On 1/18/2018 11:17 AM, Jan Steinman wrote:
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
On 1/17/2018 1:40 PM, Jan Steinman wrote:
2. Peaking... set an Fn button to turn it on and off. I just leave it on.
You can do that with a Panny? Cool!
Huh? Where did Panny come into this?
Sorry for the assumption, based on your camera’s Focus Peaking 'behaviour being
so much different than mine.
What I mean was the “just leaving it on” part. I’d LOVE to be able to do that,
but:
My experience is the E-M1.2 finds EVERY OPPORTUNITY it can to turn focus
peaking off!
Still mystified. I was not writing about Panny, nor did I mention Panny. I was
describing my experience with Oly E-M5 II
bodies.
Good, you can teach me something!
Just how do you manage to “leave on” Focus Peaking? On my E-M1.2, it’s as slippery as
a politician caught bribing a porn star, to the point that I waste a lot of time toggling it, re-focusing,
over and over, to see if it’s really on!
I misspoke. Just checked. It's on whenever I want it on, which is when I manually focus. When I touch the manual focus
ring, it goes on, and turns off when I finish. I don't think I want it on when AFing. Never missed it. ;-)
I find it extremely precise, and excellent for evaluating DOF, as you can see
it change as you change manual aperture settings.
A difference may be that I was most recently using it with a manual f1.2 lens,
and the camera body has no way, with my bodies, of knowing the max aperture of
a manual lens.
Interesting. Perhaps the ability to tell the E-M1.2 the max aperture of a
manual lens has something to do with it.
I haven't been using MF lenses on the µ4/3 cameras for regular shooting. 7.5/2 mm, 25/1.4 TV lens for the swirlies and
LenBabies where I'm distorting things and the focal plane by hand.
Checking it out, it seems the only way to turn Peaking on/off with a true MF lens is via Fn button. Sorry about that.
The peaking I'm remembering using with MF lenses is that of the FF Sony A7, on which I use almost all my MF lenses.
I find it works very well with the OM Zuiko 55/1.2, especially with a focal reducer.
Which is another reason I lobbied Olympus for a longer menu; by the time you combine
all your manual lenses with and without a focal reducer, you’ve easily used up
your ten manual-lens slots!
. . .
Reading comments and questions about old lenses, it's clear than there are lots of folks who
think old MF lenses may be "sharper" than later MF and/or recent AF lenses. They are
almost uniformly wrong…
I agree, that if you’re *purchasing* a MF lens, get the newest one you can.
Well, I suppose if you want "good". If I want good, I use recent AF lenses. When I buy old MF, it's to find the Bad that
hurts SO Good. :-)
. . .
TET, yes. 90/2 NO! Hated it, sold it, having it gone made me happy. If it didn't have the
"Macro" designation, perhaps
I'd have liked it, although what magic it had the the 85/2 didn't I don't know.
Any lens marked macro that starts to get
worse past 1:4 is blatant mislabeling.
Wow. Perhaps a bad sample?
I thought about that. It was from a highly regarded List seller, and everything I could check about it was like new.
Doesn't matter now.
It got stellar reviews, from magazines, photo websites, and independent testers like Gary Reese. I
haven’t done formal MTF tests, but I have done comparative shots with other macros, and it
hasn’t displeased me in any way. Well, it could be lighter, but then you’d have a lump
of plastic crap, like the otherwise fine ED 50/2.
http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/opage_1.html
Could it be that you weren’t cranking it all the way? It has a “floating element
group” that is engaged only at close focusing. I put it on the TET, crank it all the way
close, and I find it does great things even well beyond its naked 1:2 repro ratio.
Nah. Just using it native, to get close-ish to stuff.
I also love my collection of limited-range OM macros (135, 80, 38, and 20).
I have the first three, and agree. However, I use the 38 on the A7, FF, more
MegaPickles, wonderful results.
Good to hear, especially with the contra-message that modern optical engineering is so
good that one should’t bother with older lenses.
But who's using it for that type of thing, at that level? There are a short FL macro lens or two out there cheap, but it
takes only a cursory check to see how limited they are.
I went to the trouble of buying micro-4/3rds ?T? mounts for them, then put the
OM T-mounts back on when I discovered the magic of focal reducers.
Why make the long ones shorter?
To push the defects further away? For an extra stop of light? For the
versatility?
Ah. I'd rather use the 75/1.8 than a focus reducer adapted 90-100/f2 become f1.4. I get AF, EXIF, and I'll get better
optical results. The 500/8 becomes 350/5.6. My Pleica 100-400 reports f5.9 @ 350 mm. No funny bokeh, either.
Still trying to see the point for me. My GAS would very much like a reason to
buy a focal reducer. ;-)
Tell me about it! I just scored a Leica --> micro-4/3rds adapter for $5
shipped, as if I?m ever going to afford Leica glass...
Nice Paperweight?
Just in case I come across a Summicron in a thrift store for $15… :-)
Resell, buy something useful . . . [BSEG]
Meandering 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/
|