Break out the T-shirts.
> As all Oly lenses are Zuikos, I presume you mean manual focus, OM mount
> Zuikos. If that's your intent, I really see no
> point either in buying an E-M5 or in looking forward to its successor. It's
> best qualities are really found in
> conjunction with µ4/3 lenses, both Zuikos and some others. It's qualities of
> small size and weight and fast AF are
> wasted on large, heavy, MF lenses, and, as many have noted, the balance is
> off with the larger OM Zuikos.
I REALLY did want the OM-D to work for me, but the ergos were just not
right. Unlike others, things like this bother me. I have no problem
with small and light, but if you can't do the right-hand grip thingy,
then the camera needs to balance in the upturned left hand. With
native m43 lenses, such as the primes, the OM-D feels WONDERFUL.
Legacy OM lenses? Not so much. Just a few ounces of additional weight
or a touch wider body and it would be fine.
> If you like WA, the OM Zuikos are disappointing. Even the lovely, little
> 18/3.5 is 36 mm eq. on 4/3. At the long end,
> the 300/4.5 is vastly larger and heavier than the 75-300 zoom. For those very
> reasons, I've not tried it, but I'm
> willing to bet it's no better optically, and likely a bit worse, than the
> µzoom. The 50/1.4 (or, I suppose, f1.2) is
> nice on an E-M5, for leisurely work.
I like the OMZ 24/2.8 on Four-Thirds, but that only makes it a
"normal" lens. I like the results, though. The longer lenses are
peachy, but not always providing consistent results with how they work
on an OM body. The 100/2.8 is an amazing lens on FF, but the bokeh is
off when used on 4/3. The 200/4, which is a mediocre performer on an
OM body (aperture vibration) is near perfect on 4/3. The 35-80/2.8
zoom which is a miracle worker on FF is still a miracle worker on 4/3.
> If you want a digital back for OM Zuikos, I don't think you can do better
> than a Canon FF body. If you don't need live
> view, the original 5D is wonderful, else 5DII or III or 6D. The lenses are
> designed for FF. Why throw away half the
> image circle you paid for and receive the compromises in central performance
> made by the designers for outer zone
> performance?
EXACTLY! This is why I will forgo any more purchases of cameras that
don't make use of most or all of the designed image area. That 6D is
on my short-list of cameras, but I'm in absolutely no financial shape
right now to get one. Meanwhile, the OM bodies are the cat's meow.
> BTW, the bokeh you admire in these shots is entirely a function of the M.ZD
> 75-300 lens, not the camera.
Exactly. Bokeh is ALMOST all about the lenses and not the cameras.
There is an exception to this, however. Back in the dark ages before
we had 16+ mp cameras, you can get a little bit of interesting
interference pattern between the optical traits of the lens and the
optical traits of the microlenses over the sensors as well as the
anti-aliasing filter. Additionally, since quality bokeh is generally
recognized as having smooth tonal and brightness transitions, you can
get tonal steps in the image file depending on the RAW file conversion
and sharpening. (The Olympus E-1 files are really bad at this with
some RAW converters).
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|