On 7/31/2018 4:43 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
Editor Moose wrote:
You have µ4/3 glass?
Ahem. 4/3, E-system.
Thought it had to be a typo. :-P
I've got two 14-42 lenses and a 40-150. While
decent, I would like another 14-54.
A nice lens, so far. I bought the cheaper Mk I, as I have no need for the
faster whatever on the II for later bodies.
It was interesting to wander about the garden with E-400 and 14-54 and E-M5 II with PL12-60 around my neck. The E-4xx
series were the "small" bodies, but it with lens is larger and heavier than the more recent ones.
I'd expect the E-400 to be deeper, for the mirror box, but it's also larger in the other two dimensions; just a little
lighter, though.
I'd expect the µ4/3 PLeica that zooms a bit longer to be physically longer, what with the shorter body, but no, it's the
same length, slimmer and weighs 3/4 as much. Same speed at the short end and a tiny bit slower at the longer long end,
but with longer zoom range on both ends. PL also sealed and solid feeling. Advances in glass tech?
You use both, do you have a preference? If it's 4:3 or you have no
preference, Metabones and Oly is equal to it with Fuji so you could go with
your heart. I admit to being happy I'm using Oly bodies.
Good question. I do shoot both. I grew up on 35mm and lived life very
well with the 3:2 format. When I started shooting weddings and
portraits, I got hit hard with the cropping. Shooting medium-format
helped matters greatly, but I always had to be exceedingly careful
with cropping. To this day, I struggle with images from my first 25
years of earthly existence because 3:2 format doesn't crop well to
8x10s or 11x14s. Keep in mind, that back in those days, it was drilled
into our heads to "fill the frame". Oops. Today, I give myself
significant margin. For professional photography, I very much prefer
the 4:3 format because I can sling the cropping to whatever output is
needed and the images are certainly more flexible for stock
photography. For my own personal artistic endeavors, I've been going a
lot wider because of the influence of television screens.
The question of application comes to mind. I'm not shooting much in
the way of weddings and portraits right now. If I was, it would be 4:3
all the way as it is right between 5x7 and 8x10 standard print format.
For landscape photography, shooting 3:2 is great because it nearly
matches screen output.
What is weird is here in Alaska, I've been having a hard time with
making the more square formats work. The scenes that I've been
photographing are so expansive (and demanding wide-angle lenses) that
the taller format of 4:3 puts too much sky into the picture. When
looking through the viewfinder, I'm not getting as inspired by 4:3 as
I am with 3:2. But that is probably still pretty temporary.
Yeah, I just throw it away mentally, then confirm that in post. Even without the true panoramas, I have posted a fair
number of 16:9 images cropped from single 4:3 frames.
Honestly,
I'm not shooting much vertical either.
Hmmmmmm......
Just a random thought. For the past year, we've lived in a house with
an outstanding view of the mountains, but have very little vertical
angle to work with because of the roofs and satellite dishes. The new
place doesn't have that problem as there are no other houses in view.
Maybe that is why I'm grabbing the 4/3 cameras more.
Ask me again in a month or two.
Not me. Ask yourself - when you get serious about a new system.
Think it Through 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/
|