Yes, I've begun to think very hard about my quest for another full frame
camera... as in: why do I still need one? The OM-D already has more
pixels than my 5D. I've wanted ISO with 2 stops beyond the 5D's 3200
and the OM-D gives me 3. I've wanted in-body IS. It's there. I
haven't wanted to spend money on a new set of lenses but the price of
the body alone puts me $2,000 ahead which could be spent on lenses.
When I bought the 5D its primary purpose was to be able to focus and
take good photos in dark, wedding reception dance halls and the like. I
don't do that stuff any more. I'm much more concerned about landscape
photos these days and maybe some macro. I need depth of field. You get
it with short focal lengths.
I'm slowly talking myself into it. The problem is I've never seen one
and am unlikely to see one without making a 100 mile (or longer) trip to
some place where there's an actual camera store. Then I read unnerving
reviews such as this from the TOP link you posted on Ctein's review of
the X-Pro-1.
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/07/x-pro1-sucks.html>
About 1/3 of the way down the page is this from Bill O'Brien
--------------------------------------------------------------------
...Be careful of the OM-5, I have one and am kinda sorry I spent the
money, files are great, getting there is not. Things you really want to
do are buried in a menu structure designed by a team of people that
never used a camera for anything but "snapshots".
Even if you stay with the present selections a much better navigation
system is needed. Nothing gets done fast and the path to the desired
function is not obvious. UI is not good.
Kinda reminds me of the government, they will do anything for you if you
know how the find you way thru the web, people that design the system
never have to use it to do any real work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll have to re-read DPReview's comments again. I hurried across them
the first time and don't recall comments such as those. But it does fit
my pre-conceived notions (from reading user's manuals) of Oly E-system
menu structures and general difficulty reading and following the manual.
ps: The true horizontal field of view multiplier for 4:3 vs 3:2 isn't
that bad. Use 2.08 rather than 2 (or the inverse, 0.48) and you'll be
very close. But it does take a 10mm lens to equal 21mm. Truly wide
angle lenses are a bit of a problem but I take a lot of panos these days.
Chuck Norcutt
On 7/13/2012 11:47 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 2:23 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Maybe they'll make me a full-frame mirrorless camera.
>
> From a pure IQ standpoint, I'm not sure FF buys anything much
> anymore. I've been looking closely at the studio samples from the
> OM-D. Definitely a step up from not only Oly's previous efforts, but
> compared to the 4/3 and APS-C competition.
>
> If I could figure out a lens combination that suits me, and find a
> little extra kale, I'd be sorely tempted. I do have a little problem
> with 4/3 for real WA. The 2x multiplier approximation doesn't quite
> work the same for horizontal wide AOVs.
>
> I'm currently using a two lens combination, 10-22 and 28-300, that
> covers 16-480 mm eq. It would take three µ4/3 lenses to do that.
>
> Anybody with any experience of the m.14-140mm ? Yeah, I know all the
> cool kids are going with primes, but that's not how I roll. :-)
>
> Pondering Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|