Hi Moose,
> An alternate report.
An alternate attachment :)
<http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=6243>
> Ah, we are all so different. I quite like the way it fits/works in my hands.
I have long fingers, designed for reaching cables behind
comm's racks, and clearing jammed notes in ATM's, and
um, other things :)
> So different again. I have no interest at all in a grip, let alone one that
> costs
the earth, considering what it is -
> and defeats a major attraction of the E-M5 -for me.
I agree with not wanting to get the grip but I wasnt
expecting it to be so bad to keep a hold of. Without the
grip I can see myself dropping it, to many times :(
> > The E-Zoom/M-Zoom ring gets me all the time,
> > I prefer manual zoom but everytime I touch the
> > lens the zoom ring push's out to the E-Zoom position.
>
> That almost never tricks me anymore. I think I may unconsciously apply
slight backwards pressure when I grab the zoom
> ring. I could do entirely without the power zoom, but am able to ignore it.
I'm sure I'll get use to it as well, just not sure if I'll give
it the time. Apart from the zoom switching and the length
it's a lense I could certainly get to like but not for something
I want to keep handy while I'm out and about.
> > It will take a while to get use to that, I do like the
> > macro but in hindsight I think I should have got the
> > 14-42mm lense.
>
> In addition to the lack of both long and short FL range and close focus, it's
not that much smaller than the 12-50 -
> when extended. It is lighter. After the first use of the day or place, I'd
> have
it extended all the time.
ok, think I'd have to compare them in a shop, it looks suitably
smaller on the oly site.
> > ... The over/under exposure
> > blotchs make the electronic viewfinder worth it but it
> > would still be nice if the viewfinder was higher
> > resolution, livable though.
>
> I have found that I can generally focus manually accurately with it, and
that's all I really need. Higher res would be
> nice, but isn't necessary for me.
I tried the 50/3.5 with the Oly/43's and MMF3 adapter tonight,
I was able to focus manually a lot quicker and accurately than
I was expecting even with the 3.5 stopped down one stop.
The 35-80/2.8 is also a joy to focus, and it certainly looks
serious but it makes the E-M5 a bit 'unbalanced' when
hand holding for some reason.
I like the infocus square that pops up to, maybe I have
spoken to soon..
Looks like the E-M5 is going on another outing when the
sun comes out, it might yet find a place on my users shelf
after all with manual OM len's. I should have bought the
OM-m43 adapter instead, maybe..
I think I'll leave the 4/3's stuff for the 4/3's bodies, though
I will give the 12-60 another shot when the suns out and
the rain stops. I couldnt handle it though if it keeps focus
hunting the way it was yesterday. I didnt try it with
manual focusing, so thats something else I'll have to
try as well.
<snip>
> > Hint, I glued a rubber tab onto the USB cover so I
> > nolonger have to keep moving the screen out to open
> > the rubber cover.
>
> Long, strong thumbnail here. :-) And I seldom have occasion to open it.
I've seen to many socket faults, when the rubber tab eventually
falls off, I think I'll get a knife and carve a little cresent
shape in the rubber so I can pull it out with my chewed
finger nails :)
> An interesting report, with no mention of IQ. Obviously that's not an issue
for your use, as even the E-1 is fine for
> flowers, etc.
IQ's not the be all and end all, I do miss using just a couple if
film bodies, and swapping the film for what suites at the time.
Thats why I have different digital bodies for different
reasons. The E-450 shots of flowers doesnt stand up to what
I get with the E-1. Saw an E400 pop up on the bay but I
lost the bid, I think someone on the list here said it was the
E with a kodak sensor.
> Just a few days ago, I was shooting wildflowers in a mixed large conifer
forest. Even on a bright, sunny day, it gets
> dark in there, and some flowers prefer the shadiest areas. Many shots were
at ISO 3200. It's either that, sacrifice too
> much DOF for my taste or use a tripod endlessly, which is just too time
consuming for this kind of hike. With a little
> care, ISO 3200 on the E-M5 gives great results. Excellent IS doesn't hurt,
either. ;-)
I'd have to go down south here to the jarra forrests before I
started having serious light problems in the day but then the
flowers drop off anyway down that way as it gets darker.
Most of the colorful stuff around Western Australia is well lit :)
> Although the E-5 holds almost holds up to the E-M5 at low ISOs, it's
noticeably poorer at ISO 800 falls apart about
> 1600. The E-450 and all the earlier 4/3 cameras you have are, I assume,
slightly worse. The PENs until the latest ones
> are also quite good in good light, but fall apart when it gets dim.
The E-450 is bad in low light, far to much noise, and yes,
as you go backwards in time the low light quality gets worse.
> > My daughter doesnt know it yet but I think she wants a new camera :o)
> Lucky!
or maybe not..
> Time to try an E-620?
Thought about it a couple of times, I've never seen one in
the flesh, probably the only thing that saved me buying one.
> > I believe an Oly rep made a vague hint about a year ago
> > but I've heard nothing since. Sigh, maybe I should have
> > gone fuji.
>
> What do you want in performance that what you have doesn't deliver? It
sounds sorta like what you have fills your actual
> needs, but you want a new/shiny toy? How about one of the cool, new,
high end compacts?
I think its part wanting a 'new' shiny toy, as I've not had one
for a while, a new toy that is, and wanting something that I'll
actually take out with me, what I currently have normally stays
home unless I think I'll need it.
Cheers
Ian Manners
Of nowhere in particular.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|