>
>> I still remember how pleased I was with the DZ 14-54. (I still am.)
>> There was no feeling of having dropped off a quality level from the Z
>> 35-80/2.8, which is my main lens in the OM system. Not bad for a kit
>> lens. Small wonder that the novelty, with the exception of a couple
>> special lenses, of the OM adapter passed relatively quickly -- for me,
>> at least -- but I don't think I'm alone in saying this.
>>
>> Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|