On 3/7/2013 9:37 PM, Moose wrote:
> ...
> I'm not quite sure what you really want in this proposed camera for your
> horse's purse. :-) Marnie's horse and your
> purse? Marnie's purse and your ...
>
> ... That's one way to go - the other is µ4/3. The Panny's are out for me.
> They were already not appealing, and the
> news that their shutter blur is worse than the Olys, even before the Oly
> anti-shock fix, and with no fix as yet, has
> ruled them out for now.
>
> I know you have reservations about the Panny 14-42 X, and the reviews are
> confusing, with SLRGear saying it's better
> than all the rest of the 14-4x lenses and Castleman not much impressed on a
> GX1, and finding it poorer than the old
> 14-45. BUT, for a compact alternative to the above fixed lens compacts, I
> think it's the only real game in town. Even
> the collapsing (and that's a little bit of a pain) Oly 14-42 is huge in
> comparison.
>
> An E-PM1 with 14-42 X is a truly compact combo. It looks like they would fit
> in the belt case I've used for the G11.
Nope, not quite. Yes, whatever is driving Moose's Pen experiment has resulted
in E-PM1 and Panny 14-42 X lens arriving
from different original owners (along with the 15/8 'lens cap' lens)
The combination won't quite fit in my old belt case, but it's more due to
different shape than overall size. An
interesting discovery, for someone taking the kind of trips you guys do, is
that it fits quite nicely in an OtterBox
2500. So it could be perfectly safe and dry while rappelling down waterfalls,
crossing streams at a gallop, and so on. :-)
AND, should one, like the Moose, happen to have the Panny 20/1.7, both lenses
fit cozily in the OtterBox, one on the
camera, and one beside the lens on the camera. This would be a great combo of
IQ, focal range and speed for anyplace wet
and/or dangerous where a more capable camera lens kit isn't practical.
> There are compromises in zoom speed and range, and it might drive someone who
> needs lots of external controls a bit
> batty, but it whups the compacts in IQ, and has the ISO capability, compared
> to them, to make up for a slower lens.
I've only taken a handful of shots with them so far. It's immediately apparent
that, with the Oly anti-shock at 1/8 sec.
it makes nice, sharp images, at least in the central portion, at various focal
lengths and shutter speeds.
For shooting mostly AF and Aperture Priority, I so far find the limited
controls just fine.
I've been using it with the movie record button set for AF<=>MF and Focus
Assist set, so adjusting MF magnifies the LCD
image. That's a bit dodgy, as the lens doesn't have a focus ring, and letting
go pushing of the focus tab one way or
another drops out of magnify.
I'm now going to try it whit the movie button set to Magnify and focus set to
allow manual adjustment after half press
AF. Or I can set full MF in the SCP. I think that's going to work better for me.
You're not going to find me doing long end edge sharpness tests, as I so seldom
shoot things where that matters.
>
> Compared to the Sony and Oly compacts, I think the 24 mm wide end is a plus,
> while cropping a 4/3 sensor from 84 to
> their 100-112 mm eq. long ends will still probably be better in IQ.
>
> IF, and I suppose that's still a big if, one then goes E-M5, lens sharing,
> back-up, etc. are pluses.
>
> Multi Permutative Moose
Still Futzing Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|