Thanks for the great feedback. We'll see how Moose's compares. But it
looks like maybe I should hold onto the 5D for some uses if I decide to
get an E-M5.
I liked the 135mm 1:1 crop. Looks good.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/5/2012 12:04 PM, Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:
> 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,
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|