Hi all,
First, a big THANK YOU to you all for the warm welcome!
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Welcome back and tell us more about your E-M5. What you like and also
>what you don't and why.
Let's go! I'm currently visiting dad and I don't have the camera with me,
just the X100... but I'll try to remember from these intense weeks'
experience ;-)
What I like:
+Excellent sharpness and detail... from RAW files (I use ACR 6.7). See an
actual-pixel crop of the moon, taken with just a 135mm lens: <
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/7664948666/sizes/o/>
+Decent High ISO performance, basically on par with the Fuji X100. The
Oly's ISO is "real", while the X100 is overstated by a stop, thus in
practice are comparable. It's a "fine", tight-grain-like noise (reminds me
of Kodak T-Max P3200) very monochromatic and scales down very well.
+Nice ergonomics, despite feeling a bit small in the hand -- consequence of
being almost a scaled-down classic OM. However I can manage even with *big*
lenses, like the Canon FD 400/4.5: <
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/7620777258/>
+Highly effective in-body Image Stabilizer... which is also avaliable for
adapted lenses, even during preview -- helps focusing those lenses a lot!
+Excellent Electronic Viewfinder, detailed, with fast refresh and
surprisingly useable in bright light! Allows previewing clipped
highlight/shadows BEFORE the exposure.
+Built-in diopter adjustment with ample range, and adequate eye-relief
+Very good rear screen (OLED), tilting -- not fully articulated, but it's
better than nothing.
+Two command dials, very close each other but with distinct feel and placed
at different heights, easy to maneuver. Highly configurable, I've set exp.
comp. where it should be on the OM-2 ;-)
+Reasonably quiet shutter with very little lag -- alas, no electronic first
curtain :-(
+LiveBulb & LiveTime are not as "gimmick" as they might seem... despite
their limitations, for us astrophotographers they can save a lot of time
and battery!
+Extremely configurable interface...
Now the things I don't like... some items are related to good things above
-- the other side of the coin:
-Low quality JPEG output, at least on the sharpness/detail side. _NO_
in-camera lateral-CA correction :-( and sharpening is very coarse, and the
'Noise Filter' is highly destructive on detail, even if set to 'Off'...
OTOH, the JPEG's colours and tonal scale are very nice so, if ultimate
detail isn't needed, I usually prefer the JPEG output to ACR's default
rendering.
-Build quality doesn't feel as good as I'd expect for this price... I know
the M8 and X100 have set a very high treshould to me, but even the GF1
looks better.
-Fastest AF in its class? Maybe with the kit 12-50 zoom (which I don't
have) but with my Panasonic lenses (14/2.5 and 45/2.8, both IF) it doesn't
seem any faster than the GF1. In fact, it looks much "clumsier". It does
well in low light, though... as long as the subject has clear, *high*
contrast and properly (vertical!) oriented.
-In a way, it's "way too much" configurable... sometimes very complex, and
sometimes pretty limited by a set of pre-built settings.
-Eyepiece optics are not very good, with CA at the corners and a "tilted"
plane of focus, plus some evidence of flare.
-Not as infuriating as the X100, but metering is SLOW -- an issue to be
solved on EVIL cameras. Unlike the GF1, upon a _sudden_ light change it
doesn't wait for the metering to stabilize -- it will shoot as soon as the
button is pressed, at the risk of a wrong exposure. Light metering _range_
isn't that great either, more than a stop _worse_ than the GF1... and about
TEN stops worse than the OM-2n :-(
-Minimum ISO 200 plus max. shutter speed of 1/4000 means I can't shoot the
APO-Telyt 180/3.4 on sunny-16 scenes wide open -- its optimum aperture!
-The combo "video + IS + adapted lens" is NOT allowed -- pick two :-(
Anyway, since this is intended for some "specialized" tasks, the advantages
outweigh the flaws, thus the veredict (for me) is clearly positive.
From: usher99@xxxxxxx
>......>>but my eye is on that 12-35/2.8 ;-)
>
>Review from FM member:
>
><http://admiringlight.com/blog/panasonic-lumix-12-35mm-f2-8-x-review/>
Thanks for the link! More or less what I was expecting... good!
>Not sure about it given the price.
But compared to APS-C equivalents (eg. Nikon DX 17-55/2.8) this one is much
less expensive (little more than half the price) and 2.5 times lighter!
>If purchased as secondary smaller
>very high quality kit, 12-50 and a few primes makes more sense to me;
As a kit lens, the 12-50 is much less expensive than purchased separately,
but... f6.3? Not for me! ;-) The slowest zoom in my "stash" is 3.8-4.5 (an
old Tamron 75-250)
I've been always looking for a truly "universal" wide-to-tele zoom. I had
these requirements for it:
-Reasonable size and weight (<500 g)
-Fast enough (2.8 or, at most, around 3.5 -- better if constant)
-High picture quality, especially wide-open.
-Adequate range, covering at least up to 75 degrees (the 35-x zooms on film
are more like a "variable standard" to me)
So far, no lens has satisfied _all_ of these requirements... but the Panny
12-35 is the FIRST one to do it! Thus, it must get my "vote" ;-)
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|