Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OM10D

Subject: Re: [OM] OM10D
From: Jez Cunningham <jez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:46:23 +0100
Many thanks for the detailed reply Moose.  I think the budget would be
blown by some of your suggestions but at least you've reassured me
that the kit lenses are acceptable.
Much obliged mate,
Jez

On 01/07/2017, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/1/2017 9:49 AM, Jez Cunningham wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> My wife has been re-inspired to resume photography after she accompanied
>> me
>> on a 1-week workshop in south-west France.  She's been using a Nikon D70
>> (from 2004) and says she wants a more modern DSLR - in particular with a
>> decent sized LCD to review her pictures. She's got 3 Nikon lenses but
>> none
>> with VR.
>>
>> She was assuming she'd stay with Nikon (3400 or 5600 - I use a 7000) but
>> I'm leaning towards advising her to look at the OMD 10 - if she can get
>> on
>> with the EVF.
>
> I prefer an EVF. Focus peaking and EVF magnification for focusing are magic
> for better focus than with any OVF.
> Especially for folks with less than perfect vision, I suppose, but I had
> 20/10 vision in my shootin' eye, and still like
> them.
>
>> You'll probably point to a Fuji but they are getting seriously more
>> expensive.
>
> I don't personally understand the attraction of Fuji. I couldn't find any
> meaningful IQ difference between their 16 MP
> sensors (the ones Chris has suggested used) and the Olys, and I pixel peeped
> carefully. There is the difference in shape
> between 3:2 and 4:3, which could be a factor for some folks, one way or the
> other.
>
> Personally, I find Fuji kinda boring or limited. This is just me, and may
> not apply to your wife, but Oly's innovation
> with HR Mode, Focus Bracketing, etc. simply widen my photographic horizons.
> I also prefer the excellent Oly IBIS to IS
> in some lenses and not others. (The IBIS in the E-M10 II is not rated quite
> as good as the E-M5 II. I don't know what
> the difference may be, but the E-M5 II IBIS is wonderful.)
>
>> Amazon uk has a package of the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II body with 14-42
>> and 40-150 mm lenses.  I'm sure these are not top-notch lenses (apologies
>> I
>> haven't followed the intricate discussions of all their pros and cons
>> over
>> recent months/years!)  Do you think they're 'adequate'?
>
> They are more than adequate. Reviewers are regularly 'surprised' at how good
> the Oly and Panny kit lenses are. Lens
> materials and design have reached the point where inexpensive, modest speed,
> modest range zooms are quite good.
>
> Most of the things we knew about lens quality from film days are outdated.
> From another brand; the Canon 50/1.8 is all
> plastic, feels light and cheap, like it would disintegrate if dropped - but
> - SHARP, even wide open. Usta be, stop down
> to f8 or so for best results. Most contemporary lenses are already very
> sharp wide open and peak one, occasionally two
> stops down. The Tammy 90/2.8 Macro I had was sharpest for 1:1 Macro wide
> open.
>
> OTOH, for pure enjoyment, or perhaps I should say transparency, in 'doing'
> photography, I highly recommend the 14-150
> (or Panny 14-140). Excellent zoom range, without changing lenses all the
> time, and rather good IQ. I don't think there's
> any practical IQ difference between the two. I switched from Oly to Panny to
> get OIS for use with my GM5. All of the
> images in this gallery were taken with the Panny 14-140.
> <https://goo.gl/photos/JE6dSSvqHtBRRWXb6>
>
> Some used an ancient Oly iS/L Lens B-Macro H.Q. Converter f=40cm C-U lens on
> the front*. Work well for less intimate
> subjects, too, but I don't happen to have a gallery of a bunch of those
> shots all in one place.
>
> LR says I took over 4,300 shots with the 14-150 and am up to almost 1,200
> with its replacement 14-140.
>
> Are they as good as Oly's Pro line, or Panny's Leicas? No. If I'm being
> serious, I'm carrying a PLeica 12-60 or Oly Pro
> 12-100 and PLeica 100-400, three exceptional, and rather expensive, lenses.
> But the 14-140/150 are darn good lenses, and
> I've been quite happy with the images from them. (One exception I know of is
> closest focus at 140 mm with the Panny - soft.)
> .
> My casual kit is GM5 with 14-150. I think the E-M10 II with 14-150 would be
> an excellent combo. Prices for that body are
> down, as the next body release will be an E-M10 III. Personally, I'd go with
> an E-M5 II, for the better IBIS and
> slightly larger apparent size of the EVF image, if nothing else. Then the
> option of the other special things it does
> would be there.
>
> Moose D'Opinion
>
> * Based on tests of several achromatic C-U lenses on it. Another old 'truth'
> that now often isn't is that extension
> tubes are better than C-U lenses. I've had achromats outperform tubes, and
> not all achromats are equal with all lenses.
> Messy, for those of us who like to get close. The old Oly C-U lens gave me
> better results on the long end of the 14-140
> than tubes, for example, but tubes bested the other C-U achromats I tested.
> --
> 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/
>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz