Basically, what Moose said. Small, light and also gives me much more
telephoto than I've ever had with digital. Right now I'm visiting with
friends in Orlando. I brought the E-M5 and a single lens... my
walkaround favorite, the 14-150. That gives me 300mm equivalent,
something I could only have on the 5D by adding my 1.5X converter to the
Tokina 80-200/2.8 which is 10 feet long and 200 lbs. Unknown to me
until I got here, there was an Atlas-V launch from Cape Canaveral last
night. Although about 50 miles away I got some sort of handheld image
(through the porch screen) at 150mm, f/6.3 and ISO 1600. I couldn't
have gotten it with the 5D simply because I'd never have carried it with
the very good but blunderbuss-like lens.
I still have the 5D and use it from time to time if I want shallow depth
of field or, more likely, if I need to move quickly. Operating the 5D
is like second nature. Operating the E-M5 is nowhere as familiar and
also has some (to me) undesirable button locations. But I will never
return to the 5D as my everyday shooter. It's just too damn big and heavy.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/10/2014 11:44 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 12:11 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>> I have managed to get this to work. My one modification over Ag's specs is
>>> to eliminate the OM-3Ti (or in my case an OM-1N) by grafting a Canaan 5D
>>> directly to the lens via an adapter. It saved me the trouble of destroying
>>> a digital camera and getting duct tape stickies all over my OM camera. I
>>> realize it is not as satisfactory as what Ken has in mind, but it has a
>>> predictable outcome and allows me to take pretty decent photos.
>> I'd be tempted to do the same thing, but Moose and Chuck have already
>> been-there, done-that and proved that the results are junk now.
>
> Getting a bit tired of this one, but for Bob's sake. ;-)
>
> As I just posted, I moved on from the 5D for reasons other than IQ. As far as
> I know, it remains one of the very few
> paragons of digital image quality, exceptionally clean at the pixel level.
> Although later models seem to boast less high
> ISO noise, the plaiding CH demonstrated is troubling. For any use I have, the
> file size is fine.
>
> I left it sitting on the shelf for two major reasons. One is a feature it
> doesn't have, live view, which I thought I
> would value a great deal; turned out to be true.
>
> The second reason is size and weight, not just of the camera. With FF AF
> lenses to meet my photographic needs and
> practices, it's a much larger and heavier kit than I want to carry around.
> Unlike Mr. Weston, I routinely venture much
> farther than 500 yards from the car.
>
> It was the promise of no decrease in IQ with smaller sensors, as the
> technology improved, that lured me away. Although
> I've done no testing, my sense is that the latest 4/3 size sensors are about
> as clean at base ISO as the 5D, and
> distinctly better at higher ISOs
>
> I see no particular merit in sticking with a tool when a better one comes
> along. I'm not giving up my aluminum pipe
> wrench and picking up cast iron again, either.
>
>> Even a pocket digicam does better. ;)
>
> Heaven knows, that may even be true, but if so, it has a fixed prime lens and
> comes from strange and exotic Foveonland.
>
> The latest P&S I have, S100, is a fine picture taker. When I have it with me,
> and not the 5D, it is an infinitely better
> camera for whatever presents itself than the 5D. But no, it's IQ doesn't
> challenge the 5D.
>
> To look at the other side, what might be taken to be your side, my first
> digital camera, a 1.9 MP Canon S110 announced
> ten years ago next month, still takes quite good images. I took a lot of good
> shots with that camera. I don't think this
> is a shabby image, by anyone's standards.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/10-1053.htm>
>
> Nor, Brian's beliefs about shooting in direct sun notwithstanding, is this.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/14-1075_.htm>
>
> These portraits are not chopped liver, either.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/S110Portraits/>
>
> So why am I not still using it? I've chosen to move on to better IQ, Raw
> files, much higher and less noisy high ISO, a
> much bigger and better LCD, more than a 2x zoom, and so on.
>
> Using an old, heavy pipe wrench is a valid choice. Picking on those who
> choose not to, well ...
>
> No Porter Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|